User talk:Simplepedian

Why revert?...
The changes?. You readded your edits over mine (which was using the syntax that has been used since the creation of the wiki almost a decade and a half ago), mixed the mainstream section with the furry (which has been the norm, unless changed by discussion), and mixed mainstream as furry (no, Bugs Bunny is not "furry", he is of "furry interest"). Some of your valid data were reverted as it was easier to do the change in mass and allow you to add those portions bit by bit,...

And, no, this is not a full article, hence the stub tag. For instance, 5 inclusions of websites that would add to the skunk article are not noted, 13 notable furry characters are not yet listed (and that goes for mainstream ones), and there is a plethora a Japanese kemono art/info waiting to be included (most of which I have on a standby folder, but unable to add at this time due to my RL job). We are told to be bold when editing, but that doesn't cover obliterating somebody's else's edits over or back.

No, your edit is not classified as vandalism, yes, the The Furry Book of Style is a great help, but it doesn't cover everything, and normally if I edit, I base it on what has transpired before over the years, as in what other editors have used. Your first edit was considered a launching pad to start enhancing the data that I already had accumulated, plus additional data from Wikipedia and a few furry websites, it wasn't final (is very hard to end an article, there is always something), and talking about it (on the talk page) before doing some radical changes can resolve some headaches in the future.- Spirou (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2021 (EST)


 * I readded the edits because the reversion was to an article composed of copy-pastes from the English Wikipedia. I added significant information regarding skunk behavior and material that would interest members of the furry fandom, your reversion deleted said information. And I ask what syntax are you talking about? Using hand made citations? Wikipedia also used hand made citations once long ago, but they changed to templates since they were more capable and useful.


 * The page is not a stub because it covers the real life species well. I could see how the furry portion of the article may be a stub, but that is not the entire article. Is that why you used the Net-stub template? I see no references to any required number of websites or characters for an article to not be a stub on this wiki. Would a large, well written page on a species with a single character be a stub?


 * While I appreciate the sentiment of not obliterating someone's edits, that is the exact thing you did. The edits you seem to have an issue with were the single edit removing the stub tag, which was a standalone edit, and the major edit but only regarding the mainstream/furry section. This section could easily be edited, a note could be added to my page, etc. I have no idea what your reasons for doing something are if you simply revert my edits with a nondescript tag and no talk page comments.


 * Specifically regarding the mainstream/furry sections, I did not mix the two in the newest edit. Warner Bros. characters were listed as mainstream, whereas Zig Zag and other characters were listed as furry. Did you mistakenly revert my major edit to my much earlier page rewrite?


 * I agree wholeheartedly regarding using the talk page, but is there any specific etiquette for page rewrites? Should I add a note entitled Planned page rewrite or similar and wait for other users to voice preference over sections or provide potential sources of information? Should we strategize about further edits at the talk page?


 * Simplepedian (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2021 (EST)