User talk:Helpsome

User generated content as sources
I am going to make this simple for you. You asked for me to give a source, and so I did, even despite there being another source that validated my point later in the article (CinemaScore). However, even after I gave a source, you still decided to change it anyway. "Fringe" material was not stated in article, as not only were there enough sources backing the information, but the content I stated was not contrasting other viewpoints in the article. This was a separate point irrelevant to critics' opinions. Similar to the point about the CinemaScore rating being "A-," it is stating the information that is relevant to "Reception." This is information that can be useful to the article, and thus, I am trying to state that in the article. I'm not sure if you just disagree with my point and don't want to accept it as its own because of your own opinion, but when I follow Wikipedia's rules, you should follow them as well. If I list a source as you asked, then you better accept it as it is. Don't backtrack and change your mind on whether or not you were going to accept it in the first place (which it isn't relevant to whether or not you want to accept it since stating it doesn't contrast any rules on Wikipedia since it is backed with source information).

If you attempt to block me from editing on Wikipedia, I will contact someone else at Wikipedia about this situation. Not only do you not have a viable reason to block me (as nothing that I've done has been severe enough to deserve such treatment), but you also clarified that I just needed to list a source in your first message towards me, in which I did.

JustinMoss96 (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As I put in the edit summary, your source violates WP:USERGENERATED. Internet forum postings aren't reliable sources and all your source contained was anonymous comments from such reviewers as "figman38" and "thatgirl614". There is nothing encyclopedic about that. Helpsome (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure what you thought I used as my source (because apparently, you didn't research the site I used as the source like you should have in the first place), but the site I used was not a user-created site nor was it a forum site. Fandango (ticket service) is a major ticket publishing site. Millions of people use it to buy tickets for movies being released in theaters. If you researched your source material instead of trying to change things you disagree with, you would know that. Now, I am curious as to why you're calling Fandango a "forum posting" site. You are aware that IMDB also includes user reviews in its ratings and reviews, aren't you? Many reviewers on IMDB use names similar to that. The reason for this is because it's a username. I shouldn't need to teach vocabulary to you, but if you really need help understanding that, I will give you a lesson. Back to the topic at hand, Fandango has a similar feature that IMDB has. The part I was referring to wasn't as much as the actual reviews themselves, but rather, the fan-count and ratings. Dracula Untold has over 3,631 fan ratings with an average of 4.5 stars. I could use multiple other sites, however, to support my case, but that is not what's in question here. If I cite a popularly-used and highly known site to cite my source, you do not have any reason to change it. If I must explain that to you again, I will report this to Wikipedia. JustinMoss96 (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This edit, which you even labeled "Fan Reviews and Ratings", is exactly what I said above anonymous comments from such reviewers as "figman38" and "thatgirl614". This isn't a reliable source. IMDB is also not a reliable source. Drop the condescension and take the time to actually read the guidelines I linked to and it will save us both a lot of time. Helpsome (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * . Agreed. User-generated comments on a site are no different than forum postings. It doesn't matter how big or famous the website is. It doesn't matter how many people rated something. User-generated content is not citable here. Wikipedia is way bigger than Fandango, and we don't cite Wikipedia talk page comments either, nor do we cite other Wikipedia articles, for the same reason: It's all user-generated, disqualifying it as a reliable source. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * IMDB is the most commonly used source material in describing ratings for movies. You can't just say, "It's not a reliable source material." It's used on Wikipedia to describe the ratings for every single movie on Wikipedia (given that they have a "Critical Reception" area). Also, as you should probably be aware, I stated that this was from the audience, not critics. "Fans" are the audience. Both Fandango and IMDB are based off audience reviews. IMDB has a mix of critic reviews and audience reviews, but the audience makes up a good majority of it. I'm not trying to show any superiority here; I'm just trying to explain to you exactly why you have no reason to continually delete the information I put in the article. Also,, I never cited a comment on Fandango. I referenced the rating. Just as every single Wikipedia page about movies cites IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes for their ratings, I did the same with Fandango. It's common practice on Wikipedia, and if you really want to say that neither IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, or Fandango should be listed, then you really need to study some things about Wikipedia. Whether or not Wikipedia is bigger than a site has no relevancy to this conversation whatsoever. Wikipedia is possibly bigger than IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes combined (although, for sure, it's bigger than both of them separately). That doesn't mean you shouldn't use those as source material. When describing ratings, they are used for a reason. I'm using Fandango to describe the ratings. JustinMoss96 (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we don't cite IMDB either. Generally we include an external link to it at the bottom, but see Citing IMDb for guidance as to when it is, or isn't, appropriate. When we cite ratings, we generally cite critic ratings, not user ratings. And no, I don't "need to study some things about Wikipedia", I've been active here for 9 years. As Helpsome advised you above, "Drop the condescension and take the time to actually read the guidelines." I'm fully aware that many articles don't follow best practices, and the fact that they don't isn't a reason to continue the trend. Ratings that result from user-generated content are not relevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Every single movie on Wikipedia that has a "Reception" area uses ratings from IMDB as well as other major cites. I'm not sure if you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying as actually quoting reviews from IMDB, but I have already addressed that I am not talking about that, nor am I using reviews from Fandango (ticket service). I am referencing to the rating just as every movie on Wikipedia (with a "Receptions" area) references to the ratings from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. IMDB counts user ratings along with critic ratings, and those ratings are constantly used on Wikipedia. Fandango is just the same. I shouldn't need to reiterate to you a third time, so take the hint and try to understand what I'm saying before you speak. If you want to be nosy in the conversation between Helpsome and I, at the very least, try to understand what I'm saying. JustinMoss96 (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wpaul1972 (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit undo - Pollyanna McIntosh
I spent an incredible amount of time yeasterday fact checking and adding Pollyanna McIntosh's entire television and movie filmography, only to log in today and find it all deleted. The reason I was given was that it "wasn't constructive." What kind of reasoning is that?? Actor's pages all over this site have their filmography added, so why is adding hers an issue? What gives you the right to just undo my edits that I spent the better part of my entire day adding just because you don't like it? Thanks for making editing articles on Wikipedia a hollow and unfun experience. You're awesome. BlackDiesel86 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Greetings


Thanks for your work,

and all best wishes for the New Year!

JimRenge (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Help
Hi, Helpsome. I don't know if you remember me but I need help. Can you tell me how to create new pages and add information in different pages? Thanks. Still young 11 (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tsadra Foundation


A tag has been placed on Tsadra Foundation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Treeleaf Zendo for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Treeleaf Zendo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Treeleaf Zendo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 11:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Buddhism and rulership listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Buddhism and rulership. Since you had some involvement with the Buddhism and rulership redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)