User talk:KyleJoan/Archives/0

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Keke Palmer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ABC

Sara Haines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ABC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Re:List of WWE Personnel

The reason why I reverted your edits is because Taynara Conti is her full Ring name and WWE has her name as so on their website. The source you used comes from a wrestling news site where the writer uses her first name only.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The citations, I thought, was working just fine. If you were just completing them, I'm sorry for removing them. Back to Taynara, I see your point. But why WWE.com still have her under her full Ring name?--Keith Okamoto (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

AEW vs. NXT

WWE extending NXT duration to two hours airing opposite to NXT is highly significant and relevant. Please do not remove it based on personal views. Discuss why you feel it is irrelevant compared to other information on the History of WWE article talk page first. Also all source provided here were reliable compared to most other material on the article which do not have proper sourcing. This is something agreed by actual pro wrestling sources cited in WP:RS, you removing it is original research. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Omega AEW

Do you have a WP: or a MOS link to provide for this edit? Recently an editor added abbreviations to the leads of like 100 wrestlers and I am no questioning if that was okay to do. I think the abbreviations are important for examples like this: "Jay Lethal is currently signed to Ring of Honor" and then later in the lead it would sat "He is a two-time ROH World Champion, two-time TNA Champion, etc." If the (ROH) does not appear after Ring of Honor I feel like it could confuse people not as familiar with wrestling as we are. I also think AEW and TNA are the more common names for All Elite Wrestling and Total Nonstop Action, giving them more reason to be included in leads next to the company name. StaticVapor message me! 15:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kenny Omega

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kenny Omega 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 Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Bold Type 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 Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on the article for GA review, Kingsif! KyleJoan 08:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lose You to Love Me, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Truth Hurts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:19, 24 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)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 31 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)

Dragula

Hey there, just wanted to drop a message here as I'd like to gather other editors opinions about a certain matter going on over at the The Boulet Brothers' Dragula page, more specifically with different perspectives with a color template and note. I have made a section on the articles talk page regarding this issue, allowing other editors to give their opinions on the matter. Seeing as we've had a little history of different perspectives that have come to a positive mutual conclusion on the Total Divas page, I would like to hear from you and I would value your opinion greatly. Thank you! MSMRHurricane (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Reminder

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! TheHotwiki (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The Real Housewives of New York City

Since you always seem want to have the final say in the article of The Real Housewives of New York City. First, by declaring width size in wikitables for absolutely no reason. Second, using you personal assumption as a reason to your edits. Third, making the section look like a newspaper article when you've already been told that this is an encyclopedia. Please read Read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And also

Your recent editing history 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. TheHotwiki (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: It sounds like I've been exhibiting chronic, intractable behavior. Would you like to report me to ANI for edit warring? Here is the link if you are inclined. If not, I'll keep editing according to WP:CS and add appropriate citations. Cheers!

P.S. I read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and it states: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable sources and objectivity. Thank you very much for referring me to the guideline that supports the notion that citing three reliable sources to confirm the cast for the series' twelth season is both neutral and objective. I'm glad we are in agreement!

Correction: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper is not even a guideline, so as of right now, a total of 0 guidelines have been cited in support of your reverts. Here are some guidelines that support mine:

• The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The material is supported by three inline citations.
• Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. The cast list is not a rumor; it is factual information.
• In subsequent sections dealing with real-world information, their surname should be used. The returning cast members listed in the article are listed by their surnames.

Anything else? KyleJoan^talk 12:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate Behavior

Please stop casually addressing me on pages where it's clearly inappropriate. There is no need for a "welcome back" from you to me written on The Real Housewives of New York's Revision History Page, (*side note...I never left). If you need to send a message related to editing, please do so where that kind of thing belongs. Definitely not on a reality show's Revision History page, and just to note there wasn't even a revision made. You already know I have no interest in engaging with you on a personal level, so stop baiting me to get a reaction, this is the only time I'm going to address this with you.

