User talk:KyleJoan/Archives/1

Disambiguation link notification for September 13
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Keke Palmer
 * added links pointing to Depression and Ryan Murphy
 * Taynara Conti
 * added a link pointing to Brazilian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
I have no idea what you are talking about... novel syntheses? Whatever. You can keep your Wikipedia control if it makes you happy. Bye.

"Instagram? A reputable source? Is that not paradoxical? We can also talk about your edit not adhering to WP:OR. The Instagram post said that the premiere would be the 5,162nd episode, so saying that the series has had 5,161 episodes is OR. Moreover, it is two weeks into its 24th season, so are there 5,170 episodes now? Maybe 5,171? 5,172? Stick to reliable sources." You seem like a rude and unhappy person... like, chill out buddy. No need to be so snarky.
 * Cheers to you as well! Be sure to sign your talk page posts in the future! KyleJoan  02:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Personal Life for Sunny Hostin
This user traffics in narratives masquerading as fact, in my opinion. Please see our exchange below about including that it was children who were accused of racially harassing Sunny Hostin in NY in 2018. KyleJoan eschews all facts and detail if it goes against a vague, less specific narrative that racially elicits sympathy for the subject of the article.

Editor continually reverting Hostin's personal life section to selectively omit context from her 2018 racial harassment episode that the harassers were children. The information is exceptionally vague for and is salacious to ambiguously stoke racial animosity. The current edit does not omit that Hostin alleged herself to have been the target of racial epithets, but notes that the alleged perpetrators were children. Prior revisions gave even more context, including Hostin's response on The View to these allegations, but the other editor has repeatedly deleted all attempts at providing context to the racial harassment issue.

@96.241.151.80: What does it matter that the alleged perpetrators were children? There were no charges brought to any children. There were no independent reports of the incident aside from her account. Anything more than a brief mention would give the incident undue weight. KyleJoantalk 04:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC) If the event is only deserving of a "brief mention," we want to avoid giving it "undue weight," if no charges were brought, and if the identity of the perpetrator is immaterial, there is no relevance in including the information at all. It is vague. Removed the factoid for these agreed upon reasons.

As a follow up, to properly contextualize this episode, I would agree to include that she "spoke of being the target of racial epithets from children on The View in 2018" or something similar to that. It is disingenuous to include the fact at all without any context.

After user reverted article to their own standard without using any input from other editors, I reverted the changes to include the suggested language regarding the racial harassment episode, meeting the other editor halfway. It provides information from the cited source necessary to contextualize the factoid without unnecessarily stoking racial resentment.

User KYLEJOAN repeatedly reverts edits without adding necessary context to claim that Hostin was the target of racial epithets FROM CHILDREN in New York, and that she discussed these allegations on the view.

@96.241.151.80: You added that 1. she recalled the incident on The View and 2. the alleged perpetrators were children. Why are these two details so imperative? What does it matter whether she recalled the story on The View or Maury or Judge Judy? What does it matter whether the alleged perpetrators were teenagers or millennials or baby boomers? KyleJoantalk 15:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC) I think it is imperative because I came to Wikipedia to read about Hostin, being largely unfamiliar with her. I saw that she was the target of racial epithets in her personal life section, clicked the cited source, and saw that she talked about it on The View - her job and the place I came to learn of her - and that it involved children - not adults more capable of judging the rightness of their actions - who when confronted about the allegations denied them. This is more elucidating on the scenario than vaguely saying, "target of racial epithets," which provides zero context for outcome, resolution, location, situation, or ANY other pertinent information. Instead, the ambling reader would see the personal life section, and likely assume the worst without clicking the source cited. To me, this all seems like an attempt to evoke sympathy for Hostin through her Wikipedia page, which should aim at being as factually accurate instead of pushing a narrative.

If this incident is not worth the attention or the details, my question to you is why include it at all?

