Talk:What You Wish For

I believe this page is inaccurate

I made changes and corrections to this page around 9.30am on 6.23.24 - but was told it was not accepted by the editor who created the page. Specifically I added artwork, details of production, corrected producer and running time errors, and changed the critic's pull quotes to accurately reflect their overall view of the film. I believe the page as it is now is not accurate and incomplete. I have also been banned from the site so cannot make any changes in the correct way by putting my reasons here. BlairThimper73 (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it was not accepted by the editor who created the page."? Also how you are connected to the subject. Twinkle1990 (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to ask for clarification about "editor who created the page" - as well as about this message:

It was me who created this page - and I believe it was user:Twinkle1990 who moved my submitted page into the article space. But I certainly have no WP:COI to declare here - I merely started watching the film online last weekend and was simply surprised that there was still no page on Wikipedia for the film. No further interest.

And I believe it was merely through oversight (a momentary lapse) that user:Twinkle1990 reverted the page to the past revision made by him - about which I duly complained on his Talk page, and which was undone by Blair Thimper himself...

So perhaps it makes sense to remove that "{ {COI} }" tag now? You know, it's the first article on Wikipedia created by me - and now there's this big ugly blob at the top of it, all because of what looks to me like a misunderstanding. 🤔

Szagory (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I returned the page back to previous version...

I believe the page now is fully accurate and neutral in presentation. BlairThimper73 (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Please declare your interest to the subject. Twinkle1990 (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

COI tag (June 2024)

User BlairThimper73 admitted per this diff. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I am the assistant editor of the film. I believe I have added information of value that is neutral and accurate. Please show me where I have not if you believe differently. BlairThimper73 (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Having made more changes to the article yesterday in parallel with user:BlairThimper73, I can only declare that his changes seemed fair and balanced to me. Even if it turns out now that he's an assistant editor of the film, I just can't spot anything in the article's changes to bear out this accusation of WP:COI in the changes made by him, it all appears exaggerated and blown out of proportion. Just my honest opinion.

Szagory (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I've just checked and Blair's name is indeed mentioned in the film's closing credits, in "Post-production" section.

But on re-reading the article's "Production" part very carefully, the only thing in there that one might accuse Blair of partiality in is:

Nicholas Tomnay wrote the screenplay in the fall of 2018 through the winter of 2019.

Admittedly, that statement is without cited reference - but that's certainly not enough for levelling the charges of WP:COI against him, I think. 😉 Szagory (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Szagory. My intent is only to make the page is informative as it can be, which is why I have included the note about the screenplay, and why I have cited the richgirlTV article which includes Nicholas' statement about writing the script. Again here...

https://www.richgirlnetwork.tv/2024/05/director-writer-nicholas-tomnay-what-you-wish-for-starring-nick-stahl/ BlairThimper73 (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The reference looks kosher to me, I've just read it - it is "DIRECTOR’S STATEMENT", after all.

I'll add it to that sentence, I assume that Blair would be a bit hesitant to do that at the moment, with accusations of partiality flying about. Unless Twinkle has an objection, of course. 😊

OK, I see that it's already been added to "Production" section. My preference would have been to split it into two paragraphs (one about writing the script, the other about principal photography) - but alright, that's a minor thing...

Szagory (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Twinkle1990,

Could you please outline the steps that you see as required for removing the WP:COI tag? I don't know, perhaps you want somebody else to select the different critiques for the article's "Critical response" section?

I've just checked and they all but one have valid cited reference (with exception of penultimate one by Michael Talbot Haynes, but there's definitely a link for that full review on Rotten Tomatoes)...

Szagory (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's important the pull quotes of the reviews match the overall sentiments of the actual review. I cut one because it was not presented this way. The film has an 82% on rotten tomatoes and so this section should reflect that. BlairThimper73 (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've just added an extremely scathing review by Fred Topel to "Critical response" - the one with which I don't agree at all (this film doesn't look anything like The Menu (2022 film), and my personal opinion differs about "bigger studio getting it right"). See what you think (IMO, the statement about the film's getting "generally favourable reviews from critics" - added by me after reviewing all the critiques in the list, BTW - fits to a T)...

21:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Szagory (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I shifted Fred's review above Mary's so the last review is not negative, like the film's score is not. I honestly don't understand what the issue is here, and if I'm honest when I read twinkle's page it felt to me that she did not like the film and had created a page that illustrated her personal point of view, and was not neutral at all. I would say that we have a balanced, factual and neutral page and we can remove the warning. I will ask again, what is the actual issue? BlairThimper73 (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I will add if we continue with all of this then I will insist we only have 5 reviews, 4 positive and 1 negative to match an 82% score. Please let's move on. I'm sure we all have better things to do. BlairThimper73 (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, alright - I'm with you on that score, mate. Although in all honesty, Twinkle1990 might find any addition from a contributor with close connection to the subject objectionable for the moment... 🤔

But let's see what he says. 😉

TTFN and cheerio for now,

Serge Z. Szagory (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Well then she will have to point out where this is occurring. This page is about a detached neutrality isn't it? Let's use common sense here. BlairThimper73 (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Twinkle1990,

You haven't replied to my request yesterday to give indication as to how to proceed with removing that WP:COI tag - and you haven't said anything to imputations of personal bias when applying the tag in the first place, but your silence on the matter doesn't make things any better. 🤔

I realise that it was you who moved my submitted draught of this page to an accepted article that it is right now, and I'm very grateful to you for that. And I've just re-read on your Talk page what actually caused you to revert a bunch of revisions to an older version made by you, which in turned forced Blair to undo that reversion and cause this disagreement/misunderstanding:

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?

Listen, I would never cite IMDb as a source these days, Box Office Mojo is supposed to be a reliable source - and I added that thing about reviews from critics being "generally favourable" on the basis of all the critiques on Rotten Tomatoes (BTW, that addition was made after undoing of your reversion, and it's not particularly relevant to the current discussion).

But at the same time the point made by user:S0091 about your needing to provide a better description of reasons for that reversion still holds, doesn't it? 😉

So I apologise if my changes somehow upset you, I'm sure that user:BlairThimper73 didn't mean to upset you, either - can we just move on and either remove that WP:COI tag or start working on how to remove it, please?

Thanks for your attention,

Szagory (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Going forward @BlairThimper73 should make edit requests rather than editing the article directly, which is what they should have done to begin with and let a non-involved editor review them (see also the WP:Edit request Wizard which might be helpful). Any issues should be discussed here on the talk page but the issues need to be specific so they can be addressed. I can say IMDB (footnote #3) and Broadway World (footnote #6) are not reliable so those need to be removed along with any content attributed to them unless there better sources are found. S0091 (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm bowing out now. This has become too ridiculous. I was only trying to be helpful, but this has become insanely stupid. I changed a couple of references to more credible sources. See ya. BlairThimper73 (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure you bothered to read WP:COI which is one of Wikipedia's guidelines but if you didn't you should now which includes WP:Paid. You are welcome to suggest changes via edit requests with the appropriate sources (i.e. you can still contribute but not directly). If you are unwilling to follow Wikipedia's Terms of Use, Policies and Guidelines, that's of course up to you. S0091 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Taking it up where user:BlairThimper73 has left off:

- I could take care of reference #6 to BroadwayWorld.com

- I could also rewrite "Production" section, citing "Director's Statement" in reference #6 to richgirlnetwork.tv

- And I suppose it's best to move two negative critiques of the film to the end of "Critical response" section (Blair didn't want that section to end on a negative note, but I guess it's only fair now to the sentiment about possible personal bias that it be done that way).

How does that all that sound to you guys, user:Twinkle1990 and user:S0091?

My only demurrer would be about reference #2 to Box Office Mojo - first of all, it's relatively easy to hide IMDb as its publisher (with "publisher_hide=yes" in {Cite Box Office Mojo}). Secondly, that reference could be removed outright (the reference to The Numbers (website) would suffice, I guess) - but do we really need to do that? Unlike IMDb, Box Office Mojo is supposed to be a reliable source, isn't it?

Szagory (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Folks, all changes done now. Please have a look and let the others know what you think. 😉

Good night,

Szagory (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:COI tag won't be removed per Wikipedia policy as BlairThimper73 have made several edits avoiding edit request. Further, you are also getting related and seems to be hired by BlairThimper73 to edit this page. It's attracting WP:UPE issue now. Twinkle1990 (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Twinkle1990 the tag is not policy. Please read the documentation at Template:COI. If there no NPOV issues, the tag can be removed. The only issue is I see is the Production section. It is poorly sourced and the quote is WP:UNDUE. If no better source exists, the section should be removed. S0091 (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@S0091 after repeated attempts both the editors are into "biased by a conflict of interest, and to request help from other editors with an article that is biased" per your said template.

