User talk:KyleJoan/Archives/2

Hello

We need history because we want to know at what time he/she won title, rank of title reign , how many days held King Rudra 04:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@King Rudra: None of the things you mentioned is in the article. We only need to verify information that is there. What you personally want to know holds no relevance. KyleJoan 04:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christian Bale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cowman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Christian Bale

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Christian Bale has been completed.

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

Best of luck with the FAC when you get to it.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks great, Twofingered Typist. Thank you so much again! KyleJoan 04:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Paul Mescal

Hello there! I name dropped Melissa Barrera on Paul Mescal's page because she's the lead of the film, and I don't believe there's a wiki page for the upcoming project. I feel like it describes the film better than just the title with no link for further information. Thoughts? The One I Left (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@The One I Left: The Mescal article links Carmen (upcoming film) and says that the film is a contemporary film adaptation of the opera of the same name. What further information would readers need at this time? KyleJoan 18:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh my apologies I didn't notice the link to the film. I still think the name of the lead, Barrera, makes sense? Seems relevant and not too insignificant? The One I Left (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@The One I Left: Like I said in my edit summary, Mescal's other upcoming films' leads (e.g., Oscar winner Olivia Colman) are just as relevant, but we shouldn't overwhelm the article with co-stars' names unless they add contextual value to Mescal's role. KyleJoan 18:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Cynthia Erivo

You must love talk to me haha. So with Cynthia Erivo I disagree with you comparison because The Color Purple is what gained her to stardom, it was her broadway debut and she acted in the role from 2015-2107. The reason your comparison doesn't work for me is that Harriet worked under "film roles" because it's in the middle of her film career. Does that make sense? Also I think we should name Steve McQueen in the body. He's an important director and it doesn't make sense to revert it. There edit I made were constructive, and added to her page. These are reasonable additions.The One I Left (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Nope. MOS:OVERSECTION. Does that make sense? Have fun opening a discussion on the article's talk page! I hope you have as much fun there as you did with the Chrissy Teigen discussion! KyleJoan 11:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, It's definitely not MOS:OVERSECTION, I'm being reasonable and nice to you and I don't understand why you are being snide and disrespectful.The One I Left (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Britney Spears

I may have misread the NYT article but in no way accuse me of "This is false" because I'm not a newbie, so be careful with your language because you do not know who made the edit, and do not know the intention, always presume WP:GOODFAITH. Cheers and good luck. CoryGlee (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: Huh? I called the information false. I did not accuse anyone of anything. It's odd that you would tell another user to be mindful of calling false information, well, false information. I did not know or care who included the false information (I'll use that description again since that was what it was), so if you took offense to it, then simply be more careful next time, especially when documenting contentious topics such as a high-profile conservatorship. KyleJoan 19:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, seeing your past warning of edit war, and encounters with other users I didn't realise you are already disrespectful. Don't mind, I won't bother again. My apologies if I offended you. CoryGlee (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I owe you a huge apology

Dear KyleJoan, you are not a disrespectful user and you were right about what you did. I have (sometimes) some issues to deal with. I'm young. I was never mad at you but mad at myself because I cannot stand/admit/tolerate own mistakes. You are a great user and contributor and I hope you can forgive me for my hot headed statement and work together in whichever article we cross paths. A profound apology from me and looking forward to read your response. Truly sorry. CoryGlee (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@CoryGlee: I appreciate that. I was confused by your original message since we had such an amicable discussion on your talk page earlier this year, but it happens. No apology necessary. KyleJoan 21:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

James Spears / Britney Spears

I would like to mention on the articles of Larry Rudolph and James Parnell Spears of their alleged abuse, as well as Rudolph formerly being Miley Cyrus' manager according to Britney Spears' hearing on June 23. However, I would like for you to contribute instead, if possible. Or if you approve of me adding this info, touch up / re-word anything you seem to consider bias.--Thelonggoneblues (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Thelonggoneblues: I'll try to review it when I can, but please just make sure that you pay extra close attention to WP:NPOV and the reliability of the sources you're reading. KyleJoan 21:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Chrissy Teigen