@96.241.151.80: Ah, I understand. You believe that we need to qualify the incident with the description that children were the alleged perpetrators because children are not capable of judging the rightness of their actions. Why didn't you say that before? In addition, saying that she said the incident took place is factually accurate. If the details are sparse and you would like to learn more, fun fact: you can click on the source the way you did. Regarding the incident being worth the attention or the details, Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, so it should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. It's interesting you only brought up the incident and nothing else in the article, as in you never asked where readers can listen to her podcast or what time The View airs or how many episodes said podcast has aired. By your standard, this entire article should not exist, no? KyleJoantalk 15:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC) You are intentionally misrepresenting this fact and attempting to limit information to elicit racial sympathy for Sunny Hostin. I am for including the fact, but with context. You're arguments in response to my concerns are straw men and examples of reductio ad absurdum, so I do not feel they warrant a response further than that.

@96.241.151.80: I am for including facts with context as well. With that in mind, the article only lists her birthdate and city of birth, therefore, we should remove both information because we're not stating what time, in which hospital, and in what color blanket she was born. KyleJoantalk 16:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC) No, what you would like it to read, by analogy, is "She was born."
 * Thank you for the novel that no one is going to read, Karen! Cheers to you! KyleJoan  16:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

And to you, Pat!

Orphaned non-free image File:NoahReidGemini.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:NoahReidGemini.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Naomi (wrestler), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fibroid.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Reporting/NikolajPeter1810
Why have you reported me? i haven't done anything wrong, and i have never been a part of wikipedia until now--NikolajPeter1810 (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Balor
Hello. I have seen you included a template in the Alexa Bliss article. I trimmed the storyline, I agree it was too in-universe and overdetailed. Also, I was thinking about creating a style and persona section for Finn Balor. Do you want to help me? We did a good work with Baker. I can find the sources, but I lack the writing stuff. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey there, ! Thanks for the update! If you can present sufficient sourcing to support creating a Bálor persona section, I'd be happy to discuss it. KyleJoan  02:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice. As I said, writting is my Achilles point. I can try, but I'll be glad if you rewrite my text into your own words, I think it would be better. I'm working in my Sandbox --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I left a Style and Persona section in Balor's talk page. Can you take a look? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just skimmed through it, and the sourcing seems robust. I'm especially impressed that you found the Digital Spy and Rolling Stone articles. I'll take a closer look at the writing when I have some time. Cheers! KyleJoan  07:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I usualy use the WP:PW/RS. Click on all sources and the "finn balor finisher", "prince devitt finisher", "prince devitt character" "finn balor character" and so on. :) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Little Women (2019 film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Little Women (2019 film) 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 S4499485 -- S4499485 (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * This is very kind of you, . I'd also like to thank you for uploading the new logo! Have a wonderful rest of your week! KyleJoan  07:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Tessa
I wasn't just highlighting Green and Kelly, lol. If you notice I put "such as", if I listed every wrestler that called her out there would be plenty of names in that section. I'm just trying to point out the magnitude of the talent that was calling her out. The current entry is very vague. Powderkegg (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey there, ! You named Green, Kay, and Kelly. Kay was highlighted as uniquely meaningful in sources due to the racist undertone in her allegation, so there is an argument to include her, but I personally don't believe this is necessary. I understand you want to include Green and Kelly, but doing so would open the article up for other users to say that they'd like to include Rebel, Shanna, Big Swole, and Isla Dawn. Wouldn't it be better to generally state that multiple female wrestlers made allegations? Does that not point out the magnitute of the talent, as you put it? What's vague about that? KyleJoan  04:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily. What I mean by magnitude of the talent is it's being said by talent both in WWE and AEW, not just on an independent wrestling level. But if you so choose to keep it the way it is, I don't have any issue! I was just stating my thoughts. Thank you for listening. Powderkegg (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Evan Rachel etc
