User talk:KyleJoan

Leave a message, and I'll get back to you. Cheers, Wikipedians!
-KyleJoan

Archives (Index)

2019/August 2019/September 2019/October 2019/November 2019/December 2020/January 2020/February 2020/March 2020/April 2020/May 2020/June 2020/July 2020/August 2020/September 1 2 0 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Your GA nomination of Kenny Omega

The article Kenny Omega you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Kenny Omega for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kenny Omega

The article Kenny Omega you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Kenny Omega 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 Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Bold Type

The article The Bold Type you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Bold Type for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Bold Type

The article The Bold Type you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Bold Type for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Lily Singh

Hi. Could you clarify the reason behind your edit on A Little Late with Lily Singh? The article claims that the reception of the show is overwhelmingly positive, while in fact it is not. Keivan.f^Talk 18:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: Hi there! A 100% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and the critical consensus on the website do signify the overwhelmingly positive critical reception you mentioned. Regarding public perception, the reasoning behind the lack of inclusion of the subject is located on the article's talk page. Cheers! KyleJoan 18:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Just following up on your recent edits on this page. I mentioned the MOS:TV which discusses how audience reception is to be detailed. I was merely trying to point out how my wording (and your revised wording) follows the MOS in not using user aggregate scores but still manages to convey viewership and rating changes, and thus audience reception. I admit I'm not a fan of viewership numbers without context as they are nigh meaningless, and not a very good indicator of audience reception. Cheers! --Chetanaik (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chetanaik: Ah, got it. Thank you for clarifying! I was confused at first because only the general MOS article was referenced so I wasn't sure which of the numerous sections was relevant. Cheers to you as well! KyleJoan 04:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Chvrches: Marshmello and Chris Brown altercation

Hello, I received your notification regarding the removal of the "Marshmello and Chris Brown altercation" section of the Chvrches page for which I have the following observations:

• I'm not sure which was the youtube citation, but the two links were pointing to two articles:

(66) https://pitchfork.com/news/chris-brown-attacks-chvrches-these-are-the-people-i-wish-walked-in-front-of-a-speeding-bus/ (67) https://www.youredm.com/2019/05/01/chvrches-security-police-threats/ which they also are containing further links to sources.

• I do not see a problem in pointing to a youtube video as a video citation as long as that video belongs to the official source which has the same chances to stay online as a written article. I understand the concerns in pointing to unverified channels which may vanish in any moment. But the same is happening with the articles when a site/company decides to clean-up their archive.
• I looked up for synonyms of "altercation" before restoring the section and this word seemed to present better the essence of what happened than "quarrel" or "wrangle".
• I could agree that a section of its own maybe is too much, but I'm also taking into account that this episode had and still has an important role in "band's life". In many Chvrches' interviews can be heard echoes of this incident and reading this section while it was published, clarified me at that time the meaning of those statements. So I see a value in being able to read this information by someone else.

As conclusion, just simply removing any reference to this episode as it never existed I think is not the best approach. In the end, it presents a picture of two different worlds (abusers and those who take a stand against them), picture that is "painted" by the owners of those statements and which reveal their views and who they are. Based on your experience, if you have proposals about how it would be better to maintain the essence of this section and still present it on page, I'm happy to follow your recommendations. Awolker (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Awolker

@Aweolker: I apologize about the Youtube comment. It was a situation regarding another article that I inadvertently brought to the Chvrches edit summary. That aside, Neither Pitchfork nor Your EDM is a reliable source per WP:RSP, therefore, neither source helps the notability of the subject matter, which would mean that adding the content does not adhere to WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. I recommend opening a discussion on the article's talk page about the information in general, and if not enough editors find the discussion, then I'm happy to open a request for comment, which facilitates a broader forum with more experienced editors. Thank you! KyleJoan 12:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: No big deal about this. I'll leave it as it is. Meantime, I created this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Love_is_Dead_Tour and I considered appropriate to notify you as you are already familiarized with the subject.--Awolker (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Awolker

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abby Huntsman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello KyleJoan: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

@Fylindfotberserk: Thank you very much! Very kind of you. Happy holidays to you as well! KyleJoan^talk 05:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You are most welcome. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Your recent editing history at Charlie's Angels (2019 film) 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toddst1 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, KyleJoan!