Hi User talk:KyleJoan, I saw your message on my talk page and decided to bring it here and frankly I'm concerned about your objectivity on this matter. I'm not sure if you aren't aware or if you just seem to want to sanitize her page of any negative press. It has been widely covered by various news outlets about her online bullying, harassment, etc. and her career repercussions. The Associated Press, and ABC News as well as many other outlets have described the term "harassment". Such as this ABC News headline, "Chrissy Teigen apologizes to Courtney Stodden for harassment". Newsweek along with many other outlets have reported Macy's and Bloomingdales cutting ties with Teigen amid the controversy. Again various outlets reported on Teigen's exit from the Netflix show with Variety's headline: "Chrissy Teigen Exits Netflix’s ‘Never Have I Ever’ After Online Bullying Controversy". Entertainment Weekly wrote, "that comes in the wake of controversy over alleged cyberbullying by Teigen." It is always impossible to know whether they let her go or she truly stepped down, but what is known is this all happened during the controversy that has again, been widely reported. To try and downplay this major story is very concerning. This has been widely reported by reliable sources. When I added the content I added my sources as well. This content needs to be restored. You can't revert things just because you dislike what's being reported by reliable sources.The One I Left (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@The One I Left: Thank you for your concern, but my objectivity is just fine. You wrote that Teigen admitted to widespread harassment. The sources you provided said she harassed Stodden. That's widespread? Per WP:RSP, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable. Can you provide reliable sources that say that Macy's and Bloomingdale's dropped Teigen's line because of the controversy? If it is impossible to know whether they let her go or she truly stepped down, why did you write that she was pushed out of the role? And more importantly, if we don't know why she isn't going to be on that Netflix show, why did you list the cancelation of her appearance as a career repercussion? What's next? Teigen got a new tattoo, you know? Would you like to include that she got the tattoo because of the controversy since we're including original research? You've been here long enough to understand the BLP policy, and some of your additions violated it, so I removed them. KyleJoan 13:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@The One I Left: All of that said, I'd be happy to talk more about objectivity if you'd like, including how it pertains to the new materials you included on Melissa Barrera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

• Barrera earned praise... Unsourced.
• Barrera starring as Vanessa, the stunningly beautiful love interest... Fails MOS:EDITORIAL.
• Monica Castillo of The Wrap praised Barrera's performance... TheWrap review cited only said she was great in her performance of "It Won't Be Long Now".

If I may provide an alternative to the advice you gave me, you can't include your own unverified conclusions just because you dislike what's not written in reliable sources. Cheers! KyleJoan 13:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I knew you'd try to change the topic haha. Regardless, I frankly have to disagree, it seems as though you cannot be objective about this controversy given your reasoning. The widespread harassment is from Teigen's apology, "I’ve apologized publicly to one person, but there are others — and more than just a few — who I need to say I’m sorry to. I’m in the process of privately reaching out to the people I insulted." It's like you don't even want to look it up. I even added the quote and you reverted it. The words that have been constantly used by Teigen and reliable sources have been "insulted", "bullied", and "harassed". Others have also publicy spoken out other than Stodden. I'd say that's "widespread harassment". It has been reported that she was "pushed out" whether it was her decision to quit or they fired her we might never know. It's necessary to point out that Bloomingdales and Macy's suddenly dropped Teigen's products during this time of reported incidents of widespread harassment. Also I think it's laughable for you try to draw some sort of comparison between her being let go from a Netflix show during a period of intense scrutiny and controversy versus getting a tattoo. Before put this up for discussion on the talk page, do you have any concessions? I've made my points pretty clear via reliable sources, you seem to want to cleanse her page of any negative press. Definitely worthy of a subjection labeled "controversy" in the body, if not a mention in the lede.The One I Left (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Also regarding your criticisms of my inclusions of Barrera I stand by those. Did you watch the movie or know anything about the material? I'm not commenting on the actress, I'm describing her character, who is a woman known for her beauty, and the love interest of the lead. Also she has been praised for her performance with Castillo writing in part, "It’s an impressive showcase for Barrera’s talents". There is a longer quote I added but all that seems fair. Cheers! The One I Left (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@The One I Left: I knew you wouldn't be able to justify your edits haha. Teigen said she owed more people an apology. She didn't admit to widespread harassment. It's like you don't even want to read what the words actually denote. Seriously, if we want to include original research, there are so many other salacious things to consider. I did revert the quote. Why overwhelm the article? Teigen has had lots of quotable things we can include. Should we discuss which quotes should be in the article? I'd like to include "pussy ass bitch" myself.

The words that have been constantly used by Teigen and reliable sources have been "insulted", "bullied", and "harassed". What reliable sources? I keep asking you to provide them, and you never do. How many times would you like to hear that your conclusion that it was widespread harassment does not make the unverified term worthy of inclusion? In fact, it is a BLP violation. I also think it's laughable for you to try to drum up a suggestion that she's faced career repercussions when no reliable source has verified such things. This discussion seems to have reached an end. Good luck on keeping the Melissa Barrera article bulked up with all of the glowing descriptions you can concoct!

P.S. Teigen was let go from the Netflix show? Are you using your imagination as a reliable source again? KyleJoan 13:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Teigen said she owed more people an apology. She didn't admit to widespread harassment. Do you even read what you write? Honestly I think we should just hash this out on the talk page. It's no use slinging mud at each other. Let's calm the temperature down and see what other's think. The One I Left (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@The One I Left: Feel free to open a discussion if you'd like. I'll respond accordingly. KyleJoan 13:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I just also wanted to add this. The words that have been constantly used by Teigen and reliable sources have been "insulted", "bullied", and "harassed". "Insulted" was specifically worded by Teigen in her apology. "Bullied" CNN describes it as a "cybullying scandal" and "Harassed", ABC News headline: Chrissy Teigen apologizes to Courtney Stodden for "harassment". The One I Left (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@The One I Left: Let's recap. She said she insulted people. CNN and 'THR' said she's involved in a cyberbullying scandal without mentioning how many parties are involved. ABC News says she harassed Courtney Stodden. You say she's admitted to widespread harassment. Is this correct? KyleJoan 14:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

