User talk:Novemberjazz/Archives/2020/April

Apology
I had intended to post this under the previous thread, but I see you have (understandably) deleted it. I owe you an apology for coming in so hot about the edit under discussion. I saw your edit summary describing mine as "deceptive" and reacted too strongly and too harshly. I should've simply come and pointed out that your edit had introduced a typo; instead, I showed up ready for battle, and I know better and should not have done that. I also was angry enough that I dug in my heels and argued about "comprise", even though I knew you were right and even though that wasn't even the point of my reversion. Most importantly, though, you went ahead and apologized for calling the edit summary deceptive, and I should have acknowledged that you did so and thanked you for it. I am doing so now. Grandpallama (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I gladly accept your apology and hope you accept mine, which can be found here: beneath a few layers of snark in the last paragraph. I'm glad we were able to (eventually) resolve this maturely and I look forward to working with you in the future. KidAd (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

764-HERO sources
Hi there, Pitchfork did not sponsor the 764-HERO article, and maybe we can find a way to reintegrate some of the references that you removed from the article. Since the individual records mostly do not have their own articles, it seems worthwhile to summarize their critical reception in a sentence or two (perhaps streamlined from what was there previously), and an article with eleven references as was the case before your edit seems to me preferable to one with seven as after your edit. Also, we've lost some information regarding things like their initial breakup that I cannot see a reason for removing. Lastly, I find one-to-two sentence paragraphs in history sections to be choppy and incomplete, and you have introduced several of these. CCS81 (talk)


 * Hi again, re: your questions in your last 764-HERO article edit summary, I don't think that 'sparse' and 'emotive' are terms of "praise" or evaluative at all rather than simply descriptive, but if they are bothering you then removing them is fine with me. CCS81 (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thank you for your messages. I apologize for not replying sooner. First, I would like to note that I have nothing against Pitchfork, though I do find that over-reliance of the source in articles does lead to some of the more flowery descriptions from Pitchfork articles leaking through to Wiki pages, which irks me. I tend to be touchy about lengthy Pitchfork quotes (such as the one in the lede) because they are op-eds. All because someone writes for an online music publication and is paid to review music, does not mean that their opinion should be included in Wiki pages. I certainly don't think that every good thing about a band or musician should be repeated on the Wiki page, nor do I think that ever criticism should. Other material, such as the quote about the indie rock deprivation tank is so cringe-y and unnecessary that I would advocate for its immediate removal. This kind of flowery language (that provides no context for the band), detracts from the article and amounts to WP:PUFF. I would be happy to discuss this further on the talk page (I plan on submitting an edited version of this message there), and I thank you again. KidAd (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned you in the report, so
Please be advised of WP:ANI.

Let me state again that I think you're acting in good faith, but the AfD is a bad situation that is only getting worse, so it needs a lot of attention from admins right now. However, because I mentioned you in my report, I am obligated to inform you of the thread. —C.Fred (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me. I'm doing my best, but trying to tread carefully based upon my past history with tendentious political editing. Thanks for your help, and Snooganssnoogans as well. KidAd (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed my vote from the Kulinski AFD, because of that (IMHO) annoyingly named arbitration break. You should either rename it more neutrally or have a clarifying note under it. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. I don't know if the deletion of your Keep vote is supposed to have any sway with me, but removing it or including it is your decision. As to the name of the arbitration break, I don't see any problem with Votes that came after brigading notice. If you are referring to the (proposed) amendment to the header, I don't think there should be one. What would you prefer we call the header? KidAd (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just call it Arbitrary break or Delete the break entirely. Right now, it suggests that editors have been influenced or contacted directly/indirectly to save Kulinski's bio article. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the title should remain. Arbitrary break is not an appropriate title because the break is not arbitrary; it divides legitimate votes from those submitted by Kulinski fans who vandalized the page and were blocked for it. If your vote got mixed in with those, that's unfortunate, and I'm sorry if I had something to do with it. Luckily, IP and SPA activity has diminished on the page, and regular editors – such as yourself – are submitting their votes. KidAd (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I recommend you participate at the ANI report, concerning the AFD. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