Happy New Year!

KyleJoan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

@Fylindfotberserk: You are very sweet. Have yourself a wonderful new year as well! KyleJoan 10:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Presenting false history on LGBTQ sexuality

Your false interpretation of Ronan’s public life is counter to reliable sources, and history.

It’s fairly ridiculous to argue Ronan never claimed he was in the closet because that’s not how it works as a rule. People come out as LGBTQ, generally to friends, possibly family, then, if a public figure, they come out in the media in some way. You may have a unique belief system on how people should identify their sexuality but that is not Wikipedia’s policy. We go by reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fresh Off the Boat

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fresh Off the Boat you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fresh Off the Boat

The article Fresh Off the Boat you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Fresh Off the Boat for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fresh Off the Boat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fresh Off the Boat

The article Fresh Off the Boat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fresh Off the Boat for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Rare (Selena Gomez album) and WP:A/S

Hi. Regarding your edit summaries on Rare (Selena Gomez album) and citing WP:A/S, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources explicitly states in its lead that it is "not exhaustive" (emphasis the page's own, and nor could it ever hope to be) and that it is "merely a collection of suggestions, and other good sources may exist". I'm sure your upkeep of the article is appreciated by some, but you do not need to remove or excise every source that is not listed at WP:A/S. And yes, while when we have enough sources in the ratings box we should include the most notable, removing publications that are "not known" for their music reviews or coverage is not necessary when there's not even 10 reviews yet. I am restoring Slant Magazine to the ratings box, because you have no valid reason for removing it other than an anecdotal, selective view of whatever album articles you peruse that "it is not usually listed in the ratings box". I edit album articles every day, and I see it regularly listed by editors who are more experienced in the area of critical reviews and what the criteria for including them is than yourself. Slant reviewed the album, gave it a numerical score and they are a notable publication; that is enough criteria for inclusion. Again, I'm saying please do not continue to remove sources as you see fit from album articles if they are not listed at A/S. The list does not instruct us to do so, nor is this a common thing to do. If you have concerns about a source's reliability, please take it up at WP:RSN. A source's reliability, unless an example of something listed at a policy or guideline page, is not to be unofficially decided in subjective removals by editors. Thank you. Ss112 03:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ss112: Hi there, Ss112! Thank you for your message. I own that the Slant review removal was purely subjective. I was premeditatively thinking about future reviews that I believed would be more appropriate in the ratings box, and that was my mistake. I also wanted to clarify something that you responded to in one of your edit summaries (i.e., There is also no criterion that explicitly states if a publication is not dedicated to music that makes it unfit for inclusion). I've never stated that only publications dedicated to music are fit for inclusion; my original statement was to justify the removal of reviews by Nylon and Paper magazine. The Nylon review, specifically, was written by a columnist who has only written said review and nothing else for the publication, therefore, not only is Nylon not known for its music reviews, the reviewer themselves is not known for reviewing music/as a music critic for the publication or anywhere. In this situation, would it be appropriate to remove the review? I'd also like to ask if it's appropriate to place a review score in the ratings box when review itself is not referenced/quoted in prose anywhere in the section. Thanks again!

Edit: I found that the Nylon reviewer has extensively written music-related articles for the Fader, so I was wrong on that as well. I guess I'm now wondering when it is appropriate to remove reviews. If there are 45 reviews in a section, and they all hail from decidedly reliable sources, would the article retain all 45 reviews? Please pardon my incessant questioning! KyleJoan 04:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine to place a review score in the box if it's not in the prose of the section. Many users do this after they find a review of the album. We don't always need accompanying prose for that specific review, but as the section gets more detailed, generally most reviews in the template will be featured in the prose. As for "45 reviews in a section", that would be overkill for any album, even albums that are considered cultural landmarks. We would definitely need to keep only the essentials if the number of reviews included in the article even got anywhere near that, but I'm sure we probably wouldn't even get to half that figure before most bases and general opinions would be covered. We certainly wouldn't have 45 reviews in Template:Album ratings, as that template's documentation and MOS:ALBUM explicitly state to not list more than 10 review scores in it. Ss112 15:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, got it. I'll keep that in mind the next time I edit a reception section. Thank you so much again, Ss112! KyleJoan 16:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Omega