She admitted to widespread harassment, abuse, bullying, insults, whatever word you want to choose when she admitted in her apology "there are others — and more than just a few — who I need to say I’m sorry to. I’m in the process of privately reaching out to the people I insulted." In the context of her apology and the scandal cyberbullying encompassed insults. Are you specifically taking issue with the word "harassment"? Would widespread insults work? There are multiple people speaking out that Teigen insulted them to the point of them considering suicide, that is harassment. Would a subsection entitled, "alleged incidents of cyberbulling" work? The One I Left (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@The One I Left: Nope. MOS:OVERSECTION. The description widespread insults sounds like something a pretentious teenage girl wrote. There, I just insulted you. You should report me for harassment now. In any case, I'm exhausted. What happened to that talk page discussion you wanted to open? Let others chime in. Good day to you! KyleJoan 14:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm really trying hard here to cater to you. Of course I don't like that description, "widespread insults", but there are multiple people who have considered self harm or suicide because of her cyberbullying so please don't make a joke out of this. This is serious. The One I Left (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

So much for objectivity. Good day to you (again)! KyleJoan 14:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Unsourced birth date

Hi. Should I tag (citation needed) or remove an unsourced birth date? Wario-Man ^talk 16:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi there Wario-Man! I usually remove them out of caution since we're not supposed to include DOBs that have not been widely reported in reliable sources per WP:DOB. KyleJoan 17:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think removal is a better option when there is no reliable source for a DOB. Unsourced DOBs could cause a lot of serious issues; e.g. BLP violation. Thanks for the help. Cheers! Wario-Man ^talk 01:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Florence Pugh: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Piper Niven

Hi. Would you please contribute to Piper Niven? Another editor has started expanding the article since yesterday. While their edits look OK, I think copy-editing, grammar, and rewording are necessary for this recently expanded section Piper Niven#Independent circuit (2007–2019). There may be a lot of unnecessary stuff and some unreliable sources there. Also take a look at "Other media" and "Personal life" and see if you can reword/rewrite them in a better way. Wario-Man ^talk 02:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there Wario-Man. I'm not particularly interested in that article, and I'm trying to focus on improving the BLPs I'm already editing at this time. My apologies. KyleJoan 10:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Christian Bale

The article Christian Bale 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:Christian Bale for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Christian Bale

The article Christian Bale you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Christian Bale for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Some Dude From North Carolina! It's always great to work with you. Have a wonderful week! KyleJoan 01:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for contributing to the articles on actors Firestar464 (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Firestar464! That's very kind. KyleJoan 17:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Pose/Cast

Hi there. After the reversal revision of the Pose article, I had to tell you that I basically disagree with the system placed for the cast and characters list, as it was discriminative and unjust. The series focuses on trans actors while the characters portrayed by cis actors (Evan Peters, Kate Mara, James Van Der Beek) were placed first, despite all three appeared after characters of MJ Rodriguez, Dominique Jackson and other trans/queer actors/actresses appeared first in the pilot. Not to mention that those 3 were no longer part of the series, so they should be placed on the bottom of the list. Can you help me mention this to your supervisors? Gagayoulookbeautiful (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gagayoulookbeautiful: Please see MOS:TVCAST and this discussion. KyleJoan 10:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hi, KyleJoan! First of all, congratulations on the promotion of Christian Bale (I may or may not have been stalking the FAC)! I've been meaning to ask you a question but I wanted to hold it off until the FAC closed. Anyways, in the source review, you were able to find all those sources citing the other sources (which I found very impressive). So I guess my question is how did you find all those sources citing other sources? If you don't want to answer, that's totally fine. Thanks either way! Pamzeis (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there Pamzeis! Thank you very much! That's very kind of you. The answer to your question is rather elaborate, and I'm not sure how to fully write it, so here's the simple version. It involves a lot of Google searches with phrases often found in high-quality sources. For example, I would write "according to [source name (e.g., ComingSoon.net)]" and "in an interview with [source name]" and then peruse the search results. Another phrase I found helpful was "what critics are saying [source name]" because entertainment industry publications (e.g., The Hollywood Reporter and Variety) regularly publishes film review roundups using some version of that phrase, so if the source in question was ever part of a roundup, then you can verify its stature that way. Hope this helps! KyleJoan 20:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Spacing in refs

The cramming of text around the pipes in refs makes it hard to read and edit articles, especially with long urls attempting to wrap. Abductive (reasoning) 06:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: Huh? We could add 30 spaces between each parameter and the article would show the refs the same way, so I'm not sure how spacing affects readability. No template is readable during editing, so users should find ways to work with them rather than bloat articles and impede the pages' load times. KyleJoan 07:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

