User talk:Kyle Peake/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Kyle Peake, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
• The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Kyle Peake, good luck, and have fun. — Newslinger talk 09:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Kyle Peake! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ghost Town (Kanye West song) has been accepted

Ghost Town (Kanye West song), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Kanye West song articles

If you're intending to create articles for Kanye West's songs that charted from Ye, why don't you just edit the redirects? You don't have to go through WP:AFC or move them into the draftspace. It's far easier. For instance, here's the edit page for "All Mine". Ss112 18:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Highlights (Kanye West song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madonna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kanye West singles discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I Wonder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed this already

July 2018

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Famous (Kanye West song), have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Violent Crimes (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Parker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on My Baby (Janet Jackson song). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The editor whose username is Z0 13:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Two Words, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages GLC and Cynic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Response

I've fixed it now, will try not to do that in the future.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Yeezus

Template:Yeezus has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Watch the Throne

Template:Watch the Throne has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kanye West singles discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beat Goes On (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

When creating redirects

Hi. Please only create redirects if there is at least a reference to the title you're creating a redirect for at the target article. Otherwise it can look like you're creating redirects based on fan speculation about what future song or album titles are, and this falls under the category of WP:OR. Thanks. Ss112 08:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I may have done this for "80 Degrees", but do you have any other examples? Kyle Peake (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say there was more than one. "When creating redirects..." is just framing what I've said as advice based on your creation of 80 Degrees. Ss112 09:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but when you put 'redirects' I thought you meant the plural as in I created multiple redirects. Kyle Peake (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Waves (Kanye West song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BPI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Don't add Genius and WhoSampled in articles, they are not considered reliable sources in Wikipedia per WP:ALBUM/AVOID. There's a list of reliable sources: WP:RSMUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.61 (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not in the future unless there is no other source. Kyle Peake (talk)

To clarify, in the cases of Genius and WhoSampled they are not to be used at all due to failing WP:USERG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.61 (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Notability

If an individual remix/song was notable, feel free to add them back but be able to contest their notability. What I mean is, did the song in question chart and/or receive significant enough coverage from multiple different verifiable sources (i.e. no USERG & go easy on the blogs) to compose a substantial, detailed article? A majority of the songs you continue to list don't meet those standards: Gossip Files, Good Friday, Get By (Remix), Timmy Turner (Remix). Timmy Turner just links back to Timmy Turner, which itself doesn't have its own article.

The point of the template is to serve as a navigation for individual recordings that have warranted an article of its own or at least have an extensive sub-section of an article dedicated to it. The template is not meant to inserted with every single remix/song that an artist has put simply because there's at least one DJBooth (fails per discussion BTW) or Complex web article written about it.

Regarding the Wikipedia pages themselves (most of which you created), most don't meet the aforementioned requirements, hence all those redirects. Have to be honest, you seem to be more concerned with generating page after page, one after the other, rather than taking the time to gather verifiable information, structure the content in accordance to the WP:MOS and compose a fleshed-out article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.61 (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, maybe you are correct to a certain degree, but ones such as "Lord Lord Lord" and "White Dress" have notability. "Good Friday" does as well if you read in full and I don't do articles with just links to blogs and/or Complex, there's usually more about release plans, demos and miscellaneous. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Didn't say blogs, Complex and DJBooth (which once again fails due to lack of editorial oversight) were your only sources. Though they very much are your primary vehicle and you rely on them extensively. Along with copyright infringing inline YouTube citations and sites that use copyright infringing YouTube links as sources. That list of reliable music sources would really help in that department.

One must be able to articulate the notability of songs. Notability is a bit of a thing on this site. The concept of "I think it's notable and say it's notable therefore it's notable" doesn't get very far. Bear in mind that the articles have to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Your description of "release plans, demos and miscellaneous" intrinsically translates to trivia and promotion. See What Wikipedia is not/WP:NOTPRESSRELEASE. If you actually take the time read (see: skim through) any one of the Wiki links I've provided, you'll find that a majority the songs that you continue to generate separate pages/remove the redirects for do not meet the necessary requirements. Hence why those Wikipedia articles are so scant. Almost all of them, particularly Hurry, are broken up in three or so sections, each containing no more than two sentences each. Many articles in their entirety contain barely enough content to comprise a single paragraph. Also, "For example Obviously there was controversy, notable live performance and" isn't sufficient for the song. As for Good Friday, the page is filled with eight sentences distributed into three sections structured on unreliable sources, its actually not much to read.