@AnAudLife: I understand you have no interest in engaging me, so much so that you reverted the addition of three sources, which does not adhere to WP:BRD and WP:V, and not to mention specifically reached out to two editors with whom I have had disagreements. Your disinterest in my editing endeavors is very clear. Welcome back indeed! KyleJoan 04:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not just your editing, it's your aggressive behavior towards pages that interest you and any editor that dares to change those pages. Your interaction with me and other editors is problematic. Please limit your interaction with me to editing, I'm not interested in your greetings and little personal messages to me here and there. AnAudLife (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@AnAudLife: I don't know how many more times I can state that WP:ANI is available for you to report my problematic behavior. If you feel that an ANI report is unwarranted, then let's continue to have productive discussions. Cheers to you! KyleJoan 05:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. AnAudLife (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Half Million Award for The Bold Type

	The Half Million Award
	For your contributions to bring The Bold Type (estimated annual readership: 527,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you very much for the recognition, Reidgreg! KyleJoan 08:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Your recent editing history at Timothée Chalamet 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. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

scarlett

Hi. I would appreciate if you help me with the Scarlett article, instead of delete the section. English isn't my first languaje, so it's hard for me to write complex sections. However, I think the subject is notable since it's covered and also, explains Scarlet's pro wrestling point of view. Also, I think the WWE is best on last. Her previous roles are minimal, just a sidenote. She wasn't hired or something, just a few matches like Styles, Samoa Joe or Jon Moxley had back in the day. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey there, HHH Pedrigree! Pardon the delayed response. I deleted the section because I felt as if the subject was not notable and the sources used seemed either unproven or unreliable. I also have done a little research on the persona and have only found a handful of reliable sources that have mentioned it in specific. It gets trickier because the only notable promotion the persona has been used is Impact Wrestling, so another argument would be to mention the persona under the section regarding her run with that promotion, which already exists. If you still want to obtain more editors' opinions on the matter, I suggest starting a discussion on the article's talk page and/or opening an RfC to gain a wider range or editors to chime in.

Regarding the placement of the WWE section, from my understanding, the chronological order of the sections are based on when each run with each company began regardless of the scale. If she jobbed once a year that started in the year 2000 then the WWE section would normally be placed where that time period is. I personally don't have a preference on where each section goes because they're all still relatively brief, but that's what I've found. Thanks! KyleJoan 02:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I will try to find other sources. However, it's usefull to include the wrestling character section, since In Wrestling isn't here anymore. About the chronological, you are right. However, I think we made a few exceptions for the good of the article. For example, Jom Moxley worked in WWE in 206 and 2007, but his WWE section starts in 2011. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It's useful if there are enough reliable sources present, otherwise, it doesn't adhere to WP:V and is not very appropriate. I personally believe the sentence describing the persona under the Impact Wrestling section is sufficient for now because that's the only reliable source on the subject. I understand she's done a few interviews describing/defending the persona, but if the section has more interview quotes than descriptions, then I believe it may not adhere to WP:UNDUE. As for the sorting of the sections, Moxley's sections are sorted in a way where the WWE-related matches prior to his contract signing are bundled up with all of his other appearances following his departure from HWA. Bordeaux's article splits her career into specific promotions beginning with OVW, so it's a vastly different case. If you'd like to start a discussion on the article's talk page to obtain other editors' views, I'd love to participate and hear what they have to say as well. Thanks! KyleJoan 02:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for The Bold Type

On 12 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Bold Type, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the television series The Bold Type is inspired by the life and career of former Cosmopolitan magazine editor-in-chief Joanna Coles? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Bold Type. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Bold Type), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: That's wonderful! Thank you for notifying me! KyleJoan 02:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Conversion templates

Hello, you have added conversion templates in some of the BLP infoboxes in your recent edits. Could you explain why, since the "Infobox professional wrestler" does this automatically. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: That was 100% my bad! I completely forgot that the professional wrestler infobox works differently than a regular person infobox. Thank you for reaching out! KyleJoan 02:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That's totally OK mate. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Harry Styles page

Hi, I don't understand why the Camille Rowe mention was removed from Harry's page. I know before there was some debate regarding its significance, but it's been all over the press these days. It's also one of the few times he publicly acknowledged a relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily32241 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lily32241: Hi there. I know nothing about the removal or the preceding debate. KyleJoan 07:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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.

