Leave a message, and I'll get back to you. Cheers, Wikipedians! |
---|
-KyleJoan |
|
Taron Egerton - Cock
Hello - I'm not sure why you removed the information I added to Taron Egerton's page. He had mixed reviews among critics, some liked him, some didn't. I added a link to someone who presented an opposing view to that of The Guardian (hence creating a neutral and more accurate perspective). Unless it's a fan page, I suggest we keep things balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyetie (talk • contribs) 10:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Eyetie: Which source verifies your claim that his performance
had mixed reviews
? Because that's not what 'The Stage' says. KyleJoan 10:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)- the Guardian lauded his performance. The Londonist critic (at the same performance) didn't. Hence, mixed reviews. Eyetie (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Eyetie: So your source is your own conclusion? KyleJoan 15:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. When two critics disagree about something it suggests that there is a mixed review. Not all reviews praised Taron - look through the Playbill list for details: https://playbill.com/article/what-did-critics-think-of-the-west-end-revival-of-cock Eyetie (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Your only source is an opinion (The Stage) which, as I've shown, is wrong. Both Londonist and The Guardian are verifiable sources for WP purposes. I will be reverting the change tomorrow morning unless you have something more than a single source to go on. Eyetie (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Eyetie: You need to read WP:NPOV in its entirety, especially the section about false balances. 'Playbill' lists reviews; they do not specify how Egerton's performance was received. If you read those reviews and subjectively determined the "mixed" aspect, then that is original research. 'The Stage' says he received praise, so what we require is a source that says Egerton's performance only received praise from some because the consensus is mixed. I'm prepared to revert the same NPOV and OR violations (that I could argue violate WP:BLP as well for presenting a false balance by introducing unverifiable negative bias). Please use Talk:Taron Egerton (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) to obtain a consensus to include your proposal and keep it off the article in the meantime. Thanks. KyleJoan 02:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Your only source is an opinion (The Stage) which, as I've shown, is wrong. Both Londonist and The Guardian are verifiable sources for WP purposes. I will be reverting the change tomorrow morning unless you have something more than a single source to go on. Eyetie (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. When two critics disagree about something it suggests that there is a mixed review. Not all reviews praised Taron - look through the Playbill list for details: https://playbill.com/article/what-did-critics-think-of-the-west-end-revival-of-cock Eyetie (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Eyetie: So your source is your own conclusion? KyleJoan 15:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- the Guardian lauded his performance. The Londonist critic (at the same performance) didn't. Hence, mixed reviews. Eyetie (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
March 2022
Your comment on Eviro page seems to suggest that an "Impact" is not needed for the article. Are you sure about this? The Tayor Swift article and others do have Impact sections which are useful and contain both positive and critical reviews of the artists' impact on the music industry and on audiences. If you do not like the name which was used as "Reception", then maybe change it to Impact in order to start this section in the Eviro article, which does not have an Impact section at present. Other artist articles benefit from having an Impact section and such a section for Eviro's "Impact" would appear to be useful for the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- @ErnestKrause: Such a section would be
useful for the article
when the material is appropriate, which is not the case here. Your addition was a paragraph of quotes from one review of her album. This has nothing to do with herimpact on the music industry and on audiences
. What other article does this? You mentioned Taylor Swift. Which ref in that article's "impact" section is an album review? Also, it's "Erivo". KyleJoan 17:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)- Thanks for getting back on this. Impact sections differ for every artist based on the the extent of the response and impact made upon the music industry. The fact that Cynthia Erivo may not be at the level of Impact in the music industry that Taylor Swift has does not mean that having an Impact section in her article would not be useful. Impact on the music industry includes the published responses of music critics indicating their positive and critical comments about her performances. I mentioned the Taylor Swift article because it is an FA article, and the Impact section is useful in that article. Although the level of response and impact of Erivo is not as extensive as it is for Taylor Swift does not mean that her Wikipedia article could not be improved by adding an Impact section, dealing with her impact on the music industry (eventually the film industry as well, etc.). This can start by adding the responses of reliable sources who are taking a position on her Impact as a singer on the music industry. Adding even one review or two reviews of her first album is a useful place to start. The Erivo article could be improved by adding an Impact section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- @ErnestKrause: Except you did not add
responses ... on her Impact as a singer on the music industry
. You added an album review.Adding even one review
is not useful because we could do this with any artist regardless of their actual impact. You're essentially saying it is appropriate to include this section on any BLP of anyone with an album with reviews. While I don't see any portion of your addition that's worth keeping in the article, you're welcome to ask others for their thoughts. Cheers! KyleJoan 19:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- @ErnestKrause: Except you did not add
- Thanks for getting back on this. Impact sections differ for every artist based on the the extent of the response and impact made upon the music industry. The fact that Cynthia Erivo may not be at the level of Impact in the music industry that Taylor Swift has does not mean that having an Impact section in her article would not be useful. Impact on the music industry includes the published responses of music critics indicating their positive and critical comments about her performances. I mentioned the Taylor Swift article because it is an FA article, and the Impact section is useful in that article. Although the level of response and impact of Erivo is not as extensive as it is for Taylor Swift does not mean that her Wikipedia article could not be improved by adding an Impact section, dealing with her impact on the music industry (eventually the film industry as well, etc.). This can start by adding the responses of reliable sources who are taking a position on her Impact as a singer on the music industry. Adding even one review or two reviews of her first album is a useful place to start. The Erivo article could be improved by adding an Impact section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Sonya Deville
Hi. Can you update Sonya Deville? Her feud with Naomi was concluded at Royal Rumble (2022) and Elimination Chamber (2022). Mann Mann (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Rina Sawayama
Hi. I've replied to your discussion started on Sawayama's talk page in regards to her nationality/lead sentence. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The Million Award
![]() |
The Million Award |
For your contributions to bring Christian Bale (estimated annual readership: 3,500,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! FrB.TG (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC) |
Newsom maskless at stadium + sockpuppet claims
Hi, I've noticed that you've reverted my additions to Gavin Newsom's page about him being maskless at a stadium despite a mask mandate in place.First off, I cited a CNN article which stated that he was in violation of the mask mandate. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "CNN doesn't support the phrasing 'violating the mandate'". How should I phrase it; "breaking the mandate"? "in violation of"? "not in compliance with"? They are all synonyms. Instead of reverting my edits and removing information, may I ask you to change it so that it fits better, or suggesting edits that I could make? As you have probably seen, I am new to editing, and so much help would be appreciated. Secondly, the Fox article contains photographic proof---something hard to dispute despite the bias of Fox News, especially since it is corroborated by CNN. Rather than reverting my edits, if there is a problem, you could've just removed the parts that used Fox as a source. Lastly, to address "socking." I literally didn't even know what that term meant until you accused me of it. Since you have filed a report, I guess I will have to defend myself. I'm not quite sure how the review process works, but I can guarantee you that I am definitely not "socking." Phonecaller (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Elizabeth Olsen - Avengers Endgame appearance.
