User talk:Z8n

Welcome!

Hi Z8n! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --🐦DrWho42👻 07:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi - I've noticed that you've been repeatedly reverting the Barbie (film) article to say that the film received positive reviews instead of critical acclaim. You've made this particular revert more than three times within the past 24 hours, which is a violation of Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy. Violating this policy can result in editors getting blocked, but I see that you're new to Wikipedia, so I understand that you may not be familiar with this policy. Please WP:Self-revert your most recent edit to the page and do not make this change again without at least discussing it first on the article's talk page. Thanks! --Jpcase (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you are the one who keeps editing the sentence back to "critical acclaim" despite a primary source saying otherwise. Three times you did it, I see, and I also see that you you were clever in carefully evading the 24-hour clause.

Metacritic says "generally favorable reviews", not "universal acclaim". I see that you mentioned in your edit summary that Rotten Tomatoes says 90%, but that is due to your misunderstanding of Rotten Tomatoes. That 90% is simply the % of critics who gave a rating of 6/10 or higher. It does not signify critical acclaim.

The source that is used to signify critical acclaim is Metacritic, and with a score of 80/100, Barbie has not been critically acclaimed, it has received "generally favorable reviews".

That may change if more reviews are added to Barbie's Metacritic page, but as it stands, Barbie has not received critical acclaim, only generally favorable reviews, i.e. positive reviews. Z8n (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've edited the article three times in over 24 hours to say "critical acclaim". But even if I had made all of those edits within 24 hours, I wouldn't have been in violation of the "24 hour clause", because 3RR says you can't make the same edit to an article more than three times within 24 hours; up to three times within that time frame is okay. I wasn't being "clever", I was just following policy. And I'm not the only person who has edited the article to say "acclaim". See this edit and this edit as examples.

I understand how Rotten Tomatoes works. The fact is that most of the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are far higher than a 6 / 10. The film has an 8.10 average rating on that website. Metacritic is not the only website used to signify a film's critical reception. A variety of sources can be used, including Rotten Tomatoes. Even on Metacritic, the film's rating is one point away from that website's cutoff for "critical acclaim"; anything over an 80 is considered critically acclaimed, and Barbie is currently right at 80. If we were only using Metacritic, then sure, we could wait to see if the score goes up by one, but the article's lead should reflect the totality of what sources are saying, not just what Metacritic says. Regardless, this is a conversation better suited for the article's own talk page. Again, please self-revert your latest edit to the article, so that you are not in violation of 3RR, and if you want to open a discussion about this over at the other talk page, then you're welcome to do so. --Jpcase (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were simply reverting unhelpful edits that added unsourced information. I imagine that the 3RR rule is for situations when editors have a difference of opinion and engage in edit warring because there is no clear right answer, which is not the case here.

Let's look at your most recent edit of three, as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbie_(film)&oldid=1166577037

CTRL+F for "acclaim". The only instance of that word appearing is in the lead section where you injected it.

Now do the same for Killers of the Flower Moon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killers_of_the_Flower_Moon_(film)

Two results. One in the lead section ("critical acclaim"), and one below in the article that acts as the source for that lead section claim ("Metacritic [...], indicating "universal acclaim").

Now do the same for Oppenheimer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer_(film)

Again, two results: one in the lead section ("critical acclaim"), and one below in the article that acts as the source, ("Metacritic [...], indicating "universal acclaim").

That's how it works for film pages. I understand that you seem to fervently desire that Barbie should also rewarded with said "critical acclaim" label, but that's not how it works. You don't get to arbitrarily decide what the criteria is, it has to be properly sourced through Metacritic. Z8n (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead doesn't have to use the exact same wording as the body of the article. In fact, it typically shouldn't. The lead should summarize the body of the article, ideally in its own words. Many people world argue that a 90% score and 8.10 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes indicates "critical acclaim" and that it's appropriate to summarize these scores in the lead as "critical acclaim". You're welcome to disagree with that, but as I've pointed out, several other editors have agreed with me, so this clearly is a situation where "editors have a difference of opinion". You may consider this a situation where there is a "clear right answer", but the fact that several other editors have disagreed with you means that repeatedly making the same edit to the article without discussion does count as edit warring. --Jpcase (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you don't get to determine that. That's original research, which you are clearly pushing for because you want to see the film rewarded with the "critical acclaim" label.

And of course the people who are editing the film page are more likely to be people who loved the film and feel passionate about it (such as yourself, I imagine) who want to see the film be rewarded with the "critical acclaim" label. The thought process behind their edits probably didn't go any further than, "I love this movie and it got good reviews, so it should definitely say critical acclaim!" That doesn't mean that they are right. So while I understand why you brought up this line of reasoning, it is wrong. Z8n (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing Wikipedia for years and contribute to all kinds of film articles, sometimes films that I like, sometimes films that I dislike. But my edits are always based on my understanding of Wikipedia policy. In this case, my edits have been based primarily on the film's Rotten Tomatoes score. We can have different interpretations of policy and sources, but your insistence that I'm just trying to "reward" the film is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. How anyone editing the article feels about the film is irrelevant; what's relevant is that the edits are based on policy. And again, disagreeing with my interpretation of policy is fine. But casting aspersions on the motives of other editors is almost always unacceptable on Wikipedia. Going forward, make sure you're familiar with Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

P.S. I know that you're new to Wikipedia and don't mean to be giving you a hard time. It's fine that you're still familiarizing yourself with the policies, but please be careful to avoid edit warring and personal attacks in the future. --Jpcase (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the article that you linked?

"Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic"

It took me like 30 seconds of skimming to find that part.

All I did was point out that you are clearly passionately invested in seeing Barbie be rewarded with the label "critical acclaim" and that's the kind of "I love this and everyone must know how great and acclaimed it is" behavior usually seen in fans of a particular film/property/game and so on.

If you got offended by that and saw that as a personal attack, then all you did was prove me right. Z8n (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the article that I linked. Did you bother to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? It's not considered a "conflict of interest" on Wikipedia to like or be passionate about the topic of an article; if it were, then very few people would even bother writing articles. A "conflict of interest" in this situation would be if someone professionally affiliated with the film was editing the article, not if someone who simply likes the film edits the article. --Jpcase (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't change the fact that nowhere did I make a personal attack. Z8n (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]