JennyWayne Posted October 6 Posted October 6 1 hour ago, Lagerfeld said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlequin_(Lady_Gaga_album) The way the first line here caught me off-guard. 1 hour ago, Princess Aurora said: HELP The messiest thing about this is that you can see the IP of the person who edited this since they don't have a Wikipedia account. LM's will be on their neck I'm afraid 2
laqqinq Posted October 6 Posted October 6 Stans shouldn't get into editing Wikipedia articles, which many or some use for information. I believe there should be a neutral point of view. If it's acclaimed, positively received, moderate, mixed, or negatively reviewed, then it is so. No bias or lies. 2
dumbsparce Posted October 6 Posted October 6 It apparently "divided" critics too when it was universally panned. Lidls are too fragile to face reality head on. 1
Kevin Parker Posted October 6 Posted October 6 6 hours ago, Rihinvention said: I wonder what the audience score would be if it hadn't been skewed by the Monsters who've given it 5 stars, or 4 stars to make it seem slightly less biased. + full on haters giving the lowest score
Maleficent Posted October 6 Posted October 6 Looks like something I would do instead of whatever would actually benefit my life 2
SoldierofLove Posted October 6 Posted October 6 1 hour ago, AshleyLovescats887 said: Looks like something I would do if I was really bored If you have time on your hands for ATRL, you have time to enlist in the war! 1
AshleyLovescats887 Posted October 6 Posted October 6 15 minutes ago, SoldierofLove said: If you have time on your hands for ATRL, you have time to enlist in the war! Here we go 3
Rihinvention Posted October 6 Posted October 6 49 minutes ago, Kevin Parker said: + full on haters giving the lowest score Most of the 1-star reviews I've seen have been from people who use IMDb/Rotten Tomatoes regularly. They seem to be genuine film fans, and when you click on their profiles, they've reviewed a lot of movies. It's the 5-star reviews that seem to be the anomalies. People who say something extremely vague, about it being great, and upon clicking on their profile, it's the only review they've ever written. 2
shyboi Posted October 6 Posted October 6 wait, this is so cute, how you do this? i thought ms. wikipedia herself was in charge of writing the articles
GentleDance Posted October 6 Author Posted October 6 4 minutes ago, Assassin said: even on the Harlequin page, I am crying.
skeeyee Posted October 6 Posted October 6 Professional ratings Aggregate scores Source Rating AnyDecentMusic? 6.6/10[23] Metacritic 73/100[24] Review scores Source Rating AllMusic [25] Clash 7/10[26] The Daily Telegraph [27] The Guardian [28] The Independent [29] The Irish Times [30] Rolling Stone [31] Slant Magazine [32] seems a bit high
tost1 Posted October 6 Posted October 6 3 hours ago, AshleyLovescats887 said: Here we go Did you manage to sneak Halsey in it somehow? 2
BrattyBottom Posted October 6 Posted October 6 Your honor, it's a critical and commercial failure. Just say that
AshleyLovescats887 Posted October 6 Posted October 6 44 minutes ago, tost1 said: Did you manage to sneak Halsey in it somehow? I mean, i did add "flop" Spoiler they are an underrated and talented one tho
SoldierofLove Posted October 6 Posted October 6 6 hours ago, Assassin said: even on the Harlequin page, I am crying. Madonna and Beyoncé
Marianah Adkins Posted October 7 Posted October 7 Stans editing wikipedia articles are so cringe and detrimental to the neutral purpose of the page. You could easily tell when an information or section is stan drivel or not OT: Let it go, Monsters. Its a bomb. Time to move on to LG7 (and ensure its success)
KatyPrismSpirit Posted October 7 Posted October 7 (edited) After days of relentless edit requests and denied edits wikipedia officially recognizes Harlequin as a studio album instead of a soundtrack album Edited October 7 by KatyPrismSpirit 2
Recommended Posts