This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lapadite. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, I saw that you removed my edit of her six BMI awards back to four. The problem I have with that is that the award is a songwriters award not a group award. If it was a group award it would be awarded to 5H. So the award is solely honoring her. The actual artist doesn’t receive the award. This is the same with the best original song at the Oscars and Song of the Year at the Grammys. Not to mention a recent Billboard article states that she has won six BMI awards since going solo. I think all of those points justify six instead of four being credited towards her. Kanyfug (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Kanyfug, Hi. It is an award for the group's song, for which all members were credited not just her. The sentence on her article states "As a solo artist" - this was not an award received as a solo artist, but as a member of the group. Lapadite (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes but what I’m saying is the BMI awards are not awarded to artist, it’s awarded to songwriters. The reason all the members are credited is because they all co wrote the song. For instance let’s say Lauren Jauregui didn’t go write the song. She wouldn’t receive an award. Therefore it’s not an award for 5H. Another instance is Love Lies. That song won BMI and ASCAP awards. But Normani only received BMI because she’s signed to them as a songwriter. If it was an artist award she’d have both. Do you see what I’m saying now? Kanyfug (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Again, it's an award for the group's song, not her solo song. All in My Head is a 5H song, not a Normani song. That sentence in her article is about awards she received as a solo artist, not as a member of the group. It is not accurate to say, "As a solo artist, Normani has won [...]" and include awards she won for 5H songs. You can write another sentence for awards she received as a member of 5H. Lapadite (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Kanyfug Also, please cite information in the body of the article before adding it to the lead: diff
Okay well clearly you are not understanding how songwriting awards work despite me trying to explain it so we should get another editor’s opinion Kanyfug (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Raffaello Degruttola submission
Hey!
I've recently submitted my first article for Draft:Raffaello Degruttola, and really hoped I've done a good job! Are you able to provide any tips - I know I would benefit massively from your many, many years experience of Wikipedia!
I would like for you to explain why you feel my edit could be perceived as tabloid information. The section is "personal life" so I added details about her personal life.... relationships are apart of that. Her dog having a dog is well known, she’s appeared on shows with the dog which I mentioned. That’s not tabloid information. And as far as her mom goes that’s apart of her personal life. No it’s not direct but there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that mention family matters that deeply affected a notable person in the personal life section. One example is Jennifer Hudson. Kanyfug (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The only thing I’m getting from that is that recent info about the guy she’s been linked to and possibly the dog (even though the dog has appeared on shows with her which makes him notable as well so that’s debatable). However I still believe based off of what I just read that her dating history along with the citations of her dating history and the information about her mother belongs in the article. Kanyfug (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Yeah I've considered it, but I'm requesting admin input on his talk page first to see if it can be resolved without the WP:ANI process. If admins don't respond or this isn't resolved and they continue this behavior, I'll submit a report on ANI. If you wish, you can report them yourself. Lapadite (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, is been more than 24hours and neither you or Praxidicae have supported your claims. So am going to put a strike through in August 2022 section, then after 4 hours I remove everything if you don't edit the page. CHEERS,amUricdivineTalkToMe09:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
@Uricdivine: Your problematic edits on the two articles I referenced were linked in the discussion on your talk page. Please listen to what other editors have said about your unconstructive edits, understand why such edits are unconstructive, and apply the advise given. It's not my concern what you do with your talk page. My only concern as an editor on WP is that you stop disruptive editing behavior (please read WP:DIS) and your misuse of WP's policies and guidelines, which you need to read in full and comprehend. Every edit of yours I linked there is an example of that. You've received plenty of advise, explanations, and patience from editors past and recent for you to get it by now and course correct. The truth is that competence is needed for WP editing; editors need to not only understand policies and guidelines, what each is referring to and how they relate or don't relate to other guidelines, but also the importance of nuance and context. Instead of edit warring over your personal feelings (as you did several times in the diff links), discuss content or guideline issues and questions on article talk pages. One question you can ask yourself before submitting an edit is, "Is this edit improving the article?", or is it disrupting improvement? And please stop posting unnecessary new message templates on my page. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
All Too Well: The Short Film
Hi. I reverted you recent edit on All Too Well: The Short Film. The film being released alongside Red (Taylor's Version) is critical information, as it is found so in nearly every single article covering the short film. Videos, documentaries, films from popstars are mostly attached with their albums, which are ALWAYS mentioned in the lede, because according to WP:LEDE, "as in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Regards. ℛonherry☘06:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Thank you for doing what I was unwilling to fix on The Open Door. That was a lot of effort on your part that I really appreciate. It was like that when I first started working on it; the main contributor to WikiProject Evanescence before me just preferred to do it that way, believe it or not, and it was too much trouble in my opinion to try to fix it, let alone trying to argue otherwise, so I just made all my subsequent additions normally and if they wanted to change it, whatever floated their boat. (I don't believe they're still active.) I should notify you, however, that almost every Evanescence recording is built like that as a result, so if you want to do that, be my guest, thought I'd let you know. dannymusiceditoroops00:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@DannyMusicEditor, Oh no problem. It is a lot of work, and I do see this is prevalent in at least several Evanescence-related articles. Eventually I'll fix all the formatting issues. There is a lot of good info already (props to editors like yourself for all your contributions), but also a lot to correct, add and contextualize on Evanescence articles. I've been reading up on the band's and Amy Lee's whole history, which as you might know is massive and complicated, and time consuming for an editor, so I've just been editing various articles as I read and compile information. I know it'll take a long time to get the band's and main band members' articles to a more comprehensive, nuanced, and easily-verifiable state, but I'm up for the task. If you ever have suggestions or old reliable sources to recommend, particularly for information that is hard to come by today and source, I'd appreciate it. Cheers. Lapadite (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