Hi there, HailMarryGoLong! I suspect that you are a sockpuppet of Mikethewhistle-original, so it's nice to speak with you again. I will not reverse the changes I made, so you can go ahead and file the complaint, after which I will happily respond and bring up my sockpuppetry suspicion. Thank you! KyleJoan 04:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Birds of Prey

Not quite sure what the deal is but first you rved content claiming no sources while missing the blatant link, then rved it again saying it had to be categorically shown or stated to be the lowest grossing or something (I am not quite sure) so I have provided additional outside sources showing full charts and numbers for every DCEU movies' BO results + sources stating it categorically as the lowest DCEU grosser. Hopefully that is the end of the discussion. Movies always have to be presented in a neutral light, with the positive and negative realities highlighted with equal weightings, especially when discussing a box office flop such as this one. Your comment about implying to say it being a first female superhero ensemble movie was a huge positive for it leads me to believe that your heart may be in the wrong place in regards to this movie, as that is not encyclopedic content nor does it matter in the context of it being a success or failure.

The page for the movie has seemingly had issues in the recent past with all comments referencing things that did not go so well for it being removed. Another editor and I do not want to take it to an arbitration and I personally would like to quick fix what seems a very minor issue here and move on. The movie IS the 4th highest 2020 grosser as of now. It also IS the lowest DCEU grosser as of now, and did not meet its BO break even point. These are its results relative to other movies of the year, its own long-established franchise that its a part of and its own budget and production. All should and have to be portrayed simply and accurately for encyclopedic purposes. Davefelmer (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, Davefelmer. I trust that you're familiar with WP:BRD.

That said, . . . I have provided additional outside sources showing full charts and numbers for every DCEU movies' BO results + sources stating it categorically as the lowest DCEU grosser. One of the sources you referenced is a WordPress.com blog, which is unreliable per WP:RSP. I have never stated the information you wanted to include was false; I only stated it was not verifiable. I also pointed out how Man of Steel (film) does not make any mention of its earnings in relation to being a DCEU film in the lead, so why should this article do so?

Your comment about implying to say it being a first female superhero ensemble movie was a huge positive . . . It's not positive or negative; it's an unverifiable statement. I'd like to point out that TheWrap, which is a reliable source, has dubbed the film DC’s first ensemble female superhero movie. Why is that fact not included in the article? Perhaps due to WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. My opinions of a film do not matter; we are all to edit based on policies and guidelines.

Another editor and I do not want to take it to an arbitration and I personally would like to quick fix what seems a very minor issue here and move on. Do take it to arbitration. Saying that you'd like a quick fix does not adhere to WP:TIND.

It also IS the lowest DCEU grosser as of now, and did not meet its BO break even point. You really need to have a read of WP:SYNTH. Thanks. KyleJoan 08:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: My original response contained some factual inconsistencies, so I struck it. Rather than go back and forth, I'll open an RfC to settle whether the statement belongs in the lead. Cheers! KyleJoan 08:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard Madden

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Richard Madden 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard Madden

The article Richard Madden 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:Richard Madden for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard Madden

The article Richard Madden you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Richard Madden 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Govvy (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Don't feel down you're a great job! Maxwell King123321 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Maxwell King123321: Thank you so much! This means a lot, especially now that I'm entangled in an ANI report and an SPI. Stay safe and productive! KyleJoan 05:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem and thank you! Stay safe during these crazy times! And btw I love your user page! Maxwell King123321 (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Maxwell King123321: Aw, how sweet of you! I curated it for fun without even thinking anyone else would see it ha. KyleJoan 14:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Charlie's Angels (2019 film) notability as a flop

