User talk:Alan368

Reception
Hi with regards to your edit on the Looney Toons page I do feel that the statement needs reliable citations. If it was 'widespread acclaim' it would be fine, but separating it into positive reception (critics) and negative reception (fans) should be justified with accurate sources. I'm recommending an revert or reedit to the previous version till the statement is justified. Thank you. :) Lesmiserables95 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Matt Groening has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Matt Groening was changed by Alan368 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.953588 on 2014-05-12T05:17:33+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis
Hi, I've noticed that you've added essentially the same content twice at The Looney Tunes Show, for example both here and here where you attempt to summarize the general critical response and fan response to the series. The problems are these: With regard to the critical response, cherrypicking a few sources here and there, and then deriving a conclusion based on those cherrypicked reviews does not mean that all or most critics felt that way. Drawing a conclusion that is not expressly stated in any of the sources, is original research, specifically something we call "synthesis". We typically let reliable review aggregators, like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic draw these conclusions. Secondly, fan response is difficult to source reliably. We can't use IMDb for fan reactions because the fan ratings are user-contributed, and Wikipedia doesn't accept user-contributed content as reliable. (That's why we don't consider Wikia to be a reliable source.) The same goes for TV.com or similar sources. If fan response were to be added to an article, it would be because other sources were reporting on the significance of the reactions, for example, if a the NY Times printed a story, "Dissatisfied Fans Cause Riot at Looney Tunes Show Premiere" or something similar. Hope that helps you understand the community's perspective on this. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)