| Revision as of 04:55, 2 August 2021 editCornerstonepicker (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users39,510 edits →July 2021: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:18, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,457 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| (351 intermediate revisions by 72 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=User talk:KyleJoan/Archives/|numberstart=1|maxarchsize=75000|minkeepthreads=5|minarchthreads=2|format=%%i|age=2160}} | |||
| {{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:<span style="font-family:Consolas; color:#CD8C95">'''K'''yle'''J'''oan</span>}} | |||
| {| |
{{Archives|collapsible=yes|style=border-style:none none none none; background-color:#CD8C95; font-family:Consolas; color:#FFF5EE|<center><s>'']''</s> ] ] ]</center>}} | ||
| <span style="font-family:Consolas">__TOC__</span> | |||
| ! rowspan="1" | <br>Leave a message, and I'll get back to you. Cheers, Wikipedians!<br> | |||
| |- | |||
| ! rowspan="1"| -'''K'''yle'''J'''oan<br> <br> | |||
| |} | |||
| == Removing language=en from citations == | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=User talk:KyleJoan/Archives/|numberstart=1|maxarchsize=75000|minkeepthreads=5|minarchthreads=2|format=%%i|age=2160|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}} | |||
| I was just wondering why you've been removing the language parameter from some references, such as on ]. It has a negligible impact on page size, provides valuable metadata, and does not display the language in the article if set to English so I'm puzzled as to why you are removing this parameter. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 18:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :Hi {{u|Adam Black}}. Please see ]. The parameter, with its inconsistent use and invisibility in the general display, helps only editors seeking to translate and, more importantly, no readers. Three "language=en" out of 149 refs on Garfield does not suggest high metadata value. Essentially, the article's quality neither improves with the parameter's use nor suffers due to its removal. ] 02:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi KyleJoan, | |||
| <br>Brace yourself, the extended confirmed protection expires on December 11, 2020. Disruptive editors may resume rearranging the starring cast order to personal preference once the extended confirmed protection expires. — ]] 23:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|YoungForever}} So far so good, huh? Hope it stays that way. ] 03:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would say so, ever since it got extended confirm protection. I really {{tq|hope it stays that way}} as well even when the extended confirmed protection expires on December 11, 2020. — ]] 03:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: I would give it a few more days until requesting for extended confirmed protection again. — ]] 01:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::The disruptive edits seemed to resume, but slow...few days later. — ]] 19:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It is sadly still happening. — ]] 17:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll request indefinite extended confirmed protection within the week. It seems necessary at this point. ] 09:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The disruptive edits seemed to continue by various ip addresses and autoconfirmed/confirmed account editors every 1-2 days. — ]] 21:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|YoungForever}} I filed the request. Hopefully the article is granted indefinite protection this time. Cheers! ] 00:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The pending changes protection doesn't even seem to be working. — ]] 02:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{reply|YoungForever}} I think that once the pending changes protection expires, it's worth a shot that I continue requesting indefinite extended confirmed protection and see whether admins believe the continued disruption warrants it. ] 03:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::And here we go again... Every time page protection expired, the disruptive edits begin again. — ]] 22:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{note2|Update}}:I had requested for it to be semi-page protected and it is now semi-page protected for 3 months. If that doesn't work, we will need to request for extended confirmed protection again. — ]] 09:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|9}} The semi-page protection expires this upcoming Sunday, June 13, random ip addresses may return to rearrange the starring cast order again. — ]] 06:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Precious anniversary == | ||
| {{User QAIbox/auto|years=Two}} | |||
| --] (]) 06:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you, {{u|Gerda Arendt}}. This is very cool and kind of you. ] 08:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It is noteworthy that you continually try to use this site to support your own bias. The sources and facts that Behar made comments about Tim Scott are well-founded. These comments form part of a larger conversation around left-wing bias in the media. This is free speech issues and I would remind you to respect this as such. Thank you Tony1811 | |||
| == Upcoming expiry of your ipblock-exempt right == | |||
