User talk:Twinkle1990

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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]

Sharmajee Ki Beti, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Twinkle1990! Thank you for your work with AfC! As you continue your reviews, I wanted to remind you to keep an eye out for contentious topics, which has specific restrictions. For example, users who are not extended confirmed should not edit content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly defined. I just wanted to bring this to your attention after seeing a comment on a draft submitted by a non-EC editor (see here). Otherwise, I hope you keep up the good work! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Significa liberdade I think this needs broader discussion somewhere because considering CTOP restrictions is currently not included AfC's reviewing instructions and I don't think it's included in NPP's either. I know it is not at the top of my mind when reviewing and I don't know all the topics that fall under WP:ECR. S0091 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up, @S0091! This particularly instance was raised at arbitration as a user had received a CTOP warning and then may have inadvertently been encouraged to continue working on those topics based on feedback from AfC. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will check the user's CTOP warning before I review such drafts. Thanking for informing. Twinkle1990 (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]