Why are you so passionate about reverting this? It seems fair to note this film as a flop. Box office figures don’t need to be in the lead. However it’s notability as a box-office bomb does. NoMagicSpells^talk 04:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMLEAD: Succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should cover . . . box office grosses . . . In relation, the article's box office section only documents the film's performance during its first two weeks in US theaters, therefore, assigning the label "box office bomb" to describe its entire performance worldwide is WP:UNDUE. Futhermore, the label has been added and reverted by multiple users multiple times, as seen here, here, here, here, here, and here. Thanks! KyleJoan 05:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you’re picking and choosing what you want from the guidance. You’ve left out milestones and controversies. The film did not recoup its costs on the theatrical run worldwide. There is no undue weight put on sources. It is widely accepted as a flop including by the director.[2] Your definition appears to be based on original research WP:OR. Please define how you think a film makes a return on its investment. Remember to include marketing and distribution costs including percentages to to theater owners. Negative cost of the film’s budget alone does not define a return on investment. I look forward to your breakdown of the film’s costs and return of investment. --NoMagicSpells^talk 00:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, so what's the definition of a box office bomb? What's the difference between a bomb and a flop? How much money does a film have to lose to be a bomb as opposed to a flop and vice versa? How do studio expectations affect whether a film is a bomb or a flop or both? Not only that, The USAToday article you referenced labeled the film a box office bomb during the time that it earned "$57 million worldwide". Is it still a bomb now that it earned $73M? Rather than endlessly discuss how to incorporate these subjective labels and state one or both in Wikipedia's voice, I believe it is sufficient to state what the film cost v. what it earned and let readers draw their own conclusions. Please define how you think a film makes a return on its investment. It does not matter how you or I define it. Unless there are reliable sources that break down Charlie's Angels' costs and return of investment, describing its financial performance in Wikipedia's voice (i.e., a return) based on our own calculations to say that it was a bomb or a flop or both does not meet WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. Thanks! KyleJoan 03:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Bomb and flop are the same things. That would be a semantics discussion. We’re talking about if a film has made a return on investment. Hollywood Reporter is a reliable industry source. If the film had the “legs” to break even on its theatrical run worldwide it would not make a presumptuous statement on the opening weekend. It was reported as a bomb by year-end and therefore should be noted. The general “rule of thumb” is that a film needs to make around x2 or x2.5 of its production budget including all marketing and distribution costs etc to break even. Even a conservative estimation of the production budget of $48m means the film would have to make around $98m worldwide for a return on investment. It made $73m as the lead correctly states. The reader needs to be made aware that the film did not make money to break even. The lead implies otherwise which is incorrect. --NoMagicSpells^talk 05:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Bomb and flop are the same things. According to whom? Sounds like WP:OR.

It was reported as a bomb by year-end and therefore should be noted. By one publication during the time the film had made less money than it has at this time.

The general “rule of thumb” is that a film needs to make around x2 or x2.5 of its production budget including all marketing and distribution costs etc to break even. How do we know which "rule" applies to this film? Does it need to make twice as much as the budget or two-and-a-half times as much to break even?

The reader needs to be made aware that the film did not make money to break even. OR.

Feel free to begin a discussion on the article's talk page if you'd like. Thanks! KyleJoan 11:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably not as you appear to be a contrarian by nature and your own talk page shows you have a history of edit warring. I made a reasonable suggestion. You also appear to be “stalking” my edits and reverting them as well. Such confrontational behaviour is unhelpful to Wikipedia. --NoMagicSpells^talk 12:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Baker

I aprecitate if, instead of just delete the information, help to expand the section. Since the In wrestling section is missing, the articles need sections to explain characters and notable moves. The dentist parts is sourced, her character is based in her real life work as dentist, like Paul brearer character is created after his work as real life mortician. Also, the gfinisher ist's explained and relationed to her work as dentist, since the attack hurts the jaw. If you think the section needs better sources or better writting (since I'm not english native) it would be better to improve the section, not delete.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, I don't see how including one move is under WP:NOTINDISCRIMITATE. In pro wrestling, the finisher is a huge aprt of the narrative. It's put in context and it's sourced. it's not the old in wrestling section, where we included every single move she perfomed, like chop, suplex, headbutt and so. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: Since the In wrestling section is missing, the articles need sections to explain characters and notable moves. Per what guideline? The problem isn't with the writing; it's with the accuracy and necessity of the proposed content per this edit summary. Per WP:BRD, you are required to obtain a talk page consensus on the inclusion of the disputed content. I started a discussion for you if you'd like to respond. Thanks. KyleJoan 10:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Again with the disputed content? No, it's not necessary to bring to talk page EVERY content you don't agree. It would be imposible to include just one word, like the Kenny Omega isssue months ago. If you missed it, Wikipedia had a HUGE discussion about the In wrestling section and, the solution, was to create a new section called Professional wrestling style and persona, to write about wrestlers characters and notable, sourced moves. That what the section is about, her dentist character and her finishing move --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

it would be like the Kenny Omega issue. People wouldn't talk because we are not to discusse every single edit we made. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

