User talk:Wikibenboy94

Suggested WikiProjects
Hey Wikibenboy94—thanks for your recent contributions. I noticed your interest in Wikipedia's video game content and thought you might be interested in the video games WikiProject. We've done some great work (over 250 pieces of Featured content and over 800  Good articles), but there is plenty more to do. Come say hello on our talk page, participate in our current events, or let me know if I can help with anything. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope I'll see you around. -- ferret (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"Very" positive
Please try to avoid adding language like "Very positive reviews", or removing text like "generally favorable". This is generally seen as being peacocky and non-neutral point of view. Typically, the best course of action with video games is to quote Metacritic directly, as this is something we can source. Anything else could be viewed as original research on our part. WP:VG/POV has some more information on video game guidelines.

Please keep up the good work. You've done a good job on the Call of Duty 4 Remastered section. -- ferret (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

February 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Fourth Doctor, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union  ‖ 19:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm David.moreno72. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Foodfight!, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. David. moreno 72   12:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Modern Warfare Remastered in-game screenshot.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Modern Warfare Remastered in-game screenshot.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 22:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered
The article Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered
The article Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered
Mifter (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Usage of "universal acclaim"
Here are a couple of discussions in regards to the usage of "universal acclaim", one of which I started when I was working on getting God of War III to become a Featured Article. -- JDC808  ♫  21:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Viscera Cleanup Detail. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. ''Please do not add your own personal analysis of what a game's reception was. This includes citing multiple reviews that say nothing about a consensus among reviewers. This is known on Wikipedia as synthesis, and it is forbidden by policy. You must find a source that says what the consensus among reviewers was, not cite individual reviews and add your own analysis.'' NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Bram Stoker's Dracula, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop adding your own personal thoughts about what a film's reception was. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @NinjaRobotPirate I apologize for this. As per your July comment, I've understood more about how my prose for Viscera Cleanup Detail was original research/novel syntheses. Likewise, you've made me aware how this also related to my work on Bram Stoker's Dracula, and yet in terms of the latter I'm still a little confused about when an inclusion of a reception consensus ( "the film received critical acclaim" etc.) in the lead would violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. As I see it, a film's reception section will have a number of reliable review articles for said film, and (if available) should also include the score the film was given from a review aggregation website (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes). If two film articles have similar reception sections that include such sourced content, please can you clarify the difference on why one film can have a reception consensus, but another (in this case, Bram Stoker's Dracula) can't? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, pings don't work when you add them to an existing edit ("if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent." from WP:PING). It's a weird and unintuitive feature.  I'm not entirely sure I follow what you're asking.  But one common problem with film articles is that people will add their own personal analysis of what the reception was like.  One person will say it got "mixed reviews", another will change this to say it was "mixed-to-positive", and another will say that "critics praised X but critized Y".  Well, it's all unsourced opinion.  None of it belongs, because it's just random people on the internet saying what they think it was.  That's fine for a blog or a forum post, but it doesn't work in a encyclopedia.   Now, if a professional journalist says "it received mixed reviews", that's different.  We can report that journalist's analysis, but we can't do it ourselves.  Rotten Tomatoes has a critical consensus, and we can quote that.  But we can't take the score of 55% or 65% or whatever, and extrapolate from that to say whether the reviews were "mixed", "positive", "critical acclaim", etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Fastest-selling PS4 exclusive
Which game is it now? -- JDC808  ♫  15:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PS4's Spider-Man, as sourced in its Wikipedia article with https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/09/20/marvels-spider-man-ps-4-sells-record-3-3-million-copies-opening/1346187002/ Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Neutral language
Hello, thanks for your recent edits to Fallout 76. Please remember to use neutral language wherever possible, so that statements like "given a crinkled bag made from cheap nylon" are avoided in favour of more neutral and less emotional language. Be sure to read WP:MOSWTW when you have some time, particularly the section on words that may introduce bias. Also, please note that not all information is relevant to the article, and sometimes it can work against neutrality. For example, the addition that the 500 Atom compensation is not enough to buy an in-game duffel bag is redundant information. --Michail (blah) 00:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

God of War 2018 FAC nomination
Hey, so I'm wanting to nominate God of War for FAC. Since you've been helpful with the article, I was wondering if you could read over it to see if there's anything you see that you think may need changed or fixed. I read over it yesterday and I'm pretty confident with what's currently there. There are two things that I know need done, which are to replace the demo image in the Gameplay section with one of the final product (and possibly add another elsewhere in the article), and archive sources that haven't been archived yet. -- JDC808  ♫  03:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll read through, though I'm sure if it's anything I think needs changing it'll just be grammatical stuff. I'm still just an amateur so I won't be able to assist with updating the image or achieving sources, in case you did need help on that.