Please, change the lead. The WWE part induce to error. "Omega has also performed as part of larger national and international promotions, such as WWE and Ring of Honor," looks like he worked in WWE main roster. 1, he only was part of WWE farm territory DSW, he didn't work for WWE any match and that's more accurate. Not including a brand leaves a huge grey area. Somebody who doesn't know Omega would think he worked in the main roster like Kofi Kingston or The Miz. In that way, it's more accurate, not overlyspecifyc. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: Starting an RfC now. Feel free to chime in on that discussion. In the meantime, please self-revert per WP:STATUSQUO. Thanks. KyleJoan 09:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Man, I think this is to far. It's just a small change in the lead to make it more accurate. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe the version prior to your change was accurate as well, hence, the RfC. Thanks for responding to the survey there as well. KyleJoan 10:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

PWB

		The Professional Wrestling Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions on wrestling articles and being a outstanding and productive member of WP:PW. Also, great job on getting the Kenny Omega to GA status. Enjoy this barnstar. DTH89(sexy talk page) 6:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@DTH89: That's very kind of you. Thank you very much! KyleJoan 09:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Fresh Off the Boat

On 30 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fresh Off the Boat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Fresh Off the Boat is the longest-running Asian-American family sitcom in television history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fresh Off the Boat. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fresh Off the Boat), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

That's wonderful! Thank you very much for the notification, Cas Liber. KyleJoan 12:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Omega

Please, stop with this pointles discussion. The farm territory is included in every article, GA and FA too. You started a discussion and, after two weeks, just two users gave their opinions, which support my edition. No more people is gonna gave more opinions, so I ended the request manually, since there is no min/max time. I think people has spoken and prefer the farm terrotory version. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Ending RfC "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration". As I said, 10 days since the last comment, looks like consensus and no-one cares about the edition. For me, the discussion is over and there is no need to wait 20 more days --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: The article also states: Anyone who wants to have more comments on the topic can restart an RfC that has ended, as long as the discussion has not been closed. I'd like more comments, and the discussion has not been closed. Thanks for understanding. KyleJoan 16:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You want more coments, but people dont speak. You can try and ask for coments in the project, again. But serious, this is a very minimal edition which matches with every other articl we have. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Minimal or not, I've cited multiple guidelines to support my view. KyleJoan 17:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

And I cited mines and other users gave their opinion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Continued WP:WIKISTALKING