In case you missed it, here is the guideline [3] "If any of the content is significant to the subject of the article, it can be converted into prose". The discussion [4] resolution, to create a section to talk about characters and notable moves --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: And I made the argument that the disputed content isn't significant to subject of the article. In addition, the guideline does not say that every professional wrestling biography has to have a professional wrestling persona section. People wouldn't talk because we are not to discusse every single edit we made. I see you've already started canvassing, so why not wait for a consensus to form one way or the other? Thanks. KyleJoan 11:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Not every article need to have the section, but Baker as a unique character and it's sourced. Also, it's not canvassing, it's pretty usual to speak with the project of a ingoing discussion WP:CANVASSING:"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions". I never argued agaInst you, I just said there is a discussion, not to take a side. Not every user has the britt baker article in the watchlist, so it would be hard to have a discussion if nobody appears. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: I sincerely apologize for saying you were canvassing. I was on the very guideline you referenced and thought that it was an appropriate description of neutrally notifying other users of ongoing discussions. I was mistaken. KyleJoan 11:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry. I never saw a neutral description for the notification. I will use it. I gave my argument, left several more reports in the talk page. I will wait until the other users talk. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, I want to apologize for my behaviour. To be honest, this months have been very hard. In the end, I don't have fun in Wikipedia anymore. Every edit I make it's discussed and/or reverted, like the Kenny Omega, the WWE Hall of Fame or Carly Colon. In the end, looks like everyone it's against me. Wiki Admins think we are a bunch of kids who don't respect basic policies, reddit users think we are assholes because we don't edit like they want and we removed the in wrestling section. I don't see the collavotarive effot to improve Wikipedia. My focus it's to create "style and persona" sections to help people to understand a wrestler as a performer (a huge complain, which I share, is the lack of finishers, because finishers are very important) and to keep the in-universe stuff to minimun, since Wikipedia articles are written for everyone, no just pro wrestling fans. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: There's absolutely no need to apologize. I understand it's a very trying time. I also understand the passion for expanding professional wrestling biographies, which I share as well. I hope we continue these productive discussions because all that's going to come from them is content that's more meticulous. Take pride in the fact that you're a significant part of that process! KyleJoan 14:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Tomorrow I will talk in the talk page. It's strange, since, the last weeks, looks like I read different policies or understand Wikipedia in a different way. When you argued Omega was "overly specification", I just don't understand how that applied. I removed Carly Colon huge part because it was not prose, unsourced and no notable, bu the user put it back just because he wanted and other users didn't care. The WWE roster, one user just does whatever he want against several policies like WP:OR, but it's fine. In the WWE Hall of Fame, a consensus was created 10 years ago and user just said "there is no consensus" and insulted me. So, at times, it's hard to collavorate. Also, I understand why admins just laugh when we talk about our problems dealing with pro wrestling. One time, When MPJ promoted Mr Niebal, one user told him a pro wrestler in the news it's a shame for wikipedia. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I'd like to say that any disagreement we have had has never been personal; they've all been purely content-related, and I'm happy that our discussions have focused on that. In regards to general editing, I know you as an experienced editor have the ability to utilize all of the mechanisms necessary to edit and discuss in the most productive manner regardless of what other users–including myself–are doing. That said, if editing is weighing that heavily, I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to take a short break to clear the mind and come back when you begin missing the fun you had prior to recent times. KyleJoan 05:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, KyleJoan. You have new messages at Talk:Birds of Prey (2020 film).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your draft article, Draft:List of The Bold Type episodes

Hello, KyleJoan. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of The Bold Type episodes".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of The Bold Type episodes

Hello, KyleJoan. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of The Bold Type episodes".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! TheImaCow (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You're the Subject of a report at the WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ToeFungii (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I recon

You're being had by all these sock puppets, and I really don't see much help from the admins. All these RfC's on film articles, way over the top conversations for such little progress!! :/ Govvy (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: You really think so? I've had my suspicions, but I've been entirely unsure whether they are rational or whether I'm just jaded with the discussion. I'm trying so hard to cite guidelines to support my points and maintain a productive discourse, but it's beginning to seem futile. In any case, thank you for your kind message! It's always wonderful to be seen. KyleJoan 17:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I tried to help out, comments at WP:ANI and such, but you are up against someone who kind of bugs me out and quite often an admin force who select and choose when they want to help and how. It's kind of a weak oversight, but this is only wikipedia, I really don't edit much as some ppl on wikipedia, I think it's good to have a break from this place. Some people really do get way too obsessed with wikipedia. Peace be with you. Govvy (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Invite to discussion