I would have considered replacing COI with Conn tag if both of them agreed to remove "peacock, puffery and problems with neutrality", but the issue persists as per the above replies by both. Especially Szagory is trying to add information as BlairThimper73 wants to have in the article. FYI please check their talk pages. Unless they declare COI, how you could? Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Please be specific as to what you see as puffery, etc. so it can be remedied. I don't see it outside of the Production section. S0091 (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to ask user:Twinkle1990 to clarify: what exactly is wrong with the changes that I made yesterday?

First off, I openly declare that I have absolutely no WP:COI here - and that I'm definitely not hired by user:BlairThimper73, nor am I in any way connected to him (we are on different continents and never heard of each other until last week when I decided to create this article, I'm a SW engineer based in EU, he is a film editor presumably based somewhere in the States).

user:BlairThimper73 was simply making changes without being aware of his WP:COI, and on user:Twinkle1990's deciding to revert a whole slew of changes by several people wholesale (I'm sorry, but that just wasn't a nice thing to do, and it was that action which has caused all this kerfuffle that we've been dealing with over the last three days), it was user:BlairThimper73 who was brave enough to do an obvious thing and undo that reversion. With benefit of hindsight and knowing about his WP:COI now, he should have made editing request - but all of his changes have been undone by now and redone by me, not because he would want me to make them that way (he certainly wouldn't like those two negative reviews to be included), but simply because I've made those changes in what I deem to be reasonable, impartial and unbiased way.

I mean, come on, guys (Twinkle1990 and S0091) - just tell me what else you'd like to be removed from the article, but there is simply nothing left now in the article's text which is directly related to Blair's changes. 😕

Have a good one, everybody,

Szagory (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

BTW, Twinkle1990:

=> https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=What_You_Wish_For&diff=1231056685&oldid=1231008555

=> Do not add IMDb as a source. You have been guided enough to not to use IMDb as source per WP:IMDb.

That citation was NOT added by me - yes, in the past I was warned enough times not to cite IMDb to learn by now never to refer to it in my edits.

I believe you had a discussion with BlairThimper73 about his changing the genre categorisation for the film - I assume that the citation originated from about that time. In any event, wasn't made by me.

Szagory (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi S0091,

=> The only issue is I see is the Production section. It is poorly sourced and the quote is WP:UNDUE. If no better source exists, the section should be removed.

I see that tag was added to Tomnay's quote - and yes, I believe there's no better source that I can find quickly (and believe me, I've already spent way too much time and effort on editing this page and all the associated polemic to start regretting my being the originator of it all). There are several video interviews with Tomnay on YouTube, but somebody would need to listen to them in their entirety for details about writing the script and shooting the film... Feel free to remove the section outright (I'm already unwilling to make any changes to the article's text, following Twinkle1990's unsubstantiated (and untrue, which I know for a fact) accusation of being personally biased).

Cheerio,

Szagory (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I have come back to see how things are progressing and am dismayed by the bullying twinkle 1990 is inflicting on this page and its editors. It's outrageous and obvious that twinkle does not like the film and wishes to influence this page to reflect her views. Of course she is accusing others of doing this, but it is actually twinkle that is trying to influence this page with her own negative views of the film. I obviously am not contributing to the page anymore, and suggest that twinkle also be barred from contributing here, as she clearly has an agenda - what other reason could there be for all this bile from her?. Why does she care so much about this film's page? Once again when asked, she can show no example of where this page is inflated. Because a directors statement is included? Seriously? As stated earlier my contribution to this page was to add an image, and correct some factual errors. A negative review was added to the page as a punishment for my involvement here, not because it is accurate to the reaction of what you wish for. The film has an 82% on rotten tomatoes, which is a positive score. It's my view that the critical section should reflect this. It should include 5 reviews, (20% each) 4 or which should be positive and 1 negative - as this is a fair reflection of the film's critical responce. Currently this is not how things stand.

I will not contribute to the page anymore, but what I can do is report twinkle as a disruptive user if she persists pushing her own agenda here. Others with cooler heads should be making decisions about this page - which is a resource to reflect the accurate truth regarding this film, not some editor's opinion of it. BlairThimper73 (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Blair,

I wouldn't want to get involved even further in this mess, which is why I decided yesterday to leave the article's "Production" section alone without removing that quote by Nick Tomnay which S0091 found to be "poorly sourced" and WP:UNDUE (BTW, I remain to be convinced of validity of those objections, what's wrong with citing a director's words from an interview about his film? 🙄) - for one thing, I don't want to be accused of making changes as wished by you or, even more laughably, paid by you.

