User talk:Brooksboy78

Hi, I note your enthusiasm for the greatest list. However, it's quite doubtful if anyone could say what that actually meant. In the case of The Lord of the Rings, we have well-sourced statements about sales figures and about influence on fantasy; and indeed about votes of favourite book in the UK. "Greatest" is far less definable, and there's no saying whether different lists would remotely agree – or if they did, whether they'd not simply be meaning "favourite", or "influential", or "best-selling". Since we have the three more measurable quantities in there already, perhaps we could just leave "greatest" on the side? If you really feel like proceeding, another editor has already directed you to be more specific with the citations; I'd suggest that since you've already been reverted, you start by discussing it coolly on the talk page, and we can collectively reach some sort of consensus. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I see you have seen fit to redo your edit after being reverted. That is strongly deprecated on Wikipedia: we call it edit-warring, and it's forbidden here. Please read WP:BRD, a mandatory policy; it calls for Bold edit (just ONCE), Revert (you've been reverted by 2 different editors now, note), and Discuss, on the talk page. It's no good repeating a reverted edit and hoping that increasingly insistent edit comments will solve the problem, it doesn't work like that. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

My apologies. I was not aware of that rule. It just took me quite a while to locate some of those links, like the original newspaper article that featured one of the sources, and I wanted to make sure I copy and pasted the citation format all down again before it disappeared again. Brooksboy78 (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

You can always go back to any previous version of an article by going to 'View history' and clicking on the time/date section of the relevant history entry. An undone edit is not lost, it just ceases to be the current version of the article. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 19:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)