| == Your ] nomination of ] == | |||
| The article ] you nominated as a ] has been placed on hold ]. The article is close to meeting the ], but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See ] for issues which need to be addressed. <!-- Template:GANotice result=hold --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 14:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of ] to let you know that your ] right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 14:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked (which you can test by trying to edit when logged-out), please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to ]. ] (]) 08:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Your ] nomination of ] == | |||
| The article ] you nominated as a ] has passed ]; see ] for comments about the article. 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 ] 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.<!-- Template:GANotice result=pass --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 16:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you so much, {{u|Some Dude From North Carolina}}! It's always great to work with you. Have a wonderful week! ] 01:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == October 2024 == | |||
| == Your ] nomination of ] == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ].</div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Misplaced Pages's ], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>. ] (]) 13:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
| Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ] you nominated for ]-status according to the ]. ] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 23:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|reason=Every edit of ]'s that I reverted contained a ] violation. removed a contentious and poorly sourced positive claim about the subject, the subject's children's unsourced birth years (), and improperly synthesized circumstances surrounding the subject's religious conversion. removed the same material + the reliable sources that Matza Pizza only added so they could say they included reliable sources when none supports the contentious claim. removed the birth years again. in the last 24 hours that did not involve a BLP violation removal was followed by , and then a ]. While I don't mind a break from editing, I don't find this block fair given these contexts. I know there are not many ways to justify edit warring, but what do you do when a user keeps violating BLP, throws BLP back at you, and says you're the one who's violating BLP? ]<sup>]</sup> 14:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)|decline=Block expired. ] (]) 15:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Arbitrary removals on Taika Waititi's article == | |||
| Did you seek page protection? Did you go to ]? (which ] advises rather than edit warring, as less controversial) Note that the other user was blocked, too. ] (]) 13:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The page had already been based on . Was the next step a request to strengthen the protection (e.g., pending changes protection)? I did not go to BLPNB. That said, I opened ] there last year, which (I believe, at least marginally) applies to my conduct leading to this block. If it was improper to remove unsourced and poorly sourced material, then what am I doing here? ] 15:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In light of and the failed request to review the now-expired block, I now see that my contributions are less helpful than I realized, so I'll leave. I hope the encyclopedia continues to benefit from having fewer users like myself. KyleJoan 14:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| How is an almost decade long relationship a "casual" and insignificant one? What kind erasure is this? I provided two references where it clearly states that they were in a long relationship. I might complain to an administrator about these unjustified removals ] (]) 08:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry you feel that way. ] (]) 15:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm so sorry this happened to you, Kyle. Some admins unfortunately seem to be running a prison complex, instead of operating as colleagues aiming to improve this website, and I've been made to feel exactly like this many times. I can only hope that you don't let the hate get to you. We need more people like you, so please come back after taking a break. :) ] (]) 07:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == May 2021 == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ], rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. | |||
| == Invitation to participate in a research == | |||
| Points to note: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;''' | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases, it may be appropriate to ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.''' '' Please self-revert. You broke 3RR''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 02:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d}} You did too. In fact, you did it first. ] 02:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|KyleJoan}}, Incorrect. The first and third diffs are not reverts. I added new text that wasn't there before. ] (]) 02:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d}} Oh, my bad. I presented the correct diff to the edit warring report. Cheers! ] 02:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{od}} Btw, good job on ]. I'm happy someone got that article up to GA. ] (]) 06:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d}} Thank you! That's very kind of you. I've submitted a request for copy editing to the Guild of Copy Editors to hopefully make it a featured article in the future. ] 07:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, | |||
| == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. The thread is ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 02:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''. | |||
| == Richard Madden and Jenna Coleman == | |||
| You do not have to be an Administrator to participate. | |||
| Hey I just redid your edit in the Personal Life section regarding Richard Madden. He was in a public relationship with Jenna Coleman from 2012-2015 :) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :{{ping|Lotti1305}} Right, but a casual relationship does not warrant inclusion. I'll leave a template on your talk page for more information. You also reverted other changes that had nothing to do with the relationship, so please be careful next time. Thanks. ] 15:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] . | |||
| == Your ] nomination of ] == | |||
| The article ] you nominated as a ] has passed ]; see ] for comments about the article. 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 ] 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.<!-- Template:GANotice result=pass --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 18:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns. | |||
| == Your ] nomination of ] == | |||
| Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ] you nominated for ]-status according to the ]. ] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 20:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Kind Regards, | |||
| == Your ] nomination of ] == | |||
| The article ] you nominated as a ] has been placed on hold ]. The article is close to meeting the ], but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See ] for issues which need to be addressed. <!-- Template:GANotice result=hold --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 22:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == Your ] nomination of ] == | |||
| The article ] you nominated as a ] has passed ]; see ] for comments about the article. 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 ] 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.<!-- Template:GANotice result=pass --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 03:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for always making the process pleasant, {{u|Some Dude From North Carolina}}. Have a wonderful weekend! ] 03:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
| Left-wing bias: please note this author has a very left-wing bias that results in her removing anything that does not fit her frame of reference <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| == Hello == | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| We need history because we want to know at what time he/she won title, rank of title reign , how many days held ] 04:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| :{{ping|King Rudra}} None of the things you mentioned is in the article. We only need to verify information that is there. What you personally {{tq|want to know}} holds no relevance. ] 04:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for June 9== | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]<!-- ( | )-->. | |||
| </div> | |||
| (].) --] (]) 05:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 --> | |||
| == Christian Bale == | |||
| Hello: | |||
| The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article ] has been completed. | |||
| Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. | |||
| Best of luck with the FAC when you get to it. | |||
| Regards, | |||
| ] (]) 20:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks great, {{u|Twofingered Typist}}. Thank you so much again! ] 04:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Paul Mescal == | |||
| Hello there! I name dropped ] on ]'s page because she's the lead of the film, and I don't believe there's a wiki page for the upcoming project. I feel like it describes the film better than just the title with no link for further information. Thoughts? ] (]) 18:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{reply|The One I Left}} The Mescal article links ] and says that the film is {{tq|a contemporary film adaptation of the ]}}. What {{tq|further information}} would readers need at this time? ] 18:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Oh my apologies I didn't notice the link to the film. I still think the name of the lead, Barrera, makes sense? Seems relevant and not too insignificant? ] (]) 18:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{reply|The One I Left}} Like I said in my edit summary, Mescal's other upcoming films' leads (e.g., Oscar winner ]) are just as relevant, but we shouldn't overwhelm the article with co-stars' names unless they add contextual value to Mescal's role. ] 18:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Christian Bale == | |||
| Can I just explain my edits please? | |||