It is also unneeded for that article. I've been here since 2003, so don't try to lecture me. Drop that attitude. Do you really want to get blocked? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Your indentation indicated you were responding to me. That is an old source that doesn't mention Prepon. She is already mentioned in the infobox, so no further mention is needed in that article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
It is way more than outlandish to use the two arguments you have here. Prepon is not mentioned? She doesn't have to be, she is married to one of the subjects sourced. Also it is VERY relevant who is her brother-in-law. The only reason the two of you are arguing this is because I changed it. Originally it said twice she was related to Jon Foster. Absurdly you think it's not part of the bio. Check on every celebrity that's related to another one, it's reported.Infactinteresting (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Restoration of removed unsourced material
I see that in the article Cate Blanchett you restored text which had been removed, without giving any reason for doing so, which is not a good way of dealing with disagreements with other editors. However, even more important is the fact that the editor who removed the material did so with an edit summary giving part of the reason for removal as the fact that it was unsourced. Wikipedia policy is that if article content is removed because it is unsourced, then it must not be restored without providing a citation to a reliable source. Therefore please either provide such a citation or revert your edit. JBW (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Before falsely accusing an editor that reverts an unconstructive edit, please check the article to confirm whether the person who claimed text is unsourced is actually correct. Also, read the edit summaries. And judging by your edit on that person's talk, I'm inclined to consider that unconstructive, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT edit and your subsequent false accusation on my talk for reverting it to be in bad-faith. If someone has an issue with that text, which several editors contributed to and sourced, or with any other article content matter, they can discuss it on the talk page of that article. Lapadite (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Evidently you don't agree with me. Perhaps you may like to consider whether it might have been better to have expressed that by saying that you thought I had made a mistake, rather than suggesting that I had acted in bad faith. However, moving on from there, I have now followed up links, and realised that a rather confusingly formed reference is merely a link to a number of other references, and following those links does support the disputed text. I didn't originally see that, because it is such an unexpected kind of reference, and with 324 citations in the article it wasn't obvious what to look at. JBW (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@JBW: Ok. I was equally, if not more so, indignant at being falsely accused of restoring "unsourced" content or having some "disagreement" over wanting to restore "unsourced" content; it was lacking WP:AGF and was condescending, as if a longtime editor wouldn't be familiar with WP's policies. Btw, "that unconstructive, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT edit" was referring to that person's false claim that the text was unsourced, not yourself. In my view, I had reason to see this comment on my talk page as a bad-faith accusation, particularly after seeing your comment on that user's talk without verifying if the text they claimed was unsourced was actually unsourced. We all make mistakes and I'm glad that's cleared up. The references are grouped like that because it's a WP:CITEBUNDLE, which is for readability purposes. Lapadite (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
The article Lexa (The 100) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lexa (The 100) for comments about the article, and Talk:Lexa (The 100)/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I've declined the speedy deletion you placed on Aswan Reid. The provided references in the article constitute a credible assertion of importance which is enough to clear the very low bar for A7. I suggest you take this to AFD if you feel notability is not met. -- Whpq (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
"They" refers to "First reviews", not "RT editor's comment", which is described in the source. Using the sentences mentioned in the source directly in an article should not be confused with WP:SYNTH. In addition, the multiple image template added later and removed by you is already specified in the text. ภץאคгöร08:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
You can't quote a summary statement made by an editor and attribute it to critics in general; such quoted statement needs to be attributed to the editor that made it. A quotation must be directly attributed to the person who provided it. Moreover, including that statement is redundant, as Rotten Tomatoes' critical consensus is already noted in the article. WP:SYNTH is coming up with your own conclusion that's not explicitly stated in the source - the image was violating WP:SYNTH as the evaluative statement in it is not explicitly stated by the cited source. And take article-specific discussion to the article's talk page. Lapadite (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
That's literally not the case here. The quote uses "According to the first reviews of Nolan's latest" and was not attributed "to critics in general" anyway. The definition of the film as (one of) the best of 2023 can not be found in the critics consensus. Also, praise for the performances IS explicitly stated by the cited source. ภץאคгöร08:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the statement from the RT editor was in quotations, but attributed to critics instead of the editor that provided the quoted statement. The quotation would need to be attributed to the person that made it. However, I removed it instead because it's redundant, as RT's critical consensus already notes that the film is critically acclaimed, therefore there's no need to include an RT editor's comment that first reviews of the film were great. It's excessive and redundant. Your recent edit now attributes a quotation directly to the source, so there's no attribution issue there anymore.
Praise for the performances is not what the sentence in the image said. The sentence was saying that the pictured actors received widespread acclaim, but such a statement is not directly stated by the cited source. What the source does state is: "[Murphy's] performance is being celebrated, though many in the movie's cast have been isolated for praise or recognized collectively as a stellar ensemble piece"; it is not singling out any other actor as having receiving widespread acclaim, so this statement can only support that Murphy's is critically acclaimed and that the cast received positive reviews. If there's a reliable source that explicitly states that those specific actors in the image received widespread acclaim or that those specific actors were singled out in praise by critics, then such a statement can be made in the article. Otherwise, it is WP:SYNTH, because it is an editor, in WP's voice, combining individual praise from individual reviews to conclude that certain individuals received an x amount of acclaim (e.g, "widespread"). And one should be conscious of MOS:WEASEL. Lapadite (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
As I don't think "best of 2023" statement is excessive and redundant, I paraphrased it. And yes, that image caption could have been reworded too. I didn't add the images or the caption by the way. ภץאคгöร10:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
civility restriction: You may be sanctioned (including blocks) if you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.
one-revert rule (1RR): You are limited to one revert per page per 24 hours; exemptions listed at WP:3RRNO apply, but the guidelines must be followed for an exemption to be valid. You are additionally required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.