In the regular edit window, I mean. Abductive (reasoning) 09:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: That's what the "Show preview" button is for. Why inconvenience readers for something most editors don't consider an issue? KyleJoan 09:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. Abductive (reasoning) 10:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: You believe <ref>{{Cite web |last=Sheffield |first=Rob |date=October 30, 2017 |title=Britney Spears' 'Blackout': A Salute to Her Misunderstood Punk Masterpiece |url=https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/britney-spears-blackout-a-salute-to-her-misunderstood-punk-masterpiece-121525/ |url-status=live |access-date=June 9, 2019 |website=Rolling Stone}}</ref> is easier to read in the edit window than <ref>{{Cite web|last=Sheffield|first=Rob|date=October 30, 2017|title=Britney Spears' 'Blackout': A Salute to Her Misunderstood Punk Masterpiece|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/britney-spears-blackout-a-salute-to-her-misunderstood-punk-masterpiece-121525/|url-status=live|access-date=June 9, 2019|website=Rolling Stone}}</ref>, correct? Well, the "Show preview" button will show you the same (and more readable) version of both, so there's no need for the spacing, which only bloats the article size and slows down its load time. Why make readers wait longer and spend more of their data to read about Spears than necessary? KyleJoan 10:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

During the editing, the spacing makes the ref more readable. I also remove excess spacing, such as ...Masterpiece | url = https... Abductive (reasoning) 11:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Then @Abductive:, I am another of many, many editors who wish you wouldn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: Then use the "Show preview" button. Thanks. KyleJoan 11:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You don't get what I am saying. Abductive (reasoning) 11:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Hello KyleJoan, there's an ongoing talk to reach consensus about peacocky terms used by an user reported for ownership/edit warring. just an invitation if you want to participate. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This is awesome. Thank you again, Gog the Mild! KyleJoan 03:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Florence Pugh

The article Florence Pugh you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Florence Pugh for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Pose (TV series)/FAQ

Hi KyleJoan,
I have created a FAQ sub-page because random IP addresses and newbie editors have repeatedly rearrange the starring cast and keep asking the same question. Please feel free to add to it or edit it. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Sound idea! Thanks for that, YoungForever! I've copyedited it for clarity. KyleJoan 15:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I was editing on my iPhone and still am right now. It is hard to type on an iPhone. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Bale

Sorry about stealing so much of your life today. I do think the article isn't potentially misleading now, yet managed to keep everything important about how Empire was the film which propelled Bale into the public light as a child. Thank you for taking the time to discuss the article; it made it better than if my first edit had been kept. /Julle (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Julle: No worries at all! It did run a little long, but I enjoyed and appreciated bits of it. Thank you for being pleasant throughout! KyleJoan 17:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Pose

Hi KyleJoan,
Brace yourself, the extended confirmed protection expires on December 11, 2020. Disruptive editors may resume rearranging the starring cast order to personal preference once the extended confirmed protection expires. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever: So far so good, huh? Hope it stays that way. KyleJoan 03:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say so, ever since it got extended confirm protection. I really hope it stays that way as well even when the extended confirmed protection expires on December 11, 2020. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I would give it a few more days until requesting for extended confirmed protection again. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The disruptive edits seemed to resume, but slow...few days later. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It is sadly still happening. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll request indefinite extended confirmed protection within the week. It seems necessary at this point. KyleJoan 09:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The disruptive edits seemed to continue by various ip addresses and autoconfirmed/confirmed account editors every 1-2 days. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@YoungForever: I filed the request. Hopefully the article is granted indefinite protection this time. Cheers! KyleJoan 00:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The pending changes protection doesn't even seem to be working. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@YoungForever: I think that once the pending changes protection expires, it's worth a shot that I continue requesting indefinite extended confirmed protection and see whether admins believe the continued disruption warrants it. KyleJoan 03:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

And here we go again... Every time page protection expired, the disruptive edits begin again. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Update:I had requested for it to be semi-page protected and it is now semi-page protected for 3 months. If that doesn't work, we will need to request for extended confirmed protection again. — YoungForever^(talk) 09:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The semi-page protection expires this upcoming Sunday, June 13, random ip addresses may return to rearrange the starring cast order again. — YoungForever^(talk) 06:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems that random ip addresses are still not getting it. Repeatedly calling us racists and transphobic which are completely baseless accusations, as MOS:TVCAST has nothing to do with race, gender, identity, and etc. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Chris Cuomo

I'm watching the end of Cuomo's program tonight. He just did a brief commentary on his role as brother v. advisor, etc. We'll probably have a flood of edits on his article that will twist his words. Get ready! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 02:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elizabeth Olsen

The article Elizabeth Olsen 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:Elizabeth Olsen for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elizabeth Olsen

The article Elizabeth Olsen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Elizabeth Olsen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for always making the process pleasant, Some Dude From North Carolina. Have a wonderful weekend! KyleJoan 03:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Left-wing bias: please note this author has a very left-wing bias that results in her removing anything that does not fit her frame of reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.182.118 (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Christian Bale