Do not know if you would be interested, however, in knowing your experience in discussions, and your vast knowledge of guidelines and policies, thought you would like to participate in the discussion here. livelikemusic (TALK!) 22:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: I'll take a look a little later and offer what I can. Thanks for the notification! KyleJoan 04:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Million Awards

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Richard Madden (estimated annual readership: 4,400,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Fresh Off the Boat (estimated annual readership: 1,100,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Reidgreg! I'm truly humbled. KyleJoan 04:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Little Women

Great work on the page. I’d have picked it up to review but I created it so I’d be in conflict of interest. So I’ll help you with getting it GA ready as best I can. Rusted AutoParts 16:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Thank you! That's very kind of you. And I'd love your help with the article! KyleJoan 17:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ink Master season/table set up, thoughts?

Hi there! I just wanted to message you to get your opinion on the Ink Master page in regards to the contestant progress table, contestant table, etc. I have edited them over the last couple months since I watched the show during quarantine and thought this version is much more clear, and not so messy and mis-leading as the previous version was. All good if this does not interest you, thought I'd get another editors opinion (and since we resolved our indifference on the Total Divas page last year, haha) as another editor reverted it with baseless and mis-informing reasoning (before I reverted it back with reasons of my own). Thanks! MSMRHurricane (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chris Evans (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Re:July 2020

Hi, I saw you reverted some of my edits on Naomi Scott and left me a message on my talk page about original research. However, everything I wrote was entirely back up by reliable sources, I know pretty much nothing about her outside of the sources I read in order to expand the article as I simply saw it and believed it should be expanded and if you read through the sources you'll find all of that information in there. Because of this I was wondering whether it was a mistake, as there doesn't seem to be much reason for your message, especially seeing as you rewrote much of it yourself. Also, the events of her first live musical performance seem particularly notable as she is a musician, I'm not sure why you'd consider that non-encyclopedic, and the mentions of the eczema on the Alladin press tour and decision to not wear makeup to not reinforce beauty standards seems very much notable as not only does it directly link to her public image, but presents her views of the world. All I'm trying to say is your edits confused me as I've been edited Wikipedia a long time and I've never seen anybody take issue with edits such as these, as they're just general expansion. Issan Sumisu (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, Issan Sumisu! I said you added original research to the article, not that all of your additions were original research, hence, my rewriting much of it and removing others. I read through the sources and found no mention of Scott being influenced or making soul music. I also pointed out how the only reference to support her making pop and R&B music was a review of one of her songs by a website that uses a WordPress layout; not only is the website questionable, the review does not constitute the genres her music encompasses as a whole. Her first live musical performance was a cover of a No Doubt song at church. How is that notable? The mention of her eczema itself is significant, but I don't believe the act of not adhering to beauty standards is suitable for inclusion, as said lack of adherence applies to everybody. What BLP has on their article "X adheres to beauty standards, therefore, their view of the world is Y"? Regarding your re-inclusion of music producer and director to the first sentence, I began an RfC on the article's talk page to obtain more responses on whether they should be included. Cheers! KyleJoan 09:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:SOURCE, a website just using a WordPress template is not inherently unreliable, as the author is also a factor in reliability. The author of the article, Danielle de Wolfe, cites in her author section and can be seen through her Linkedin that she has written for a number of reliable sources such as Clash, Time Out London and Dazed & Confused, meaning she can be considered reliable. Also, how could a musicians first public performance not be considered notable? It being their first public performance is in and of itself notable enough to be mentioned if reliable sources back that up as it is a major development in their career. Issan Sumisu (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Issan Sumisu: Where on WP:SOURCE does it say that a website just using a WordPress template is not inherently unreliable? I don't see anything there that says anything close to this. Since de Wolfe stated she founded the website, her author section is self-published, while LinkedIn is unreliable per WP:RSP, therefore, your argument that the author can be considered reliable is supported by her own claim that she is reliable and an unreliable source. Reliability aside, you believe that saying one of Scott's songs has a bucketful of soul means that she makes soul music? Sounds like a reach. You're also highlighting Scott's first public performance as something uniquely meaningful when the one source you cited (Teen Vogue) gave it a brief mention. If you'd like to open an RfC to determine whether Scott's church performance of No Doubt's "Don't Speak" is worthy of inclusion as a major development in [her] career, you're more than welcome to do so. KyleJoan 12:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that like it was a quote from the section, I used it as an example of reliability that is independent of the publisher, as having a significant catalogue of work published by reliable sources increases reliability, and I never once cited Linkedin as a source, I used it as an example to you (not a reference within the article) as to a portfolio. I definitely made a mistake with including soul, however pop was also cited which is very much stated in the article. Also, her first performance was a minor mention in the article, as it should be, anything else would WP:UNDUE, however it is reliably cited information that is notable to her career, your argument against it seems like a massive stretch within context. Issan Sumisu (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Issan Sumisu: Whether reliable or not, a statement in a review of one of Scott's songs (Naomi is here to challenge your perception of the pop music you know and love) isn't enough to say she makes pop music period. That aside, I was talking about how her first performance was a minor mention in the Teen Vogue source, not on Wikipedia. The exact quote reads, Naomi had grown up listening to gospel, but it’s a mark of how laid-back her church is that No Doubt’s “Don’t Speak” was the first solo she performed there. Comparing the length of the quote to that of the entire Teen Vogue article shows that not even the source itself highlights the performance as uniquely meaningful, so tell me again how it is notable to her career. Not only that, saying it was her first performance isn't even accurate, as the source specifies it was her first solo. I also can't believe we're still discussing whether someone singing "Don't Speak" is notable. We've all done that at karaoke. KyleJoan 13:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Approach to editing