| :{{ping|Barrow1965}} Did you read ]? Did you see ]? ] 09:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Chrissy Teigen == | |||
| Hi ], I saw your message on my talk page and decided to bring it here and frankly I'm concerned about your objectivity on this matter. I'm not sure if you aren't aware or if you just seem to want to sanitize her page of any negative press. It has been widely covered by various news outlets about her online bullying, harassment, etc. and her career repercussions. ], and ] as well as many other outlets have described the term "harassment". Such as this ] headline, "Chrissy Teigen apologizes to Courtney Stodden for harassment".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/chrissy-teigen-apologizes-courtney-stodden-harassment-77668181|title= Chrissy Teigen apologizes to Courtney Stodden for harassment|website= ]|accessdate= June 17, 2021}}</ref> ] along with many other outlets have reported ] and ] cutting ties with Teigen amid the controversy. Again various outlets reported on Teigen's exit from the ] show with '']'''s headline: "Chrissy Teigen Exits Netflix’s ‘Never Have I Ever’ After Online Bullying Controversy". ] wrote, "that comes in the wake of controversy over alleged cyberbullying by Teigen." It is always impossible to know whether they let her go or she truly stepped down, but what is known is this all happened during the controversy that has again, been widely reported. To try and downplay this major story is very concerning. This has been widely reported by reliable sources. When I added the content I added my sources as well. This content needs to be restored. You can't revert things just because you dislike what's being reported by reliable sources.] (]) 11:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{reply|The One I Left}} Thank you for your concern, but my objectivity is just fine. You wrote that Teigen admitted to {{tq|widespread harassment}}. The sources you provided said she harassed Stodden. That's widespread? Per ], {{tq|post-2013 ''Newsweek'' articles are not generally reliable}}. Can you provide ''reliable'' sources that say that Macy's and Bloomingdale's dropped Teigen's line '''''because''''' of the controversy? If it is {{tq|impossible to know whether they let her go or she truly stepped down}}, why did you write that she was {{tq|pushed out}} of the role? And more importantly, if we don't know ''why'' she isn't going to be on that Netflix show, why did you list the cancelation of her appearance as a {{tq|career repercussion}}? What's next? Would you like to include that she got the tattoo because of the controversy since we're including ]? You've been here long enough to understand the BLP policy, and some of your additions violated it, so I removed them. ] 13:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{reply|The One I Left}} All of that said, I'd be happy to talk more about objectivity if you'd like, including how it pertains to the on {{pagelinks|Melissa Barrera}}. | |||
| :*{{tq|Barrera earned praise...}} Unsourced. | |||
| :*{{tq|Barrera starring as Vanessa, the stunningly beautiful love interest...}} Fails ]. | |||
| :*{{tq|Monica Castillo of '']'' praised Barrera's performance...}} ''TheWrap'' review cited only said she was great in her performance of "It Won't Be Long Now". | |||
| :If I may provide an alternative to the advice you gave me, you can't include your own unverified conclusions just because you dislike what's not written in reliable sources. Cheers! ] 13:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: I knew you'd try to change the topic haha. Regardless, I frankly have to disagree, it seems as though you cannot be objective about this controversy given your reasoning. The {{tq|widespread harassment}} is from Teigen's apology, {{tq|"I’ve apologized publicly to one person, but there are others — and more than just a few — who I need to say I’m sorry to. I’m in the process of privately reaching out to the people I insulted."}} It's like you don't even want to look it up. I even added the quote and you reverted it. The words that have been constantly used by Teigen and reliable sources have been {{tq|"insulted", "bullied", and "harassed".}} Others have also publicy spoken out other than Stodden. I'd say that's "widespread harassment". It has been reported that she was "pushed out" whether it was her decision to quit or they fired her we might never know. It's necessary to point out that ] and ] suddenly dropped Teigen's products during this time of reported incidents of widespread harassment. Also I think it's laughable for you try to draw some sort of comparison between her being let go from a ] show during a period of intense scrutiny and controversy versus getting a tattoo. {{tq|Before put this up for discussion on the talk page}}, do you have any concessions? I've made my points pretty clear via reliable sources, you seem to want to cleanse her page of any negative press. Definitely worthy of a subjection labeled "controversy" in the body, if not a mention in the lede.] (]) 13:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Also regarding your criticisms of my inclusions of Barrera I stand by those. Did you watch the movie or know anything about the material? I'm not commenting on the actress, I'm describing her character, who is a woman known for her beauty, and the love interest of the lead. Also she has been praised for her performance with Castillo writing in part, "It’s an impressive showcase for Barrera’s talents". There is a longer quote I added but all that seems fair. Cheers! ] (]) 13:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{reply|The One I Left}} I knew you wouldn't be able to justify your edits haha. Teigen said she owed more people an apology. She didn't admit to {{tq|widespread harassment}}. It's like you don't even want to read what the words actually denote. Seriously, if we want to include original research, there are so many other salacious things to consider. I did revert the quote. Why overwhelm the article? Teigen has had lots of quotable things we can include. Should we discuss which quotes should be in the article? I'd like to include myself. | |||