=> ... obvious that twinkle does not like the film and wishes to influence this page to reflect her views. What I can do is report twinkle as a disruptive user if she persists pushing her own agenda here.

IMO, it was Twinkle1990's action, reverting the total of 13 revisions and citing violation against WP:RS as her reason for doing so - for which she was duly reprimanded by S0091 in this section of her Talk page - which led to all this malarkey. What she should have done was selective reversion of a specific revision which she found to be unreliably sourced - instead of reprimanding me later for citing IMDb as source (which I didn't do in the first place). 😟

👉 So perhaps it makes sense to appeal to S0091 to adjudicate on this issue? If the only issue with the article is its "Production" section (because of the film director's quote not being verifiable elsewhere) - then let's just remove that section and move on, eh?

P.S. Oh and by the way, Twinkle1990:

=> Also, check User talk:Szagory page, how they are craving for IBDb even after several warnings by numerous editors.

I've been accused by you already several times of trying to railroad references to IMDb into the article's text - and each time I tell you that it wasn't me. Just take a look at the last time that issue was raised on my Talk page - that was back in November 2023! How many times do you need to misattribute to me something that I haven't done? 👎

Take care, everyone,

Szagory (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

COI resolved, no evidence given. Please state evidence for it, otherwise it appears as vandalism. BlairThimper73 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Can someone take this over so I don't have to do it? I believe this COI will never be resolved because the intent is to sully /delegitimize the page, there is actually no conflict of interest, twinkle has been asked by three separate editors to show where this is occurring and cannot. Szagory has declared that he removed everything I have contributed, again, where is issue? BlairThimper73 (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI - I'm going to file a claim with admin to sort out BlairThimper73 (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Tags to use American English (Template:Use American English) and US date format (Template:Use mdy dates) added to article

Hi everyone,

I see from article's history that DoubleCross added tags "{use American English}" and "{use mdy dates}" yesterday:

=> https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=What_You_Wish_For&diff=1232205592&oldid=1232096480

According to WP:SPELLING, Commonwealth English spelling is just as valid and acceptable as US English spelling, although obviously one shouldn't mix the two spellings in the same paragraph side by side (or even worse, in the same sentence), for the sake of consistency.

But Wikipedia's manual of style first says this:

=> For any given article, the choice of date format and the choice of national variety of English are independent issues.

and then goes on to imply that it should be OK to add these tags:

=> either because of the first main contributor rule or close national ties (see MOS:NUM and MOS:SPELL).

=> Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

The film is obviously and undeniably an American production - but with most of its cast being non-American (Nick Stahl being the only one speaking with American accent in the film) and set in Latin America. And more importantly: first major contributor to the article is myself - I created that page, with all the spelling being obviously non-American in my text and with DD-MM-YYYY dates. And that's how I'd like the text to be - because with US spelling and dates, the text just can't be something written by me. 😟

So first of all, my request to user:DoubleCross and other editors is NOT to make such "corrections" unnecessarily, please (use of Commonwealth English spelling was, is, and will be intentional). 👎️

👉🏿 And secondly, I'm a bit hesitant to make any changes in the article's text (following all the faff with WP:COI last week) - but being the first major contributor, I'd like to remove those tags (or replace them with Template:Use dmy dates and Template:EngvarB or Template:Use British English).

Does anybody have any objections to my doing so?

Cheers, Szagory (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Having received no replies from anybody, I can only assume that there won't be any objections to my setting EngvarB as preferred variant of English and DD-MM-YYYY as preferred date format to be used in the article, what with me being first main contributor to the article, right? 😎

I don't want to undo that revision by user:DoubleCross - in fact, I find such "linguistic policing" rather misplaced and oppressive (why insist that other editors use the same spelling as you and "correct" other people's spelling when any article's text could be quickly reformatted with automated tools and scripts? And just imagine that people would start demanding that certain spelling variants and date formats be used purely on the basis of being the first person to put something like Template:Use American English in an article! 😗). But at the same time, it is the actions by DoubleCross in re-formatting all the spelling and dates in my original text of the article that force my hand now... 👎

Do let me know of any demurrers by posting your thoughts here in the next couple of hours, will you? I don't want to ruffle any feathers unnecessarily.

Cheerio,

Serge Z. (Szagory (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC))