User talk:Iwannarightelle

This is Iwannarightelle's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emille Joson has been accepted

Emille Joson, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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!

Astra Travasso (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Your recent editing history at Draft:Adivino (2011) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I sincerely apologize and now fully understand the guidelines. Thank you for the clarification. I have already revised the draft and included proper citations from reliable news outlets in both the Philippines and the U.S. (news outlets for the Filipino-American community). I assure you this will not happen again. I hope the updated article now meets Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you and forgive me for my behavior now as I encounter lots of rude reviewers behavior today.

Iwannarightelle (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I assessed the sources that you cited in the draft in the table below:

Source assessment table
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://entertainment.inquirer.net/23401/mmff-unveils-entries-in-indie-and-shorts-sections/amp	Only a mention	✘ No
https://mb.com.ph/2024/4/5/filmmaker-emille-joson-a-voice-for-generation-of-women	Not enough	✘ No
https://tribune.net.ph/amp/story/2025/05/03/behind-the-spell-emille-josons-bold-casting-in-adivino		✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

As you can see, the sources currently cited are not enough to establish notability. Please cite more in-depth, independent, reliable sources. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I’ve now revised the article. So far, the Daily Tribune (Philippines) is the only source with a dedicated feature on Adivino, the other established news outlet articles primarily focus on Emille Joson's success. However, I’ve heard that behind-the-scenes interviews from other news outlets are in the works including a exclusive DVD release. For now, I hope this version meets Wikipedia’s standards. Iwannarightelle (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:Adivino (2011). Stop removing previous reviews KylieTastic (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’d like to sincerely apologize for my earlier actions. I let my frustration get the better of me and made poor editing choices, including removing review comments that I should have left intact. I now fully understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative space and that those reviews are part of the process. I won’t repeat the same mistake and will take a step back from editing the draft until I’ve gathered enough independent, reliable sources. Thank you for the reminder and your patience. Iwannarightelle (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Iwannarightelle, it is understandable people get frustrated and happy to fully accept the apology. If you manage to find more source their will be no problem with starting again. Take a break, do something fun and come back in your own time. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your kindness and understanding. I truly appreciate your patience, and I’ll definitely take your advice to heart. I’ll take a short break for a while, look for stronger sources, and come back with a clearer mind. Looking forward to contributing again when the time is right. Warm regards too. Iwannarightelle (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adivino (2011) (June 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sophisticatedevening was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Adivino (2011) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 18:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iwannarightelle! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 18:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adivino (2011) (June 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rambley was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

A minimum of three reliable sources are needed to establish notability, although more are preferred.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Adivino (2011) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rambley (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adivino (2011) (June 15)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by KylieTastic was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Clearly you have no intension of even trying at this point

KylieTastic (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest: Emille Joson

Hello, Iwannarightelle. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Emille Joson, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Vegantics (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for the reminder. I understand Wikipedia’s guidelines regarding conflicts of interest, and I respect the importance of neutrality and reliable sourcing. I will be more mindful moving forward and will limit any direct edits. I’ll make suggestions on the talk page instead if needed, and will let third-party editors take the lead. My goal is simply to ensure accurate and well-sourced information. Appreciate your guidance! Iwannarightelle (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Emille Joson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emille Joson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emille Joson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Vegantics (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for opening this discussion. I understand and respect Wikipedia’s guidelines regarding notability, reliable sourcing, and conflict of interest (COI). I acknowledge that I have a COI with this topic, and I will no longer make direct edits to the article.

However, I would like to point out that the subject has received significant and independent coverage from reliable sources, such as:

Escuadro, Kiko (November 5, 2024). "Award-winning filmmaker Emille Joson expresses heartfelt gratitude to ABS-CBN". ABS CBN News.
Escuadro, Kiko (May 4, 2025). "Behind the Spell: Emille Joson's bold casting in 'Adivino'". Philippine Daily Tribune.
"Emille Joson turns style into social storytelling". Manila Standard. December 2, 2024.
"Emille Joson talks about filmmaking, success and 'Adivino'". LionhearTV. April 20, 2024.

These sources go beyond trivial mentions and provide coverage of Joson’s filmmaking, public impact, and professional recognition. They meet the standard of reliable, independent reporting as required by WP:RS and WP:GNG. If there are promotional or non-neutral parts in the article, I’m fully supportive of neutral editors revising it accordingly.

I appreciate everyone’s time and efforts, and I welcome constructive feedback for improving—not deleting—the article. Thank you. Iwannarightelle (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iwannarightelle. Thank you for your reply and I will address your comments later in the deletion discussion. As a matter of facilitating the process, you should consider editing the deletion discussion to remove your duplicate comment and include a bolded recommendation for an outcome (presumably Keep). I realize we are on opposite sides of the discussion, so I want to emphasize that this is purely a polite suggestion and is entirely your choice. You can learn more about deletion discussion formatting here: WP:AFDFORMAT. Vegantics (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iwannarightelle. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iwannarightelle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for your message. I understand the concern regarding multiple accounts and sincerely apologize for any confusion or disruption this may have caused. I’d like to clarify that while I did create multiple accounts, it was not my intention to deceive or manipulate consensus. I was simply trying to support a biographical article about a filmmaker whose work I believed was notable and verifiable through reliable sources such as ABS-CBN and the Daily Tribune. I now recognize that this was not the appropriate approach, and I should have participated in discussions transparently through one account.

I am requesting to be unblocked and would be grateful for the opportunity to contribute constructively, within the guidelines, and using a single account only. I am also open to mentorship or watchlisting if needed, and I commit to full transparency moving forward. Thank you for considering my request. Iwannarightelle (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)`[reply]

Decline reason:

It wasn't your "intention to manipulate consensus"? You were bludgeoning the Articles for deletion/Emille Joson discussion with three different accounts! What do you call that, if not manipulation?

You may be able to get yourself unblocked, but at least do us the courtesy of starting with an honest appeal. (And please don't use AI to compose your appeals, we want to hear from you, not from some algorithm.) DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Iwannarightelle (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]