 * I'm also considering nominating one video game article for WP:FA that I majorly contributed to and got to WP:GA a while back. An admin redirected me to WT:VG to see if anyone there could help, but it's been about a week and I've not got a response from anyone. Do you know the best way to have someone look through the article and possibly get it nominated? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What article? I could take a look. You could also nominate it for Peer Review and state that you're wanting to nominate the article for FA. -- JDC808  ♫  20:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered (see above on this page for reference). Thanks I'll try that. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've started reading God of War and so far have a handful of grammatical changes I'd improve. Once I've gone over the whole thing am I fine to do this or did you want to be made aware first? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead and make the fixes. -- JDC808  ♫  10:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contributions to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered, although three of the edits I have contested. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Rum
The reason it was removed from Bethesda's article due to being caused by another company is perhaps valid enough, if weak, for removing it there. However, it's connection to Fallout 76 and the marketing mistakes surrounding it is relevant and should stay on that article. -- ferret (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry about that. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable huh.
So the non mainstream source i used that points out the swastikas missing on the uniforms is trash? is this what we're doing now? TheGorg14 (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you are the same IP that sourced a YouTube video discussing the use of swastikas in Call of Duty: WWII, note that YouTube content that is self-published is generally considered unreliable. Please also familiarise yourself with WP:YTREF. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * well regardless there needs to be a non-Youtube Source on the Blatant, purposely forgetfulness on the Swastikas in Campaign considering the in game campaign doesn't uncensor everything but the flag. TheGorg14 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If you can find a reliable source on the subject then go ahead, but it is very unlikely there will be any content discussing this that is not user-generated. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * well it's gonna be impossible considering the media is so biased against the truth. TheGorg14 (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

SOMA
Can you take a look at current edits being made at "SOMA"? thanks. —  (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Relevant page: https://kotaku.com/weeks-later-somas-haunting-ending-still-has-players-de-1741773285  —   (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for correcting my edit on the MGSV page, as it was my first one, so maybe it was even ridiculous. But the intentions were the best possible, in this case, to clarify some things that many people ignore. The fact that Nem Kojima himself says personally that the game is not finished, with all the letters, makes this remain a doubt and opens space to speculate the opposite. Finally, thanks for correcting the edit. Big Boss&#39;Phantom (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

UserG versus Primary Source
Be mindful that a Facebook post is still a valid Primary Source about an entity/topic/person. Still needs cautiously used, but it is not immediately inherently unreliable to source something with a primary source. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'll admit my edit summary probably was a bit impulsive as I'm aware not all primary user-generated sources are unreliable (I've sourced tweets in the Modern Warfare Remastered article). In this case however I did think it was warranted, particularly concerning the rum bottle, in that either the prose was superfluous or that the statements made from the production/advertising company were in a Facebook comment and not a post; unsurprisingly no third-party sources I can find seemed to be aware of what had been said. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I debated reverting them as well. Primarily though I just wanted to point out that WP:USERG is a bit different from a PRIMARY source. A verified Facebook, Twitter, etc, is a primary source, not a user-generated source. -- ferret (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered
Hello.

Those punctuation changes are fine. I understand the Destructoid change, since reviewers are not mentioned anywhere else. Using this style the reader just has to mentally make the connection that a reviewer condemned the change not the magazine.

Best of luck moving forward with it.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, and many thanks again for your full copy-edit to the article last month. I've today added three new more reviews to Reception in further preparation for its future FA nomination and was wondering if you would kindly go over the changes and improve upon the wording as necessary? I thought as you had carried out the initial copy-edit and it only concerned one section then there was no need to nominate again at WP:GOCE. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Those changes look fine to me Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Outriders
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outriders_(video_game)&diff=next&oldid=1019605213

Dear Benboy, I may sound amateurish, but I strive to be precise.

The reviewer writes: "One redeeming quality of the story is that it sends the player all over the planet of Enoch. Environments are vibrant and regularly shift from desert to snow, to caves to forests. This extends to the level design and combinations of areas offering cover or no cover at all."

This can be summed up that he likes scenery. You deleted "scenery" from what I wrote.

Can I bring scenery back?