AFD: Kyle Kulinski
Do you want to re-start an AFD on Kyle Kulinski that is protected from the get-go? Despite all the canvassing and introduction of new sources to the article, there are only four RS (per rhe RSP list) that mention Kulinski: two that mention him as one of multiple founders of the Justice Democrats, and two Fox News pieces that note that he shared clips on Twitter defending Cenk Uygur. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Creating a 4th AFD to discourage other users from editing is disgusting, and those 4 sources are only among some. Frankly your behavior in this regard has long been rather abysmyal.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to disregard the above comment and pledge my full support for the 4th AFD. I think we are on the same page when it comes to the lack of reliable sources and scant notability provided on the Kulinksi page, but if this AfD fails, it will be the last. KidAd (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ...and Hasan Piker. KidAd (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You may also be interested in starting a protected AFD for this article, which had a RfC ruined by canvassing, and which should not exist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry for the noob question: where can I get involved in reinstating Kulinski's article (with additional sources if need be)? The notion that he is not worthy of his own article is frankly absurd, given that his youtube channel has 800K+ subscribers and over 600 million views, that he is one of four co-founders of Justice Democrats, that he's had several pundit appearances on Fox News and is a regular guest on Hill TV, The Young Turks and other news outlets, and that he recently interviewed Bernie Sanders on his show. --Moismyname (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing has happened since the 4th Afd that would warrant Kulinski's article being restored. If this was done, another deletion nomination would likely remove the article again. If I were you, I would review WP:GNG and skim through the past deletion discussions, specifically the 4th one. KidAd (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Education vs. Alma Mater
I noticed your recent changes to Scott Frank, which included changing "Education" to "Alma mater" in his infobox. Interested in the thought process behind it. I'm indifferent, but was working off the descriptions in Template:Infobox person which notes "Education, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant. If very little information is available or relevant, the |alma_mater= parameter may be more appropriate." Seeing as how we had all the information and you removed it in favor of utilizing Alma Mater, I'm curious as to where this precedent may be set or if I'm viewing this incorrectly? Ping me with your input, thanks! GauchoDude (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. I've found that the distinction between education and alma mater is a matter of personal preference among editors. I mainly edit the pages of politicians and academic administrators, and when I do so, I include institutions from which the article's subject has earned a degree under "alma mater", in addition to the degree (B.A., Ph.D, etc.) I do not use the "education" bracket. Also, if the subject of an article attended more than one institution, I only list the school that they earned the degree from (See: Barack Obama), while this is also a matter of personal preference. I would also prefer to list graduation years in prose instead of crowding up the infobox. I hope this provides some insight. Thanks again, KidAd (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Afd: Emma Vigeland
A new page was created for a Young Turks pundit of little notability. It was deleted in 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emma_Vigeland. Can it be quickly deleted again? Or is a full AfD needed? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Definitely nominate for speedy. The page is anemic, only uses four sources, and one of them is Medium. KidAd (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * To make a 2nd nomination, use Emma Vigeland (2nd nomination) . Cheers, Wily D  08:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Gustavo L. Garcia major copyedits
I'm having trouble understanding the reason for the major copyedits and removal of significant content from the Gustavo L. Garcia page. (See 04:37, 21 November 2019‎ edit.) You have removed pertinent life experiences with discrimination, pruned the Human Rights Commission to a minimum, and deleted the fact that he was the first Hispanic elected to Austin school board. What is my recourse to restore meaningful content to the article? Mbcoats (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. After revisiting the dif, I firmly stand by those edits per WP:PUFF and WP:NOTBLOG. Most of the material I removed was A. Unsourced and B. Wikipuffery that would be better suited to a memorial website or obituary for Gustavo L. Garcia, and not for Wikipedia. I would not recommend re-inserting WP:PUFF/unsourced information into an article. KidAd (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the response. I'll take better care to connect the sources to the content. I'm sure sources exist.  I'll look into WP:PUFF.  What about the history of discrimination experienced by Garcia?  Is that puffery? Mbcoats (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are intent on including material about this, I'm sure it can be condensed into a sentence such as "During his childhood, Garcia experienced discrimination and racially-motivated bullying." As I said earlier, this information must be sourced. Any verbose diatribe about this content will soon begin to sound like a biography or diary entry, but I'm not opposed to including it.. KidAd (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Leonard R. Olijar
Hi I’m reviewing this article you created and notice you describe him as an elected official. However the article itself describes him as a Presidential appointment. How we assess the notability of the topic differs depending in whether he’s elected or not so it would be helpful to know why you consider him to be elected. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have changed “elected official” to “government official.” I tend to create lots of government/politics-related articles, so I likely wrote the wrong word on autopilot. Thanks again. KidAd (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Your username
Why is your username KidAd? What does it mean? --Civilised Gentleman (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. My username is a portmanteau of the Radiohead album, Kid A and Adam, which may or may not be my given name. KidAd (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Beguiling explaination. Thanks! --Civilised Gentleman (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)