| :::{{tq|The words that have been constantly used by Teigen and reliable sources have been ''"insulted", "bullied", and "harassed".''}} What reliable sources? I keep asking you to provide them, and you never do. How many times would you like to hear that your conclusion that it was {{tq|widespread harassment}} does not make the '''''unverified''''' term worthy of inclusion? In fact, it is a BLP violation. I also think it's laughable for you to try to drum up a suggestion that she's faced {{tq|career repercussions}} when no reliable source has verified such things. This discussion seems to have reached an end. Good luck on keeping the Melissa Barrera article bulked up with all of the glowing descriptions you can concoct! | |||
| :::P.S. Teigen was {{tq|let go}} from the Netflix show? Are you using your imagination as a reliable source again? ] 13:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: {{tq|Teigen said she owed more people an apology. She didn't admit to widespread harassment}}. Do you even read what you write? Honestly I think we should just hash this out on the talk page. It's no use slinging mud at each other. Let's calm the temperature down and see what other's think. ] (]) 13:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{reply|The One I Left}} Feel free to open a discussion if you'd like. I'll respond accordingly. ] 13:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you. I just also wanted to add this. {{tq|The words that have been constantly used by Teigen and reliable sources have been "insulted", "bullied", and "harassed".}} {{tq|"Insulted"}} was specifically worded by Teigen in her apology. {{tq|"Bullied"}} ] describes it as a "cybullying scandal"<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/chrissy-teigen-issues-apology-cyberbullying-1234967598/|title= Chrissy Teigen Issues Apology Following Cyberbullying Controversy: “How Could I Have Done That?”|website= ]|accessdate= June 17, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/17/entertainment/chrissy-teigen-update-trnd/index.html|title= John Legend says Chrissy Teigen doing 'great' amid cyberbullying scandal|website= ]|accessdate= June 17, 2021}}</ref> and {{tq|"Harassed"}}, ] headline: Chrissy Teigen apologizes to Courtney Stodden for "harassment".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/chrissy-teigen-apologizes-courtney-stodden-harassment-77668181|title= Chrissy Teigen apologizes to Courtney Stodden for harassment|website= ABC News|accessdate= June 17, 2021}}</ref> ] (]) 13:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{reply|The One I Left}} Let's recap. She said she insulted people. CNN and 'THR' said she's involved in a cyberbullying scandal without mentioning how many parties are involved. ABC News says she harassed Courtney Stodden. You say she's admitted to widespread harassment. Is this correct? ] 14:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: She admitted to widespread harassment, abuse, bullying, insults, whatever word you want to choose when she admitted in her apology {{tq|"there are others — and more than just a few — who I need to say I’m sorry to. I’m in the process of privately reaching out to the people I insulted."}} In the context of her apology and the scandal cyberbullying encompassed insults. Are you specifically taking issue with the word "harassment"? Would widespread insults work? There are multiple people speaking out that Teigen insulted them to the point of them considering suicide, that is harassment. Would a subsection entitled, "alleged incidents of cyberbulling" work? ] (]) 14:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{reply|The One I Left}} Nope. ]. The description {{tq|widespread insults}} sounds like something a pretentious teenage girl wrote. There, I just insulted you. You should report me for harassment now. In any case, I'm exhausted. What happened to that talk page discussion you wanted to open? Let others chime in. Good day to you! ] 14:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: I'm really trying hard here to cater to you. Of course I don't like that description, "widespread insults", but there are multiple people who have considered self harm or suicide because of her cyberbullying so please don't make a joke out of this. This is serious. ] (]) 14:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}So much for objectivity. Good day to you (again)! ] 14:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{Reflist-talk}} | |||
| == Cynthia Erivo == | |||
