|
User talk:KyleJoan/Archives/0
Disambiguation link notification for August 29Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC) Re:List of WWE PersonnelThe reason why I reverted your edits is because Taynara Conti is her full Ring name and WWE has her name as so on their website. The source you used comes from a wrestling news site where the writer uses her first name only.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
AEW vs. NXTWWE extending NXT duration to two hours airing opposite to NXT is highly significant and relevant. Please do not remove it based on personal views. Discuss why you feel it is irrelevant compared to other information on the History of WWE article talk page first. Also all source provided here were reliable compared to most other material on the article which do not have proper sourcing. This is something agreed by actual pro wrestling sources cited in WP:RS, you removing it is original research. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Notice
Omega AEWDo you have a WP: or a MOS link to provide for this edit? Recently an editor added abbreviations to the leads of like 100 wrestlers and I am no questioning if that was okay to do. I think the abbreviations are important for examples like this: "Jay Lethal is currently signed to Ring of Honor" and then later in the lead it would sat "He is a two-time ROH World Champion, two-time TNA Champion, etc." If the (ROH) does not appear after Ring of Honor I feel like it could confuse people not as familiar with wrestling as we are. I also think AEW and TNA are the more common names for All Elite Wrestling and Total Nonstop Action, giving them more reason to be included in leads next to the company name. StaticVapor message me! 15:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Kenny OmegaHi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kenny Omega you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Your GA nomination of Kenny OmegaThe article Kenny Omega you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Your GA nomination of Kenny OmegaThe article Kenny Omega you nominated as a good article has failed Your GA nomination of The Bold TypeHi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Bold Type you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.
Disambiguation link notification for October 24An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lose You to Love Me, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Truth Hurts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Your GA nomination of The Bold TypeThe article The Bold Type you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Disambiguation link notification for October 31An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tinsley Mortimer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richmond (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Your GA nomination of The Bold TypeThe article The Bold Type you nominated as a good article has passed DragulaHey there, just wanted to drop a message here as I'd like to gather other editors opinions about a certain matter going on over at the The Boulet Brothers' Dragula page, more specifically with different perspectives with a color template and note. I have made a section on the articles talk page regarding this issue, allowing other editors to give their opinions on the matter. Seeing as we've had a little history of different perspectives that have come to a positive mutual conclusion on the Total Divas page, I would like to hear from you and I would value your opinion greatly. Thank you! MSMRHurricane (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Reminder
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this: Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes) Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history. Edit summary content is visible in: Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → ArbCom 2019 election voter message
The Real Housewives of New York CitySince you always seem want to have the final say in the article of The Real Housewives of New York City. First, by declaring width size in wikitables for absolutely no reason. Second, using you personal assumption as a reason to your edits. Third, making the section look like a newspaper article when you've already been told that this is an encyclopedia. Please read Read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And also  Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TheHotwiki (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Inappropriate BehaviorPlease stop casually addressing me on pages where it's clearly inappropriate. There is no need for a "welcome back" from you to me written on The Real Housewives of New York's Revision History Page, (*side note...I never left). If you need to send a message related to editing, please do so where that kind of thing belongs. Definitely not on a reality show's Revision History page, and just to note there wasn't even a revision made. You already know I have no interest in engaging with you on a personal level, so stop baiting me to get a reaction, this is the only time I'm going to address this with you.
It's not just your editing, it's your aggressive behavior towards pages that interest you and any editor that dares to change those pages. Your interaction with me and other editors is problematic. Please limit your interaction with me to editing, I'm not interested in your greetings and little personal messages to me here and there. AnAudLife (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Disambiguation link notification for December 2An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Don Lemon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cameroonian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Half Million Award for The Bold Type
December 2019Your recent editing history at Timothée Chalamet shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC) scarlettHi. I would appreciate if you help me with the Scarlett article, instead of delete the section. English isn't my first languaje, so it's hard for me to write complex sections. However, I think the subject is notable since it's covered and also, explains Scarlet's pro wrestling point of view. Also, I think the WWE is best on last. Her previous roles are minimal, just a sidenote. She wasn't hired or something, just a few matches like Styles, Samoa Joe or Jon Moxley had back in the day. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
