User talk:Fn45-2

Welcome

Hello Fn45-2 and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Zack Snyder's Justice League, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Help pages
Tutorial
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! KyleJoan^talk 07:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but which of my attitudes is not according to the wikipedia's policies? Grammar? No. Impartiality? This is something I totally respect (and did!). Could you at least point it? Fn45-2 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You included the same material a third time after you were reverted by two users. That is called Wikipedia:Edit warring, which is a policy. Hope this helps! KyleJoan^talk 01:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer, but my content was removed with no justification. I mean, I just added, in the initial part of the film's description, the fact that it had a "positive" critical reception, which is in line not only with the references used on the page, but also with the "reception" section of this page. For some unjustified reason, the editors removed this snippet that doesn't even go over a line. And well, such a description is found in almost all cinematographic works with wikipedia pages, which makes my tiny edition absolutely legitimate. In the elaboration of public articles, scientific works and the like, the authors' justification for their intervention is an imperative term, hence my clarity in the intervention (which was not presented by the editors when they removed my excerpt). Therefore, my dissatisfaction is not with the formal nature of your alert, but with the material nature of the editors' removals, which I reiterate were unjustified and misaligned with other pages of cinematographic works on wikipedia. Fn45-2 (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall film reception in the article's lead section can be a sticky issue, and more often than not, we don't include it. The reason is that you really need strong agreement among film aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic before it would even be considered, and even then, sometimes it is still omitted. When you are reverted, it is best to take your disagreement to the article's talk page. Explain yourself there and obtain consensus before reinstating your change. That's the best way to avoid "edit warring" accusations. In this specific case, your problem is going to be that Rotten Tomatoes (positive) and Metacritic (mixed) are at odds with one another, so it's probably been discussed at some point. Sometimes the simple solution is to note the positive and negative aspects of reviews instead of claiming it was positive overall. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BvS

I reverted your recent addition to the lead section for a couple reasons. First, the claim "This version was better received from critics" shouldn't be sourced to a single critic or even group of critics. The Home Media section already covers this to some extent, noting that some critics saw it as an improvement, but that is in no way similar to the 425 critics surveyed by Rotten Tomatoes or the 51 critics aggregated by MetaCritic that found the original cut unfavorable. This claim you're trying to add implies that critics as a whole felt differently, but we don't know that based on a handful of sources.

Second, this "cult following" claim isn't mentioned anywhere in the article body, which is a requirement per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY before placing in the article's introduction. The claim also isn't really supported by the source you cited. The percentages provided by Fizziology (acquired by MarketCast in 2017) simply show that the positive film comments outweigh the negative on social media during that time. It doesn't discuss any trends (i.e., has it always been that way?), nor does it presume anything about a cult following. It's a stretch to make that conclusion based on a simple percentage of 57% positive. We need reliable sources to draw these kinds of conclusions; you're trying to do so here based on raw data. which is a form of original research.

If you'd like to pursue this further, begin a new discussion on Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and let's hash it out there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hi Fn45-2! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. DonQuixote (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, but is the other editor (the one who kept undoing my addings several times with any provocation) receiving the same warning? Does he have any preference on edits, no matter whats the subject? I really would like to know, because he did revertions without a single writing base. Would I have such a burden? If so, it would be a very unequal situation. If not, I will be happy to know that he has been duly warned as well. Fn45-2 (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, please make sure to use colons (:) to indent your response on talk pages. Doing so makes the discussion easier to follow.

Regarding behavior, all editors should cease back-and-forth editing once it is apparent there is a conflict and go to the article's talk page to discuss the disagreement. During this discussion, the article is often reverted back to its longstanding version (also called the "status quo" version). The discussion can then have one of three outcomes: consensus for (proposed change is accepted), consensus against (proposed change is rejected), or no consensus (inconclusive). Only "consensus for" results in the change happening to the article, and the burden to obtain that consensus is on the editor who is proposing the change (see WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS). If the discussion stalls or you would like to seek wider participation, there are other forms of dispute resolution available to you. Instead of worrying about who is warned in the process, your best course of action is focusing on obtaining consensus.

And finally, keep the three-revert rule (3RR) in mind from the edit-warring policy. This is a "bright line" that shouldn't be crossed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Gran Turismo 7

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Gran Turismo 7, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]