User talk:Zboss008

Personal attacks and POV editing

The Wikipedia community doesn't tolerate personal attacks, like the comment you lobbed at Managerarc in this edit. If you can't take criticism, particularly when you fail to provide references for your changes, you are taking up the wrong hobby. This is a community editing project, and civil communication is required to edit here.

Re: this edit, your personal observations and analysis have no place at Wikipedia. You are not a critical response aggregator like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. We only care what reliable published sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy have to say about anything, not what individual editors think. Further, it is academically dishonest to cherrypick reviews that conform to our POV, then summarize the entirety of critical opinion based on that one review. If you intend to summarize the entirety of critical response, or any opinion, you need to provide a reference that says explicitly that the entirety of critical response skewed that way. It may not be derived simply by finding negative reviews. I'm sure you'd have a problem if I found two positive reviews for Rustom and rewrote the summary to reflect that the film received glowing praise. Content must be presented from a netural point of view. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This would be another area in need of improvement. The entirety of the content you added was unsourced. You've attempted to summarize aspects of a film's critical and financial performance, which would absolutely necessitate references. There are also several instances of weasel words like "is considered to be one of the best Indian films ever made", "Considered one of Khan's best performances", etc. Considered by whom? Is this opinion what most reviewers think? How do we know? And where are the sources? We also don't use the meaningless expression "mixed-to-negative" when describing critical response. That phrasing began with the synthesis of Rotten Tomatoes' and Metacritic's scores when they weren't in agreement, and it has sadly taken on a life of its own. You may read up on the various community discussions surrounding this if you wish. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks part deux and clarification

Re: your comments here, I've chosen to respond on your talk page because you are more likely to benefit from this discussion than I am, and it's easier to keep the discussion in one place.

Comments belong at the bottom of talk pages, not at the top.
It would be appreciated if you'd please sign your comments by typing four tildes ~~~~. This will append your user name and a time stamp to the end of your message, so that people know who is commenting and when the comment was posted.
Re: Rustom, you said, "I am not cherrypicking reviews. The film has been universally panned by critics." And yet you picked one negative review to make this point, rather than quoting a reliable source as having arrived at that conclusion. Filmfare gave it 4/5 stars. Hindustani Times gave it 3/5]. India.com gave it 3.5/5. I don't see any neutrality in your assessment, only one perspective being reported: negative. "Universally panned" is not language that we would include in an encyclopedia article, neither is "highly unfavorable" or "very negative". What exactly is a "highly unfavorable" review? What is a "very negative review"? How do you qualify those subjective evaluations? If a source described the film as receiving "mostly negative response" that's different from describing the response as "highly unfavorable". "Highly unfavorable" sounds like people were screaming and tearing their eyelids out because the film was so bad. It's the difference between "Most people didn't care for the dessert" vs "The dessert was considered vomit-inducing". Those are two different ideas.
Re: "What's so great about someone else's personal analysis?" - Easy. The internet is full of cranks who just want to complain. If we cared what every random person thought or felt, our articles would be full of pointless opinions. Thankfully, the greater Wikipedia community decided that we only care what reliable published sources say or think. A newspaper journalist, for instance, probably went to school and took classes on journalism, and was probably educated on ethics and grammar, and fact-checking, and all sorts of important stuff. The same can probably not be said of the vast majority of random people on the Internet. It's easier and smarter to exclude original research. Also, you wouldn't want paid marketing people to go through a bunch of crappy films and say "the film received hugely positive reviews!" would you? Because that's what would happen if didn't have any content criteria and didn't require that such summaries be supported by specific voices.
Re: "Get a life. Stop sitting around spending all your time on Wikipedia. You have no identity in the real world." Again, watch the personal attacks. This is a community project, and civility is required. I brought to your attention decisions that you made that were inconsistent with established community guidelines, and attempted to educate you. I didn't say one negative word about you personally and the community expects the same of you. If this is not something you're good at, you will find it difficult to edit here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Mixed to ___" phrasing again

Re: this, please stop adding meaningless "mixed to ___" phrasing. As previously noted, multiple Wikipedia communities find this phrasing completely useless. And on that point, please stop adding unsourced content. If you have a problem with the content the way it was, and if the "praised critically" statement was not properly sourced, your remedy is to remove the content (if it is not properly sourced) and then open a discussion on the article's talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]