I'm not sure what a "bold" edit is. Why are some edits defined as "bold" while other edits are not? What exactly was "bold" about my edit? Perhaps the reason you defined it as "bold" is that you don't agree with it. Basically, I changed (or tried to change) the lead image because I thought it was basically a bloody awful image. You said I should discuss any possible changes on the talk page, so why did you not discuss it yourself before reverting an edit? Why is it that my edits have to be discussed but yours don't? PS: Are you an admin? Sardaka (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey there ! You edited boldly by changing an existing infobox photo (that has been there for more than a year), therefore, it is appropriate to classify your edits as bold edits. And you are correct; I don't agree that the existing infobox photo is a bloody awful image. Per WP:QUO, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit—leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor. Why would I need to discuss not making changes to an article? No, I am not an admin. Thanks! KyleJoan  08:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Not sure if there's a notification template for this, but I requested a Third Opinion for the Talk:Don Lemon page. You can find the request here: Third_opinion. Happing editing! Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey ! Thanks for the notification! Since I never agreed to a 3O, I hope you understand that I'm free to ignore the third opinion, as it is non-binding. I also believe that a 3O in cases like this–if even given–only leads to short-term (non-)results because an unrelated editor could remove the material from the article again later, and they would not be wrong in doing so. Why not aim for a consensus if you're that adamant to include? KyleJoan  01:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I would love to reach a consensus, but, unfortunately, it seems as though we are at an impasse. I have tried to show some level of compromise, but you have not reciprocated. Additionally, it seems like there aren't a lot of active editors on the Don Lemon page. (BTW I did not get a ping from you for some reason) Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to compromise my belief that your proposed material does not warrant inclusion in the article, therefore, you are correct that we are at an impasse. Did the ping work this time? KyleJoan  05:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. So, now it seems that the "proposed material does not warrant inclusion in the article." Before, you accused the proposed material of being synthesized, and offered no recommendations to improve it. Then, you started to argue with me over the semantics of "rebuke," and offered no replacement words. And now, you're saying that the material does not warrant inclusion in the article at all. So which is it? And, no, it didn't ping! I have no idea why--I'll just watch your talk page. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! This occurrence has always fallen under WP:NOTNEWS to me, remember? You began by including that Lemon advocated for the abolition of the Electoral College, which I believed was a synthesized statement based on a story that fell under NOTNEWS. You then proposed we used a synonym to "criticize", which (I presumed) was intended to better paraphrase the Hill article, which still falls under NOTNEWS. So which is it? It's all of the above: SYNTH applies to your original inclusion, and NOTNEWS applies to said inclusion as well as any changes to it. KyleJoan  08:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Welp, I don't see a point in arguing with you anymore, since it seems like another editor agrees with your conclusions. It seems as though we could only include that statement if Lemon said "I, Donald Carlton Lemon, am advocating for the elimination of the United States Electoral College, effective immediately"--but, who knows? Maybe that statement is out of context too? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Nicolle Wallace
Look, both Celebrity Insider and The Washington Examiner are good sources being used all around Wikipedia (even on WP:BLP). I got other sources (like this, or this, or this). Other sources at least confirm that she is dating someone else, the journalist Michael S. Schmidt, so she is either at a polygamous relationship or the divorce story is true (the latter being backed by all the sources given and her social media). Can all these sources be wrong? Maybe, but i doubt it. In any case, there is no reason why a source like Washington Examiner is "Not allowed" in this WP:BLP but for others biographies is ok. Unless the rules are, by nature, applied unequally. If a source is not fit for WP:BLP, then it should be aplied universally inside this realm, isn't it? Coltsfan (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll refer you once again to WP:RSP and WP:PUS about the reliability of the 'Washington Examiner' and tabloid newspapers, respectively. It concerns me that you believe these other sources are reliable. AOL, MixDex, and the Sara Carter website simply regurgitated the Page Six report, while the Lipstick Alley article was written by an anonymous user. Can all these sources be wrong? Page Six, Page Six, Page Six, Page Six, the 'Washington Examiner', a tabloid newspaper, and an anonymous user can all be wrong, yes. If you'd like to go to every single BLP and remove the 'Washington Examiner' from their reflist