MichalZim (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Scenery" is too specific, whereas "visuals", the replacement I used, is a more comprehensive and commonly-used term for articles that aptly describes what a reviewer thinks of how a game looks in terms of the art/environments ("graphics" is an alternative, although this refers more to the technical specifications of the games). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Scenery is not specific; it includes level design the reviewer writes about (see the above quote), not just visuals. MichalZim (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then this would fall under level design, and should be noted as such. Scenery and visuals (as you've since included) are the same thing. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Resident Evil Village Metacritic Score
Sorry, when I press the link to Metacritic, It showed 82/100 at the time for me. GameEnd (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well for mine it says 83/100 (based on 7 reviews), and I've no reason to believe that IP editor was changing it for dishonest reasons. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

RE Village revert
Hello, you reverted an edit of mine on the Resident Evil Village article saying "Nothing about the original wording implied it might have been referring to Miranda as the founder." However, I never claimed that the wording did this, I claimed that it seemed to indicate that Miranda created the t-virus because it says "Miranda mentored Oswell E. Spencer, the founder of Umbrella Corporation, and used her knowledge to eventually develop the t-Virus." As far as I am aware, it was Oswell and the Umbrella Corporation that created the t-virus, not Miranda. I may be wrong there as I am not a buff of the series. Nonetheless, if it is incorrect as is, I don't want to change things in a way that may be reverted and so instead I am leaving this message here so that you can change the article (or not) in a way that you find to be the most appropriate. Thanks. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Either way, I still think the original wording was analogous to your edit. There's very little difference between "used her knowledge" and "knowledge learned from Miranda". She can't have developed the t-Virus because Umbrella did it first. Its merely indicating they were influenced by her work to create the virus. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I don't think the current wording is analogous to my edit. Cutting out the parenthetical aside of the current sentence about who Oswell is, the sentence becomes "Miranda mentored Oswell E. Spencer and used her knowledge to eventually develop the t-Virus." This explicitly states that Miranda herself developed the virus and so is explicitly not saying that it was simply her knowledge that influenced the creation of the virus. I'm not attached to my wording if it doesn't flow so well but if I am right that Miranda did not create the virus (which I think you are saying she didn't if I am interpreting you correctly?), I just hope that it can be changed in some way so as to maintain the accuracy of the article. I would do it myself but I don't want to simply go back to writing what I had before because I think it would be a little inappropriate after already being reverted about that. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alduin that the sentence, as quoted above, suggests that Miranda made the t-virus. It needs split up to clarify and avoid run-on-ness. "Miranda mentored Oswell E. Spencer, the founder of Umbrella Corporation. Spencer used her knowledge to eventually develop the t-Virus." would resolve the issue. -- ferret (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered

 * Congratulations on promoting the article, great to see the progress over time on the article up to FA (I have considered creating a potential topic for Call of Duty 4 if you are interested).  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 15:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 27, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/July 27, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

I'd already schedule that date, but since it's your first FA, I've given it an instant run out rather than make you wait another year.

I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That was very quick! Many thanks, Jimfbleak! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

That's funny, you didnt even get any supports!

Looks like its video game month, now that we have this, Plants vs Zombies and Paper Mario all lined up Panini! 🥪 17:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, guess I just got lucky! I actually nominated it earlier than planned, not realizing the time frame was only from July to August; I'd intended June 27 for the anniversary of the PS4 release of the game's standalone version, but July 27 also works for its release on the remaining platforms. I didn't fancy waiting until November 4 for the 5th anniversary of the initial bundled version. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the article "about the 2016 remaster of the 2007 video game Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, titled Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered. I have been the largest contributor since the article's inception in 2017, and assisted in getting it to GA a few months later. Since then, I have continued to improve and expand upon it in that time."! Congrats to your first TFA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2637 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Gerda! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Sniper Ghost Warrior Contracts 2
Hi, WikiBenboy,

It's me again. You improved my text about Outriders a bit, however this time you are not right.

I wrote ">>GameStar<< reviewer Sascha Penzhorn wrote that the game is for you if you enjoy long-distance shots,"

In the German text it was written that the game is for you if for you "Spaß macht, den perfekten Distanzschuss zu planen". - "it's joyful to plan perfect distance shots". It's my interpretation they mean long-distance shots, but I knew the game introduces long-distance shots (above 1 km) to the franchise. So it's quite logical they mean the game is for you if you enjoy long-distance shots. You changed that into "the game would appeal to fans of sniping games". It's a completely different thing!

Actually, they made quite a fuss about introducing long-distance shots to the branch. It's quite important they succeeded and the feature was praised.

Also, I wrote: "there is a problem if the player is allergic to single-player games with microtransactions."

You changed that into "criticized the story and its inclusion of microtransactions."

You completely abandoned they are microtransactions in a single-player game. It's a completely different thing, paying to win against computer or paying to win against a human player.

MichalZim (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Translate has the English translation as "you enjoy planning the perfect long-range shot", which is more or less what you've said. I don't who you're referring to when you say THEY made a fuss out of introducing long-distance shots (which to me means nothing and sounds like something that is expected in a sniping game). Either way, as I've mentioned before, unless these statements are in the article they should not be referred to. My phrasing of "the game would appeal to fans of sniping games" is a summary of two of the review's positive opinions, which they list as being able to plan the perfect shot and feeling it was a sniper game that appealed to professional and beginner gamers.