DYK for The Bold Type On 12 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Bold Type, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the television series The Bold Type is inspired by the life and career of former Cosmopolitan magazine editor-in-chief Joanna Coles? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Bold Type. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Bold Type), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Conversion templatesHello, you have added conversion templates in some of the BLP infoboxes in your recent edits. Could you explain why, since the "Infobox professional wrestler" does this automatically. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Harry Styles pageHi, I don't understand why the Camille Rowe mention was removed from Harry's page. I know before there was some debate regarding its significance, but it's been all over the press these days. It's also one of the few times he publicly acknowledged a relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily32241 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 25An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abby Huntsman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Happy Holidays!.jpg) .jpg)   Hello KyleJoan: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC) ,_cropped.jpg)
December 2019Your recent editing history at Charlie's Angels (2019 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toddst1 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Happy New Year, KyleJoan!  KyleJoan, Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Presenting false history on LGBTQ sexualityYour false interpretation of Ronan’s public life is counter to reliable sources, and history. It’s fairly ridiculous to argue Ronan never claimed he was in the closet because that’s not how it works as a rule. People come out as LGBTQ, generally to friends, possibly family, then, if a public figure, they come out in the media in some way. You may have a unique belief system on how people should identify their sexuality but that is not Wikipedia’s policy. We go by reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Fresh Off the BoatHi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fresh Off the Boat you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Your GA nomination of Fresh Off the BoatThe article Fresh Off the Boat you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Disambiguation link notification for January 11An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fresh Off the Boat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mandarin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Fresh Off the BoatThe article Fresh Off the Boat you nominated as a good article has passed Rare (Selena Gomez album) and WP:A/SHi. Regarding your edit summaries on Rare (Selena Gomez album) and citing WP:A/S, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources explicitly states in its lead that it is "not exhaustive" (emphasis the page's own, and nor could it ever hope to be) and that it is "merely a collection of suggestions, and other good sources may exist". I'm sure your upkeep of the article is appreciated by some, but you do not need to remove or excise every source that is not listed at WP:A/S. And yes, while when we have enough sources in the ratings box we should include the most notable, removing publications that are "not known" for their music reviews or coverage is not necessary when there's not even 10 reviews yet. I am restoring Slant Magazine to the ratings box, because you have no valid reason for removing it other than an anecdotal, selective view of whatever album articles you peruse that "it is not usually listed in the ratings box". I edit album articles every day, and I see it regularly listed by editors who are more experienced in the area of critical reviews and what the criteria for including them is than yourself. Slant reviewed the album, gave it a numerical score and they are a notable publication; that is enough criteria for inclusion. Again, I'm saying please do not continue to remove sources as you see fit from album articles if they are not listed at A/S. The list does not instruct us to do so, nor is this a common thing to do. If you have concerns about a source's reliability, please take it up at WP:RSN. A source's reliability, unless an example of something listed at a policy or guideline page, is not to be unofficially decided in subjective removals by editors. Thank you. Ss112 03:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
OmegaPlease, change the lead. The WWE part induce to error. "Omega has also performed as part of larger national and international promotions, such as WWE and Ring of Honor," looks like he worked in WWE main roster. 1, he only was part of WWE farm territory DSW, he didn't work for WWE any match and that's more accurate. Not including a brand leaves a huge grey area. Somebody who doesn't know Omega would think he worked in the main roster like Kofi Kingston or The Miz. In that way, it's more accurate, not overlyspecifyc. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
PWB
DYK for Fresh Off the BoatOn 30 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fresh Off the Boat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Fresh Off the Boat is the longest-running Asian-American family sitcom in television history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fresh Off the Boat. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fresh Off the Boat), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
OmegaPlease, stop with this pointles discussion. The farm territory is included in every article, GA and FA too. You started a discussion and, after two weeks, just two users gave their opinions, which support my edition. No more people is gonna gave more opinions, so I ended the request manually, since there is no min/max time. I think people has spoken and prefer the farm terrotory version. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Lily SinghHi. 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.fTalk 18:00, 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)
Continued WP:WIKISTALKINGWhat high do you get in constantly undermining my edits? You have been warned by another user to not WP:WIKISTALK me, and stay away from pages in which our contributions might overlap, but here we are again. If you keep at this, I will have no other option other than requesting a Wikipedia:Interaction ban. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 10An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laura Dern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC) CreditsYou 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)
Chvrches: Marshmello and Chris Brown altercationHello, 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
