Twinkle1990

Hi Twinkle1990,

=> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_You_Wish_For&diff=1230596183&oldid=1230590279

I'm not sure if you've undone the right revision, mate - you've restored the article practically to the state it was in when I was submitting it last night. All the changes in "Release", "Reception", WP:Plot and WP:Lead are gone now... Was that intentional? 🤨

And if we are talking about WP:RS - which sources in my changes were unreliable? Both Box Office Mojo and The Numbers (website) have been on the reliable list, haven't they?

Cheers, 17:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC) Szagory (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You should read WP:CITE carefully. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Twinkle, you made quite a few changes which also appears to have removed sourced content and information in the infobox. You need to provide a more thorough explanation. If some of the sources were not reliable, you need point to which ones, etc. Simply linking to WP:CITE is not sufficient as that is mostly a how-to guide. S0091 (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can only concur with S0091: quite a few people have made substantial changes to the article and invested their time and efforts - undoing a bunch of changes wholesale to the revision made previously by you is not a terribly nice thing to do, mate. 🤔

Your revision has been undone user:BlairThimper73 - could you still just clarify which sources have you found to be unreliable? Without referring us to WP:RS and WP:CITE, please. Just so that I know (because I make quite a lot of changes based on what I'm told to be sound and reliable policies).

Szagory (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You talk about WP:RS and WP:CITE?

You used sourcing as "Cite Box Office Mojo" where I used the url, you used IMDb as source, where I replaced with IGN. This is not how the WP:RS works.

Your version "The film received generally favourable reviews from critics." was removed. Which source said that? Please do not ad original research.

Is richgirlnetwork.tv more reliable than Movie Insider? Twinkle1990 (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

BlairThimper73 is connected to the subject per their own say. Hence, their edits meet conflicting. Twinkle1990 (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@S0091 wow, so you are suggesting that IMDb should be allowed as a source? And richgirlnetwork.tv more reliable than Movie Insider? What explanation do you expect from me, while you are questioning me for removing some unreliable and prohibited sources?? I guess, no more thorough is needed because you don't want to see the red flags in sourcing of current article. Twinkle1990 (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, I did not suggest anything about any of the sources nor make any opinion about your changes. If IMDB was one the sources, you were correct to remove it and any other unreliable sources. My point was you needed to provide a better explanation to Szagory so they can understand why you did what you did. S0091 (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you please see the diff that Szagory raised here? You will clearly see red flags. Furthermore, please check this diff. Szagory's AFC submission was at that stage with non-RS sourcing. Any reviewer would have declined such a poorly sourced draft. But I moved further and added several reliable sourcing and reviews before accepting.

Also, check User talk:Szagory page, how they are craving for IBDb even after several warnings by numerous editors. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, I am not validating if the revert was correct or not. All I was saying is that you needed to provide a better explanation which you now have. S0091 (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

They were already well guided about sourcing in their talk page. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Not sure what happened here but you added lots of duplicate banners to the page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how it happened. But I haven't created knowingly. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

May be the reason lays here. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing wrong with that edit as far as I can see. And there are no duplicate banners either? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seen that the issue is resolved. I will see for such issue in fortune. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, I should thank you. Twinkle1990 (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a courtesy notification on this topic. The thread is ItsMdAdnan on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikandar (2025 film). Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Twinkle1990,

I don't understand your comment on this AFD which contains some red links. Please also remember to always sign your comments on talk pages, noticeboards and deletion discussions. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Spelling mistake corrected. Thank you. Twinkle1990 (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

To Twinkle, it's nice to meet you. I understand why you rejected my draft because it didn't meet the notable music album recommendations, but I haven't expanded articles like that much in years. Hopefully, I can reach out to you to let me see an example. Thanks if anything. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 21:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@DBrown SPS your draft was not rejected. It was declined with review message(what to improve). Twinkle1990 (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article was not resubmitted without addressing the issues. The first editor reviewing the article removed what they believed were offending citations, so that issue is addressed.

And I address the matter of notability at the Talk page for that submission. Please see that post here, and reconsider. Bottom line, when a consensus is brought to bear on the matter of this subject's notability, these preliminary judgments will not stand. 98.206.30.195 (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have not stolen your article that you will ask for return. And You need to understand WP:CITE and WP:RS. Twinkle1990 (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey there, I hope you are doing well. I noticed that you are nominating many news agency articles for AfD, which is good. However, I recommend that you first propose deletion through PROD. If someone challenges your PROD, then you can start an AfD discussion. This approach will help reduce the AfD backlog for these uncited articles, which will surely be deleted. GrabUp - Talk 03:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could have. But both are different. Twinkle1990 (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply