User talk:Bonaparte1794

Hello, Bonaparte1794, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

Troy: Fall of a City
Good day Bonaparte1794, and thank you for your contributions. I share your belief that Wikipedia can do better, and as it is created and maintained by the users and editors, it is we who must do better. I appreciate that you are, as you say, new to this, and as such may be unaware of some of how Wikipedia works. A principle of Wikipedia is that it is not original content. Everything must be referenced to reliable sources and the personal opinions of editors have no place in articles.

Regarding your edits to Troy: Fall of a City I'm afraid I do not agree that it "reads like a hit piece" or "a jealous critique", nor that it is "redundant or unbalanced". The article references a range of positive and negative reviews, and reports the broad consensus that there were creative successes but little enthusiasm from the viewing public. The point is that none of this is the opinion of individual Wikipedia editors nor of Wikipedia itself, it is all garnered from elsewhere, from persons and publications generally regarded to be reliable. The ratings section in particular is just a statement of facts. You read the original reliable sources yourself by following the reference links, there is extensive and earnest maintenance of who and what is considered reliable and why. Persons close to an article subject may be disqualified as a reliable source due to having a conflict of interest. The lead of the article summarises some of the content where the references may be found.

If you feel that the article gives undue weight to, or unreasonably neglects, a certain viewpoint, then it is of course open to you to edit the article accordingly provided you can back it up with reference to a reliable source who agrees with you. Removing material simply because you think it's inaccurate is an error.

I have reverted your edits, and I do hope you will continue your efforts to make Wikipedia do better, and do so beyond this one article. The "welcome" post above has some good links. Best wishes, Captainllama (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This is still evident in the article as I have it. The restating that the ratings were horrible over and over again does nothing, unless    to deter people reading it that are thinking of watching it that it was a toxic failure and of no value at all, which seems to be the real bent to me.
 * This is still evident in the article as I have it. The restating that the ratings were horrible over and over again does nothing, unless    to deter people reading it that are thinking of watching it that it was a toxic failure and of no value at all, which seems to be the real bent to me.


 * I love the Iliad, and while I don't think it's as great as the Iliad, I still enjoyed getting to see these famous characters go at it in a more realistic fashion than the Brad Pitt movie. The decision to focus on Paris, the least likeable character, still seems questionable to me but I enjoyed virtually everyone else in spite of that. This poorly written article robs people from getting a chance to enjoy that, potentially, and also wrongfully frightens anyone thinking of taking a crack at the Greek myths from ever doing so again- which is not ok. Bonaparte1794


 * Thanks for your reply.


 * You believe the show's poor ratings are intentionally overly-emphasised in an an attempt to dissuade potential viewers, and you are a fan of the Greek myths and fervently hope others will discover and love them just as you did. I read and understood what you wrote and I would appreciate the same courtesy.


 * But that's "just like, your opinion, man". It's not a "Neutral Point-of-View" which is a big thing here. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say, not what some random fanboy wikipedia editor thinks. No offence! I'm just making a point.


 * The article is not made up of what some shadowy cabal of wikipedia editors hope will throw us off the scent. It is content from professional reviewers, commentators, journalists, production personnel, actors, etc. Netflix, Variety, BBC, the Radio Times, Business Matters, The Independent, The Sunday Times etc etc. We can be reasonably certain these people know what they're talking about. The ratings were a big disapointment just as the section says. The lead mentions it, and of course certain reviewers do too. There is a lot of positive reported in the reviews as well.


 * The little numbers link to the references at the bottom so you can read the original sources for yourself and check that Wikipedia is reporting them accurately. And if you notice a reliable source has said something which isn't included, you can add it in yourself!


 * What you can't do though, is delete sourced content because you don't like it. That's called vandalism and can get you blocked by an admin if you persist. I'll revert the article to its status quo in a few hours if you haven't done so by then. Captainllama (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ---Wow! There may not be a cabal of editors but the tone of your response smells to high heaven of elitism and pretension. Calling me some random fanboy editor and then saying no offense is disingenuous to say the least and is more characteristic of your the duplicitous nature of your responses thus far. There is almost nothing "positive" in the first section, which is probably the first and last thing people will read again because of how it is written. This is not sloppy fanboyism "dude" but writing 101. Report me for vandalism all you want. I have deleted nothing because "I don't like it." Most of the removals have been for things that have no "number thingy" above them. But all this may be too challenging for me, your right. I can only hope someone with a better education than me, who got a degree in the classics from a private school and now has the prestigious role of editing articles on Wikipedia, can lead me on the one true path. Homer would be so proud. Bonaparte1794


 * Ok, I'm sorry I offended you. I was making a point in a jokey manner but it was misjudged and I apologise.


 * You have added the "not an adaptation" passage to the article. Statements of fact need backing up to reliable sources - the "number thingies". So, you'll see that I did that for you. Your addition includes the first mention of Homer, the Illiad, and the Odyssey, so they should be linked to their respective Wikipedia articles too, like this:.


 * For references to reliable sources use this:




 * Not all parameters need to be completed, the bare minimum is url and dates, I think. If you look at the "edit" view of this page it's in a vertical list and easier to make out.


 * Happy editing, Captainllama (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)