User talk:199.185.175.96

January 2024
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to List of Arizona State University alumni—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Materialscientist (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The Woman in the Window
Hi, I’m @Spectrallights. This message is in regards to edits you made at The Woman in the Window. In your, you removed a paragraph of reviews from the Reception section, with the reasoning it is "to ensure impartial POV." You did not explain how the inclusion of those reviews contributes to an impartial tone. The section generally contains reviews both negative and positive. The film got mostly negative reviews, as seen by its Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic score; thus more negative ones will tend to be cited. The paragraph also serves to support the assertion in the opening section that the film received mostly negative reviews (25% good reviews out of 217 overall is low, not mixed or average). If you think I made a mistake or have a question you can leave a message on my talk page. Spectrallights (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

AJ Finn / The Woman in the Window
You are vandalising verifiably true and referenced information to both of these pages, in order to paint the subject in a better light.

There is incorrect information in the version from before, such as claiming the Washington Post decided there was no plagiarism, in relation to the Denzil allegations. But that article was published BEFORE the New York Times made those Denzil claims. It was actually written about completely different plagiarism allegations, made in the New Yorker, and relating to the film Copycat.

The two quotes used to defend the author fail to declare conflicts of interest. Karin Slaughter worked directly with Mallory, which wasn't acknowledged in the previous version. Carlo Gébler's quotes were actually in relation to his own feud with the *author* of the New Yorker piece.

There was no acknowledgement that Denzil's book was released first, instead focusing on a single claim from an agent, who also has a direct financial interest in Mallory.

The old version is highly biased, and misleading.

This is not the first time you have done this - and any further vandalism will be reported to an administrator. Peterspeterson (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)