| You must love talk to me haha. So with ] I disagree with you comparison because ''The Color Purple'' is what gained her to stardom, it was her broadway debut and she acted in the role from 2015-2107. The reason your comparison doesn't work for me is that ''Harriet'' worked under "film roles" because it's in the middle of her film career. Does that make sense? Also I think we should name ] in the body. He's an important director and it doesn't make sense to revert it. There edit I made were constructive, and added to her page. These are reasonable additions.] (]) 11:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Nope. ]. Does that make sense? Have fun opening a discussion on the article's talk page! I hope you have as much fun there as you did with the Chrissy Teigen discussion! ] 11:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, It's definitely not ], I'm being reasonable and nice to you and I don't understand why you are being snide and disrespectful.] (]) 11:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Britney Spears == | |||
| I may have misread the NYT article but in no way accuse me of "This is false" because I'm not a newbie, so be careful with your language because you do not know who made the edit, and do not know the intention, always presume ]. Cheers and good luck. ] (]) 19:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|CoryGlee}} Huh? I called the information false. I did not accuse anyone of anything. It's odd that you would tell another user to be mindful of calling false information, well, false information. I did not know or care who included the false information (I'll use that description again since that was what it was), so if you took offense to it, then simply be more careful next time, especially when documenting contentious topics such as a high-profile conservatorship. ] 19:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, seeing your past warning of edit war, and encounters with other users I didn't realise you are already disrespectful. Don't mind, I won't bother again. My apologies if I offended you. ] (]) 19:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == I owe you a huge apology == | |||
| Dear KyleJoan, you are not a disrespectful user and you were right about what you did. I have (sometimes) some issues to deal with. I'm young. I was never mad at you but mad at myself because I cannot stand/admit/tolerate own mistakes. You are a great user and contributor and I hope you can forgive me for my hot headed statement and work together in whichever article we cross paths. A profound apology from me and looking forward to read your response. Truly sorry. ] (]) 01:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|CoryGlee}} I appreciate that. I was confused by your original message since we had such an amicable discussion on your talk page earlier this year, but it happens. No apology necessary. ] 21:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == James Spears / Britney Spears == | |||
| I would like to mention on the articles of ] and ] of their alleged abuse, as well as Rudolph formerly being Miley Cyrus' manager according to Britney Spears' hearing on June 23. However, I would like for you to contribute instead, if possible. Or if you approve of me adding this info, touch up / re-word anything you seem to consider bias.--] (]) 04:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Thelonggoneblues}} I'll try to review it when I can, but please just make sure that you pay extra close attention to ] and the reliability of the sources you're reading. ] 21:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Unsourced birth date == | |||
| Hi. Should I tag (citation needed) or remove an unsourced birth date? <b>]</b> <sup>]</sup> 16:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi there {{u|Wario-Man}}! I usually remove them out of caution since we're not supposed to include DOBs that have not been ''widely'' reported in reliable sources per ]. ] 17:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, I think removal is a better option when there is no reliable source for a DOB. Unsourced DOBs could cause a lot of serious issues; e.g. BLP violation. Thanks for the help. Cheers! <b>]</b> <sup>]</sup> 01:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == June 2021 == | |||
| ] Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to ]: you may already know about them, but you might find ] useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the ]. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a ] when they've been previously warned. Thank you.<!-- Template:Uw-warn --> ] (]) 11:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for contributing to the articles on actors ] (]) 11:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :Thank you, {{u|Firestar464}}! That's very kind. ] 17:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == James Spears / Britney Spears == | |||
| Can you help me where this article could place in ]? Thanks. -> https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/9595568/britney-spears-recording-la-courts-end-audio-program/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2HfVySPmM4eNmtALAA8SD-QOABaPhK5ttxWH2AZzM-A7hXpGkQT3Ifafc | |||
| :Hi there {{u|Gagayoulookbeautiful}}! I don't believe the information in that article is suitable for inclusion. It basically says the public was not supposed to hear Spears's statement. Well, they did. It's not really consequential. Next time, please add four ] <nowiki>(~~~~)</nowiki> to the end of your messages. Thank you! ] 06:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Piper Niven == | |||
