User talk:FussbussSOhush

Leave comments here

"Universal acclaim"
Shouldn't that claim be removed on every page? And also "generally favorable reviews", "mixed or average reviews" and "generally unfavorable reviews"? You seem to be the only one that is against the use of Metacritic's Metascore assignment. -- Maze  waxie  09:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not when it compliments the article, say when the movie itself actually has mixed reviews (i.e. Justice League), or actually has "universal acclaim" (i.e. 12 Years a Slave) or was panned by critics (i.e. Transformers - Revenge of the Fallen). In those cases, according to WP:AGG, we can cite the aggregator because it "compliments" (i.e. backs up) the citation. But, to your question, yes, there are many articles where this should be corrected. The problem is that internet mob rule and fan worship have control over these articles, which is why wikipedia often the butt of many jokes. However, just because this is the case, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix articles where and when we can and respect the rules. Many political articles also suffer from objectivity issues, especially those about Trump or the alt-right, so there is much room for improvement. Hopefully someday, with proper reform, this and issues elsewhere will be addressed. For now, it's one article at a time.FussbussSOhush (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but "universal acclaim" is the assignment that Metacritic gave to the film, so I don't see why it should be omitted. It's not like we are writing: "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood received universal acclaim". We are saying that the score assigned by Metacritic indicates "universal acclaim". -- Maze  waxie  12:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you not see it? The rules outlined in WP:AGG are very thorough and cover this scenario. The aggregator (which is a mindless computer program that generates unscientific quotes) doesn't indicate "universal acclaim" in this case because the truth, according to actual journalists, is that this movie received "an overall positive reception"(actual quote) but the same majority of critics were divided over the ending and thought if could've been better. In other words, it would violate WP:UNDUE to let the aggregator tell us the press is wrong, because assigning undue weight to a position that simply isn't true. Re-read WP:UNDUE. It gives, as example, scientists who claim global warming is a hoax, or that Bigfoot is real, and that aliens and a flat earth are a thing. Yes, a flat earth! Just because I can find sources that actual say this doesn't mean I can violation the core values of wikipedia, which is supposed to be journalistic integrity, and suddenly declare that Bigfoot exists, climate change science is wrong and you live on a flat earth! The sources for now, at best, say "This movie received a positive reception" but (to paraphrase)"critics are divided over the movie's historical revisionism of the Manson Murders." According to WP:AGG that "commentary should come before reporting aggregate scores" and that aggregate scores only "can complement this commentary", not contradict. More importantly, WP:AGG makes it clear that "review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus", and editors certainly should not be drawing their own conclusions from the stats. They provide quantitative analysis,and if you want to make qualitative claims about the reception(such as being "universally acclaimed")then such claims need to be directly sourced&quoted just like every other claim in the article,in accordance with WP:DUE. To disregard ALL that, and go along with a popular bad habit on wikipedia which encourages abuse of the aggregator information in a way that spreads misinformation, is simply dishonest. The damage is that it encourages corporate trolls who come to wikipedia hoping to spin a movie's information in a way that censors the truth. It also encourages zealous fan boy worship and mob rule, people who can't accept that certain movies were "box office flops" or "were panned by critics." Not sure what you don't get? This is a rule that, yes, is often neglected on wikipedia but until you can get the admins to officially change it, then it doesn't represent any formal consensus nor a precedent, and it is our duty to catch it where we can. I'm not alone in this as other editors have chimed in on the talk page of that movie. If you truly can't accept this, then take it up in administration in the form of an ANI and they can explain it to you. Good luck and nice debating with you.FussbussSOhush (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Block notice
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)