In the very short period since your ANI report was dismissed, you have reverted one of my minor copyedits, picked over the compromise alternative I made in its place, followed my editing to another page, and resumed your unnecessarily combative commentary on my talk page. This is a friendly request - which should however also be noted as a warning - that your inappropriately personal approach to editing needs to stop. The ANI asked you to focus on article content and copyediting, and resist the urge to meddle in another editor’s improvements. On a personal level I would also ask you not to contribute further to my talk page unless it is required by the rules of WP, since I am not finding our interactions either fruitful or pleasant. Thank you in anticipation. MapReader (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@MapReader: I reverted one of [your] minor copyedits based on a clarity issue with a question that you never answered. I picked over the compromise alternative [you] made in its place based on a clarity issue with a question that you never answered. This is a friendly request–which should however also be noted as a warning–that your failure to answer questions does not protect your edits from reverts or revisions within reason. The ANI asked me to let you have at it, and per your numerous edits that were not reverted or modified in the slightest, I have–not that the article is mine to let you have at in the first place. Not only that, blanketing all of one's own edits as improvements is both arrogant and unproductive. On a personal level, I would also ask you not to hound me to other articles that you know I frequent per your perusing of my user page. Thank you in anticipation.

I also must laugh at the suggestion that I followed [your] editing to another page, as I have edited Knives Out since December 17, 2019, while you have made one edit 45 seconds ago, so who followed who here? Spare some laughter and laugh along with me? KyleJoan 10:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Wikipedian, am kind of a new Wikipedia editor, but i have been here for 3 months now! But I would need your help, i want to create a Wikipedia page, but a "draft" to be working on it while researching to make the page unique and a brilliant one... So Pls I would be needing your help on the page building, so it could meet the standards of Wikipedia, since you know best then me! Pls hope to get a reply & also I would love to get your mail address to contact you.... Thanks a lot! Daniel vic (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Pose

Hi KyleJoan,
We might need to upgrade the semi-protection to extended confirmed protection. The semi-protection doesn't seem to work. The new editors repeatedly rearrange the main cast order after they became autoconfirmed or confirmed four days later. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever: Hi there! I agree, but I'm not sure there's been enough disruptive activity by newly confirmed users for an administrator to grant a request for an extended confirmed protection. What are your thoughts on waiting a week or two to see if the main cast order remains stable? KyleJoan 09:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say wait a week or two to see if the main cast order remains stable. It is an ongoing problem if the starring cast order gets rearrange every 1-2 days. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever: Sounds good. I'll file the request if more disruptive activity occurs in the next two weeks. Cheers! KyleJoan 04:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems some editors are still trying to rearrange the main cast, I have just declined another same edit request about changing the main cast order to personal preference on the Talk page. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

That's unfortunate to hear. There's only so many times we can link MOS:TVCAST. Thank you for the update, YoungForever! KyleJoan 08:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited All for Us, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idolator.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)