Congratulations, KyleJoan! The article you nominated, Christian Bale, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the promotion and source spot check, Ian Rose! And thanks for all of your work coordinating the FAC noms as well! KyleJoan 20:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

A belated big congrats on this! Definitely deservedly and painstakingly earned.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind message, Bettydaisies, and again for the review! I appreciate them very much. I notice our editing has not coincided recently, so I hope to run into you again soon! KyleJoan 23:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Florence Pugh

Your revert didn't address success, so as I was saying, there is *positive* critical recognition and *negative* critical recognition ... "success" doesn't necessarily imply *award* success, it could also define how she achieved success in the film critic industry, as she did receive many positive reviews. I'm not sure what your reasoning is behind this. Film Enthusiast (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Film Enthusiast: Your revert didn't address recognition, which suggests she achieved recognition in the film critic industry, as she did receive many positive reviews. I hope you now finally see what I mean about leaving articles alone rather than not worsening them and pondering whether there was a need for a change in the first place. Trust me, I understand the excitement of editing and being part of Wikipedia, but please try to heed my last message on your talk page. Cheers! KyleJoan 22:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You still haven't answered me though. You haven't addressed success, "success" doesn't necessarily imply *award* success, it could also define how she achieved success in the film critic industry. And you seem to be overlooking how there is *positive* critical recognition and *negative* critical recognition, so she achieved recognition in the film critic industry in what way? As I stated to you on my talk page, my objective is also to improve articles, and I will keep doing so. Hope you understand. Film Enthusiast (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The readers could read the section to learn whether the recognition was positive or negative. There's your answer. Feel free to discuss on the talk page which term should be used. Cheers! KyleJoan 23:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

And what's the issue with using success instead? Film Enthusiast (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

And what was the issue with using recognition? KyleJoan 23:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Way to avoid the question. As I figured, you can't seem to accept changes from others. I get that you took the article(s) to GA and FA status, but you don't own them, at least that's what I sense. Anyway, as I said, keep the article they way you want it. Cheers! Film Enthusiast (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Way to avoid the question. As I figured, you can't seem to explain how your proposed revisions do more than not worsen the article. I get that you're excited about contributing, but it's OK to leave articles alone in situations where there are no clear problems. Anyway, as I said, consider whether there was ever a need for your reverted edits rather than make the same ones in other articles and take up other users' time. Cheers! KyleJoan 23:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we're on the same boat because neither can you tell me why success is not a better option than recognition. Anyways, as I said, consider whether there was ever a need for your possessiveness rather than continue reverting other users' edits and keeping the article just the way you choose, using the justification that "none of the six reviewers or two coordinators suggested" doing this or that. Cheers! Film Enthusiast (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we're on the same boat because neither can you tell me why recognition is not a better option than success. Anyways, as I said, consider whether your edits are helpful. Cheers! KyleJoan 00:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Petty contentiousness and instigating

You have come to my user talk page to repeatedly inform me that you've deleted sourced material with the argument that a writer for newspaper who has a position as a columnist is not a journalist. Clearly, you thrive off being contentious and bickering with other editors as opposed to using commonsense reasoning not just judging from our debate, but other bickering sessions you're having on your very own user page. I am walking away from this one and not giving you the argument you are so desperately crave for. My comments are apparently going through one ear and out the other for you and this is going to be like talking to a brick wall. Go get your argument elsewhere. Don't come back to my user page either. Goodbye. JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

Hey KyleJoan. Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I requested a third opinion regarding our discussion at Talk:Christian Bale#Should the Screen Actors Guild Awards be included?. You can find it here: Wikipedia:Third Opinion#Active disagreements. Of course, you're free to ignore the opinion, but I'm hoping that it may help us come to an agreement, as it seems that we've arrived at an impasse. Wouldn't want us going at it back and forth again. Saludos! Film Enthusiast (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the heads-up, Film Enthusiast. KyleJoan 04:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Christian Bale

Can I just explain my edits please?

@Barrow1965: Did you read WP:UKNATIONALS? Did you see this discussion where users rejected the idea of changing Bale's national identity from English to British? KyleJoan 09:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

James Spears / Britney Spears

Can you help me where this article could place in Free Britney Movement? Thanks. -> https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/9595568/britney-spears-recording-la-courts-end-audio-program/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2HfVySPmM4eNmtALAA8SD-QOABaPhK5ttxWH2AZzM-A7hXpGkQT3Ifafc

Hi there Gagayoulookbeautiful! I don't believe the information in that article is suitable for inclusion. It basically says the public was not supposed to hear Spears's statement. Well, they did. It's not really consequential. Next time, please add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your messages. Thank you! KyleJoan 06:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: Sasha Calle

So apparently there are 20-30 sources out there that say when her birth year is, but that's not good enough is it? I give up. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: Are these 20-30 sources reliable or are they random soap opera news and gossip sites without editorial and correction policies? KyleJoan 22:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: Doesn't matter. You won't allow it anyway, so do as you please. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Smart Snickers2686. Exactly what I did. JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for Omega

