User talk:PurpleQuaver

Welcome!

Hi PurpleQuaver! I noticed your contributions to Tigran L. Petrosian and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Le Marteau (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dune (2021 film)

Not sure what you are doing. The plot section is stable, the text you removed says not to change it without discussion, and the article is under GA review. Take your proposed additions to the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have failed the GAN. Feel free to edit to your heart's delight. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the messages; apologies for seemingly contributing to a GAN failure you seem very disappointed in. I thought the plot summary was poorly written and copy edited it in line with WP:BOLD; I have done this with a few similar articles and this is my first revert. I understood the "don't change this" tag to be specifically for the "distant future" phrase, since I saw that detail being discussed on the talk page, not some sort of unlikely blanket protection for the entire plot section - and I simply removed a duplicate of that tag - it seems you have misrepresented this in your discussions with fellow more experienced editors. Please could you tell me whether I was wrong to copyedit simply because the article happened to be under scrutiny for stability - or did I misunderstand the tag? A hunger for stability protecting poor writing is not a good thing, and I believe the GAN failure is a consequence of the poor writing rather than my personal actions, i.e. the article has been organically judged in due process by readers (me) as not good enough. Indeed, some of these stable plot summaries have even included plagiaristic pastes from sources. Will you consider reviewing my changes and undoing your revert instead of inviting me to edit a second time (or I can't tell if that is sarcastic and you strongly disapprove), which would look like an edit war? PurpleQuaver (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like copy edits to the plot have been perfectly acceptable before this review, so I cannot see why the review process means that the article can be taken hostage by reviewers attempting to unilaterally decide that good faith, non-destructive (and not at odds with talk page issues/invisible comments) edits are suddenly unwelcome on an article that is not even semi-protected. Please clarify this, as I am a relative newcomer and would like to see neither poor writing nor accusations like yours. PurpleQuaver (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to read about the Wikipedia:Good article criteria or participate in the talk page discussion about your edits which I have already opened here. The instructions in the plot section that you removed, stipulating "This wording was agreed upon on the talk page. Please do not change without consensus", has nothing to do with me or the review. It was added by the active editors and contributors of the page. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]