User talk:KyleJoan/Archives/2020/February

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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Interaction ban. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Laura_Dern check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Laura_Dern?client=notify 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)
 * 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:
 * 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)
 * 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)