User talk:KyleJoan

Archives

0 1 2 3

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

I was just wondering why you've been removing the language parameter from some references, such as on Andrew Garfield. It has a negligible impact on page size, provides valuable metadata, and does not display the language in the article if set to English so I'm puzzled as to why you are removing this parameter. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 18:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam Black. Please see this discussion. The parameter, with its inconsistent use and invisibility in the general display, helps only editors seeking to translate and, more importantly, no readers. Three "language=en" out of 149 refs on Garfield does not suggest high metadata value. Essentially, the article's quality neither improves with the parameter's use nor suffers due to its removal. KyleJoan 02:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

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

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

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 14:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked (which you can test by trying to edit when logged-out), please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This user'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 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Every edit of User:Matza Pizza's that I reverted contained a WP:BLP violation. This revert removed a contentious and poorly sourced positive claim about the subject, the subject's children's unsourced birth years (that another user has now removed), and improperly synthesized circumstances surrounding the subject's religious conversion. These reverts removed the same material + the reliable sources that Matza Pizza only added so they could say they included reliable sources when none supports the contentious claim. This revert removed the birth years again. My one revert in the last 24 hours that did not involve a BLP violation removal was followed by a message on the other user's talk page, where I tried to help them craft more neutral material, and then a RfC. While I don't mind a break from editing, I don't find this block fair given these contexts. I know there are not many ways to justify edit warring, but what do you do when a user keeps violating BLP, throws BLP back at you, and says you're the one who's violating BLP? KyleJoan^talk 14:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block expired. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Did you seek page protection? Did you go to WP:BLPNB? (which WP:3RRNO advises rather than edit warring, as less controversial) Note that the other user was blocked, too. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page had already been semi-protected based on my RFPP. Was the next step a request to strengthen the protection (e.g., pending changes protection)? I did not go to BLPNB. That said, I opened this discussion there last year, which (I believe, at least marginally) applies to my conduct leading to this block. If it was improper to remove unsourced and poorly sourced material, then what am I doing here? KyleJoan 15:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this discussion and the failed request to review the now-expired block, I now see that my contributions are less helpful than I realized, so I'll leave. I hope the encyclopedia continues to benefit from having fewer users like myself. KyleJoan 14:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry this happened to you, Kyle. Some admins unfortunately seem to be running a prison complex, instead of operating as colleagues aiming to improve this website, and I've been made to feel exactly like this many times. I can only hope that you don't let the hate get to you. We need more people like you, so please come back after taking a break. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]