Other songs such as Spaceship, Two Words and Street Lights do possess potential. But as said before, you seem to lack the willingness or patience to search for and through reliable sources and use them to craft fully realized articles prior to creating the page or removing redirects. Hence the necessity to pad out articles by way of incongruously listing elongated quotes into the lead sections and list redundant sections and infoboxes. Two separate Critical reception sub-sections for each skit? Moreover, an entire section isn't needed just for one single sentence.

Try to take the time to gather verifiable info to convincingly justify relevancy. Use those verifiable sources to engender thorough, fleshed-out Wikipedia articles. If you're understandably not up for the task, let the article be until a time comes. Otherwise the challenges, deletions and/or redirects will persist. Shift focus away from page creation towards making or requesting individual copyedits. Try pacing yourself, rather than crafting one thin page after another. Frankly, one Good Article is worth a thousand stubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.61 (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Your recent editing history at Template:Kanye West songs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mz7 (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Bad News (song)

I saw your message. Not really sure what you want in response. Whereas I've been quite thorough and specific in my explanations, you give little to go on. If you seek further dialogue you'll have to directly address the topics I purported in my previous comments above and elsewhere. At this point, I don't see myself saying anything I haven't said before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.61 (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I have been using reliable sources and why would u edit it improving info if u just want the page to be deleted anyway? Makes zero sense. --Kyle Peake (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It helps to take a glance at those guidelines

I was going to use that word to describe your own approach to own creating/editing anything that has to do with the guy. But I didn't do so, as I believed you would not appreciate my use of of the word. Anyway, as you've revealed yourself, it take little effort to click on a button and view someone's past edits.

I actually didn't want to take it this far. In the likelihood you were unaware, I simply wanted to draw attention to your editing habits: your emphasis on incessant page creation based vague, questionable notability contrast with reluctance to take gather verifiable info and expand/structure content for these pages prior to moving forward. Thing is, when you trudge on ahead with the habit while offering minimal clarity for your actions, one has no choice by to pursue this lane. You'd think with past redirects and a least one deletion, you'd be willing to take more heed of all this. This is what I meant by the "I tried" comment. I didn't want to resort to deletions, save for obviously unwarranted, unexceptional articles (you know the ones by now). Nor do I desire to get other editors involved. I thought I could just give you a heads up, give advice on taking your time before going on to the next one, and leave it at that.

That's the reason I made those edits (which you've since undone) to Bad News, even though I believe the page should be redirected. I'm trying to work with you, but there has to be input on your part.

And oh yeah, let's keep things civil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.61 (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I have not been redirected/deleted more times than I have so ik what I'm not doing for sure. Kyle Peake (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "more times than I have so ik what I'm not doing for sure" and please be more elaborate in your responses.

I mean that the the pages I've created have not being redirected/deleted a higher number of times than they have been redirected/deleted. --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand that recursive statement. Also use the the colon to indent response, makes this easier to read. Either way, it's inconsequential. Try addressing something beside the one aside.

AN/I notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Lord Lord Lord for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lord Lord Lord is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Lord Lord until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Looking for Trouble (song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Looking for Trouble (song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Looking for Trouble (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Good Friday (Kanye West song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Good Friday (Kanye West song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Friday (Kanye West song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Primetime (Jay-Z and Kanye West song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Primetime (Jay-Z and Kanye West song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primetime (Jay-Z and Kanye West song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of School Spirit (song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article School Spirit (song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School Spirit (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Siiiiiiiiilver Surffffeeeeer Intermission for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Siiiiiiiiilver Surffffeeeeer Intermission is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siiiiiiiiilver Surffffeeeeer Intermission until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mz7 (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I have also completed the following nominations:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Joy (song)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad News (song)

Mz7 (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Say You Will (Kanye West song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idolator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The Verge link

There's no need for that when there are reliable sources available.

Another thing to keep in mind:

There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. There is no consensus regarding The Verge's articles on "culture".

As said time and again, the Verge link you keep citing is inaccurate. This is what happens: People listen to albums and set about creating web pages compiled with extensive lists of supposed sources. And they leave nothing more than a defunk YouTube link or Spotify playlist to back up their claims. These compilations can be found just about everywhere. That was the issue with WhoSampled, its just a bunch of random submissions by random users going by the ear. And its moderators approve of any such submissions so long as the songs in question sound similar enough. Great resource if you're a DJ/music fan, terrible if seeking precise, verifiable citations. Usually isn't that much of an issue. That is until publications usually considered reliable redistribute these sources despite the questionable, often anonymous origins with little to no indication of fact-checking and/or disclaimers regarding their accuracy. XXL for example.

