User talk:AONE.

Reply

Hi AONE and thanks for your message on my talk page. A few people have questioned that wording currently in the Psalms article, and I agree it might be problematic as the issue is disputed. But it is according to the source cited. So what needs to happen is for a reliable source to be found that perhaps puts it in clearer language that this is a position held by many scholars but that others disagree, and then the article can be changed to reflect that kind of wording more neutrally. I will start a discussion on the article's talk page - as wikipedia works by consensus it would be good to get a few editors to agree on the best way forward. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to The Terminal List, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Audience ratings/reviews are not allowed, please see MOS:TVRECEPTION and WP:UGC. WP:UGC states: although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users are not. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement doesn't make sense. You said "the aggregators are reliable with summarizing experts", but "the users on aggregators are not [reliable in summarizing experts]". I think what you're trying to say is that we can trust aggregators as reliable sources for aggregate opinions of critics, but not aggregate opinions of fans. That statement, however, would simply be your opinion, probably based on the assumption that review bombing greatly affects the overall user score, which would be an unproven -- and unprovable -- assertion. Either way it is still accurate to say "mixed reviews from critics but positive reviews from the general audience". AONE. (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, it is a Wikipedia policy/guideline whether you like it or not. As I said , although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users are not. is on WP:UGC. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Terminal List. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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.

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. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]