 * I've changed the wording on the microtransactions to clarify that they were in the single-player mode. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I added the "they" paragraph at the last moment, just glanced at it and thought it should be ok. It actually wasn't quite clear.

CI Games (the game's developer) made quite a fuss about introducing long-distance shots in the last game (i.e. SGW C2); it was going to be a novelty.

You wrote: "long-distance shots (which to me means nothing and sounds like something that is expected in a sniping game)".

Well, in Sniper Ghost Warrior 3 the player was eliminating enemies while hiding, like, over a hill near-by. So no, there were no long-distance shots.

" My phrasing of >>the game would appeal to fans of sniping games<< is a summary of two of the review's positive opinions, which they list as being able to plan the perfect shot and feeling it was a sniper game that appealed to professional and beginner gamers."

As I get it, your goal is referring what the reviewer wrote, not inferring what can be deduced from it. Especially while, as you partially admit, you actually do not know many sniping games.

Besides, as you noted, the reviewer wrote that the game is also good for beginners at sniping games, so interpretation that the game is for fans of sniping games is inaccurate.

"unless these statements are in the article they should not be referred to."

It's quite clear by "distance shots" they mean "long-distance" shots". Even Google translated for you "long-range shot". Also, the article is behind pay-wall, they only gave free access to this summary. I'm going to subscribe them, but not today.

And thank you for changing wording about microtransactions. However, you wrote to me "that they were in the single-player mode". I guess for now it's a game with single-player mode only. MichalZim (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi!
Resident Evil Village has literally Romanian currency,names,Arhitecture and even traditional foods(Sarmale,Tochitura de pui,ciorba de legume,ciorba de porc,etc.) How the hell does Resident Evil Village doesn’t take place in Romania if the things that I stated are in the game?That means tha Capcom stole our traditions and other things and not credited? Arkley07 (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Infinite warfare
Hello, Benboy,

I accepted most of your corrections in the Outriders article. I tried to write more elegantly since then, but you still correct me.

"He also feels the characters' arcs are >>rushed to an uncomfortable degree<<. The reviewer gives example of a character who dislikes robots, but suddenly starts to like them without any explanation." - why did you cut it? It was interesting. I understand you feel that you just made it briefer, writing "criticizing the characterization". However, visible plot cuts, perhaps for sake of budget, is something actually different than bad characterization.

"The Destructoid reviewer feels that some of the gadgets used in the game are more entertaining in multiplayer, however he observes that Mass Effect and sci-fans may be swayed by the solo campaign." - this was also nicely put. You wrote "thought only fans of Mass Effect and sci-fi fans would be swayed by it." but the reviewer actually writes he was also swayed a bit. So what you wrote is too strong.

But congratulations for detecting Phipps's article never mentioned Black Ops III in terms of campaign quality. Seems you are good at revision. Maybe you should stick to revision and do less re-writes of other people's work? MichalZim (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should stick to revision and do less re-writes of other people's work? That's what revision is. I agree with Wikibenboy's adjustments to the COD Infinite article. -- ferret (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

About revision - yes, I was into translation revisions, I was unaware rewrite is also a revision. I checked and it is, you are right about this one. Sorry.

About "they" - I wasn't taught about "they" at school, didn't know, still sounds strange to me. Sorry.

Still, while rushed character arcs actually is bad characterization, this is not exactly the idea. The idea is rushed and cut plot. Writing that EGM is "criticizing the characterization" does not give the idea what the reviewer meant.

You write: "drifts from what we're specifically denoting: Reception of single player". Actually, I was constantly writing about single player:

- "while he appreciates floating through the void and hiding behind an asteroid field" - the reviewer wrote it about it just after writing about disappoinments of single player campaign; before he starts naming them he admits that space sequences are fine. It concerns single player game.

- "He also feels the characters' arcs are >>rushed to an uncomfortable degree<<. The reviewer gives example of a character who dislikes robots, but suddenly starts to like them without any explanation." - this obviously concerns single player game.

- "The Destructoid reviewer feels that some of the gadgets used in the game are more entertaining in multiplayer," - which means they are not entertaining in single player game, this also concerns single player game.

You write "Too much text dedicated solely to EGM" - Well, EGM's review is quite long (even if IGN's review is even longer). Maybe it woud be better to give more text dedicated to IGN's review, not cut text dedicated to EGM's review.

However, giving it a second thought, I start to like WikiBenboy's expression "enjoying the variety of gameplay in space". MichalZim (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

You changed "Joab Gilroy of IGN gave the game (...)" to "IGN gave the game (...)". Therefore, when you write "Gilroy appreciated the dialogue and cast performances." we don't know who Gilroy is... For similar reasons we don't understand "both Carsillo and Gilroy highlighted an example when Omar expresses their dislike of Ethan," - we don't know who is Carsillo, who is Gilroy and who is Omar.

