User talk:KyleJoan/Archives/2020/March

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


 * 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)


 * 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 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Oliver_Jackson-Cohen check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Oliver_Jackson-Cohen?client=notify 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)
 * 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)

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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toddst1 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2019 (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, . 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)
 * 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. 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)
 * 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)

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)

. . . 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, ! I suspect that you are a sockpuppet of, 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)