Disambiguation link notification for March 3An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oliver Jackson-Cohen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lyric Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC) please look at info on wallace talk page1) 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'll sigh too. Trust me done tons reading and I thank you for the helpful info as it's lead to even more things to read. (I've been very polite because my goal it to make wiki better and conform, but several of your comments are obviously backhanded slaps. I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that. Also in light of your above comment regarding you "don't edit her husbands page" implies that because you edit her page you have some sort of ownership over it. You don't and that might be why you take things so personally and why you undo so many others' edits.) Some particulars: 1) (You added the link for thewrap while I was writing to you. It was not part of what I had available at the time.) I can do math, but this assumes that the source did the math correctly. I'll look again, but on a first pass I didn't find any other source giving confirmation and your source isn't considered 100% reliable. 2)Guess this is where it comes to trying to make wiki better for all. Having this "couples" info be different is not for the best. But I'll address it elewhere as my goal is to make wiki accurate, consistent, and good for all. 3) On this one I disagree because it's on her official bio page and I consider it informative. I'll bounce this to either the talk page or seek out additional help from other sources based on the link you provided. I'll through it to the talk page and if it doesn't get any traffic I'll escalate it up to the next level. 4) Again, please stop with the ugliness. You have erred things you posted and I wasn't ugly about them. No reason you should be ugly to me. 5) Having relooked, you removed multiple times a user trying to add son. (I only included the name because it was there, and if from a reliable source blp doesn't exclude it). In any case I was trying to address the child's sex because I had seen it be an issue between you and another user. After the above, I shan't bother you unless you undo more stuff of mine that doesn't seem to make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikethewhistle-original (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Please re-read WP:BLPNAME. What you state is not part of that cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikethewhistle-original (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Thank youFirst, 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 BakerToday, 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,
please stop undoing all my editsYou 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)
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 revertYou constantly undo/revert other users changes. I have to admit that some are 100% spot on, but many are not, and others are simply what seems to be a desire to have a page look/contain info based on your perspective alone. I've attempted to engage you to achieve a resolution without success. I've drafted a complaint that if I count correctly you violated the 3rr, but I still have hope that perhaps we can reach an accord. I'd like to ask why you undid the change I did to Whoopi_Goldberg#Entrepreneurship. This change kept all information, shortened the length of the section, and tightened references; but obviously you disagreed. Rather than talking about it, you simply reverted it, as you did many other edits. I look forward to hearing back from you, but if I don't hear back I may go ahead and submit the issue. Thanks. Mine Goldberg launched and co-founded of Whoopi & Maya in April 2016, a company that makes medical cannabis products for women seeking relief from menstrual cramps.[1] 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".[2] VERSUS Existing Goldberg is co-founder of Whoopi & Maya, a company that makes medical cannabis products for women seeking relief from menstrual cramps.[1] 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".[2] The company was launched in April 2016.[2] 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)
References
thanks but two people disagree with youi was changing it back to what another editor also had, so 2 people want it vs you alone. I'll throw it on the talk page but right now i'll be changing it back unless there's opinions that it should not be. It is a direct quote and that complies with all wiki guidance. I'm not new, I just lost my account password. have a good one.ImUglyButPrettyUgly (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC) @ImUglyButPrettyUgly: 3rr violationAs 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.
Birds of PreyNot quite sure what the deal is but first you rved content claiming no sources while missing the blatant link, then rved it again saying it had to be categorically shown or stated to be the lowest grossing or something (I am not quite sure) so I have provided additional outside sources showing full charts and numbers for every DCEU movies' BO results + sources stating it categorically as the lowest DCEU grosser. Hopefully that is the end of the discussion. Movies always have to be presented in a neutral light, with the positive and negative realities highlighted with equal weightings, especially when discussing a box office flop such as this one. Your comment about implying to say it being a first female superhero ensemble movie was a huge positive for it leads me to believe that your heart may be in the wrong place in regards to this movie, as that is not encyclopedic content nor does it matter in the context of it being a success or failure. The page for the movie has seemingly had issues in the recent past with all comments referencing things that did not go so well for it being removed. Another editor and I do not want to take it to an arbitration and I personally would like to quick fix what seems a very minor issue here and move on. The movie IS the 4th highest 2020 grosser as of now. It also IS the lowest DCEU grosser as of now, and did not meet its BO break even point. These are its results relative to other movies of the year, its own long-established franchise that its a part of and its own budget and production. All should and have to be portrayed simply and accurately for encyclopedic purposes. Davefelmer (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Richard MaddenHi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Richard Madden you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Your GA nomination of Richard MaddenThe article Richard Madden you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Your GA nomination of Richard MaddenThe article Richard Madden you nominated as a good article has passed ANI Notice
A barnstar for you!