and the contentious statements the publication supports, you're more than welcome to do so. In any case, wouldn't it make more sense to keep unreliable sources out of articles that don't cite them than to follow what other articles (incorrectly) do? Thanks. KyleJoan  14:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So far, you completely failed to show how both Page Six or Washington Examiner are not reliable, since they are in use and in accordance to all the points seen at WP:NEWSORG. Again, they are in use in multiple articles, including WP:BLP. Yet, you are saying that, the source is reliable on these articles, but not on that one. Do you know how strange you are sounding? It's like saying that the law is applied on 99,9% of the cities in the country, but not that one. Here, we're special, this rule don't take effect here. The rules are to be applied equally in all articles (or types of articles), or they do not aply at all. If a whole sort of articles about living people use one source to back information on them, then said source should be applied for another article of the same type. Coltsfan (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll refer you once again to WP:RSP about the reliability of the 'Washington Examiner' and Page Six. That said, since you're adamant that the two are reliable, why don't you open a new discussion and present your arguments at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Be sure to also mention that you'd like to cite them to verify an exceptional claim in a BLP. I'd be curious to see how other editors respond. KyleJoan  15:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, if these sources are not reliable and often rejected by other editors, why are they so widely at use? You have failed miserably in addressing this open contradiction. Coltsfan (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you holding me responsible for every sourcing flaw in every BLP article? I remove Page Six and the 'Washington Examiner' from articles that cite them to support exceptional claims as I find them, which is all I can do. I'm sorry that you're holding me to a higher standard as an editor than you do yourself by expecting me to do that in any and all articles. Every time you cite a poor source to re-include a supposed divorce between Wallace and her husband, I'm going to revert you. Have a blessed Thursday. KyleJoan  16:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It also concerns me that you're conflating something being widely at use with it being correct. There's no open contradiction. Articles should not cite Page Six and/or the 'Washington Examiner' to verify an exceptional claim in a BLP, and those that do are incorrect in doing so. I apologize if that's too difficult a concept to grasp. I still wish you a blessed Thursday. KyleJoan  16:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What's difficult to grasp is the notion of "rules apply to X, and y, but not Z." And the reason is "just because". It requires a whole new level of "intelligence" to grasp that one. Or should i say, "mental gymnastic". Coltsfan (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops! I didn’t realize that I was stepping into an ongoing controversy when I attempted to include the divorce date in the Nicolle Wallace page. I continue to believe that the reader of Nicolle’s page is being ill served and mislead by the omission of that information. The reader is further confused if they follow the Mark Wallace link only to find contradictory data. WP:RSP does not forbid a citation from The Washington Examiner but rather cautions its use for exceptional claims. So, it seems to be up to any individual editor to decide as to whether a divorce date is “exceptional” (or not). This kind of nitpicking drives me nuts and leaves a reader perplexed! I am with Coltsfan on this one. hydnjo (talk) 18:02, 29 November 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, , or  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! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Belated note
Before you go to the trouble of an RfC, I just wanted to let you know I took out the "grief and spirituality" sentence. I belatedly noticed that I had read the first sentence in the paragraph and somehow didn't take in the second. The first sentence is notable; the part about grief and spirituality is not. It's the first part that got her national attention, and that national attention encompasses the whole of it, so the "grief and spirituality" point is redundant as well as being marginal.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Status quo
The status quo on the Amanda Kloots article is to include her son's name. It's been like that for days, and it's been included on Nick's page for months. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 03:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is the status quo. In addition, per WP:ONUS: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. One more revert and I'll file a report at WP:AN/3. Thanks. KyleJoan  03:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Omega heel turn
Hi. I found two sources about Omega's heel turn. Do you think are enought for the article? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The first one works great. Thanks for being the first editor to present a source to support the inclusion, ! KyleJoan  12:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Your false 3RR filing
As the closing admin wrote: "No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria."