What high do you get in constantly undermining my edits? You have been warned by another user to not WP:WIKISTALK me, and stay away from pages in which our contributions might overlap, but here we are again. If you keep at this, I will have no other option other than requesting a Wikipedia:Interaction ban. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Krimuk2.0. Thank you for your message. I do not get any kind of high from constantly undermining your edits; in fact, I do not personally care about your editing activities in the slightest. I just saw Birds of Prey and thought it would be helpful to edit articles relating to the film, such as the film's article itself, Margot Robbie, and Rosie Perez. I only learned that it was you who added the Rotten Tomatoes link as well as the two reviews following it after you sent me this message. Regarding this statement (i.e., You have been warned by another user to not WP:WIKISTALK me . . .), would you be so kind to direct me to the warning you referenced? Regarding editing articles in which our contributions might overlap, I first edited the Margot Robbie article on December 24, 2016, so to insinuate that I've been WIKISTALK-ing you is a reach at best. Maybe it's time to have a read of WP:OWN? KyleJoan 10:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Guettarda wrote, "But I think it displays especially bad judgment for KyleJoan to show up at the Laura Dern article. Between that and your repeated posts to Krimuk2.0's talk page, I think it's reasonable for Krimuk2.0 to take issue. My advice to both of your is to disengage. Stop reverting, stay away from one another, and definitely don't look at the other's contributions." That was for Dern, and since then you have done the same at Pugh and Robbie's pages. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: My advice to both of your is to disengage. Stop reverting, stay away from one another, and definitely don't look at the other's contributions. This was definitely aimed at me and only me, especially the part where they said both of you. Thank you for indulging me in directing me to this message. That was for Dern, and since then you have done the same at Pugh and Robbie's pages. You think I began editing Florence Pugh's article and continued editing Robbie's article to WIKISTALK you? Here's the thing. You can believe what you want to believe about why I edit the pages that I edit, but if my activities are disrupting the articles, then why not report me? I removed the Rotten Tomatoes link–without knowing that it was you who added it–because it didn't verify the statement preceding it. If I was wrong in doing so, how come you didn't blanket revert my edits and label them unconstructive? It's becoming more and more clear that you have a personal issue with me no matter whether my edits are productive. I was fine with us not engaging each other after our disagreement over the Chalamet article, which was solved by the RfC, but here you are on my talk page making accusations. Wasn't it you who said that you come here to make constructive edits? What do you say we each go back to doing that? KyleJoan 10:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to keep making constructive edits, as should do. But please stop targeting my edits and undoing them. If there are deliberate errors in them, then yes, go ahead and inform me of it because it must have been a mistake, but otherwise, please try and maintain WP:GOODFAITH. Believe it or not, I'm here to improve Robbie's article, Pugh's article, Chalemet's article, and many other articles. As I have for 11 featured articles in the past. And it becomes incredibly difficult to do so when someone keeps picking at my edits because it's not exactly how they want it to be. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to keep making constructive edits . . . Believe me when I say this, Krimuk2.0: I recognize the good work that you do. I just don't care for the accusations. I've stated before that if my edits were incorrect, please undo them, but please don't dismiss them simply because I was the editor that included/removed the materials. Believe it or not, I'm here to improve Robbie's article, Pugh's article, Chalemet's article, and many other articles. I would appreciate it if you could acknowledge that I'm here to do the same. As I have for 11 featured articles in the past. Congrats on this. And it becomes incredibly difficult to do so when someone keeps picking at my edits because it's not exactly how they want it to be. Once again, I'm not seeing how I did this, especially in relation to the Robbie article. Regarding the review from theWrap, since we're disagreeing on it, I'll start an RfC to once again exhibit good faith and respect in the deliberation process. Thanks. KyleJoan 11:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

See, exactly this. You really can't just move on from a minor disagreement. You must start an RFC and prove yourself right otherwise the world will crumbie, no? You might thrive on such negativity, but I do not. Also, your selective memory is staggering. You removed the LA Times and inserted the Wrap review, because you somehow like it more. But will your RFC mention that? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

As for "I would appreciate it if you could acknowledge that I'm here to do the same." No you are not. If you were, you would be improving the other sections which actually do need improvement, and which I haven't gotten to work on as yet. You clearly only "worked" on the sentences which I added. So yes, your charitable editing is very clear. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You must start an RFC and prove yourself right otherwise the world will crumbie, no? I don't look at editing as being right and wrong. Maybe you do, but I look for accuracy and efficiency, as in what reviews would be the most accurate and efficient. You removed the LA Times and inserted the Wrap review, because you somehow like it more. But will your RFC mention that? Yes, it will! Thank you for reminding me. No you are not. Then report me for not contributing constructively. You were already thinking it. KyleJoan 11:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

LOL. "accuracy and efficiency" is only reflected by your favourite reviews, innit? I have no interest in reporting anyone (unlike you I do not like wasting other people's time by filing useless RFCs and reports), but I will file an interaction ban if you keep doing this again. And that's only because you refuse to walk away from conflict. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

And that's only because you refuse to walk away from conflict. I don't look at my interactions with you as a conflict. We're having a disagreement that is probably going to be solved by the RfC, so until then, keep it moving, friend. Cheers! KyleJoan 11:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you will waste the time of many other editors because you refuse to walk away from "disagreement". xD. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm walking away now, actually. Before we part, I would like to thank you for teaching me the art of not wasting time by responding to the exact thing that you said would be wasting people's time! I thoroughly enjoy our conversations, Krimuk2.0. All the best to you! KyleJoan 11:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Learnt from the best, Kyle. See, we teach each other so much. Much wow. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laura Dern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Credits

