Talk:Unafraid of the Dark

Forced standardization?

The "Episode summary" paragraph has been altered to an exact copy of the episode guide#13 in Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey. The logical course would be that this article's summary paragraph should contain more information than the brief episode guide#13 - or this article's introduction. I'm not complaining about the expansion, but the "corrections" threw one or two babies out with the bath water. I don't know if the omissions are based on different (shorter) versions but the evidence in manganese nodules of a supernova two million years ago, that Carl Sagan's recited his reflections, the years of the discoveries/hypothesis, Tyson's comparisons etc. belong to the longer edit summary here. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I edited it to match the episode summary from the main page. When doing so, I didn't notice that many details that were not summarized in the new summary, but I included a few sentences from the previous summary. But if you feel otherwise, please feel free to add anything you deem pertinent. You are correct in saying that this summary should contain a more comprehensive description. Thank you. - Drywater2k (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of copying the Episode#13 guide at [Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey] and replacing Unafraid of the Dark#Episode summary with it, without SAVING. After pressing [Show changes] the only difference was that the image was |right| instead of |left|. Evidently you didn't included - you mindlessly copied-and-pasted. That is not very good Wikiquette, the foundation of Wikipedia is respectful cooperation. It is a rather arrogant attitude to delete information and subsequently declare: "Hey man if you really think it was important then clean up my mess".

Well I have lost any interest in Tyson's Cosmos, so please yourself! Wikipedia is immense and I have other interests. --Necessary Evil (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This talk page isn't your average online message board to start a flame war like a child. Wikipedia is a place that fosters knowledge through cooperation and civility. If you're unable to contribute without throwing a tantrum, then it is probably for the best that you go pursue "other interests." -Drywater2k (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who you usually associate with but constructive criticism and 'flame wars'?

The cooperation you emphasize is exactly what was lacking. Responsible Wikipedians usually correct their mistakes themselves.

It is natural for people who have created a page on Wikipedia to have ownership feelings. Often it is a benefit for Wikipedia with a "page facilitator" who removes erroneous or superfluous text, balance controversial issues etc. But that does not give them exclusive rights to edit at the expense of other serious Wikipedians. --Necessary Evil (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)