User talk:Robynthehode/Archives/2020/December

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Steve Martin Dating Game Reversion

You simply revert a good-faith edit because you don't like the source of the evidence? The videos are very clear, and are not challenged by anything or anyone. Why would you not mark my addition as "needs better citation," rather than just deleting it? DeeJaye6 (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DeeJaye6 It is not up to other editors to provide reliable sources for another editors posts. It is also not about whether I like or dislike an edit made by another editor. Instead it is about following Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:UGC and WP:YT. Nor is it up to me to justify whether it is a relevant post or simply trivia. Take your objection to the talk page. Other editors may see this differently and consensus may go in your favour. It is also best if you post comments on the relevant article talk page rather mine. This allows other editors to see the complete discussion. Robynthehode (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About including Robo Fizz in the List of jesters article

So I kinda noticed my contribution was removed because a show performer isn't the same as a jester, is that correct? Well, what about the part of Episode 2 where Blitzo explicitly refers to Robo Fizz as a knockoff of the popular jester? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggens (talkcontribs) 21:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raggens You would need a reliable source that specifically states they are a jester. To be honest this sort of content is quote trivial. Also please take queries and discussions to the article talk page so other editors can read them and comment if they want to. Also remember to sign your posts with 4 tildes ~ . Robynthehode (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Raggens This guy has a strong opinion on what is or is not "trivial," and is merciless with his edits. He then punts to the "Talk" page for the page where he deleted your good-faith edit. What I don't understand is why you, Robyn, do not follow your own advice and simply post to the talk page about your feelings on something being "trivial" or not, and let the community decide, instead of making that decision unilaterally, and then putting the onus on the writer to get the community together. DeeJaye6 (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DeeJay6 The reason for my edit is based in Wikipedia protocol. See WP:BRD. Allowing edits to remain unchallenged would result in Wikipedia being flooded with potentially trivial, incorrect, or otherwise not up to standard edits. The onus is on the editor making the contribution to justify the edit not for me or other editors to begin a discussion on the quality or otherwise of any specific edit. Any editor can be wrong in their revert and this is why I (following Wikipedia protocol) ask the editor to go to the talk page. Again it is not my responsibility to begin a discussion on the talk page but that of the editor whose edit is reverted. There may be good reasons that the edit should be retained which is not being denied just that following the 'Bold, Revert, Discuss' cycle Raggens should be making their argument for inclusion of their edit. Robynthehode (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, Robyn. Here's my source as to why Robo Fizz (or Fizzarolli) should be added to the list of jesters. Helluva Boss. Season 1, Episode 2. Quoted by Blitzo. At 11:26. ""Bitch, I make more money killing people than you do being a cheap-ass, robo-ripoff of an overrated, sellout **JESTER**."

I have good, solid evidence for my contribution. So quit removing it when there's proof to support what I have to offer. Raggens (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, take DeeJay6's advice and post your feelings to the "Talk" page and thoroughly explain why you have decided to remove my contribution without my permission, even though I have proof as to why I decided to include Robo Fizz in the "List of Jesters" Raggens (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raggens Just because a character calls another character a 'jester' doesn't mean they are a jester. Someone can be called a 'clown' but they are not a clown in the sense of a circus performer. You also need to understand Wikipedia protocols and what reliable sources are and what is quality evidence. Read WP:RS and WP:OR. You have also responded here without reading WP:BRD. I can revert any contribution of any editor as I see fit as long as I give a reason in the edit summary and am not edit warring or being disruptive (as defined by Wikipedia protocols). I don't have to have your permission to revert your edit. Nor do I have to give an extended reason as to my revert. It is up to you - the burden of proof is yours - to make the case as to why the edit should be retained. You have not done that. You are also misunderstanding the process of editing Wikipedia. Perhaps you should start by reading WP:5P and the other links I have given. To be honest this disscussion should be taking place on the article talk page so other editors can contribute so I have copied over there. Please respond at the article talk page from now on. It is also helpful when you respond to another editors post to indent your reply by using one more colon than the previous response. Robynthehode (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But doesn't that make them a jester since they look exactly like one? Perhaps you should stop being so merciless with deleting edits, especially good-faint ones, and to quote DeeJaye6, "I don't understand is why you, Robyn, do not follow your own advice and simply post to the talk page about your feelings on something being "trivial" or not, and let the community decide, instead of making that decision unilaterally, and then putting the onus on the writer to get the community together."

Keep in mind that a knock-off of a jester still technically makes it a jester. Perhaps you need to stop being a hypocrite and take your own advice. Raggens (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Raggens: You clearly are not following reasonable advice to read Wikipedia protocols in the links offered. Firstly you have ignored my request to take this discussion to the article talk page. Secondly you're getting in hot water by calling me a 'hypocrite' as you are contravening WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia is based on reasonable discussion - not taking reverts of your edits personally - and reasoned discussion - where editors make cogent arguments for their edits. If you cannot follow this then maybe Wikipedia is not the place for you. Please read the link about being civil otherwise there are sanctions that may apply to your behaviour. Robynthehode (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]