I'm very disappointed in you. We discussed this, and as agreed, as you even encouraged, I was preparing to file an ANI so we could let an admin sort our our differences. When you asked, I promised I would file today. Then without giving me even five hours to so, while I was busying with work and pressing errands, you filed a knowingly false 3RR.

The ironic thing is that I had come up with, I think, a proper and workable compromise solution. But if you're going to file false reports against another editor, then, yes, an ANI is in order. I'm sorry it's come to this.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
SailedtheSeas (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Friendly talking to
Hello. Thank you for all your contributions over the years. Per the ANI thread here, I request that you be quicker to drop the stick, and that you not repeat disputed edits. Consider joining the Harmonious editing club. If you need to revert, except for obvious vandalism, only do it once. If a dispute erupts, use the talk page to generate consensus, but do try to make your point and then move on. As for sockpuppetry investigations, don't use them for fishing. If two editors appear to oppose your edit, it could just be that they both disagree with you. That's not an indication of sock puppetry by itself. Please confirm that you understand this advice. Jehochman Talk 20:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, . Thank you for the advice. I fully understand it and will be more careful of filing SPIs in the future. I also accept that I need to be quicker to drop the stick. That said, would you mind skimming through and this RfC to see whether other editors need to consider adopting the same manner of approaching disputes and discussions?  KyleJoan  01:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Jehochman Talk 06:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All I see is you causing problems. Please don't edit that article again.  Just go find something else to work on.  Do you understand who  is (former arbitrator)?  This is all right under his nose.  If the other editors were trouble makers he would see it for sure. Jehochman Talk 06:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Genuine question: What problems did I cause in the article and the RfC, ? In the latter, I stated my view and never wrote another response.
 * KyleJoan may or may not have been behaving badly ..., but in this instance I am positive he's right on the issue ...
 * A serious BLP violation can be an exemption from 3RR; KyleJoan, you would have been on firmer ground if you'd claimed that exemption in the edit summary when making the fourth revert and then reported it at AN.
 * And for the record, I have not edited the article since December 12, which Tenebrae reverted and another editor restored. And it was not me who asked Doug Weller to return the article to status quo during its full protection. The article is 23 days old; is there even a status quo? Per your point, if I was causing problems, then wouldn't Doug Weller have seen it? And to be clear, am I not allowed to edit that article again? My behavior may have been obnoxious, but if my content inclusions have been problematic as well, then please let me know. KyleJoan  07:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Finally, my obnoxiousness aside, I have never made statements like:
 * Well, if my professional, trained experience is of no significance, then your uninformed opinion is worth even less.
 * Things like this make me feel that only journalists, professional researchers and academics should edit Wikipedia.
 * Thank you again for your help and advice. KyleJoan  07:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The first of the two statements above was made not to KyleJoan but to the baiting 165.120.15.66. I think it might be time for a SPI about KyleJoan and that 10-day-old IP that has edited almost nothing but Amanda Kloots.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There already was an SPI into that. And while I was initially very suspicious of them, the IP has since taken a very different stance on including her coverage of Nick's illness, that I'm now positive they're not the same person.  JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 00:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Shia LeBeouf
Hi, it seems you removed some of the details of the subject's arrest. Could you perhaps explain why you did this, or why such details would have been superfluous (they were sourced by a reliable source)? Also see edit request made here. Thanks. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, ! Thank you for your message. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we should include summaries rather than a complete exposition of all possible details, therefore, I removed these two sentences (i.e., His remarks included telling one officer, "You're going straight to hell." When asked why by the officer's partner, he then stated, "Because he's a black man.") because the preceding sentence already describes the incident as having involved racial remarks–which I also expanded into a direct quote (i.e., "profanity-laced racial remarks") per the Fox News article. Please let me know if you'd like me to respond to the IP user who made the edit request directly. Cheers! KyleJoan  13:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Kenny Omega
You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  KyleJoan talkInsulinRS (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Whoopi
Hi User:KyleJoan! I dont see the issue with adding some of her broadway credits in the lede, they were well publicized at the time and important broadway roles, why not add them? Also I don't know what you're referencing when you say, original research or novel syntheses. Are you referring to Mike Nichols discovering her? That is common knowledge and was talked about at length especially during the time of his death. Adding a link here. The One I Left (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, ! Thank you for your message. Regardless of whether the stage credits are well publicized and important, they are not discussed in the body aside from being listed in the table, therefore, our own knowledge of their importance has to take a backseat to the sources present in the article as well as the content they support. You wrote that Goldberg is known as a frequent host of the ... Tony Award ceremonies. Not only is this false (she has hosted once), but we cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that she is known for something that isn't even discussed (or sourced) in the body. While Nichols "discovering her" is present in the body, it would be improper to include that material given that it is only discussed in two brief sentences–I also don't believe that one segment on The View verifies that it was talked about at length. We have to adhere to MOS:LEADBIO and summarize the life and works ... with due weight. KyleJoan  02:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

User:KyleJoan, Thanks for responding! Per hosting comment, I meant has host multiple award shows in general as well as the Academy Awards, and Tonys. That may have been awkward wording originally, easy fix. Also should I just add the Nichols jumpstarting her professional career, and her Broadway credits in the body of her wikipedia article and then add them in the lede? I can do that! Also, I wasn't sharing that The View as the only source, they're plenty more sources but that was just a concrete source. The One I Left (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem at all! I love a good discussion. What other award shows has she hosted? In any case, these other hosting works are nowhere in the body just the same, so it would be improper to include them, let alone state that she is known for them. As seen here, I kept the sentence about her having hosted the Oscars multiple times, as it is discussed and sourced in the body. Her relationship with Nichols is already present in the body as well, but I believe that expanding it simply to reference it in the lede in a justified way would be undue. Including the two theatre credits and supporting them with reliable sources that show their importance in the body would make it more appropriate to include said credits in the lede, so feel free to do that. KyleJoan  03:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