All that aside, at least you've demonstrated that you're willing to look at and acknowledge guidelines. Some anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.61 (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Bad News (Kanye West song). Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Crack Music

The next time you reinstate that article, I will report you for edit-warring. There is a clear consensus for redirection (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crack Music (2nd nomination)) and your behaviour is disruptive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That article was redirected in the past when it didn't express notability. If you actually look at the version I have published since then, it doesn't lack notability. The consensus was decided on back in August and it's October now with a different article, place the Articles for Deletion template on it instead of reporting me or I will report you for edit-warring because you're not providing any evidence of a redirect. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Richardson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Amen (Pusha T song)

Hello, Kyle Peake,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Amen (Pusha T song) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amen (Pusha T song) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

And I would point out that being released as a single does not confer notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Richardson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Richhoncho (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Do NOT perform cut-and-paste moves

This is wrong to do because you are disregarding the required attribution of others' edits to the article. See WP:CUTANDPASTE. Request moves at WP:RM/TR or start a move discussion (see the guide at WP:Moving articles). Ss112 18:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Spaceship (Kanye West song)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Spaceship (Kanye West song).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Thank you for your new article on "Spaceship" by Kanye West. You may or may not be aware that other editors have recently raised objections to the existence of several other articles on individual Kanye songs, and will probably demand more evidence that such a song is notable in its own right. Be prepared for that possibility.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of The Glory (song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Glory (song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Glory (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Coldest Winter (song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coldest Winter (song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coldest Winter (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion nominations

You are NOT allowed to remove AfD nominations, no matter how "obvious" the issue may seem to you. Make your case in the deletion discussion. Repeated removal of nomination templates will be reported. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Responses

Responding with account due to tech issues. In no particular order:

There are differences throughout the noms, a third of them were Merges and I'm sure you're aware another editor posted them all on my behalf.

It would seem your reasoning when comes to all this article generation is based on the premise that if you've managed to create a page for a song, it signifies that the song is therefore notable enough to have a page created for it. There's that recursive logic again.

In regards to infoboxes, that used to be the case. But as a result of incessant GWing, its become standard to require citations for certain song/albums, particularly for more genre-blurring, experimental works. In fact, thanks to editors/IPs who love stuffing infoboxes with genres, subgenres, microgenres submicrogenres, etc with little to no clarification included within articles, there's now even currently discussion to have genres removed from the inboxes altogether. Go easy on the Legacy, Controversy, and In popular culture sections. Much the info you're placing there falls under Background, Critical reception, and Covers. "You only live once" was a vehemently common phrase long before the song or Drake came along. The source you cited for that doesn't even actually support the trivial comparison being made. Its just a link to a nondescript lyric sheet for songs from Graduation. In other words: Original Research. Also may wanna give See WP:UNDUE a browse.

Most importantly, simply because you're unable to find a source besides DJBooth for info you wish to add doesn't make the site any more reliable. Once again, the site fails per discussion due to lack of editorial oversight.

Lastly, dial down on the arbitrary comments and premature name-calling. This isn't Twitter nor are you on some fan forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascribe4 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kyle Peake, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

wumbolo ^^^ 16:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Whatever U Want (Consequence song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Common (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kyle Peake. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Father Stretch My Hands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Champions (GOOD Music song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inverse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Waves (Kanye West song)

Hi mate, just wanted to let you know I'm reviewing Waves (Kanye West song) for GA soon. See you. MikeOwen ^discuss 18:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Waves (Kanye West song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Waves (Kanye West song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MikeOwen -- MikeOwen (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Waves (Kanye West song)

The article Waves (Kanye West song) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Waves (Kanye West song) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MikeOwen -- MikeOwen (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The New Workout Plan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idolator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of The Bounce (song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Bounce (song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bounce (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ascribe4 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Sections

Make note that Controversy sections are for detailing an extensive controversy engendered directly by the conception, content and release of a given song that is the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist. Ex. Its not intended simply for: a) Random lyrics that you believe are provocative, which is subjective to begin with b) Expounding on lines that address a preexisting controversy associated with the artist in question. c) Expounding on lines that address a random incident involving the artist in question that you find controversial, again subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascribe4 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Champions (Paid in Full song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Champions (Paid in Full song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champions (Paid in Full song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ascribe4 (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of On Sight

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article On Sight you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of On Sight

The article On Sight you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:On Sight for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Father Stretch My Hands

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Father Stretch My Hands you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Father Stretch My Hands

The article Father Stretch My Hands you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Father Stretch My Hands for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Music videos

Hey there! Just a heads up, if a song has a music video, they are normally externally linked in the infobox, not in the "external links" sections at the bottom. You can check out DNA (Kendrick Lamar song) and Love (Kendrick Lamar song) for guidance on how to do that. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Wouldn't Leave

