h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What the hell have you done with my Airwolf article, the one which was here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1000693

I sure as hell didn't delete it. This had better be temporary, 'cause I spent bloody ages on that. What the hell is going on??

It appears that your article was merged with the existing edited entry at A526150.

You'll find that it appears on your personal space as an Edited Entry yes?

The original copy which you wrote is still at A970436.

Again, I'm looking from the outside, but to me it appears that the editors took your 'recommended' copy at A1000693 and folded it into the existing edited entry at A526150.

Without a formal updating procedure, things sometimes appear a bit odd when updates are done.

I hope this helps. Or if not, I hope an italic will see this thread and explain it better.


- Jimi X

I think I know what has happened here.

You came over back in December last year and raised some concerns about the existing Airwolf article that we had on site. To which it was suggested that you write an updated version.

The version that you wrote and submitted to the Peer Review system is A970436, which was accepted as an entry for the Edited Guide. Now, in the process that is used to turn an Unedited entry into an Edited one, a copy of the original entry is made. And it is on this copy that all the in-house ajustments are made, ending eventually with it's inclusion as the Edited entry. This copy is, or rather was, A1000693.

Now your's is a bit of a special case as it is direct substitution for an old, and as you said, incorrect entry. Therefore the text etc that was A1000693 has been put into slot occupied by the old entry, which is A526150. If you check on your userpage, you'll see you have A970436 as a guide entry and A526150 as an edited guide entry.

Of course if A526150 isn't what you wrote, then things have gone arse about tit somehow, and we will need the attentions of a member of the Editorial team to try to sort it out.

* waves to Jimi *

It's good that the simulposts agreed

RhoMuNuQ

Ah, after reading this thread - F64366?thread=260940 - I see that the situation isn't quite as clear I first thought it might be. Sorry

Firstly, thanks to everyone who has already answered here.

Hi Researcher 211403,

Firstly, let me apologise for a situation that has understandably caused some confusion. As you know, we already had an entry on the series 'Airwolf', and we accepted your rewrite as an update to this entry (all in the spirit of a collaborative guide such as this). Unfortunately, it was processed as if it were a brand new entry, which is why you will have recently received an email thanking you for your contribution.

Once we realised the mistake, however, we backtracked and merged your entry with the original, which is what should have happened in the first place. The reason we have done this is because we have linked to the original 'Airwolf' entry from other entries, so it makes sense to maintain those links rather than starting off a completely new chain. By replacing the text we ensure that the most up-to-date entry is linked to. This is the standard practice that we do for all extensive rewrites/updates.

The copy of your entry, which was created in error, is the one we have deleted, but the original one that you submitted to Peer Review still exists untouched by anyone else here: A970436.

Apologies once again for any confusion this has caused, and thanks again for your contribution to the Guide.

Jimster
h2g2 Editorial Team

This post has been removed.

Researcher 211403 that is slightly unfair the comment you made to Bright Blue Shorts as when his article was originally edited there was not peer review as we know it to update the entry to the standard that is now expected. Some of us who have been contributing entries to the guide for years are a little embarressed about hte standard of some of our earlier entries.

Oh I see someone else yikes that posting.

Interestingly (or possibly not) the moderators over at Airwolf.whatsit have in the past told this guy to cool it a bit over his vitriol about BBS's original article. Also he has not posted up any of his threats vis copyright etc that he posted here. So I wonder if this is just so much hot air.

All rather disappointing

This post has been removed.

Researcher 211403,

I strongly suggest that you reread the <./>HouseRules</.> - I don't believe that either of your posts follows them.

It is important to remember that the original article, which your article was to update, was written then edited with the best will in the world. No one intended to upset you at any time.

RhoMuNuQ
<./>ACE</.>, Guru, Scout, Subeditor

Oh OK, I apologise. I thought you had finished.

BTW, could you show the post you hid, but remove whatever broke your rules?. I made some valid points.

Read the houserules and work it out for yourself and post the rest.

The whole point is so I dont have to write it again.

Unfortunately it's impossible for the Moderators to do that. I'm afraid you'll have to repost any relevant parts that didn't break the <./>HouseRules</.>.

RhoMuNuQ

Well unfortunatley I didnt save what i wrote. Cant you at least censor it?
What the hell kind of forum is this?
We can do it on ours..........

Haven't not seen the original seconf post that is hidden I cannot say.

However the first one did insult another researcher which would breach HouseRules.