User talk:KyleJoan

Leave a message, and I'll get back to you. Cheers, Wikipedians!
-KyleJoan

Archives

0 1 2 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt

As a third person re-added the information using the same source as I did I have re-added the change of name. Though I have attempted to address your concerns by swapping the names to have the petitioned for name as not the name displayed and to make clear the petition has yet to be ruled upon. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Fender Birthday

Hello, well I'm contacting you here because I think it's better to discuss here than to go to the article, make the edit again and have it reversed, I think it would end up generating an edit war. So let's discuss here. Well, in addition to having Sam's date of birth on Apple Music, there is also a Tweet that he made in 2014 where he said the following: "Just found out that I share my birthday with Al Pacino. #Crease #Belte". Al Pacino, according to his Wikipedia page, was born on April 25, 1940. Logically, Sam Fender was not born in 1940, so we can only conclude that he was born on April 25.

Other Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A post from Sam Fender on Instagram thanking for the birthday wishes he received, the post was made on April 26th (one day later of his supposed birthday).

Well, take a look at everything and see if that's enough. --Damitinha (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Damitinha. I don't believe we'd interacted prior to this, so it's nice to meet you. I believe the Official Charts Company and MYP are appropriate sources to support his birthdate, so feel free to add it (per MOS:DOB, please format it this way: 25 April 1994) alongside those two sources now. Thank you for this. KyleJoan 03:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you very much for the answer. I added the birthdate to the article with the sources you suggested. Thanks again, and have a great day. Damitinha (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{talk • contribs} 18:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. This is very cool and kind of you. KyleJoan 08:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Tony Dokoupil. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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^talk 14:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Every edit of [[User:Matza Pizza]]'s that I reverted contained a [[WP:BLP]] violation. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&diff=1250246053&oldid=1250245328 This revert] removed a contentious and poorly sourced positive claim about the subject, the subject's children's unsourced birth years ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&curid=60682853&diff=1250624318&oldid=1250624107 that another user has now removed]), and improperly synthesized circumstances surrounding the subject's religious conversion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&diff=1250461032&oldid=1250425553 These] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&diff=1250583881&oldid=1250583544 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&diff=1250585949&oldid=1250585710 This revert] removed the birth years again. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&diff=1250542042&oldid=1250534610 My one revert] in the last 24 hours that did not involve a BLP violation removal was followed by [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKiharaNoukan&diff=1250549600&oldid=1246577012 a message on the other user's talk page, where I tried to help them craft more neutral material], and then a [[Talk:Tony Dokoupil#RfC|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? [[User:KyleJoan|<span style="font-family:Consolas; color:#CD8C95">'''K'''yle'''J'''oan</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:KyleJoan|<span style="font-family:Consolas; color:#8B6969">talk</span>]]</sup> 14:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Every edit of [[User:Matza Pizza]]'s that I reverted contained a [[WP:BLP]] violation. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&diff=1250246053&oldid=1250245328 This revert] removed a contentious and poorly sourced positive claim about the subject, the subject's children's unsourced birth years ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&curid=60682853&diff=1250624318&oldid=1250624107 that another user has now removed]), and improperly synthesized circumstances surrounding the subject's religious conversion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&diff=1250461032&oldid=1250425553 These] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&diff=1250583881&oldid=1250583544 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&diff=1250585949&oldid=1250585710 This revert] removed the birth years again. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&diff=1250542042&oldid=1250534610 My one revert] in the last 24 hours that did not involve a BLP violation removal was followed by [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKiharaNoukan&diff=1250549600&oldid=1246577012 a message on the other user's talk page, where I tried to help them craft more neutral material], and then a [[Talk:Tony Dokoupil#RfC|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? [[User:KyleJoan|<span style="font-family:Consolas; color:#CD8C95">'''K'''yle'''J'''oan</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:KyleJoan|<span style="font-family:Consolas; color:#8B6969">talk</span>]]</sup> 14:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Every edit of [[User:Matza Pizza]]'s that I reverted contained a [[WP:BLP]] violation. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&diff=1250246053&oldid=1250245328 This revert] removed a contentious and poorly sourced positive claim about the subject, the subject's children's unsourced birth years ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&curid=60682853&diff=1250624318&oldid=1250624107 that another user has now removed]), and improperly synthesized circumstances surrounding the subject's religious conversion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&diff=1250461032&oldid=1250425553 These] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&diff=1250583881&oldid=1250583544 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&diff=1250585949&oldid=1250585710 This revert] removed the birth years again. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tony_Dokoupil&diff=1250542042&oldid=1250534610 My one revert] in the last 24 hours that did not involve a BLP violation removal was followed by [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKiharaNoukan&diff=1250549600&oldid=1246577012 a message on the other user's talk page, where I tried to help them craft more neutral material], and then a [[Talk:Tony Dokoupil#RfC|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? [[User:KyleJoan|<span style="font-family:Consolas; color:#CD8C95">'''K'''yle'''J'''oan</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:KyleJoan|<span style="font-family:Consolas; color:#8B6969">talk</span>]]</sup> 14:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}