User talk:Lililolol

MOS:ORDER

Thank you for tagging articles for {{notability}} issues. I just wanted to let you know that (per MOS:ORDER) the {{short description}} should be the very first thing in an article, and maintenance tags should be placed below it. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PRODing

Hello Lililolol, thanks for proposing articles for deletion. When you PROD an article, please use the Template:Proposed deletion template instead of copying the expanded "proposed deletion/dated" template from your previous tags. This ensures that the PROD template has a correct timestamp. There are also other steps you should do that are listed at WP:PRODNOM: most importantly, leaving a clear edit summary that indicates you are PRODing the article, and ideally leaving a note on the article talk page and the page creator's talk page. If you use WP:TWINKLE for PRODing, all of that will be handled automatically.

Also, I removed the PROD tag from Angelina Fares because the existing sources appear to meet WP:GNG. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lililolol,

I came here to comment about PRODs, too, in this case, Kim Edri. Please follow Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Nominating which dictates leaving an accurate edit summary mentioning that you are nominating an article for a Proposed deletion and also notifying the article creator about the deletion tagging. Without doing this, the PROD tag can be removed by another editor or admin because the deletion taggind did not follow Wikipedia procedures.

I agree that the easiest way to handle on article tagging, whether for deletion (CSD, PROD or AFD) or just tagging problems in the article, is to use Twinkle. This user-friendly editing tool is used by patrollers and many admins like myself. Just make sure, in your Twinkle Preferences, that you check the box for "Notify page creator" and then Twinkle will post these notices to content creators on your behalf. It really simplifies the editing process and takes care of so many steps so you don't need to search for the right template. Give it a try! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One Direction at FAC

Hi there,

I am contacting you as you left a comment on the Peer Review for One Direction. The article is currently at Featured Article Candidacy, and I would appreciate further comments to be redirected there. The link is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/One Direction/archive2.

Thanks, jolielover♥talk 08:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Snow White (2025 film)

The article Snow White (2025 film) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Snow White (2025 film) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS Hi, I appreciate your feedback. Regarding the "Political views" section: these are undeniably part of the broader controversy. It’s not just an opinion — it has been reported since the film’s announcement. Ignoring that aspect makes the coverage seem less neutral. As for IMDb, the article only mentions that the movie page was flagged due to abnormal activity, and this was reported by The Independent so what is the problem?

Regarding Zegler's criticism of the film: yes, it is too long—but how exactly do you suggest trimming it down? Also, what about the numerous very short paragraphs consisting of only a sentence or two? In which sections, for example? Lililolol (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And about "projections on earnings are worthless trivia and can safely be removed," well, the article will be full of edit wars, like Zegler's comment about the original film; it was added after some editing wars. Lililolol (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with mentioning IMDb ratings is this was done in a way that made them sound more prominent than they actually are. It's not a professional collection of stances like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are. One-sentence paragraphs can be found at the end of "Plot" as well as within "Visual effects", "Marketing", "Reimagining of the Seven Dwarfs", "Zegler's criticism of the 1937 film", and the IMDb part. As for what Zegler didn't like about the animated version, you could try paraphrasing the spaced out quote, and I certainly don't see any need for what David Hand said or how The Daily Wire had plans for its own remake. I don't know why anybody would edit war over projections getting removed and have never understood why anybody thinks they're even remotely important (which is especially baffling to me once actual results are known), but it at best comes off as misguided to insist on including them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS " I don't know why anybody would edit war over projections getting removed and have never understood why anybody thinks they're even remotely important " Um, Idk; it had multiple discussions on the talk page even before the film's release. Lililolol (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those advocating for such inclusions shouldn't have done so. However much ends up being grossed and any records achieved through that should ideally be all one focuses on when it comes to earnings. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nxde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sample (song).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]