User talk:Abelparish
June 2009
[edit]
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page What Goes Up (film) worked, and it has been automatically reverted. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here. Thank you.
SoxBot III (talk | owner) 19:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Welcome
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
What Goes Up
[edit]initial comments are copied from User talk:Ckatz
Hi there. I saw your corrections for the critical response page. I'm fine with keeping the references to metacritic and rottentomatoes and thank you for respecting my inclusion of the positive quotes. If people want the negative reviews, they are unfortunately, all too easy to find. This was a good place to counter the wave of negativity with the truth that several smart and respected critics liked / loved the movie.
My own opinion is that when a bunch of critics pan a film - but several defy the trend and praise it, there may be something very interesting at hand. In the case of this film, which I thought was wonderful (obviously), I think there will be a backlash toward the positive. But if I hadn't seen the movie or these other reviews and only saw rottentomatoes, I'd never give it a chance.
Thanks,
Abel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelparish (talk • contribs)
- Hello... thanks for the note. Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to finish earlier, and I suspect you may not prefer the rewrite that I've since done. The reality is that we are obligated to include what is said about the film, even if it is negative, as this is an encyclopedia article. I understand that it may be difficult for the cast and crew, but that is what what is required by Wikipedia's policies of neutrality. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. --Ckatzchatspy 21:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Abel, please do not simply revert to your version of the page, which minimizes the negative reviews. As I explained, it is understandable that you would wish to focus on the positive comments. However, the reality is that the film was panned by most major outlets that reviewed it, including Variety, the New York Times, and others. Even in its current form, it is arguable that we are giving too much weight to the positive comments, based on the overall reaction. Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a promotional site, and we cannot gloss over the negative coverage just because you feel it is "too easy to find". --Ckatzchatspy 04:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to What Goes Up. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious or contrary to their preferred version. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. Thank you. Ckatzchatspy 16:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please post proposed changes on the article talk page first; that would help to avoid problem edits. Thanks in advance. --Ckatzchatspy 16:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Abel, the concerns I expressed about your edits are based on your previous posts, where you have indicated a desire to avoid the negative press. As for the article, we cannot ignore what has been said about the film. If it were only one bad review in a sea of praise, perhaps - but look at the comments from the major press that we didn't use:
"About as cruddy as a cruddy little indie can get, especially given a cast that should've known better. " (Chicago Tribune)
"[Director] Glatzer aims to wring laughter out of this desperation but succeeds only in producing a series of contrived characters and situations that make The Breakfast Club look like an unfiltered documentary." (LA Times)
"An unusually subdued Coogan does his best, but this is the kind of pretentious nonsense he usually satirizes." (New York Daily News)
"Mr. Coogan doesn't seem altogether comfortable with his part, which, like the story, undergoes a number of unconvincing changes." (New York Times)
Obviously, we're not here to trash a film - but we also cannot selectively pick-and-choose reviews that only cast it in a positive light. As such, I strongly encourage you to discuss future changes on the article's talk page instead of simply reverting. Otherwise, we run the risk of this devolving into an edit war. If you remain unconvinced as to the role Wikipedia plays in covering material, we can certainly seek additional input regarding the article. --Ckatzchatspy 17:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)"Without a trace of tempo or one shred of narrative pacing, What Goes Up is not really a movie; it's the cheapest kind of amateurishness that looks like it was shot with a cell phone. " (New York Observer)
- Abel, the concerns I expressed about your edits are based on your previous posts, where you have indicated a desire to avoid the negative press. As for the article, we cannot ignore what has been said about the film. If it were only one bad review in a sea of praise, perhaps - but look at the comments from the major press that we didn't use:
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to What Goes Up (film), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You might also want to read WP:3RR. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)