User:KyleJoan, Hello again! I just added information regarding her hosting of the Tony Awards and Grammy Awards, do you want to add that information in the lede? I feel as though she is well regarded as a host of award shows as well as an actor, comedian, and host of The View. What do you think? She received positive reactions from both her Tony and Grammy stints, might be appropriate to include along with her hosting of the Academy Awards? The One I Left (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey there, . I still don't believe that her hosting the Grammys and Tonys warrant inclusion in the lede since she has only hosted each ceremony once. The positive reactions that you included for her hosting work also had a weight issue (e.g., stating that she gained favorable notices when the one source–TheaterMania–isn't reputable for their television critical reviews). Not only that, but you also have to attribute the praise to the critic from which it came rather than generalizing her work as praised. KyleJoan  13:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:KyleJoan, I guess we can respectfully agree to disagree? She is known for her work as an Awards host, with her name being floated as one of the best within the past century. Why did you remove source that btw? I don't think any television critics make lists of the Best Tony hosts? That seems something that's written about on theatre websites. I believe InStyle also remarked that she was one of the most memorable hosts in recent memory as well. If we mention her hosting the Academy Awards, I think it reasonable we mention her hosting the Tonys and Grammys as well.The One I Left (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Which reliable source says she's known as an awards host? She's one of the best within the past century at hosting which show? The Tony Awards are televised events, so it would be television critics who review them because theatrical critics–unless they're at the ceremony–normally wouldn't review a television broadcast. 'InStyle' didn't say much other than her having hosted one year. TheaterMania ranked her at number five among twelve hosts and only complimented her for being funny as a person, which isn't really a review of her work. We also have to look at the reputability of the sources. The statement about her being one of the [Oscars'] best hosts is supported by Vogue and The Guardian, two reliable sources per WP:RSP, therefore, it is far more prestigious than the one review of her Grammys hosting work from Sun-Sentinel as well as TheaterMania's list. KyleJoan  14:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:KyleJoan, I totally understand what you mean about the Sun-Sentinel source, I wish I had a stronger source but it was rather hard trying to find a any source reviewing the broadcast at all. It was 1992. I do, respectfully, think you are nitpicking a little bit though when it concerns the TheatreMania list, they made a list with the subheader, "We look at the most and least successful Tony hosts since the turn of the century", and Whoopi is on the list of most successful. Her being on the list should be good enough? Do we need an essay about her hosting stint? I also think TheatreMania is a legitimate source for Theatre news and content. I definitely agree with you that the Academy Awards is more widely covered in general than the Grammys, and the Tonys, but they are all still well respected awards and are the highest awards you can receive in their respective fields. Also "reliable source says she's known as an awards host", I think it's just in general consensus. She has been often mentioned as great hosts in award show monologues, Whoopi even made an appearance at the 2017 Tony Awards giving Spacey (didn't age well) advice as a host.The One I Left (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Her being on the list should be good enough? The TheaterMania list basically mentions her as an effective host among effective hosts–number five in a list of twelve, to be exact. In any case, it's still not a review of her work, nor is TheaterMania a reputable source for critical reviews. I'm also not disputing the prestige of the Grammys and the Tonys because the lede mentions that Goldberg has won both awards; we're discussing the notability of her having hosted those ceremonies once, which are still not lede-worthy. Also "reliable source says she's known as an awards host", I think it's just in general consensus. Amongst whom? I understand you have a lot of personal knowledge about Goldberg, but again, our own knowledge has to take a backseat to the sources present in the article as well as the content they support. KyleJoan  16:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

