User talk:109.77.211.44

Review aggregators essay
Not sure why you seem to be obsessed with the wording at WP:AGG. This is an essay, which is nothing more than an opinion written/shared by one or more editors. It does not carry the same weight as a policy or guideline, so it shouldn't be used in a dispute. See WP:CONLEVEL. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not see the above comment at the time but I did see the very reasonable reverts and changes made by GoneIn60 and didn't see any need to take it to the article talk page. Some other editors were pushing different wordings that are not an improvement and the WP:STATUSQUO was preferable to adding yet another different inconsistent way of doing of doing things, that doesn't appear to have any level of consensus either.
 * I would not say I was obsessed, and WP:ESSAY or not I think some people take it quite seriously. I'm trying to go with something resembling the de facto consensus based on what seems to be reasonably sensible wording what I have seen in many actual articles and how things have been done for years and years, and I think the current version of the article is a reasonable reflection of that. I also think it is preferable to have a reasonably similar wording for both aggregators. A little consistency would go a long way. -- 109.79.80.88 (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're missing an important point mentioned above the text you attempted to modify. It states, "Two examples from Hancock are listed below; the specific wording is not required." This isn't a matter of one editor deciding to inject what they feel is the de facto consensus. It is simply an example taken from an existing film article. Furthermore, it says point blank that this phrasing is not a requirement, which we know can't be anyway, since this is just an essay. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I got that point from your edit summary. On closer inspection I notice the other editor who was rewriting the essay to his preferred version had also recently rewritten the wording of Hancock film article. At least he wasn't pushing the even more inconsistent "According to" wording he used elsewhere but he is aggressively rewriting critical response section making thins even more inconsistent based on his own whims not any kind of consensus or discussion. -- 109.79.80.88 (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that before. Definitely disruptive manipulation, intentionally making the change at Hancock first to get away with the same change at WP:AGG. Neither the old phrasing or new phrasing particularly appeals to me, but the old phrasing is closer to discussions I've been a part of over the years and has been restored in both places. That editor can now take their proposal to a talk page to discuss. Thanks for the info. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)