No problem and thank you! Stay safe during these crazy times! And btw I love your user page! Maxwell King123321 (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Charlie's Angels (2019 film) notability as a flopWhy are you so passionate about reverting this? It seems fair to note this film as a flop. Box office figures don’t need to be in the lead. However it’s notability as a box-office bomb does. NoMagicSpellstalk 04:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Probably not as you appear to be a contrarian by nature and your own talk page shows you have a history of edit warring. I made a reasonable suggestion. You also appear to be “stalking” my edits and reverting them as well. Such confrontational behaviour is unhelpful to Wikipedia. --NoMagicSpellstalk 12:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC) BakerI aprecitate if, instead of just delete the information, help to expand the section. Since the In wrestling section is missing, the articles need sections to explain characters and notable moves. The dentist parts is sourced, her character is based in her real life work as dentist, like Paul brearer character is created after his work as real life mortician. Also, the gfinisher ist's explained and relationed to her work as dentist, since the attack hurts the jaw. If you think the section needs better sources or better writting (since I'm not english native) it would be better to improve the section, not delete.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Again with the disputed content? No, it's not necessary to bring to talk page EVERY content you don't agree. It would be imposible to include just one word, like the Kenny Omega isssue months ago. If you missed it, Wikipedia had a HUGE discussion about the In wrestling section and, the solution, was to create a new section called Professional wrestling style and persona, to write about wrestlers characters and notable, sourced moves. That what the section is about, her dentist character and her finishing move --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Tomorrow I will talk in the talk page. It's strange, since, the last weeks, looks like I read different policies or understand Wikipedia in a different way. When you argued Omega was "overly specification", I just don't understand how that applied. I removed Carly Colon huge part because it was not prose, unsourced and no notable, bu the user put it back just because he wanted and other users didn't care. The WWE roster, one user just does whatever he want against several policies like WP:OR, but it's fine. In the WWE Hall of Fame, a consensus was created 10 years ago and user just said "there is no consensus" and insulted me. So, at times, it's hard to collavorate. Also, I understand why admins just laugh when we talk about our problems dealing with pro wrestling. One time, When MPJ promoted Mr Niebal, one user told him a pro wrestler in the news it's a shame for wikipedia. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Your draft article, Draft:List of The Bold Type episodes Hello, KyleJoan. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of The Bold Type episodes". In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Your draft article, Draft:List of The Bold Type episodesHello, 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 If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! TheImaCow (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC) You're the Subject of a report at the WP:ANI
Disambiguation link notification for May 21An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liv Morgan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NXT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I reconYou're being had by all these sock puppets, and I really don't see much help from the admins. All these RfC's on film articles, way over the top conversations for such little progress!! :/ Govvy (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Invite to discussionDo not know if you would be interested, however, in knowing your experience in discussions, and your vast knowledge of guidelines and policies, thought you would like to participate in the discussion here. livelikemusic (TALK!) 22:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Million Awards
Little WomenGreat work on the page. I’d have picked it up to review but I created it so I’d be in conflict of interest. So I’ll help you with getting it GA ready as best I can. Rusted AutoParts 16:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Ink Master season/table set up, thoughts?Hi there! I just wanted to message you to get your opinion on the Ink Master page in regards to the contestant progress table, contestant table, etc. I have edited them over the last couple months since I watched the show during quarantine and thought this version is much more clear, and not so messy and mis-leading as the previous version was. All good if this does not interest you, thought I'd get another editors opinion (and since we resolved our indifference on the Total Divas page last year, haha) as another editor reverted it with baseless and mis-informing reasoning (before I reverted it back with reasons of my own). Thanks! MSMRHurricane (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for July 17An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chris Evans (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Re:July 2020Hi, I saw you reverted some of my edits on Naomi Scott and left me a message on my talk page about original research. However, everything I wrote was entirely back up by reliable sources, I know pretty much nothing about her outside of the sources I read in order to expand the article as I simply saw it and believed it should be expanded and if you read through the sources you'll find all of that information in there. Because of this I was wondering whether it was a mistake, as there doesn't seem to be much reason for your message, especially seeing as you rewrote much of it yourself. Also, the events of her first live musical performance seem particularly notable as she is a musician, I'm not sure why you'd consider that non-encyclopedic, and the mentions of the eczema on the Alladin press tour and decision to not wear makeup to not reinforce beauty standards seems very much notable as not only does it directly link to her public image, but presents her views of the world. All I'm trying to say is your edits confused me as I've been edited Wikipedia a long time and I've never seen anybody take issue with edits such as these, as they're just general expansion. Issan Sumisu (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Approach to editingIn the very short period since your ANI report was dismissed, you have reverted one of my minor copyedits, picked over the compromise alternative I made in its place, followed my editing to another page, and resumed your unnecessarily combative commentary on my talk page. This is a friendly request - which should however also be noted as a warning - that your inappropriately personal approach to editing needs to stop. The ANI asked you to focus on article content and copyediting, and resist the urge to meddle in another editor’s improvements. On a personal level I would also ask you not to contribute further to my talk page unless it is required by the rules of WP, since I am not finding our interactions either fruitful or pleasant. Thank you in anticipation. MapReader (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
HelloHello Wikipedian, am kind of a new Wikipedia editor, but i have been here for 3 months now! But I would need your help, i want to create a Wikipedia page, but a "draft" to be working on it while researching to make the page unique and a brilliant one... So Pls I would be needing your help on the page building, so it could meet the standards of Wikipedia, since you know best then me! Pls hope to get a reply & also I would love to get your mail address to contact you.... Thanks a lot! Daniel vic (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Hi KyleJoan,
Disambiguation link notification for September 3An automated process has detected that when you recently edited All for Us, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idolator. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC) |
![[1]](https://i.ibb.co/g74NHkn/Ekran-G-r-nt-s-2222.png){kind=link}