Hello. I have a suggestion for the Omega article. The Wikipedia:PW/MOS says that "Limit heading titles to five words or less (not counting dates)." The "Impact Wrestling crossover and multiple world championship reigns (2020–present)" has seven (or eight, if you count the and). What do you think about a new distribution. All Elite Wrestling: Jon Moxley feud and Adam Page partnership, AEW World Champion, Interpromotional partnerships (or Interpromotional partnerships: AAA and Impact). So, we can include Impact and AAA and the title reigns into the Interpromotional partnerships, since it's more an sporadic work, he didn't signed with Impact and looks like he ended his Impact tenure. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, HHH Pedrigree. It makes more sense (and better for readability) to have AEW and Impact together because Omega's alliances with Don Callis, Karl Anderson, and Doc Gallows are chronicled in the section as part of his runs in AEW and Impact. Due to this, it would be more efficient to simply shorten the heading in question to "Multiple world championship reigns (2020–present)" without rearranging any content. I've made the change. Hope this suffices. KyleJoan 04:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Pettiness and trolling edit summaries

If you continue in pettiness and Internet trolling edit summaries and belligerence, you will be reported. JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I haven't entertained your attempts at debate and it looks like others aren't entertaining it either judging from this talk page, letting you have edits your way because no one has the patience for you. However, don't get that confused with the fact that I won't report you.JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, JudgeJudyCourthouse25! Please let me know if you'd like assistance with the reporting process. Cheers! KyleJoan 06:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please go send the following to an administrator: "I User:KyleJoan am in need of a block. Please remove my account immediately and indefinitely." Thank you JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@JudgeJudyCourthouse25: No ♡ KyleJoan 06:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey I apologize, Joan. I just got a little miffed by the "This is not OKmagazine" remark you made in your edit summary because I used the word "disarray" in my edit. I thought it was a wise guy comment. I shouldn't have lashed out on you. I am just going to avoid editing this website. It's not as much fun as I thought. Happy editing! JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

When you have a moment.

Hello KJ. I hope you are well. You will want to sign this when you have a second. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I'm so embarrassed. I've opened many discussions, and I don't recall ever forgetting to sign before this instance. Thank you very much for bringing that to my attention. Have a wonderful rest of your week! KyleJoan 01:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries! I'm glad I could help. Enjoy the rest of your week as well :-) MarnetteD|Talk 01:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Range block review

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KyleJoan/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm not able to edit as a registered user due to the underlying IP address's block. KyleJoan 02:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Without knowing what the underlying IP address is, we can't do anything. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Taika Waititi

What's wrong with what I'm doing at all? Each of those movies were the highest grossing New Zealand film, albeit only in terms of being funded and made here entirely. The Lord of the Rings and even Avatar made billions, with the former being made and funded almost entirely in New Zealand. It's a worthy point. I'm not "edit warring", I just felt it was misleading, that's all. Why does it matter so much to you?--222.154.95.233 (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

222.154.95.233 The issue was you included your qualifications as to what is defined as a New Zealand film. The two sources simply list the two films as being New Zealand films, so it is sufficient to simply state that. Why does it matter so much to you? Because we must not include original research. That should matter to you as well. KyleJoan 09:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for input

Hey there KyleJoan. Hope you're doing well. I was just wondering if you'd like to add anything to the current discussions happening at these talk pages: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Clarification on capitalization in headings of BLPs beginning with numbers & Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalizations in headings that begin with numbers. Don't feel obligated to, but it'd be great if you could add something, as I know you and I had similar opinions regarding this. Hope you're well, thanks! — Film Enthusiast^✉ 17:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hangman Page

I don't know if you like Hangman Page, but here are a few quotes about his character. [1] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Participation in a signpost interview

Hi KyleJoan, hope that you're well. I was wondering if you'd be able to participate in a Signpost interview in your capacity as a contributor to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers? I am enthusiastic about these interviews because they help remind other Wikipedians about the passionate and diverse group of volunteers that edit Wikipedia, and into the many discussions and editors that inhabit our space, nooks and crannies. If you had time to even answer a few questions here (User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject actors and filmmakers interview draft) I'd be very grateful :).Tom (LT) (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out, Tom (LT)! I answered a few of the questions. Hope they helped! KyleJoan 04:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Loyle Carner is Jewish, he got into a confrontation on a train and lied in order to diffuse the situation.

