Talk:Warrior Woman (Marvel Comics)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics: Marvel Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Y'know, I wonder about some people on Wikipedia. This entry had an incorrect name listed for the character (Frieda Ratsel); it got corrected, AND a reference tag was added both to the real name's source, AND a reference tag was added to a reliable online source explaining both why Ratsel is a codename that people have erroneously misapplied as the real name, and that Warrior Woman's own creator, Roy Thomas, the man who also called her Ratsel, has confirmed this. So, of course, someone swiftly reverted the edit to make the page wrong again, and noted "what source?" for the changes that had been made. WHAT SOURCE? Why, those would be the ones in the reference tags the reverter clearly didn't bother to read or check. Venting my frustration here, and date tagging this, because if I was a betting man, I'd lay good odds that someone, likely the original reverter, will revert the info again to make the page wrong. 86.144.89.113 (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Yep. I was right. Four hours before the same person, who clearly lacks reading comprehension skills, reverted it, saying "the handbooks I've read said Ratsel, which ones are you talking about?" That would be the specifically named, most recent handbook, clearly listed in the citation. But the reverter (a) assumes bad faith and reverts without checking, (b) seems incapable of coming to the talk page to discuss it, instead just assuming he/she is automatically correct, and (c) seems incapable of actually reading a citation. What's the point of citing sources if people can't be bothered to check them before reverting things? 86.186.10.52 (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]