User talk:El Wizardo

May 2022

Hello, I'm Spf121188. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Send Me on My Way, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 12:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Reliable source page needs to be updated. Disregarding overwhelming positivity from the general public via youtube comment sections (Which are verifiable) is a sleight against how people actually feel about this song. Being a published critic should not elevate one's opinion over someone else's since critics are just people. Wikipedia needs to update it's reliable source regarding personal review (opinions) to include the general public. El Wizardo (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Being a published critic" is precisely why that information is in the article, and your opinion is not. No, we are not going include personal opinions--that's what MySpace is for. Drmies (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimately anyone can call themselves "published" just by posting online. To elevate one's opinion based on income for that alone is hilariously biased. To call one man's outlier opinion as "mixed" towards all reviews skews the data. The entire notion of what defines a critic needs to be updated, that is the point. If there were any special qualifications, like training, to become a critic - that would be another story. Reviews for this song are OVERWHELMINGLY positive. El Wizardo (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're condescending and projecting your own bias, I am going to submit this Talk for further comment to the general public regarding future policies about what defines a critic, and whether or not to include the general public's voice in this. It's totalitarian not to include the general public. I also call into question your character as an admin, since you seem to have an agenda. El Wizardo (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do have an agenda--you can read all about it at Wikipedia:No original research. You can question what you like--I question that you understand what an encyclopedia is. Good luck with your crusade; we always love it if someone comes in here, makes two edits, and then tries to correct the entire project. Make those disruptive edits in article space again and I will block you. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Send Me on My Way. 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. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only disruptive edit is acting like Kurt Keefner's bloated opinion reflects the general public whatsoever, and to use a source from 2014 is either outdated or out of touch with the times when this was released. Public opinion needs to be accounted for in wikipedia's reliable source policy regarding criticism/opinion. Criticism should include public consensus, end of story. El Wizardo (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on Wikipedia's Critic Policy

Should publicly posted opinions, with support by many people, be accounted for as valid sources of criticism regarding topics that require no mandatory training or accreditation to purposefully review (e.g. music, art, film)?

14:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for an RfC and is also way too premature. First, discuss the matter on the talk page of the article concerned, i.e. Talk:Send Me on My Way, without using an {{rfc}} tag. If it's fruitless, try a more centralised noticeboard, like WP:RSN. If that also fails, read WP:RFCBEFORE carefully, and only if all of those suggestions are exhausted, read WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]