User talk:Proffessor Juicycok

Welcome!
Hello, Proffessor Juicycok, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to A Little Late with Lilly Singh does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! KyleJoan talk 06:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi KyleJoan, apologies for my username, I made it when I was a teenager and don't know how to change it.
 * I have several responses to your message regarding my edits to the A Little Late with Lilly Singh page.
 * To begin, I can edit what I wrote about the firstpost source to more accurately describe what the source was saying (I'll take out the 'out of 10' part as that wasn't mentioned in the firstpost source).
 * Second, I can change the wording of the Vanity Fair review to say it was a 'mixed' rather than a 'critical' review.
 * Third, I can remove the parts that reference Bitch Media and Teen Vogue.
 * Fourth, I have found a secondary source that references Drew Gooden's video, will it be alright to use that one instead of directly sourcing the video? This source is also critical of the show in question.
 * Finally, the reason I made edits to the 'reception' section of this page because it seems misleading to only include positive reviews of the show when it was overwhelmingly unpopular among viewers, as evidenced by the viewer ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb, and the reception it received from other YouTubers. It especially feels unfair to cite the Neutral Point of View Policy when the article as it stands is not neutral but rather positive towards the show. If someone had read this article having never seen or heard of the show they would walk away with the impression that this show was popular and well received, which is a laughable thing to say about a show that received a 1.5 out of 10 on IMDb.
 * Just thinking out loud, why does a show with such a low rating among viewers receive mostly praise from critics? It's almost as if Lilly Singh and/or her production team bribed journalists to give her show positive reviews. And now editors on Wikipedia are aggressively gatekeeping to ensure that the voices of the commonfolk who voice their opinion on sites such as IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes are silenced, and only critics in their ivory towers are allowed to have an opinion on this show. Because commonfolk are too stupid to think for themselves, and need critics to think for them.
 * Anyway have a lovely day. Proffessor Juicycok (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, you should continue the discussion on that article's talk page, but your response suggests that you have an incomplete understanding of the NPOV policy. None of the things you've mentioned supports the claim that the show is overwhelmingly unpopular among viewers, especially when you're clearly involving a personal bias and still referencing the show as one that received a 1.5 out of 10 on IMDb. Many shows have low audience scores on IMDb, but I don't see you wanting to include those other shows' scores here. KyleJoan talk 07:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If the show wasn't unpopular among viewers then why does it have such low user ratings on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes? Are people down-voting the show for no good reason? If the show was popular then many of its fans would have left positive reviews on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, like fans of popular and critically acclaimed shows do. That's why The Godfather has an IMDb rating of 9.2/10 while Baby Geniuses only has a rating of 2.5/10.
 * And I'm fine with other shows having their IMDb scores listed on their pages, I honestly don't know why anyone wouldn't be ok with that.
 * It honestly just looks as if people are editing this wikipedia page to make the show appear better than it is, and preventing anyone else from showcasing any sources that provide a contrary opinion. Proffessor Juicycok (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)