Dpiranha

March 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to It's a Wonderful Life, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. You would be better off using Template:Inflation. DonIago (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

So.....look. I'm not new to Wikipedia. My account is 20 years old. I gave up editing articles years ago, having tired of the snippy arguments and the edit wars and the crazy condescending power trips many editors here were on. Last year, having found some errors in an article (about the comic strip Peanuts, a favorite of mine for over 60 years, nothing political or controversial), I corrected it. I probably should have stopped there, but I added some factual information to other Peanuts articles and immediately ran into one of the people who caused me to leave in the first place. Today's was my first edit since then...and you reverted it.

Had I really done "original research" (in the classical sense) as you claim, I might have apologized and asked if there was a way to accommodate my change. But, I won't. My edit was as innocent as possible. "It's a Wonderful Life" is a movie everyone has seen. Potter offered George a $20K salary, and I thought it would be informational to show its 2023 equivalent worth, as is routine on Wikipedia when a historical dollar figure plays an integral role in the context of an article. So, I went to a conversion site, calculated the value, and added it....and, you reverted it. Because it was "original research". Because evidently the meaning of that simple phrase has taken on the most pedantic definition possible here in the Wikipedia era. Because if I'd calculated the value, put it a page on my personal website, and then linked to that page, it would have been okay and no one would have been the wiser. But I didn't, because the simplicity of the edit never struck me as being remotely problematic.

You could have added a 'citation needed' tag, or simply asked me on my talk page to add a link. But, you reverted it. I honestly should have stayed away. So, thanks sir or madam. I'll just see myself out. Dpiranha (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're this easily upset by a revert that's accompanied by an eminently reasonable (one might even argue helpful) suggestion as to how you can reinstate the information you'd like to see included, then I doubt that editing Wikipedia is going to be an enjoyable experience for you in any case.

When you insert an inflation calculation without providing any information with regard to how you determined that calculation, it's entirely reasonable for editors to question your source and remove the information until you can provide clarification. Especially given that Wikipedia already has a template for handling currency inflation, which I noted in the message I left for you.

Happy trails. DonIago (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)