Talk:Dune: Part Two/Archive 5
Appearance
This is an archive of past discussions about Dune: Part Two. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Inaccurate plot points being added
At least one user has repeatedly reinserted inaccurate plot information into the Plot section of this article. I have twice now removed/reverted this text. Now, could my text do with some refinement or trimming down? Possibly, but wholsesale reversion to introduce patently false information in the section is not a suitable answer. I am happy to discuss this further, though would recommend they watch the movie first. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 12:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Your edit appear to be disruptive and ungrammatical as you presented in your edit where you stated: "He convincing Jessica...". A sequence of several editors then tried to fix the errors in your bold edits here [1], and your edit was finally reverted to the last stable version of the article. Several editors had tried to fix your disruptive and ungrammatical edits here: [2], [3], and here [4]. I request that you stop edit warring to force your edits into the article and that you follow BRD. First establish support for your edits on this Talk page. Your own Talk page has been notified to stop edit warring. HenryRoan (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- As you can see here, use of the word “convincing” is left over from a previous version of the Plot section that existed before my initial edit to correct the Plot section. I should have caught it, but didn’t. After a couple of further amendment, you unilaterally decided that the previous, incorrect text was “more stable” (whatever that means) and reverted my edit wholesale. Indeed, you are the only editor who has taken exception to my edits. I also note that at no point have you addressed the fact that the text you persist in reintroducing is incorrect which does not accurately describe the events of the film. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 13:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- You appear to be edit warring against DuneEditor and his edit here [5]. Your edit has been reverted by me since I am supporting the version edited by DuneEditor. You have no support for your edit. I am supporting the edit made by DuneEditor. Make consensus on this Talk page prior to further edits and stop forcing your edits into the article against Wikipedia policy. HenryRoan (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- @HenryRoan I have no idea who DuneEditor is... (No disrespect to DuneEditor), this disagreement is between me and you. I've made my position clear; if you're not going to even contest the fact that the version of the Plot section you insist on keeping is inaccurate, then I see no reason to continue discussing it here. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 15:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- You appear to be edit warring against DuneEditor and his edit here [5]. Your edit has been reverted by me since I am supporting the version edited by DuneEditor. You have no support for your edit. I am supporting the edit made by DuneEditor. Make consensus on this Talk page prior to further edits and stop forcing your edits into the article against Wikipedia policy. HenryRoan (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- As you can see here, use of the word “convincing” is left over from a previous version of the Plot section that existed before my initial edit to correct the Plot section. I should have caught it, but didn’t. After a couple of further amendment, you unilaterally decided that the previous, incorrect text was “more stable” (whatever that means) and reverted my edit wholesale. Indeed, you are the only editor who has taken exception to my edits. I also note that at no point have you addressed the fact that the text you persist in reintroducing is incorrect which does not accurately describe the events of the film. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 13:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)