User talk:Wafflewombat

In the film, the characters are actually Siamese twins, presumably from Siam. It’s supposed to be an archetype, which is why it makes no sense to change the name to conjoined. These kinds of edits give the impression that you might not understand why these terms are used. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might also help to look at the book and the film script. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me a break? I'm trying my best to respond to your feedback and become a better editor. I can't do that if you continue to be harsh and unforgiving in our interactions. Wafflewombat (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm still not clear on what you are trying to do, and it looks like you are continuing to do the same thing after our last discussion. You might want to consider working in your user space in a sandbox to play around in. You are welcome to take this article to Wikipedia:Peer review and prepare it for WP:FAC, but if it continues to get worse, I may have to revert to an earlier version. Most people tend to work in their sandboxes for this kind of thing. Please consider continuing your work at User:Wafflewombat/sandbox where you will have a lot more freedom to experiment. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that adding a photo, adding sources to Further Reading, removing redundant wikilinks, changing one wikilink, and fixing a citation are problematic edits? Wafflewombat (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interpreting MOS:REPEATLINK far differently than me. Those weren't redundant wikilinks. They were used once in the lead (or infobox) and once in the body, as they were supposed to be used. Why did you think they were redundant? Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I thought the policy was that wikilinks should appear only once in an article outside the infobox. An editor told me this when I first started editing, and unfortunately I've been editing that way ever since, and nobody has corrected me before. A simple mistake.

If you have valid concerns with the other edits I made, please share them. I've completely held off on making any type of condensing edits on Big Fish. If your aim was to convince me there are problems with my editing style, you have succeeded. I am changing how I edit. Now you need to let me make constructive edits. Wafflewombat (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, please work in your sandbox to make these constructive edits before adding them to a Good Article. Stability is a major GA criterion, and I will submit the article for reassessment and recommend that it be delisted if this continues. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are being abusive, and I will be seeking dispute resolution. Wafflewombat (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted the article to GAR. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I have now transferred the problem to the community for GAR appraisal. I consider this matter closed, as I no longer take any responsibility for the quality of the article due to the previous review. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to return to the "Siamese twins", that should be restored to the aritcle, per the book, the script, and the secondary sources. Please note the occurrence of these archetypal terms: mermaid; witch; giant; werewolf; Siamese twins. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to talk about the Siamese twins on my talk page. You can revert the edit and leave an edit summary. I'm not going to contest it. Wafflewombat (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have to follow you around and revert your edits. You should be mature enough to fix your own edits. These archetypes become character embellishments. We learn at the end that the twins are identical, not conjoined. The notion of them being "Siamese" fits into the folklore of the mermaid, witch, giant, and werefolf, hence the importance of the original term. If you read the book, watch the film, read the script, or read the vast amount of secondary material, this becomes clear. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]