Dr. Watson

Do you want an edit war or do you want to talk about it?

Kathleenem vandalized this article -to repeat, about one third of it was deleted without discussion- then challenged anyone to undo it. I quote: "Removed a high quantity of original research not relevant to overall article; edited for grammar; edited for style. Please feel free to reverse".

So I did.

I realize that a very small quantity of new material was lost in the revert, but it's trivial next to what was restored. Feel free to restore any of the lost edits that you think substantially contribute to the article.

I also want to address this: "Anything not cited can be removed anytime by anyone". Not quite true. Anything -cited or not- can be removed anytime by anyone. Of course unrestrained use of this privilege will destroy the project, since most of the information on Wikipedia (and for that matter anywhere else) doesn't conform to a strict interpretation of this rule. Please note that Kathleenem did not claim there was a problem with citation, they said the article contained original research and was "not relevant". I'm always puzzled why some editors seem to believe that they are special and get to decide these matters for the whole community without any consultation.

It is my contention that unless Kathleenem's edits can be defended on their merits they should be reverted, and they clearly cannot be since Kathleenem did not bother to provide any rationale for them. I'm not getting why you think it's ok for people to delete huge quantities of material from Wikipedia without the slightest attempt at a justification but not ok for other people to restore that content.

Seems like a bit of a double standard, frankly. Lexington50 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry -you're actually threatening to edit war if you don't get your way? That's completely unacceptable. Your reversion was totally inappropriate for the reasons stated. Anyone may at any time remove uncited or not properly referenced material, including original research. Your contention that he/she did not mention any issue with citations ignores the fact that original research issues are inherently tied to a lack of proper citations. If you want to restore specific material removed, you should restore only that material and discuss it on the talk page of the article if there are any issues, no one is saying you can't. Fully reverting is not a short cut. Though you shouldn't just be reverting it indiscriminately I might add, I would hope you have specific valid arguments for its inclusion, and it would be best if you could add proper citations and references to anything you restore. Contrary to what you say he/she did offer a valid rationale for his/her edits, whereas simply asserting that it was removed so you're restoring it is not a valid rationale in and of itself, and doesn't refer to the content at all. But certainly not revert many correct and valid edits which were not trivial, that is not for you to decide for the entire community without consultation, changes and corrections had been made which were discussed and had consensus. Do not do it again.121.74.233.34 (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please don't tell me what I can or cannot do. It's not your place.

Second, I really don't care about your opinion regarding what is and is not acceptable. If you can cite specific Wikipedia policies then we'll have something to discuss, but I notice that you haven't.

If you believe that Kathleenem provided "a valid rationale for his/her edits" I would very much like to know what it is. Are you suggesting that the mere assertion of original research and relevance is sufficient to justify massive deletions without discussion? That's not editing, it's vandalism. If Kathleenem doesn't have to justify unilaterally deleting other peoples' work I don't see why I need to justify restoring it beyond pointing out the illegitimacy of the original action. Lexington50 (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The assertion that content is original research is enough to remove material. An assertion that it is original research is a valid edit rationale and it's a violation of AGF and the policies on vandalism here to accuse another editor of vandalism except for blatent vandalism, not a clearly good faith edit. If you want to discuss it you take it to the talk page or restore the specific information you object to being removed. Be prepared to defend it on the talk page though if it isn't properly cited and referenced, or it can be removed again. Secondly, calm down, I'm not interested in a ridiculous internet drama over something that's completely trivial. There is a clear and easy solution to your objection that satisfies both your objection, and respects the fact that there have been numerous and significant valid edits since the edit you object to. You must have some specific arguments for the material you want to restore, the fact that it was removed is not a rationale in and of itself. No one is stopping you going back, selecting the information you object to being removed and introducing it in a new edit with an appropriate rationale for its inclusion, and/or you could discuss it on the talk page. Threatening to edit war is not acceptable, accusing other editors of vandalism is not acceptable, reverting numerous good faith edits is clearly not acceptable, and the revert tool is not a short cut. If you want it restored it's up to you to do the work, and to argue for it if necessary. Not just indiscriminately restoring for the sake of restoring without a rationale related to the actual content.121.73.221.187 (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what exactly do you object to having been removed, I've just been looking at the revert edit of yours in question, and at first I was thinking it was reasonable to object to some of it being removed but then I saw those portions had merely be rearranged and placed in appropriate sections a bit lower down. Other parts which had been removed were overtly OR, and even in-universe in tone (postulating about whether or not characters would object to Watson publishing their story in the Strand for example). There were also some references, quotes, and information added. Do you have something you are specifically objecting to being removed?121.74.233.34 (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.