Also "Omar expresses their dislike" - but we know whether Omar is he or she? Why do we have to write "their", then? MichalZim (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, removed the reviewer's names. However, Omar/Ethan/Kotch are fine to stay as the paragraph discusses the characters of the campaign, so it's clear that these three persons are examples of them. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi again!

- Still reviewer's name - you left "The game's multiplayer was criticized by Phipps". I think Phipps has not been introduced before in the current version of the article.

- "thanks to there being almost no loading screens" - I think it's better to write "thanks to almost complete lack of loading screens".

- You changed "The Game Informer reviewer writes the campaign in Infinite Warfare contains some elements typical for Call of Duty, but is still affecting." into "Game Informer was pleased from a perception that the "frenetic" movement of gameplay in recent Call of Duty installments had been toned down for Infinite Warfare". If you wanted to paraphrase me, I actually meant the following passage from the article: "Campaigns in the Call of Duty series can often be distilled down to a series of setpieces, clichéd villains, telegraphed twists, and ridiculous monologues punctuated with excessive explosions. In Infinite Warfare, you still get some of all that, but if you’re not careful you might also find yourself shedding a solitary tear for the brave soldiers and their sacrifices in the brutal war against the Settlement Defense Front." That's what it means, doesn't it? That Infinite Warfare has bad elements of typical Call of Duty, but is still affecting... Was the word affecting unclear? I admit I actually looked it up in the dictionary, maybe it is not the best. Best regards, MichalZim (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the reviewer's name and changed to your suggestion for the loading screens (added an "an" because it's grammatically incorrect otherwise). Thanks for the clarification about the game's elements; I've kept GI's opinions on the gameplay but re-phrased your prose because what you'd written didn't really give any indication about what was "affecting". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Also thanks. MichalZim (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Section on post credits scene in Resident Evil and Ethan Winters
Hello

In the article on [Ethan Winters] I added the fact that Ethan could be seen in a post credits scene, which was however reverted with the motivation that "it was open to interpretation".

This, however, is not so (a matter of interpretation), as can be clearly seen when the character - Ethan - is zoomed in close-up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNFSzCKSaAk

It is a bit odd that this is not mentioned considering that it is widely talked about on sites dedicated to the game.

Sincerely/ Okama-San (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Triple Crown
Congrats on the Triple Crown! You might be interested in a userbox I made, :

I notice you also mention not being too versed in Wikitext on your userpage, so feel free to ask me if you want any help laying out your userpage in a particular way. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the award and your offer to help with my userpage! Do you have the template for the Standard Triple Crown, as I assume you included the Imperial Crown template by mistake? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, sorry about that! The process of giving out a Triple Crown, at least the way I do it, is a lot of copying from the previous time one was awarded and then changing the details, so that's where that came from.  will produce the userbox below:


 * — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia's editorial standards (past tense and [...])
All right, while expanding my relations from reviews I will slowly change them to past tense. However for now I am going to make an exception for Sniper Ghost Warrior Contracts 2. It is a very fresh game and present tense seems valid for now. Also, I wrote there that the reviewer "has an impression that". I feel in this case changing it to past tense just a few months after release would somehow suggest his opinion has changed.

Thanks for all the work put into verifying the articles, I also have an impression it is important.

Using [...] rather than (...) is rather new to me, but if that's the encyclopedia's editorial standard, that's ok with me. Thank you for informing me. MichalZim (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

In academic writing you can use present tense for reporting articles
However, here's how you can refer to articles in academic writing: https://www.eapfoundation.com/writing/references/reporting/

"Sharpling (2012) points out that reporting verbs have subtle differences in meaning."

"Smith (2016) states that using According to and state in the same sentence is a common student error."

This means that one can use present tense for articles as much as 4 years old. This is also how you can use it in my language; you actually can write "he writes" meaning that he wrote.

Furthermore, the link you gave to the correct tense on wikipedia doesn't really show examples of reporting articles; it has examples like "Battleborn was an online hero shooter that was released in 2016. Its servers were shutdown in 2021."

I really have a lot to do this year. Also I am slowly translating German review of Phantom Doctrine using Babelfish to use it in the wikipedia article as GameStar is considered a good source on wikipedia and is mostly unused because nobody wants to report reviews written in German. Babelfish is a very good translator, but allows to translate 4 sentences a day. Perhaps I will have to translate some of the German text using a dictionary to make it faster. Then I am going to translate other reviews in order to sum them up in the wikipedia. It's hardly a good idea to waste time on rewriting properly written text for the sake of editorial standards only, especially when you actually gave me no proof of such a standard existing.