ANI notification since I indirectly mention you
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Finn Balor
Hello. As I told you, I wrote a Style and Persona section for Finn Balor. Did you have time to take a look? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey there ! I must offer my sincerest apologies. It slipped my mind that you had notified me about this. I've been spending less time editing pro wrestling articles because I've been focused on other topics, so in all honesty, the Bálor article is not the most interesting to me at this time. I'd hate to make you wait longer for me to become interested in wrestling articles again, so I'm going to pass on making suggestions on the section. Is there any way you could ask other editors for help on this one? I apologize once again. KyleJoan  01:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okey, don't worry. If you want to try with other wrestler, tell me :) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, ! I'll get started on implementing your suggestions right away. KyleJoan  02:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Little Women (2019 film)
The article Little Women (2019 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Little Women (2019 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, ! Have a wonderful rest of your weekend! KyleJoan  08:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Chris Cuomo 3RR
I'm gonna assume you only saw the apology after you warned me for edit-warring. But I'll leave you a warning too, just in case. ;) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't have to reply to my response at the RfC. You just brought up a few new points that I wanted to address. :-) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't planning on it. That would bludgeon the discussion, and no one wants that. Cheers! KyleJoan  08:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Please pardon the delayed response,, and thank you very much for the barnstar! KyleJoan  02:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Omega's selling
Hello. I was reading the April 26, 2021 edition of Wrestling Observer Newsletter and I found that Meltzer describes Kenny Omega selling. He says "Orton appeared to have injured his right shoulder in his 4/19 match with Riddle [...]. Riddle never touched the injured arm so if Orton was working it well, and he’s good enough to do so the way he was shaking it out (he actually sold it almost exactly the way Kenny Omega would because Omega sells like it’s real and not like it’s pro wrestling, which confuses people who only know one way to do things)". Do you think you can include it in the article? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey there! It would be undue and too jargon-y to me. Not only would we need to explain what selling is for casual readers, but we'd also have to attribute the statement to Meltzer's analysis, which would be odd since the analysis itself was about a match that did not involve Omega; he was randomly mentioned. Furthermore, the concept of selling seems like somewhat of a basic part a professional wrestler's skillset, so it doesn't seem noteworthy—whether good or bad. KyleJoan  19:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, some wrestlers are noted for his selling skills, like Mr. Perfect or Dolph Ziggler. But if you don't see it as notable, it's fine. It's just... it's rare to find anyone talking about the selling style. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Some questions
Hi. Nice to meet you and thanks for notifying me. I'm new to WP:PW and I have just become active in contributing to PW articles in the recent months. I try my best but I may make mistakes and unnecessary edits sometimes (as a newbie member of this project). Your points are clear except the lead stuff. As I know, the lead does not need refs when those refs are already cited in the body of article. Isn't a clean lead better than a lead that looks like the other parts of article with citations? Or do some info such as real name and birth date need to be sourced in the lead?  Wario-Man  talk 04:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem at all! I'm happy to discuss anything you'd like. To my knowledge, the general rule of thumb is that while it is preferable to have a clean lede, citations in ledes are neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article per MOS:LEADCITE, therefore, it is acceptable to cite sources there when the information is nowhere else in the body, such as one's birth name and date where applicable. Hope that helps! KyleJoan  04:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it. We usually cite such info in a section like Early life. Sonya Deville exists too. The reason why I moved refs to infobox was just to have a clean lead section. But after reading your message and looking at the other articles about wrestlers, I saw that was unhelpful (it just made the infobox messy).  Wario-Man  talk 05:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, but in Deville's case, the birth name and date are not in the early life section, which I find common as well. That aside, I also reverted some of your similar changes on Mandy Rose from earlier this month/year. Please let me know if you have any questions about that! KyleJoan  08:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But we can move them to Early life just like Becky Lynch which is a good article. Anyway, it's not a big deal for me. Your edits on Mandy Rose are OK, but please choose a better and shorter title for this section: Mandy Rose. It's too long in my opinion. Maybe dividing it into two section is better. You know, I edit WP since 2012, but this kind of articles (pro wrestlers) are a whole new world to me.  Wario-Man  talk 08:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I shortened the title! I thought "various storylines" would be too generic. It also wouldn't be appropriate to split the section because the Dana Brooke partnership portion is only two sentences long. I'm happy to help in any way I can, so reach out whenever! KyleJoan  08:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm sorry if some of my edits caused issues and extra work/stress. I thought my "redirect fixes" were helpful and useful. Maybe they were OK for myself but not for the readability of article source.  Wario-Man  talk 09:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Cite tweet
Hi KyleJoan. When I use Cite tweet, should I copy-paste the used emojis or not? Or copying text is enough? Because I see other editors do it but I use Firefox (PC) and I don't know how to copy those emojis.  Wario-Man  talk 06:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey there, ! I would personally include the emojis, but I believe that if you copy and paste an entire tweet, the emojis would be part of the text regardless of whether some readers' browsers show them. KyleJoan  11:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