Hello. The reason I did not add in Olsen's Captain America the Winter Soldier appearance is because she only appeared in a very small cameo appearance. She was not in Spider man No Way Home at all so I didn't put that in. I understand that she didn't have a 'starring role' in Endagme, but she appeared in a lot more than just a cameo role in that film so I thought it was worth the mention. Danny White (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response, Danny White. Should we also discuss the extent of her starring roles, then? I would argue that her role in Avengers: Age of Ultron is more substantial than her role in Captain America: Civil War, so would I be justified in removing the latter? KyleJoan 20:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Wrestler contents section listed as 2022 or 2022–present
Although not yet a member of the project, I did revert an edit on Sasha Banks and Naomi, where someone changed current tag champions to former champions. Obviously, if wwe.com is still listing them as champions, they still must be current. Then, because it was added to my watchlist, someone changed 2022–present to just 2022. I came across your revert on Sasha Banks page where you state: ("present" applies when the heading does not include the present time; is 2022 not the present time? the section is ongoing, but 2022 isn't? would you write "2022–now" or "2022 and on"?) I have to disagree with you on this. When you make a change like this, it has an effect on all wrestling related articles that are not doing what you suggested. Case in point, when I first see the list of contents that says: Partnership with Naomi (2022), I'll assume that Sasha Banks and Naomi are no longer in a partnership, which officially isn't the case yet, and upon further reading, will see that I am wrong. Same as a championship reign. Alpha Academy in their contents section says: Raw Tag Team Champions (2022) because their reign ended. At a quick glance, 2022–present seems more widely used than simply just 2022. Ricochet, Ronda Rousey, AJ Styles, and Cody Rhodes are prime examples of each using 2022–present in their sections. Perhaps it may be best to get a consensus on some talk pages and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling.Brian (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message Bgredmchn. I don't see it as a huge issue, so I'll no longer change the way years in headings are written. KyleJoan 04:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Bio
Not sure why you possibly could think that naming a film as a sports movie and a biopic is overdoing it. Confidently I say you are not right in your assessment.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Pictureperfect2: Not sure what you're referencing. Please clarify. KyleJoan 22:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Clarify? Look at your edits. You mention how you think calling a film (Eddie the Eagle) a sports biopic or biographical sports film is overdoing it.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Pictureperfect2: You think the sentence should read, "Egerton has also starred in several biographical films, portraying ... the titular ski-jumper in the biographical sports film Eddie the Eagle (2016)"? KyleJoan 22:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I feel you have made at least 3 incorrect edits on that pg.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Pictureperfect2: You think the sentence should read, "Egerton has also starred in several biographical films, portraying ... the titular ski-jumper in the biographical sports film Eddie the Eagle (2016)"? KyleJoan 22:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Clarify? Look at your edits. You mention how you think calling a film (Eddie the Eagle) a sports biopic or biographical sports film is overdoing it.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Kris Statlander
Hey, I've seen you just removed everything I wrote about Kris Statlander. One of the claims was "Hirsch's heel turn is irrelevant unless sources note it as part of the feud that is clear to fans but has not been demonstated as being highlighted in even one reliable source". But that false. Leyla Hirsch turning led to Statlander's gimmick change, which is some worth to mention. This is part of her character's evolution. SeosiWrestling (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- @SeosiWrestling: Is that connection verifiable or did you correlate those two events based on your own knowledge? KyleJoan 20:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- @KyleJoan: Which websites are considered to be reliable? This is very restricting and make it difficult to edit. SeosiWrestling (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Marini (talk • contribs) 13:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Marini (talk • contribs) 13:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Actual Proof of Elizabeth Olsen in 1993
— Elizabeth Olsen is on the right next to the Olsen twins with a digitally added version of herself Connor Marini (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Elizabeth Olsen
If Elizabeth Olsen started acting at age 4 then she started being active in 1993 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Marini (talk • contribs) 15:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Elizabeth Olsen Acting
Why didn't you just say it's only about just acting? Because acting can also mean appearing as well. If you meant acting and not just appearing you could've just specified that to me earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Marini (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Christian Bale scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Christian Bale article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 8, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 8, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)