You are the first person I have ever seen who doesn't know what end credits mean. Moreover, you think that there should be a discussion about this. Does your easily verifiable information also state "any order will have to do when the rest is unclear"? Did you even watch the film? Please read the article fully, and also WP:FILMCAST. --−αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 15:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: Since I'm clearly not understanding, please inform me of what end credits mean. KyleJoan 15:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have found the beggining of the full cast end credits for you: [1]

That certainly conflicts with the end credits scene. Now what? KyleJoan 16:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't, if you had actually seen the film you would've known that after this video's ending, the cast list and other credits lists appear until the mid-credits scene in which Elena Houghlin gets an Angels tattoo. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 16:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: You were right about a discussion not being required for this. I fixed the cast order and gave you credit in the edit summary. Have a nice day! KyleJoan 16:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oliver Jackson-Cohen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lyric Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

please look at info on wallace talk page

1) U reposted her birthdate after I removed it because there was no source supporting it. One of your sources supports month and day, but there is nothing supporting the year. Please tell me where the year is in your link or remove it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nicolle_Wallace#Her_birth_year

2) Also, thanks for removing all of the info regarding her divorce and dating. Her dating info was in the same source as the divorce so it wasn't from any left field. Did some digging and almost all (found a couple that were unique) refer back to pagesix which is part of ny post and using the info u shared it's usefulness is not certain. Out of curiosity her husband's page (or ex husband) has the same info. Should it be removed too?

3) Please add back the In Trump We Trust. That is taken directly from her nbc bio page. If she, and/or NBC felt it was important enough to be on her bio page, then regardless of the # of hits it deserves to be on wiki. Also her bio stated it was a series, so who am I, or U, to decide it's not?

4) On amicus I didn't find her name when I originally searched.

5) Also I saw on the page history that there was a lot of back and forth regarding her child. I don't remember if you were adding or removing, but her nbc bio page has the info on her child. It's a son name Liam. I'll leave you to add it in so there aren't too many cooks with this broth.

thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikethewhistle-original (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mikethewhistle-original: I understand you're excited about editing, but please take some time to familiarize yourself with guidelines so that you don't have to constantly ask for explanations. I'd like to be helpful, but I don't appreciate being constantly confronted as if there is something wrong with my editing activities.

1) I added an article from theWrap that states she was 43 in July 2015. You do the math.

2) I don't edit her husband's article, so I can't make suggestions on it.

3) WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. The segment, called "In Trump We Trust," which launched last month, features political analyst Nicolle Wallace interviewing voters in counties that had previously voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama to understand the factors that impacted their vote for Trump and what they expect from his administration. If "In Trump We Trust" is a series, then how come there's no mention of it on the NBC News's article under its programming section? Moreover, the bio also states her dogs' names. Should we add those as well?

4) Maybe take this as a learning lesson to fully comprehend something before adding/removing it.

5) Non-notable children's names (i.e., people without articles) don't have to be mentioned per WP:BLPNAME.

Now please do some reading and interact with other editors to gain a better sense of the editing process. KyleJoan 14:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll sigh too. Trust me done tons reading and I thank you for the helpful info as it's lead to even more things to read. (I've been very polite because my goal it to make wiki better and conform, but several of your comments are obviously backhanded slaps. I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that. Also in light of your above comment regarding you "don't edit her husbands page" implies that because you edit her page you have some sort of ownership over it. You don't and that might be why you take things so personally and why you undo so many others' edits.) Some particulars: 1) (You added the link for thewrap while I was writing to you. It was not part of what I had available at the time.) I can do math, but this assumes that the source did the math correctly. I'll look again, but on a first pass I didn't find any other source giving confirmation and your source isn't considered 100% reliable. 2)Guess this is where it comes to trying to make wiki better for all. Having this "couples" info be different is not for the best. But I'll address it elewhere as my goal is to make wiki accurate, consistent, and good for all. 3) On this one I disagree because it's on her official bio page and I consider it informative. I'll bounce this to either the talk page or seek out additional help from other sources based on the link you provided. I'll through it to the talk page and if it doesn't get any traffic I'll escalate it up to the next level. 4) Again, please stop with the ugliness. You have erred things you posted and I wasn't ugly about them. No reason you should be ugly to me. 5) Having relooked, you removed multiple times a user trying to add son. (I only included the name because it was there, and if from a reliable source blp doesn't exclude it). In any case I was trying to address the child's sex because I had seen it be an issue between you and another user.