| Hi. Would you please contribute to ]? Another editor has started expanding the article since yesterday. While their edits look OK, I think copy-editing, grammar, and rewording are necessary for this recently expanded section ]. There may be a lot of unnecessary stuff and some unreliable sources there. Also take a look at "Other media" and "Personal life" and see if you can reword/rewrite them in a better way. <b>]</b> <sup>]</sup> 02:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi there {{u|Wario-Man}}. I'm not particularly interested in that article, and I'm trying to focus on improving the BLPs I'm already editing at this time. My apologies. ] 10:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == ]/Cast == | |||
| Hi there. After the reversal revision of the Pose article, I had to tell you that I basically disagree with the system placed for the cast and characters list, as it was discriminative and unjust. The series focuses on trans actors while the characters portrayed by cis actors (Evan Peters, Kate Mara, James Van Der Beek) were placed first, despite all three appeared after characters of MJ Rodriguez, Dominique Jackson and other trans/queer actors/actresses appeared first in the pilot. Not to mention that those 3 were no longer part of the series, so they should be placed on the bottom of the list. Can you help me mention this to your supervisors? ] (]) 10:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Gagayoulookbeautiful}} Please see ] and ]. ] 10:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==Promotion of ]== | |||
| {{ivmbox | |||
| |image = Cscr-featured.svg | |||
| |imagesize=60px | |||
| |extracss=font-size:1.25em; font-family:Georgia; | |||
| |text = Congratulations, KyleJoan! The article you nominated, ''']''', has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Misplaced Pages. The ''']''' has been archived.{{parabr}}This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may ] to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, {{user0|Ian Rose}} via ] (]) 00:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
| }}<!-- Template:FC pass talk message --> | |||
| :Thank you for the promotion and source spot check, {{u|Ian Rose}}! And thanks for all of your work coordinating the FAC noms as well! ] 20:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| Hi, KyleJoan! First of all, congratulations on the promotion of Christian Bale (I may or may not have been stalking the FAC)! I've been meaning to ask you a question but I wanted to hold it off until the FAC closed. Anyways, in the source review, you were able to find all those sources citing the other sources (which I found very impressive). So I guess my question is how did you find all those sources citing other sources? If you don't want to answer, that's totally fine. Thanks either way! ] (]) 05:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi there {{u|Pamzeis}}! Thank you very much! That's very kind of you. The answer to your question is rather elaborate, and I'm not sure how to fully write it, so here's the simple version. It involves a lot of Google searches with phrases often found in high-quality sources. For example, I would write "according to " and "in an interview with " and then peruse the search results. Another phrase I found helpful was "what critics are saying " because entertainment industry publications (e.g., ''The Hollywood Reporter'' and ''Variety'') regularly publishes film review roundups using some version of that phrase, so if the source in question was ever part of a roundup, then you can verify its stature that way. Hope this helps! ] 20:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Spacing in refs == | |||
| The cramming of text around the pipes in refs makes it hard to read and edit articles, especially with long urls attempting to wrap. <span style="font-family: Cambria;">] (])</span> 06:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Abductive}} Huh? We could add 30 spaces between each parameter and the article would show the refs the same way, so I'm not sure how spacing affects readability. No template is readable during editing, so users should find ways to work with them rather than bloat articles and impede the pages' load times. ] 07:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the regular edit window, I mean. <span style="font-family: Cambria;">] (])</span> 09:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Abductive}} That's what the "Show preview" button is for. Why inconvenience readers for something most editors don't consider an issue? ] 09:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think we are talking about the same thing. <span style="font-family: Cambria;">] (])</span> 10:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Abductive}} You believe {{tq|<nowiki><ref>{{Cite web |last=Sheffield |first=Rob |date=October 30, 2017 |title=Britney Spears' 'Blackout': A Salute to Her Misunderstood Punk Masterpiece |url=https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/britney-spears-blackout-a-salute-to-her-misunderstood-punk-masterpiece-121525/ |url-status=live |access-date=June 9, 2019 |website=Rolling Stone}}</ref></nowiki>}} is easier to read in the edit window than {{tq|<nowiki><ref>{{Cite web|last=Sheffield|first=Rob|date=October 30, 2017|title=Britney Spears' 'Blackout': A Salute to Her