Hello, Kyle Peake. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Wouldn't Leave".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. DannyS712 (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712 Back when I first starting editing on Wiki in 2018, I made a bunch of draft articles with lack of awareness on how to create proper articles. I haven't made any since after understanding Wiki a lot more. --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Song Accolades Tables'

When doing accolades tables like you do for Kanye West pages, its better to include the year rather than ceremony and year:

Year - Organization - Award - Result - Reference

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_Space#Accolades

Your GA nomination of On Sight

The article On Sight you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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 Talk:On Sight for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Father Stretch My Hands

The article Father Stretch My Hands you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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 Talk:Father Stretch My Hands for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Father Stretch My Hands

The article Father Stretch My Hands you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Father Stretch My Hands for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Another Believer Aha cheers knew I'd get there eventually! Kyle Peake (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Violent Crimes (song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Violent Crimes (song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Violent Crimes (song)

The article Violent Crimes (song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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 Talk:Violent Crimes (song) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Violent Crimes (song)

The article Violent Crimes (song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Violent Crimes (song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black Skinhead

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black Skinhead you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black Skinhead

The article Black Skinhead you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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 Talk:Black Skinhead for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black Skinhead

The article Black Skinhead you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black Skinhead for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of All Mine (Kanye West song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article All Mine (Kanye West song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of All Mine (Kanye West song)

The article All Mine (Kanye West song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:All Mine (Kanye West song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Amazing (Kanye West song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Amazing (Kanye West song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Amazing (Kanye West song)

The article Amazing (Kanye West song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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 Talk:Amazing (Kanye West song) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Amazing (Kanye West song)

The article Amazing (Kanye West song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Amazing (Kanye West song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BeatlesLedTV -- BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

All Mine - Alt text discussion

You say that you reverted my edits on All Mine (Kanye West song) because of concerns that all the images needed alt text. However, my edits never touched alt text at all - what I deleted acted as a caption, which is a problem when an image caption already exists. In fact, that was the sole reason I was visiting the page: those three images had more than one caption, which generates a Linter error.

Any alt text in an image, as stated in WP:EIS, must be in the format "alt=(text here)". That text must also be plain text (and thus not have things like Wikilinks in them, which the text I deleted did), and meet the standards listed in WP:ALT for alt text. If "alt=" is not present, Wikipedia will try to parse it as other options, most likely as a caption.

"3 - Naomi Campbell 001", for instance, is just a derivative of the file name, and does nothing to describe the image displayed that the caption doesn't already handle. The other two deletions I performed were more suitable alt texts, as they're a bit more descriptive of the who and where the image contains. In this situation, though, I wasn't taking them as alt texts, but captions - to that end, I deleted what I did because I was preserving the captions that were the most relevant to the article.

The three images I deleted options on never had alt text in the first place. I'll do my best to insert apropos alt text if it will assuage your concerns regarding good article criteria, but please keep the above information in mind for the future.

"Stronger"

Hey Kyle. Since we talked about "Stronger" on my talk page, I decided to check through the article's history to see who exactly expanded it the most. It's common courtesy to consult the main editor of articles before nominating them for GA, FA, FL, etc. However, based on my findings, there hasn't been just one person who has expanded it the most since 2007. It seems as though there have been hundreds of editors (mainly random IP addresses) that have contributed to "Stronger" over the years. What really interested me was the fact that there hasn't been any new messages on its talk page in 10 years. So, it looks like you wouldn't really have to reach out to anyone for this one, since it hasn't;t been just one person. However, because the article is significantly longer than all the previous GAs you and I have worked on (at over 70k bytes), a review of it would take significantly longer. I wanted to notify you of this just in case you wanted to nominate "Stronger" for GA soon. Speaking of GA, what's next on the list? I currently wanna bring "C.R.E.A.M." by the Wu-Tang Clan up to GA (or at least improve it lots) but as always if you'd like to me review another West article I'd be more than happy to. Hope things are doing well and happy belated Easter! :-) – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV Hello, happy belated Easter right back at ya! I would be possibly willing to help you out with "C.R.E.A.M." after I have looked at the article to see what I could add. As for "Stronger," it still has quite a while to go before becoming a GA and the editors don't need to be reached out to, since I looked in the CheckLinks box then saw that all dead ones were already archived (apart from a few which I sorted out). The article still requires more sources in the Cover versions and media usage section, more information under Commercial performance, sources for Track listings and some more improvements before it can be at least worthy of a nomination. Nice to hear from you and will post to you when I've decided on the next West GA! --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Response

Not sure what knowledge you referring to or how the number of edits I've made is in any way demonstrative of my knowledge on the subject of one particular article. For the record, the reasons why those pages are GA have more to do with the almost unilateral insisting on your part than some unequivocal quality. It also has to do with the fact that I chose not to jump in and call out any issues regarding those pages. This is largely because I was to busy at the time and didn't feel like getting into it. Make note that simply because it made it GA statues hardly means that its absolutely perfect, that it can't be improved, or that it should've reached GA status in the first place. There are GA and even FA status articles which are laced with unreliable sources and excessive vandals edits that have yet to be picked up on. That's what delisting is for. Trying to avoid that here.