After the above, I shan't bother you unless you undo more stuff of mine that doesn't seem to make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikethewhistle-original (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:BLPNAME. What you state is not part of that cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikethewhistle-original (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Britt Baker

Today, I edited an article on Britt Baker‘s article. I only added about her development on her heel turn because there was not enough details about her heel turn, so I added the information to do something about it. However, I was very surprised that you removed the information that I worked hard on the sources I found. Fine, you removed the sources on the article that I added because it’s considered unreliable. But can please you at least amend the words that I previously added on the article,

Hey there, Timmy96. I apologize if the reasoning for my removal of some of the materials was unclear. The description regarding Baker being rude to Ross and Schiavone is unnecessary due to the existence of the detail of her berating Schiavone the exact sentence prior; it is also poorly sourced. The detail regarding the heel turn taking place following the four-way match is also superfluous because it falls into the week-by-week format. The loss to Sakazaki being her first following her heel turn is WP:SYNTH, as it is not in the source. It also falls into the week-by-week format if the loss does not result in a feud with Sakazaki. Hope that clears it up! Cheers! KyleJoan 05:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

First, whether you choose to believe it or not, I appreciate your discussion on Goldberg's page. Your input and good points as I was composing a reply, convinced me it belongs elsewhere where I'm sure we will have some discussion as well. Before I made some other comments, Can you help find an image to go on Nicolle Wallace's page? I can only find 4 and only one could possibly be used but it's not ideal although absent any other it will have to suffice. Incidentally, I found another source for her divorce that I think may be a questionable reliability but have thrown it out for discussion to get feedback.

On Goldberg's page, there is a problem when, as even you said Goldberg makes comments all the time (that's why even I record and often watch the show), that there are none for a decade. There are definitely comments she's made worthy of inclusion during that time. The fact that all but one are her defending rape and advocating posting nude photos of unconsenting individuals I actually see as a problem because to me that portrays her negatively. (That's why I removed what was a negative comment towards her with respect to the slim-fast issue). Why are there no other types of positions that she's taken in the View section (there are also scant mentions of positions in other sections)? Like it or not, she has become a political commentator, and this country is in a perilous time with an election year, pandemic at our door, and a President that makes many flatly wrong statements (although that's every politician as well to be honest, eg Sanders pro-Cuban statements-which I grew up with people that fled Cuba and had relatives that simply disappeared.)

BTW in case you didn't see my thanks with respect to Megan McCain's page removing the war hero descriptor. It was frankly instinctive to say that because I'm a Navy vet and had the honor to met Sen McCain a lot of years ago when I was at Bethesda Naval Hosp. You made me actually relook at his page and there are 2-3 contrary comments on his page with respect to the word hero. Anyone who knows his story and sacrifice would never question his honor.

Thanks again and please put a pic on Wallace page if you can find one. I'm trying to do some reading about ok sources to use here and put one up. TCMikethewhistle-original (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

please stop undoing all my edits

You are with a vengence just undoing all my edits. You have a history of edit issues (warring). Please stop. Please take appropriate issues to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikethewhistle-original (talk • contribs) 04:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mikethewhistle-original: Please take a look at WP:BRD. Bold. Revert. Discuss? Thanks. KyleJoan 05:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

As an example of what I believe is bad faith, you deleted from another user based on "Restored. Huntsman wanting to come back is only notable if she does." but when I delete for the exact same reason goldberg's st:picard you say because she said it it's good enough. Why was huntsman saying it not good enough until she does it BUT it's good enough for goldberg. To me this is contradictory.