Misunderstood Punk Masterpiece|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/britney-spears-blackout-a-salute-to-her-misunderstood-punk-masterpiece-121525/|url-status=live|access-date=June 9, 2019|website=Rolling Stone}}</ref></nowiki>}}, correct? Well, the "Show preview" button will show you the same (and more readable) version of both, so there's no need for the spacing, which only bloats the article size and slows down its load time. Why make readers wait longer and spend more of their data to read about Spears than necessary? ] 10:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::During the editing, the spacing makes the ref more readable. I also remove excess spacing, such as ...Masterpiece | url = https... <span style="font-family: Cambria;">] (])</span> 11:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{ping|Abductive}} Then use the "Show preview" button. Thanks. ] 11:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You don't get what I am saying. <span style="font-family: Cambria;">] (])</span> 11:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == July 2021 == | |||
| Hello KyleJoan, there's ] about peacocky terms used by an user reported for ownership/edit warring. just an invitation if you want to participate. ] (]) 04:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:18, 19 November 2024
 Archives |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Removing language=en from citations
I was just wondering why you've been removing the language parameter from some references, such as on Andrew Garfield. It has a negligible impact on page size, provides valuable metadata, and does not display the language in the article if set to English so I'm puzzled as to why you are removing this parameter. Adam Black 18:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Adam Black. Please see this discussion. The parameter, with its inconsistent use and invisibility in the general display, helps only editors seeking to translate and, more importantly, no readers. Three "language=en" out of 149 refs on Garfield does not suggest high metadata value. Essentially, the article's quality neither improves with the parameter's use nor suffers due to its removal. KyleJoan 02:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Two years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Gerda Arendt. This is very cool and kind of you. KyleJoan 08:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Upcoming expiry of your ipblock-exempt right
Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 14:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked (which you can test by trying to edit when logged-out), please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
October 2024
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
KyleJoan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Every edit of User:Matza Pizza's that I reverted contained a WP:BLP violation. This revert removed a contentious and poorly sourced positive claim about the subject, the subject's children's unsourced birth years (that another user has now removed), and improperly synthesized circumstances surrounding the subject's religious conversion. These reverts removed the same material + the reliable sources that Matza Pizza only added so they could say they included reliable sources when none supports the contentious claim. This revert removed the birth years again. My one revert in the last 24 hours that did not involve a BLP violation removal was followed by a message on the other user's talk page, where I tried to help them craft more neutral material, and then a RfC. While I don't mind a break from editing, I don't find this block fair given these contexts. I know there are not many ways to justify edit warring, but what do you do when a user keeps violating BLP, throws BLP back at you, and says you're the one who's violating BLP? KyleJoan 14:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Block expired. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Did you seek page protection? Did you go to WP:BLPNB? (which WP:3RRNO advises rather than edit warring, as less controversial) Note that the other user was blocked, too. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- The page had already been semi-protected based on my RFPP. Was the next step a request to strengthen the protection (e.g., pending changes protection)? I did not go to BLPNB. That said, I opened this discussion there last year, which (I believe, at least marginally) applies to my conduct leading to this block. If it was improper to remove unsourced and poorly sourced material, then what am I doing here? KyleJoan 15:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
In light of this discussion and the failed request to review the now-expired block, I now see that my contributions are less helpful than I realized, so I'll leave. I hope the encyclopedia continues to benefit from having fewer users like myself. KyleJoan 14:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm so sorry this happened to you, Kyle. Some admins unfortunately seem to be running a prison complex, instead of operating as colleagues aiming to improve this website, and I've been made to feel exactly like this many times. I can only hope that you don't let the hate get to you. We need more people like you, so please come back after taking a break. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)