No one likes engaging in GWing so I'll be blunt. I don't know where you keep getting this alternative stuff you keep inserting into individual pages but I'm sure by know the drill by now when it comes to genres: It has to be specifically and directly cited by a verifiable source. What you're doing now amounts to synthesizing.

All that aside, I have to give you credit. For some time now, I've noticed you've made a lot of improvements regarding your editing habits. Its partly the reason why I've decided to take it easy and hold back for a while. Though many of the pages you've created retain that list format. Also, you still take that "subjective info proceeds an actual source" approach in some regards, particularly when it comes to genres. Still, keep up the good work. One last thing, going off what I said before, this isn't Twitter, this isn't a subreddit, this isn't a Genius forum. Keep it nonpersonal, keep it civil and I'll try to do the same. Ascribe4 (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ascribe4 If you look throughout the composition section, the content does make the song acceptable to list alternative R&B as a genre. Also thanks for sourcing pop. --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The assertion is quite vague. As I just said, this amounts to original research per WP:SYNTH. Your welcome for the source though. Ascribe4 (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ascribe4 Fair enough and can you stop putting that sentence about West and Jeezy collaborating in the lead in the background and conception section because it's already in there reworded? I have now removed it from the article and left the original in background and conception btw. --Kyle Peake (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I've since edited the page for clarity while also avoiding redundancy. Think it should suffice for us both. I was intending to make more follow up changes, but this was not really a good time for me to begin with. Even though you came in a bit derisive, you seem willing to cooperate so I think I can a put most of this off for now. Ascribe4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited It's My Birthday, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Genius

Genius has been cited as unreliable per discussion. This one being the most recent. Its simply a matter of someone adding it to the the list. I know you have an affinity for the site, but you need to move on and stop relying on it. In this case in particular, would've it really been that much to use the given New York Times link instead?

I've already addressed that fallacious GA argument, so I don't know why you're making again. One reviewer is not the absolute authority one any given topic/article, hence why challenges and delistings exist. Still trying to avoid the latter. Also unfortunately, not everyone here knows better than to take your word for it [1]. Everything regarding the relationship you make with Power on ITAKY amounts to OR. None of those sources you provide make that connection. Once again, derive and apply the information intended for an article's text from verifiable sources first and foremost, rather than stringing together random sources to form bridges and backup one's preexisting ideas. Ascribe4 (talk)

Ascribe4 Okay fine, I will leave it as removed. But you haven't given any reasons to remove so much content from the lead when literally everything you removed doesn't need to be rv, as it gives information about the song's production, changes and its chart positions. You can't just list the US position and nothing else, that is ridiculous. As for the background being OR, it is obvious that ITAKY is linked suicide and this is even referenced in the article so it gives a background into West discussing suicidal thoughts and I am removing that tag now. The connection is obvious and I didn't put OR like "so-and-so said a connection between..." so do you understand now to keep it? --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is listing every country a song happened to chart. Not to mention the fact that the chart positions of most of those countries aren't very significant. The only countries where it cracked the top 40 were Canada and Ireland. You can see why I'd be open to including those two in the lead but not, say, France. The rest of the content I removed is trivial within the context of the lead and/or had questionable sourcing. As said before, you're synthesizing. If you can cite a specific, verifiable source in which a credible writer/reviewer/journalist/etc explicitly notes and expounds on the direct relationship between ITAKY to previous songs/comments where he touches on the subject (i.e. "Power"), then by all means this would warrant inclusion in the article. Anything else is original research per WP:SYNTH. Also, would it hurt to run some of your copyedits through Word before submitting? Ascribe4 (talk)

