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, 27, 28

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]

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]

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey Twinkle, Hope you are awesome! Thank you for volunteering to Wikipedia. Youknow? (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Youknow. That's really nice of you. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

) Youknow? (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry forgot the question mark. :) Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, actually I was using a smiling | :) |emoji. Youknow? (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha Youknow?. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you re-tagged an article after I declined your speedy deletion request, with basically the same rationale. As mentioned in my edit summary, drafts are not typically G4 eligible, as draft space is a place where one is allowed to work on pages to address the issues that resulted in a page being deleted in the first place. You tagging it with G6 and a link to the AFD is also an improper usage of the tag and it makes it seem as though you simply didn't like the outcome you got. Please re-read WP:CSD, as I found other tags, such as this one, where you tagged a page as non-controversial cleanup with the rationale of "As the person fails WP:NPOLL, the draft has no meaning to exist." – Drafts which you perceive to not meet notability guidelines are not eligible for G6 speedy deletion, ever, because that's simply not housekeeping or non-controversial cleanup. Please pick an existing rationale and move forward more carefully. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Sorry for the offence I made. Twinkle1990 (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Twinkle,

Hope you are well. I monitor some pages, including all Wikipedia permission pages. I saw that you recently requested autopatrolled rights, but that request was declined by an admin. The language you used in your reply to the admin was not appropriate. You should not behave like this with an admin. Hope you understand.

Best regards:) Youknow? (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youknow? I understand. I was bit upset when the same admin jumps into rejection. Actually, I am surprised that they don't see that technically I am half-patrolled. Whichever page I publish or move from draft, it automatically shows in google with the "../Draft:..". Isn't it annoying? Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example search Google for "Herbert William Sumner Gibson" which I accepted a few hours back not even reviewed by NPP to show up in Google search. You will see it with the "Draft" tag. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should not behave like that with anyone at all. It was a personal attack and showed lack of good faith. Joe is not an involved Admin, no more than I am for posting this warning. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller I admit that I shouldn't do that. But how can I undo? I have replied that I won't apply again before 2006. Or may be never. Sorry. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Twinkle1990 Hopefully 2026. Just try to be the best editor you can be, respond to comments on your talk page, etc. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller that's nice of you. I saw that you are an admin. And your words are really encouraging to me. I am delighted and happy. Can you please look at the issue I mentioned above i.e. "whatever draft I accept, it shows up in Google search with ../Draft:.."? Is it glitz or I am just half-patroller! Forgot to mention that I am a probationary AfC reviwer, grunt->revoked->grunt basis. Kindly judge me on basis of my work. And I would really follow what I just said, "not before 2006". :) Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches are often out of date. And 2006 was 18 years ago. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller Kindly have a check with some AfC reviewers with no-autopatrolled history (as I was autopatrolled before last year's revocation by Star Misisipi), if the same glitz occurs or not. If no reviewer faces this issue then who would be happy than me? I won't need autopatrolled or NPP rights until this glitz exists. :) But please don't revoke my AfC review right as I am confident that I am not wrongdoing there. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Twinkle1990 Sorry, I really don't have time to carry on with this. And chemotherapy, which might give me a few more months, is tiring me. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller please live. I am atheist. But I should pray for a nice person like you. Please stay with us, I am also a heart patient who don't have money to take a pacemaker. But we must live. We must live with our inner joy. Not lying you that I am a heart patient. Please leave, be strong, and I know, you can overcome. It's god willing. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller don't die man. Else I will chase down you everywhere and ring huge bell near your ears. Count me in. I am warning you. I won't let you go like this. For the first time I met a nice person here and you want to leave? No. You can't. You have lots to teach me. Argggghh.... Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No gods, I'm also an atheist. and lucky to live in a country with a national health service. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller my good will led me to an indef block. Why did you? Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for blatant harassment and trolling as in this and this edit and the section above. I have set the duration to be indefinite since any unblock should be contingent on your explaing such conduct and outling how it will change. Any attempts to use the unblock notice, or this talkpage, to continue in the same vein will result in loss of talk page access..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Abecedare (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare well, before I appeal, have you gone through the conversation? @Doug Weller messaged me that he is on cancer therapy. And I broke down as they wished me in their message. I was shocked. And yes, I am shocked as I have lost my parents of this monster illness. I didn't want anyone to leave for this monster illness. Whatever message I sent to @Doug Weller: was in good faith. Let User:Doug Weller to justofy. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not judging your intentions but your conduct, which was highly inappropriate. And if you ping Doug again, I will remove your talkpage access without any further warnings. Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]