User talk:Themashup

Welcome! I like to be chill and vibe.

Hello, Themashup, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Themashup, good luck, and have fun. PamD 07:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PamD 07:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated reversion ignoring existing talk page discussion

Please do not attempt to force your opinions on to articles when a talk page discussion on the matter has been started. If you have been reverted, you should either accept the lack of agreement for your action, or *you* should start a talk page discussion to put your point of view. If someone else has started such a discussion, then you should *never* continue to try to force your view onto the article(s) concerned. Please read WP:BRD if you are unclear on this. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, so if someone reverts then I would discuss that specific thing on a talk page. Gotcha. Wasn't sure if there was a talk page or if we discuss it there. Themashup (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial opinion

Statements like "was generally well-received" don't work well in the Wikipedia genre because it's your own opinion. Even if true, the reader can't trust it as true. And it's sufficiently vague as to have little meaning. If you were a regular named author in a magazine, people would understand you, your opinions. But in anonymous text, it doesn't work well. Better is be precise and state what everyone can agree is factually true eg. "was reviewed by the British press". -- GreenC 05:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks. Will just let the source speak for itself. Themashup (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve The Magician (Tóibín novel)

Hello, Themashup,

Thank you for creating The Magician (Tóibín novel).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

There appears to be three citations with the same title and publisher. Instead of using aggregators, you could use the original review (ex. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/31/books/review-magician-colm-toibin.html for the final quote)

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ARandomName123}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, those are two different sources, Book Marks and Bookmarks are different one is more of a RT and the other is a more of a MC that helps in getting the general idea of critical reception from a range of critics opinions. I just noticed, though, I used two sources for Bookmarks since one is the section on it with the critic reviews and the score representing critical opinion and another is it being mentioned showing the general score again which is not needed since the other source does that already so neated it up. Thank you for the feedback. Themashup (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Οἶδα

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Οἶδα (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unnecessary references

Please don't add sites like bibliosurf (which seems to simply aggregate ratings from blogs) and critics.gr (which appears to be a Greek commercial site with user-generated product reviews). Neither of these sites meet reliable sources criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliosurf has blogs? (not sure as I don't translate french but thought it did only media reviews, can you show me the blogs it uses or you don't have to I can go check.) Critics.gr has users I think add the reviews but manually checks them before hand to add press reviews but had trouble translating. Not sure regarding product reviews if you mean of cars or whatnot. Themashup (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of external links noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Book Marks

Here's a standardized template, {{Book Marks}}, that you can use for the critical reception section moving forward. This will help keep things consistent across articles and make the information clearer for readers. RT and MC have these types of templates for similar purposes.

The format looks something like this:

Per Book Marks, a website that aggregates critical reviews for literature from mainstream critics, the book received an overall "Positive" consensus rating based on 35 independent third-party assessments, including 16 "rave", 8 "positive", 8 "mixed", and 3 "pan" reviews. You can see it at Intermezzo.

Would you mind using this template from now on? It will make the review aggregator consensus reporting more uniform and improve the overall quality of the articles.

Thanks to your contributions so far! Create a template (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]