"Born to a white Jewish mother and black Guyanese father"

Source: http://socialistreview.org.uk/447/not-waving-drowning

@Clinton Baptiste: Please write four tildes (~~~~) to sign your talk page posts. And you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view... KyleJoan 01:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Pose

It may need to request for semi-page protected again. The main cast is getting rearrange for nth time again by various ip addresses choosing to ignore MOS:TVCAST and discussions on Talk:Pose (TV series). — YoungForever^(talk) 22:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Hi. I want to merge these two sections on Io Shirai:

• NXT Women's Champion (2020–2021) and NXT Women's Tag Team Champion (2021–present)

I look for a good heading/title. Does a new heading like "NXT Championships (2020–present)" sounds good? Any suggestion? Wario-Man ^talk 09:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wario-Man. Nice to speak with you again! Since Shirai never left NXT, I believe there is no need to mention the brand in the subheading because it's already in the previous one. Maybe "Title reigns and Zoey Stark alliance (2020—present)"? KyleJoan 00:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Removing "NXT" would be confusing for the casual fans. Alliance/Teaming with Zoey Stark looks like just another random tag team in WWE. What about "Championship reigns and various storylines"? You know it seems there is nothing much left for her in that brand since the launch of NXT 2.0. So I want to merge two sections and possible upcoming notable stuff of her run in NXT. Want a heading that is suitable for both her championships and other NXT stuff. Wario-Man ^talk 13:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Or just having a single section named "Mae Young Classic and NXT (2017–present)"? You may take a look at Io Shirai#WWE and suggest better sections/headings. Wario-Man ^talk 11:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: I don't have a strong opinion on the Shirai article, but here are some counterpoints to what you wrote. Shirai and Stark are a random tag team, as the two are not covered in reliable sources as having a meaningful partnership past their title win. I trust you know which tag teams aren't random (i.e., The Motor City Machine Guns, The IIconics, Santana and Ortiz). I think casual fans would be able to deduce that Shirai hasn't left NXT without the headings repeating the brand. CM Punk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a featured article, doesn't even specify any main roster brand changes in its headings. All of that said, I see you've already made a change, so see what users that frequent that article think. KyleJoan 01:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Not that kind of random but I mean their tag is just a way to keep pushing Shirai and putting over Stark by giving her a title. It's still is not as notable as tag teams like The Kabuki Warriors, The IIconics, Bayley and Sasha Banks, and some others. You are right about the headings/sections and that's the reason why I wanted your opinion. The main contributor to Io Shirai article was this user who was retired in 2018. The other editors barely edit that article. They usually edit it when Shirai wins/loses a title or achieves something like an award. I guess you have noticed similar activities on PW articles you watch and edit. Wario-Man ^talk 03:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I’ve been editing the Harry Styles Wikipedia page and I, along with many fans, believe that his personal life section is simply outdated and not an accurate consensus of his actual statements on his relationships or sexuality. I am trying to engage in a conversation on this issue but my edits are being reverted wholesale without any consideration to the legitimacy of any of them, despite their reputable sourcing. I think this needs to be open to conversation as I find this to be extremely harmful - Styles is repeatedly accused of faking queer for attention, in part because the google snippet highlights the wrong part of his wikipedia article. In fact, those are not his most recent or his most accurate statements on his sexual orientation. I believe that this shows bias on his wikipedia page and that it needs to be changed to reflect his work properly H-influenzae (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@H-influenzae: Hi there. Thank you for reaching out! I believe what's in the article meets WP:NPOV. Your edits are being reverted because they are violations of WP:BLP. I understand the queerbaiting accusations from being on social media, but the source cited does not mention it. Here, we go by sources and not personal knowledge–see WP:OR. There's also WP:ONUS, so whenever you're reverted, you're responsible for obtaining a consensus for your edits. I see you've begun a discussion on the talk page. I personally would wait for others to respond or you could personally reach out to users that edit that article frequently. Hope this helps! KyleJoan 10:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the people who edit the Harry Styles page are famously hawkish, homophobic, and are not really invested in him as a public figure. When fans try to edit his page they frequently have their content removed - this is not the first time there has been a “wiki war” over his sexual orientation, to similar ends (e.g. the queer person suggesting the edits is told that Styles is not queer, and the implication that he may be straight is reverted.) I do not believe that anyone who maintains the page actually sees homophobia or biphobia as a systemic issue but rather views this as a “neutral” space - and there really is not a “neutral” space when queerness is involved, outside of prioritizing heterosexual norms. I think there needs to be a mediator here because I simply don’t believe this is appropriate, or that my concerns will be listened to.H-influenzae (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@H-influenzae: While you're welcome to your viewpoint, I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. Experienced users are doing their best to adhere to policies and guidelines. It'd be helpful if you could familiarize yourself with the ones I linked above. Cheers! KyleJoan 10:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Whoopi Goldberg

Sorry, looks like I duplicated your revert and left the IP a warning before you did. I don't know why the system doesn't tell you when there are simultaneous reverts. Meters (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

New message from WuTang94

Hello, KyleJoan. You have new messages at WuTang94's talk page.
Message added 19:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just wanted to state my viewpoints, but I mean no harm. Hoping we can resolve this amicably... WuTang94 (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: @KyleJoan: My apologies for any behavior that may have seemed hostile or reactionary over the weekend. It was a bit of a long week for me, plus I was sleep deprived last week, which may have caused me to edit under the influence of my emotions. I realized that some of my judgments while editing Ray Fisher's page may not have been the most rational.--WuTang94 (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that, WuTang94, but no apology necessary. Let's just let the RfC run and see what happens, yeah? I hope you're getting plenty of rest! KyleJoan 05:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Taika Waititi

Hi, i got your message...sorry, im honestly confused...how on earth was that "extremist"?--222.153.41.232 (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@222.153.41.232: Didn't say it was. My message asks you not to use unreliable sources such as ... publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight ... or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. See WP:PAGESIX for more info. Maybe read the entire paragraph before deleting next time? KyleJoan 08:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

V-Trigger source?

Would this be a reliable source? This is the best I could find. [2] Groovehx (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Groovehx: Yes. Nice job finding that. Feel free to add the previously reverted material and cite that article. Cheers! KyleJoan 02:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I'm very green when it comes to all this. Groovehx (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Groovehx: No problem at all. Let me know if you ever have any questions. KyleJoan 08:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.mixedmartialarts.com/fighter/Tyson-Smith:08B25F0208EC74DE/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.140.182 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Britt Baker

Hello I just wanted to add the CORRECT WIKI REDIRECTION. What's the Problem?--TheGoldenRule (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheGoldenRule: So you didn't read WP:NOTBROKEN? KyleJoan 13:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Taron Egerton - Cock

Hello - I'm not sure why you removed the information I added to Taron Egerton's page. He had mixed reviews among critics, some liked him, some didn't. I added a link to someone who presented an opposing view to that of The Guardian (hence creating a neutral and more accurate perspective). Unless it's a fan page, I suggest we keep things balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyetie (talk • contribs) 10:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Eyetie: Which source verifies your claim that his performance had mixed reviews? Because that's not what 'The Stage' says. KyleJoan 10:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

the Guardian lauded his performance. The Londonist critic (at the same performance) didn't. Hence, mixed reviews. Eyetie (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Eyetie: So your source is your own conclusion? KyleJoan 15:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. When two critics disagree about something it suggests that there is a mixed review. Not all reviews praised Taron - look through the Playbill list for details: https://playbill.com/article/what-did-critics-think-of-the-west-end-revival-of-cock Eyetie (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Your only source is an opinion (The Stage) which, as I've shown, is wrong. Both Londonist and The Guardian are verifiable sources for WP purposes. I will be reverting the change tomorrow morning unless you have something more than a single source to go on. Eyetie (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Eyetie: You need to read WP:NPOV in its entirety, especially the section about false balances. 'Playbill' lists reviews; they do not specify how Egerton's performance was received. If you read those reviews and subjectively determined the "mixed" aspect, then that is original research. 'The Stage' says he received praise, so what we require is a source that says Egerton's performance only received praise from some because the consensus is mixed. I'm prepared to revert the same NPOV and OR violations (that I could argue violate WP:BLP as well for presenting a false balance by introducing unverifiable negative bias). Please use Talk:Taron Egerton (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) to obtain a consensus to include your proposal and keep it off the article in the meantime. Thanks. KyleJoan 02:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Your comment on Eviro page seems to suggest that an "Impact" is not needed for the article. Are you sure about this? The Tayor Swift article and others do have Impact sections which are useful and contain both positive and critical reviews of the artists' impact on the music industry and on audiences. If you do not like the name which was used as "Reception", then maybe change it to Impact in order to start this section in the Eviro article, which does not have an Impact section at present. Other artist articles benefit from having an Impact section and such a section for Eviro's "Impact" would appear to be useful for the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: Such a section would be useful for the article when the material is appropriate, which is not the case here. Your addition was a paragraph of quotes from one review of her album. This has nothing to do with her impact on the music industry and on audiences. What other article does this? You mentioned Taylor Swift. Which ref in that article's "impact" section is an album review? Also, it's "Erivo". KyleJoan 17:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back on this. Impact sections differ for every artist based on the the extent of the response and impact made upon the music industry. The fact that Cynthia Erivo may not be at the level of Impact in the music industry that Taylor Swift has does not mean that having an Impact section in her article would not be useful. Impact on the music industry includes the published responses of music critics indicating their positive and critical comments about her performances. I mentioned the Taylor Swift article because it is an FA article, and the Impact section is useful in that article. Although the level of response and impact of Erivo is not as extensive as it is for Taylor Swift does not mean that her Wikipedia article could not be improved by adding an Impact section, dealing with her impact on the music industry (eventually the film industry as well, etc.). This can start by adding the responses of reliable sources who are taking a position on her Impact as a singer on the music industry. Adding even one review or two reviews of her first album is a useful place to start. The Erivo article could be improved by adding an Impact section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: Except you did not add responses ... on her Impact as a singer on the music industry. You added an album review. Adding even one review is not useful because we could do this with any artist regardless of their actual impact. You're essentially saying it is appropriate to include this section on any BLP of anyone with an album with reviews. While I don't see any portion of your addition that's worth keeping in the article, you're welcome to ask others for their thoughts. Cheers! KyleJoan 19:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)