The Hollywood Reporter is not classified in Wikipedia as unreliable. You removed an entry on Keanu Reeves´ filmography page based on that the sourced article from THR was ¨unreliable¨. The publication is not a tabloid, nor is under serious question that its content is anything but trustworthy. Still, I added a second source from THR and an NBC article to further verify what had already been verifiably true. AGF, have a pleasant day. ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToNeverFindTheMets: Hi, I removed the television show as it was sourced to an unreliable ref which I have replaced. The other one was because the refs didn't show that it was in production, I should've been clearer. Thanks for adding the relevant ref for this. Hope you have a great day too Cowlibob (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The first and second sources both provided the relevant information redundantly, and the removal of the oldest is absolutely on par with wiki practice. Thank you kindly for cleaning that up. Relevantly, in the first place, the only definitive source to the film´s production being in the filming stages was a tabloid, and was not in any place for me to cite, but 20 or so minutes after your edit, NBC posted content, some of which was sourced reliably from a co-star in the film. ´Twas in the works, but my claim of it being currently filming was hanging by a thread! All is now right in the filmography of Keanu Reeves, thankfully. Have a splendid day, Cowlibob! ToNeverFindTheMets (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Re your edit summary comment, "too much sourcing to social media of the BLP.", there is some allowance for this i.e. WP:BLPSELFPUB. Jontel (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC) If you plan to make major changes to the article cf. your edit summary "article requires a lot of work", it would be sensible to discuss it on the article's talk page first.[reply]
Without getting heavy about this, these comments of yours in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faiza_Shaheen&oldid=1234283271 are really a misuse of the edit summary. This is indicated in WP:SUMMARYNO 'Avoid long summaries. Edit summaries are not for explaining every detail, writing essays about "the truth", or long-winded arguments with fellow editors. For discussions, you should use the talk page.' (My emphasis) and WP:REVTALK 'Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content.' Jontel (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if my edit summary was misinterpreted. I did not mean to denigrate your work on the article so don't feel offended. I am looking to help on this article as I've worked on similar BLPs before. The "lot of work" is more aspirational rather than commenting on its current state or previous work.Cowlibob (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies are required and I am not at all offended and did not misinterpret your edit summary. You are welcome to denigrate my work and I of course welcome your involvement in any article, especially given your experience. I am broadly content with the changes that you have already made to FS. I was just making the technical point that, if you wish to communicate general points about an article to other editors, that is always better done on the Talk page where it is more visible and where other editors can discuss them with you than in edit summaries, where they cannot i.e. WP:TALK 'The purpose of a page's associated talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss editing that page'. I appreciate that they might have been just passing remarks, but they are clearly highly significant for the article if they are expressions of intent. Jontel (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