Ascribe4 I have looked at WP:SYNTH. The page says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I have not done this by mentioning West previously commenting on suicide, as it is only giving background and the suicidal thoughts are later explained in the article - I did not make a conclusion, just referenced that he previously had suicidal thoughts. I think you're not looking at this properly because if you re read WP:SYNTH I did NOT do that here. Will not remove your message though as I do not wish to engage in edit warring to risk a ban. As for "trivial" content in the lead, the longest song can be removed yeah, but the information about the clean version is anything but "trivial" as it is definitely notable. The a cappella voices should not be removed because it gives information on the instrumentation. The New York Times mention should stay as the interview was significantly covered and is notable. As for listening party, this is arguably the most notable info and Should 100% stay. But about the countries, it's not like it charted in 20 or something extreme so they can all be listed in the lead. I know you said not to ref GA reviews but I was told before by BeatlesLedTV on one review to make sure chart listings (plural obvy) are included in the introduction, unless there's TOO MANY like "All Mine". I feel this can be used for reason to edit as this user has proposed to review this article for GA criteria and he's got 1000's of edits and will ask for all the countries to be mentioned as there's not many. Whilst you only have less than 500. I have been trying to engage in civil debates with you over what can and can't be sourced, but you haven't linked to anything proving me, as open minded as I am, wrong so not to be offensive but I'm starting to wonder if SOME of your comments are trolling. Oh wait, forgot to say: Stop putting the unlicensed sample in background; it is about the song's comp. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You haven't been trying very hard. These things always kick off or end with some adolescent labeling or a histrionic accusation. And they always seem to come at the worst time. That aside, you keep on regurgitating the same fallacious arguments. The rebuttal invariably comes down to a petulant, "Well, I have more edits." You have no idea how long I've been visiting the site prior to deciding to start this account or what reasons played a role on why I decided to hold off so long. Despite your presumed experience, you demonstrated time and again the disparity between the two us in regards to knowledge of Wikipedia policies. So I really don't understand all this editorializing on your part. As for the countries, your taking one single individual editor's formal statement to the literal extreme for the sake of rhetoric. Obviously, the intro includes chart positions (as in "position(s)") hence why I did not leave it devoid of one. The intro is not going to include every single one, especially when a chart placements is as low as 125. As for everything else in that lead, organize it into sensible paragraphs, with each related sentence flowing into the next. Ascribe4 (talk)

BeatlesLedTV Since you will be reviewing "ITAKY" soon, could I have your opinion now on the "issues" claimed by this user please? And I would like you to read both of our messages + look at history so you 100% know what's going on as I do not see why he/she keeps claiming content is inappropriate when it's not. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I'm still a little confused since idk where this argument started, but I'll try to do the best I can. I do remember when reviewing "Father Stretch My Hands" saying that Genius was unreliable (or implying it at least); that's on me if I didn't full have you remove that info. In terms of listing charts and whatnot, you shouldn't list every country. When writing "Ultralight Beam" I originally just had "numerous" in the lead but in that GA review I was told to just list them out since it was only four. I personally think it's ok to list every country when it's less than like five, but anything more is overkill. That probably doesn't answer everything but I'm still confused as to what this argument is over and could use a brief summary. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV ok here we go. So Genius has been agreed on as unreliable by both of us at this point, though there are issues with "ITAKY". I believe that the lead should have more info (see previous revision for what I view as suitable, though I will change the chart summary when I next edit it) and there is a debate about Background: does the content about "Power" classify as OR like Ascribe4 is claiming so? I believe otherwise because it only says that he reference suicide in the song, no mention of ITAKY is in the sentence but that is because the article later discusses the song being about suicide. So do you agree that the lead should have content included but with chart summary shortened to "numerous" and what are your thoughts on the Background debate that I explained? By the way, not to be offensive but this debate has stressed me out and I am logging out so won't be back on wiki for 2 days. Respond whenever though because I'll get back to you. --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV Just got back on Wiki again, I was expecting to see a response from you after I'd been offline for two days but there's none so I'll ask you to read the above para again and then respond^ That would be nice thanks a lot! --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I am so sorry I was going to last night but got completely side-tracked. In response to your question, I don't think the info about "Power" in "ITAKY" is OR, mainly because it's sourced by Billboard, who is seen as reliable. I would say it is relevant to the text since it DOES gives background on West's suicidal thoughts throughout his life. I know the death of his mother Donda was extremely heartbreaking for him (leading to 808s) and the backlash of his interruption of Taylor Swift at the 2009 MTV awards was also hard on him (leading to a self-imposed exile and shortly after MBDTF) so it would make sense that he had suicidal thoughts since 2009. I definitely don't think that info classifies as OR, especially since it's sourced by an RS. Unfortunately, I can't review the song until that tag is removed (as GAs can't have any tags of any sort) so it will have to be sorted out before I'll be able to do a proper GA review for it. Anyways sorry for the late response, I hope things have been going well (other than this). :-) – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV Thank you for your input, Ascribe4 I will remove your tag so this article can be removed and I am not stating this user's opinion as better than yours, just referencing the fact that GA reviews need such tags not to be in place. Also BeatlesLedTV, there was some issues over me and Ascribe4 about the lead's length. If you look through the previous revision by me, you can see what I set it out as and this user believed it should've been trimmed (look for most recent edit of mine to see what is was and I will summarise the charts by the way) --Kyle Peake (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I personally think leads for GAs should be at least 2 paragraphs but I've seen many that just have one. The point of a lead to an article is to introduce the reader to the article's main points; henceforth, the main points should be summarized in the lead. As long as the main points are summarized, it doesn't matter how long it is. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