MichalZim (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Removing reviews
Hi. In future instead of removing correctly cited reviews that were added and cited by other editors into the video game reviews table section, taking them time and effort, it would be much appreciated if you could be more constructive. In this sense it would be much more constructive to add information from the reviews to the reception section if that is what is needed for them to be listed in the reviews table, rather than undoing the time and effort put in by other editors to include these reviews. It would be much appreciated if you could do this in future and if you could restore reviews that you previously removed that were correctly cited and simply add information from them into the reception section. Cheers, Helper201 (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

RE Village
Hey, please don't revert war with me over that one paragraph info. That discovery in the game's post-credits scene is a crucial finding that's been picked up by multiple reliable sources. It had nothing to do with speculation. Don't remove it just because you feel like it. Neo-corelight (Talk) 05:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

VGAGG
Hey! I noticed in your edit summary of removing stuff, you said it was based on WP:VGAGG, however VGAGG says nothing about what you just did, in fact, you removed Game Informer when it should've been kept. Explain why you made that edit please. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll amend my statement and say that it does say that, however not where the shortcut is. It would've been better if you had simply said "Per template documentation", however you have been told not to do this about 2 months ago. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Canon and EGM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your c/e
Many thanks for copyediting Ethan Winters. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ethan Winters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Character development.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Call of Duty: WWII
Hi, Benboy.

You changed the long quote "A first-person shooter set during the journey from Normandy to The Rhine isn't unique, but you haven't quite experienced anything like the tour" into shorter "writing that the campaign was "moving" and "salutes the brotherhood that grows and strengthens on the battlefield". Good.

However, you cut "praising "A supporting cast of well-crafted personalities"" because, as you argued "EGM also praises the characterization". I don't think it's a good reason, if both sited praised characterization, it's good to write about it. Summary of Gamespot's review is still shorter, than GI's.

Also, GiantBomb's review. You cut both that the antagonists in the game are "faceless Nazis" and that "the game doesn't really feel like it's doing anything cool to take advantage of its setting and time period". I think one of these should be restored, or even both. In the comment you wrote that "the game doesn't really feel like it's doing anything cool to take advantage of its setting and time period" is unnecessary, as it's based on the further quote "the setting change didn't bring any new and exciting inspiration with it". No, the editor wrote "the game doesn't really feel like it's doing anything cool to take advantage of its setting and time period" and "the setting change didn't bring any new and exciting inspiration with it".

If you want to cut something, cut "was more critical of the game as a whole". It is very mildly put. He "was more critical", not "more critical of the game as a whole".

Games sometimes have one very critical review, which would be good to show on the wikipedia. Consider this: https://www.destructoid.com/reviews/review-ghost-recon-wildlands/ MichalZim (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As has been advised, if you want to contest changes to an article, please do so on its talk page and, if it's directed at a specific user, leave a message for the person from there. In this instance, however, I will respond to your comments here. I can seen you've made further changes to the article since.


 * As the the characters are described by the reviews as "well-crafted personalities" and "well characterized", these are written so similarly that either the quotes should be removed and the prose written along the lines of "The characters were praised[1][2]" with the two review citations next to that, or perhaps better still, have EGMs review straight after GameSpots, and write "Similarly, EGM praised the characters as "well characterized...".


 * What I meant about the setting quote is that "the setting change didn't bring any new and exciting inspiration with it" infers that the setting/time period was not taken advantage of, exactly as the prior quote reads, which is why I feel it was redundant, and as I say makes the sentence a bit overlong. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "As has been advised, if you want to contest changes to an article, please do so on its talk page and, if it's directed at a specific user, leave a message for the person from there"
 * I usually discussed changes on the users' talkpages. Only in rare cases, when it was not directed to a specific person, like when I suggested that Sniper Ghost Warrior Contracts 2 has no multiplayer,
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sniper_Ghost_Warrior_Contracts_2
 * I put it on the article's discussion page. Note, nobody answered.
 * You suggest: "and write "Similarly, EGM praised the characters as "well characterized..."."
 * Yes, similarly is good. So if we put EGM after GameSpot, do we put Game Informer after EGM, or maybe after IGN? This would reduce lack of connection between the reviews we sum up.
 * GameSpot praises personalities, as well as visuals and sound design, similarly EGM praises protagonists, then what EGM writes about gameplay (lack of regenerating health, squad support). Then IGN praises campaign as having more human perspective, also praises characters, but they note conflicting tone of some missions in the campaign, as well as some frustrating missions, then Game Informer says the campaign was a drawback.
 * I think it would be more interesting than just reporting what each reviewer wrote. If you agree, I am meticulously doing it this way.MichalZim (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Fallout 76 edit reversion
I strongly disagree with your decision to revert my edit on Fallout 76 to remove the phrase "chiefly with regard to the quality of physical content" referring to the controversies surrounding the game. If you look at the section of List of video games notable for negative reception concerning Fallout 76, the controversies regarding merchandise and the deluxe editions of the game are one of many issues with the game including bugs, poorly received microtransactions, hacking, criticism of the subscription service and developer crunch. The physical content's issues can be detailed in two sentences whereas the issues with the game itself require a whole paragraph. It is a misrepresentation of the issues with, and reception to, this game to say that the controversies was principally focused on the physical content. I am reapplying my edit for these reasons; if you revert it again please justify this decision on my talk page. Hivedrops (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * A degree of negative reactions does not automatically equate to a controversy, unless the topic has elicited a particularly strong or lasting response; this is why the Fallout 76 article has a Controversies section, most of which details the physical content, and other negative reactions focusing on the game's design, subscription service, microtransactions, etc. are mentioned in other sections. It's also why one article exists for negatively-received video games and another for controversial video games, rather than both being combined into one.