You do the same thing against many other editors. I have tried in good faith to converse, and be cooperative, but you make changes, do a cite, and are dogmatic upon it. I'll wait your response before I take this to dispute resolution because I'd have to count, but I think you also violate the 3rr on me. This will also give me an op to cool down because I'll be honest, you have me steamed under my collar because no matter what edits I do you act like, and have actually said, that it's your pages. Wiki is a community and you don't own any pages. Just because someone else makes a change does not mean it's bad. If you rather than simply undoing and reverting actually tried to be cooperative it would be different. 05:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikethewhistle-original (talk • contribs)

Incidentally please read WP:GOODFAITH. Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Also "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement." This is the core of my issue. You only undo, revert, remove other's edits (there are many discussions on your talk page regarding this). The discussion above is why I believe you need to re-examine good faith. But I am very curious to your response regarding the goldberg-picard and huntsman-view discrepancy because that will tell me whether we have a very strong disagreement that discussion might be able to resolve or if you simply undo other people's edits. TYMikethewhistle-original (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

please explain why you did this revert

You constantly undo/revert other users changes. I have to admit that some are 100% spot on, but many are not, and others are simply what seems to be a desire to have a page look/contain info based on your perspective alone. I've attempted to engage you to achieve a resolution without success. I've drafted a complaint that if I count correctly you violated the 3rr, but I still have hope that perhaps we can reach an accord. I'd like to ask why you undid the change I did to Whoopi_Goldberg#Entrepreneurship. This change kept all information, shortened the length of the section, and tightened references; but obviously you disagreed. Rather than talking about it, you simply reverted it, as you did many other edits. I look forward to hearing back from you, but if I don't hear back I may go ahead and submit the issue. Thanks.

Mine

Goldberg launched and co-founded of Whoopi & Maya in April 2016, a company that makes medical cannabis products for women seeking relief from menstrual cramps. Goldberg says she was inspired to go into business by "a lifetime of difficult periods and the fact that cannabis was literally the only thing that gave me relief".

VERSUS

Existing

Goldberg is co-founder of Whoopi & Maya, a company that makes medical cannabis products for women seeking relief from menstrual cramps. Goldberg says she was inspired to go into business by "a lifetime of difficult periods and the fact that cannabis was literally the only thing that gave me relief". The company was launched in April 2016.

Incidentally, I do not feel as if I am a party of one. I have received thanks from other users from the posts here on your board, so I don't believe I'm the only one that feels as if you revert too quickly. Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mikethewhistle-original: I would love to. Launching a business and co-founding a business are two different things. Per the sources you cited, the company was launched in April 2016, but the announcement made in March 2016 stated that it was a company that Goldberg's co-founded (as in it has existed), so there's already a discrepancy there. Stating the company was co-founded in April 2016 is outright false. Now please stop harassing me. You can go ahead and file the report if you'd like to do so. Thanks. KyleJoan 04:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

References

thanks but two people disagree with you

i was changing it back to what another editor also had, so 2 people want it vs you alone. I'll throw it on the talk page but right now i'll be changing it back unless there's opinions that it should not be. It is a direct quote and that complies with all wiki guidance. I'm not new, I just lost my account password. have a good one.ImUglyButPrettyUgly (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@ImUglyButPrettyUgly: . . . what another editor also had . . . Ah, yes, 66.28.50.15. I'm not new, I just lost my account password. I kinda have an idea of who this is. Also, if you're not new, you should be familiar with WP:BRD. KyleJoan 10:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

3rr violation

As I understand it, you violated the 3rr rule on Nia Jax. I'd like to ask that you reverse the changes you made. If you chose not to, I'll make a complaint because I believe your actions are unwarranted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HailMarryGoLong (talk • contribs) 00:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems you violated this on another page as well. Lose You To Love Me.

Please realize that wikipedia is a community of everyone, not a community of one. You must allow others to contribute even if you disagree.