GT & ITAKY

I honestly had trouble understanding what you were trying to say because you packed everything into one single run-on sentence. But here I go. The Composition section is meant to be a descriptive encapsulation of the composition of a song. This includes musical elements it constitutes of, the genres it incorporates, the instruments that are used, an overview of the lyrical themes, etc. Much of the info you keep placing there is more suitable in a Background and/or a Recording section.

As for the lead, I agree with the notion of having a relatively dense lead. The issue I have is with the content you keep inserting. The lead is supposed to summarize the main aspects of an article without going to go too far into unnecessary detail. That's kind of still somewhat an issue with the articles you create. Even if they're decently sourced, they're still lacking because there's an emphasis on taking and slapping down strings of quotes rather than thoroughly reading and extracting the substance of a web page's content and then seamlessly redistributing the info into the fabric of an article's text. Hence why in the end, you still have to try stretch things out just for the sake of appearances to achieve said dense look. Ascribe4 (talk)

Don't feel like repeating myself so here's a coy/paste: "If you can cite a specific, verifiable source in which a credible writer/reviewer/journalist/etc explicitly notes and expounds on the direct relationship between ITAKY to previous songs/comments where he touches on the subject (i.e. "Power"), then by all means this would warrant inclusion in the article." The Metro link does that for "Runaway," that's why it was included. Ascribe4 (talk)

Ascribe4 Actually, the article by Billboard links Runaway to "Power", and Runaway from Metro works in the Wiki page as you typed, therefore the Billboard article can be used as a link between those two even tho it doesn't mention "ITAKY" since it is an expansion of West's suicidal thoughts background. Not everything has to be directly linked in the sources (I mean as in not every source has to mention "ITAKY" specifically) as long as it is of enough relevance to be in background, which it is because it explicitly shows the Runaway and "Power" relationship about suicide, can you just leave this as BeatlesLedTV has agreed with me and I know you said don't ref some user with more edits, but it makes sense here as he/she is reviewing this for a GA, not you. Plus as I have pointed out before, just leave a message on the talk page asking about this and see if you can get people to agree with you since that is civil and if you think I should, sorry but my edit was first so it's your position to do so. You have literally zero valid reasons to rv the content on your own as it is a reliable source on a relationship of the other song and the film, sorry if there's some repetition in these sentences but it's still true that I don't have OR. Understand now? Also, I had to fix your repetition of the same ref twice in the page by using a refname. On top of this, why was the slavery update removed from lead when it is definitely notable? Actually respond to all of my questions rather than being ignorant... --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly not entirely sure why there is such a big argument going on between the two of you on this subject. The articles that discuss "Power" and Runaway were published back in 2010, during the actual MBDTF days, so there's obviously no possible way they could mention "ITAKY". The Metro article does actually mention the Runaway film, so I would say it's ok to mention it, especially since West has had a history of suicidal thoughts. The Billboard ref from 2010 also mentions "Power" and Runaway, and while the article for "Power" itself doesn't explicitly mention suicidal thoughts, it reads "The track seemingly culminates with the suicide of its main character, ending with a menacing laugh provided by West", as well as mentioning that its lyrics partly deal with personal issues; so, while Runaway should obviously be mentioned, as long as there are RSs that specifically mention "Power" being related to suicidal thoughts as well, then include it. If not, remove it. This is my two sense on the subject matter. If the debate continues, I suggest bringing it up to an administrator or something, because it seems like this is becoming a much bigger deal than it needs to be. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV The Billboard ref's relevant content reads: 'He has hinted at the subject of suicide in his recent song "Power," which includes the repeated lines: "Now this would be a beautiful death - I'm jumping out the window, I'm letting everything go."', so yeah it does mention suicidal thoughts about the song. The debate is about how Ascribe4 believes that a source needs to be published that mentions both "ITAKY" and "Power" in order for the song's suicide-related content to belong in the article, though Runaway has been directly related to it - also, Runaway and "Power" have been directly related, therefore it works. Understand now? --Kyle Peake (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that makes total sense. I don't really don't know why "ITAKY" and "Power" need to be directly linked but again that's just one person's opinion. It might help to bring it up to more veteran editors for their opinions on the matter. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV Thanks for telling it like it is, Ascribe4 see now? Also, Another Believer what do you think of this? --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Had stuff to do. Still do, so I'll again keep it short but comprehensible. I'm calling for a source in which the writer concretely connects (as in "reveals and speaks on the relationship between...") "ITAKY" to a previous song and the subject of suicide. The writer of the 2018 Metro article does that for "Runaway" in the sixth paragraph. The 2010 Billboard article does not. I can do the same thing you're doing by citing a random article written prior to the creation of "ITAKY" that quotes the closing bars of "Bring Me Down" or provides a brief description of the ending of that alternate video for "FL" or a features a summary of the short film WWOAFT and so on. Ascribe4 (talk)