 * As per WP:LEAD, the controversies sentence in Fallout 76's lead is a summary of what is outlined in the main body of the article; the criticism towards the game's design and Bethesda's responses (which includes the subscription service, contested updates, etc.) are also mentioned in the lead. Furthermore, if there are other related articles that link to the subject's own primary article, then the latter should only be an influence on the former, not the other way around. It is acceptable for the video games notable for negative reception article to encompass all controversies or negative reactions to a game that has been the subject of both.


 * Please note talk page discussions should not be forked to more than one page, only centralized to one. It is also preferable that if you have contention to an edit, that you ping the user there and not on their own talk page, particularly to provide an opportunity for others if they wish to give their own input. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made&#32;to The Callisto Protocol: you may already know about them, but you might find Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd gathered they were templates, but I didn't know there was a comprehensive list available. Thank you for providing me with the link. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

First sentences
Regarding Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, a lot of film articles are not meeting WP:LEAD in prominently placing less noteworthy elements upfront. I've broken down how WP:LEAD can be applied here:. In the case of the Shrek films, it looks like the book is placed too prominently in all the sequel articles. Sequels are made because of the success of the preceding films, and reliable sources will reflect that. For the Puss in Boots film, reliable sources will universally write about them as spinoffs of the Shrek films with Puss in Boots having been a supporting character who becomes the starring character. These details are more pertinent than the crew and company credits. Celebrity voice actors are likely pertinent too because reliable sources will headline such actors more often than other names. In essence, the traditional way first sentences have been done have not considered WP:LEAD and have been based on editors' gut feelings (e.g., worshipping the director in the first sentence every time). I think there's a better way to introduce the topic, and it will depend on the film. Let me know your thoughts. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

March 2023
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:FILM: "The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources that summarize reviews; do not synthesize individual reviews." We have two review aggregators.  We can't just ignore one in favor the other, and your own personal synthesis is disallowed by policy.  There is also no such policy that disallows citations in the lead; in fact, WP:LEADCITE says: "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."  Please do not remove sourced content and replace it with your own personal analysis again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
Hello, I'm Cjhard. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Redfall that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cjhard (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Nathan Drake (Uncharted)
Nathan Drake (Uncharted) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Greenish Pickle!  (🔔) 10:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

BBC Responds to “The Timeless Children” Canon Complaints article
Well done on the editing of the Timeless child page, it definitely needs a clean up. Just to let you know though, since the Andrew Cartmel response is linked to the Doctor Who TV site, the BBC response to complaints is this article. https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/bbc-responds-to-the-timeless-children-canon-complaints-93292.htm

It seems it couldn't know how to make two seperate links, so it could go in with this link, if it's feasible to accept how the BBC responded to the complaints from fans. 2.97.29.51 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Just Saying Hi
Hello! I was looking through my archives and found old discussions over Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered (congrats again on the FA!) and wanted to hear what else you've been up to on-wiki these days. Panini! • 🥪 20:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Panini! Honestly, nothing much since Modern Warfare Remastered, which may only remain as my biggest achievement on Wikipedia and simply came as a result of the sheer nostalgia I had for the game it came from; it was worth it for the experience and knowledge of certain guidelines though. Otherwise, it's still the usual prose-related edits and minor cleanup I tend to focus on. You have just reminded me that I'd meant to give my thoughts on the GA reassessment for Nathan Drake (Uncharted) I was notified of, which I forgot about, but it looks like nothing actually came of it. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's all important stuff too! Don't undersell it. Panini!  • 🥪 18:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Moving Out 2. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Far Cry New Dawn
Hello,

You wrote that

"PC Gamer's reviewer points out similarities with other Far Cry games ("Combat is the same frantic and fun gunplay as in the past few Far Cry games"), especially Far Cry 5 ("This is Far Cry 5 again, just on a smaller scale and with more pink flowers")"

does not add anything. On the contrary, the reviewer notices and informs:

- that it is mostly the same game again, as other Far Cry games, still some may like it, as it's crazy and fun,

- that it is especially similar to Far Cry 5, only smaller and with different aesthetics.