2 edits =/= 3RR
Um...I've only made 2 edits in the last 36 hours on the Kenny Omega article...that does not 3RR make. I made no edits to the article at all on April 28, and 2 on the 29th. Don't throw around WP:This or WP:That unless you have your ducks in a row. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What about the 26th? You didn't violate 3RR to include the term "triple world champion" on that date? When I said this issue, I meant the inclusion of monikers without consensus. KyleJoan  17:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * First off that was the 25th, not the 26th, second, I made back to back edits (meaning I edited, and went right back and touched something up I overlooked), which is fine. 3RR is for editors going back and forth, which in this case makes me think of the phrase "Don't throw stones in a glass house", because you were always right on my heels reverting me at every turn. Just like you did to Czello yesterday.  You need to ease up with the overprotective mama bear act regarding this article...no one died and made you the gatekeeper, but you sure take it upon yourself to act like one. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I must commend you for your mastery of euphemisms. Cheers! KyleJoan  18:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Christian Bale
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Christian Bale 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello User:KyleJoan, thanks for assuming good faith, no hard feelings about reverting the edit regarding Christian Bale. Congratulations on the nomination btw. To me it was more about the fact that Mary Harron was much in favour of Bale for that part, despite the studio being in favour of DiCaprio. Greeting from Germany Llydia (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there ! You caught me right as I was writing on your talk page, so kudos to our synced timing for that. I see that you're new here, so I'd like to welcome you personally. I'm KyleJoan. Nice to make your acquaintance! Please feel free to reach out at any time with any questions. Thank you for the acknowledgment! In all fairness, many people worked on making that article the nominee that it is, and I'm just happy to be one of them.
 * I'd also like to elaborate on my revert. It does not seem that Harron's preference played a part in Bale's eventual casting because reliable sources, including The Independent and IndieWire, are very clear about how DiCaprio had the role first and how Bale was only hired after DiCaprio's departure. With that in mind, stating said preference would give it undue weight, which is why it would be more appropriate to highlight the departure as the impetus for Bale's involvement. I hope that clarifies everything. Have a wonderful week! KyleJoan  10:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Joy Behar
It is noteworthy that you continually try to use this site to support your own bias. The sources and facts that Behar made comments about Tim Scott are well-founded. These comments form part of a larger conversation around left-wing bias in the media. This is free speech issues and I would remind you to respect this as such. Thank you Tony1811

Your GA nomination of Florence Pugh
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Florence Pugh 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 BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary removals on Taika Waititi's article
How is an almost decade long relationship a "casual" and insignificant one? What kind erasure is this? I provided two references where it clearly states that they were in a long relationship. I might complain to an administrator about these unjustified removals Helptottt (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Chris Cuomo. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. '' Please self-revert. You broke 3RR'' Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * You did too. In fact, you did it first. KyleJoan  02:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Incorrect. The first and third diffs are not reverts. I added new text that wasn't there before. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad. I presented the correct diff to the edit warring report. Cheers! KyleJoan  02:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Btw, good job on Christian Bale. I'm happy someone got that article up to GA. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That's very kind of you. I've submitted a request for copy editing to the Guild of Copy Editors to hopefully make it a featured article in the future. KyleJoan  07:05, 21 May 2021 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Richard Madden and Jenna Coleman
Hey I just redid your edit in the Personal Life section regarding Richard Madden. He was in a public relationship with Jenna Coleman from 2012-2015 :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotti1305 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, but a casual relationship does not warrant inclusion. I'll leave a template on your talk page for more information. You also reverted other changes that had nothing to do with the relationship, so please be careful next time. Thanks. KyleJoan  15:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elizabeth Olsen
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elizabeth Olsen 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)