Ascribe4 Well the thing is, as you said the Runaway relationship works, though so does "Power" as it has an article relating it to Runaway which means that even though not mentioned in the same source, it should work as a connection to "ITAKY" since as I said, the source refs what has been directly compared to it. On another note, I have told you about this before but you haven't paid any attention; stop using duplicate refs on the article, just use refname! I'm on about The New York Times source. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of It's My Birthday

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article It's My Birthday you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zmbro -- Zmbro (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of It's My Birthday

The article It's My Birthday you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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 Talk:It's My Birthday for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zmbro -- Zmbro (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of It's My Birthday

The article It's My Birthday you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:It's My Birthday for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zmbro -- Zmbro (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Power (Kanye West song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KTG (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black Skinhead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Ultralight Beam"

Hey Kyle. Regarding this, where did you find that? – zmbro _(talk) 13:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Zmbro I sourced it in the release and promotion section a while back. --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see now, all good, was so confused at first. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 14:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Low Lights

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Low Lights you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Be Like Me

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Be Like Me you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Low Lights

The article Low Lights you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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 Talk:Low Lights for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Be Like Me

The article Be Like Me you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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 Talk:Be Like Me for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Low Lights

The article Low Lights you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Low Lights for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paranoid (Kanye West song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paranoid (Kanye West song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zmbro -- Zmbro (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paranoid (Kanye West song)

The article Paranoid (Kanye West song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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 Talk:Paranoid (Kanye West song) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zmbro -- Zmbro (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Be Like Me

The article Be Like Me you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Be Like Me for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Response

The song does not contain an interpolation, nor does the given source even claim that it does. That aside, the critic was making a comparison. Saying something reminiscent to a different other thing is not the same as saying the two are one an the same, that it is that very thing. This is in direct contrast to the sources that I provided, both of which explicitly describe the genre of the song. But the comparison is notable and verifiable enough to be cited in critical reception. Ascribe4 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paranoid (Kanye West song)

The article Paranoid (Kanye West song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paranoid (Kanye West song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zmbro -- Zmbro (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Eerie Destruction

Hi ther again! Thank you for your reviews, I'm happy someone finally picked them. I just wanted to say that I write and produce music in my spare time. I recently released an EP, comprising four demos: https://open.spotify.com/album/1MJn3bTjVjBzGSZmYkdRg7. Would love to hear some feedback, if you have time, although it's very dark pop and electronic (not your genre I guess)... :) Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak I am not offended by your mistake, but I am actually a fan of electronic and pop, though rap is my main genre. Did check out your music, actually was quite good! --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry :/ I'm glad you enjoyed some of my stuff though :) Greets back; Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak Good voice, though the production is the highlight. Kyle Peake (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, wow, many thanks. Nothing there is really professionally done, so I'm quite surprised by your comment. I'm glad you noticed. Any song in particular that you liked? Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yikes (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Black Skinhead

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article "Black Skinhead" has been completed.

I agree with the FA reviewers who felt the Good Article review was superficial and that the article's writing should have resulted in a "Fail". I believe this has now been addressed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Aja GA nomination

Well, thank you for sticking to your deadline; I guess it just wasn't the best two-week period for me to be addressing it (no, scratch that ... it just wasn't, period).

I'll continue to work on your punch list when I can and renominate it at some point in the future. Thanks for your reviewing! Didn't agree with everything, but does anyone ever? Happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Yeah I did read some of your points and you were right at times. --Kyle Peake (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you. Cheung2 (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cheung2: Sorry I don't have interest in copyediting such a small article. Good luck though! --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thank you for getting articles in good article status. Keep up the good work! TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)