Also, it's an example that the reviewers have an impression much of the game has been taken from Far Cry 5. Definitely you can't tell the sentence I wrote does not change anything.

Also, you strongly paraphrased

"VG247 reviewer also notes reusage of Far Cry 5 material, but claims that the game "introduces enough new ideas and winning missions to make its apocalyptic mark just about worth it"".

What you add to the text is that the reviewer thinks that the game is "too derivative of Far Cry 5". Actually, Dave Meikleham did not write that copying is too big. He just notices it cuts costs of the game. Also, you add that the game "had enough original ideas to be worthwhile". Well, it's not only about time. Games cost money and reviews generally inform, whether it's good to buy a game. By "introduces enough new ideas and winning missions to make its apocalyptic mark just about worth it" the reviewer means perhaps, that the game is worth our time and money. MichalZim (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III (2023 video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at South Park: Joining the Panderverse. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. SanAnMan (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Introduction to contentious topics
⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 07:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

DW articles
Thanks for going though my various edits on DW articles. I didn’t know what sources could be kept or how they could rephrased. I don’t want to take sides but I feel generally it's best to integrate criticism directly into the relevant articles so that all major views on Doctor Who's episodes (criticism/praise/more nuanced arguments etc.) are included roughly in proportion to how widely they are held. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 92.17.198.220 (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem, but please bear in mind WP:DUE, in that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public" — meaning no matter how popular a view is, even if it's widely-held in society, its inclusion needs to be dependant on how often it is raised in sources.


 * Also, any creation of a Reception section (which you had done in two of your edits) should be created on the basis that enough reliable sources can be found and composed to form a section with a sufficient enough length. Hence why I reverted those you'd created for the Doctor Who characters of Ryan and Yasmin, which comprised brief paragraphs based on a single source. This is not ideal as a section with just one source may be inaccurate or biased without others for corroboration. Likewise, the source used in question I would argue was contentious based on its sociopolitical tone, and I guarantee there would be very few reliable sources that shared the same views. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if you were thinking of fixing the edits I did on the "Davros" article about the reason to play him without his chair on the character article, or the reactions to ‎Isaac Newton casting on the "Wild Blue Yonder" article, the transgender themes of "The Star Beast" article, the reactions to the bi-generation in the "Giggle" article, or if there was more mixed reviews on "The Church on Ruby Road". Just curious. 92.17.198.220 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CC8uCQAAQBAJ&dq=completely+sidelined+and+her+feelings+about+the+Doctor+and+Reinette+are+never+addressed&pg=PT225&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=completely%20sidelined%20and%20her%20feelings%20about%20the%20Doctor%20and%20Reinette%20are%20never%20addressed&f=false

Here is the source from the book The Doctors Are In (you have to go up a bit to find it), in which co-author Stacey Smith describes "the girl in the fireplace". I don't know if it's so much a criticism as if just feeling awkward on the romance in the episode but feels that Rose is "completely side-lined" in the episode. The paragraph in the article needs rewriting if it is to stay. 92.17.198.220 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't see these but I'll look at them. I'm not sure why the criticism paragraph on "The Girl in the Fireplace" needs to be rewritten though. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that you did some rewrites to the Savile drama "The Reckoning", particularly regarding the depicting of an incident clearly inspired by the tragic story of Claire McAlpine. I have tried to turn some paragraphs around, as some moments came after broadcast, like for example, the video footage showing Coogan had once met Savile, and in particular how Louis Theroux, felt as to whether he thought the series was in "bad taste". If you think my edits could use any minor corrections e.g. to grammar and spelling, or matters of factual accuracy, one at a time, you could perhaps then move to making some of your own substantive/ strictly changes, one paragraph at a time? That should allow ample opportunity for discussion and agreement, with the need for major reverts. Hope this looks sensible to you. Many thanks.92.17.198.220 (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Why?
Why did you had undo my edit? Like, really "positive reviews from critics"? JiunoLujo (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it was. Per what's sourced in the article, "91% of 108 critics gave the series a positive review, with an average score of 7.45/10." Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we talk about AUDIENCE too? JiunoLujo (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, audience reception should only be mentioned in an article if it is sufficiently highlighted by reliable, secondary sources (which in the article for The Acolyte it is, in the main body); including audience reception for any other reason is a case of WP:USERG. Whether it should be mentioned in the lead is a topic of discussion. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Very kind and professional! :) JiunoLujo (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)