Talk:Elijah Daniel/Archive 1

Deletion

So wasn't this article set to be deleted? He's basically a nobody. Anonpediann (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Anonpediann: It was deleted; then, on 2 April 2016‎, it was recreated by Jasonwoodly (global contributions; SUL info). —Ringbang (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ringbang:A lot has changed since then. Sagecandor (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ringbang: @Sagecandor: In my honest opinion, this article seems useless. This guy's "career" is basicaly made up of annoying attention-seeking actions to get noticed by the press. Not to say most of the article is made up by Twitter notifications and YouTube links 💀 I think this page should be deleted. Anonpediann (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Much has changed since then. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL for more sources. Sagecandor (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The user subsequently nominated the article for deletion via WP:PROD at DIFF; that was removed by Spinningspark who brought it to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah Daniel (2nd nomination) with DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Elijah Daniel for deletion

Resolved

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elijah Daniel 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/Elijah Daniel (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Sagecandor (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Secondary source coverage of Amazon reception

Strongly disagree with this edit DIFF.

We are relying upon secondary sources.

Secondary sources have documented this info.

Therefore it should remain in the article. Sagecandor (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, per WP:ONUS, having a source for content does not mean it should be included and the burden is on the person arguing for inclusion to explain why content should be included in the article. Here is my reason why it shouldn't be: Amazon star ratings are customer-generated, are not critical as the article currently claims, and are relatively easy to game. We don't typically include them in articles. The fact that he was covered by the sources aids your argument in the deletion discussion, but the inclusion of that fact actually hurts your argument for inclusion because it makes the article factually untrue (not critical reception) and adds promotional content to the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

We go by the weight of the secondary sources. This was not just covered in one source, but at least three (3) secondary sources I've come across. Therefore it is noteworthy. Therefore it should be included as a brief mention, which it is. Sagecandor (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion in a secondary source is not a reason to include something in itself though (see ONUS above). The star rating on Amazon is not any indicator of success, and it isn't typically featured in a Wikipedia article, even if it is verifiable. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion in one secondary source may or may not be a reason to include something in itself. Inclusion in three (3) secondary sources indicates a preponderance of weight in secondary sources and is a reason for inclusion. It is evidence of a viral sensation online and a larger Internet social phenomenon. Sagecandor (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Amazon stars aren't the equivalent to the NYT bestsellers list or even the Amazon bestsellers list. Reporting on them really doesn't mean anything because I could create an ebook on Amazon today, buy it myself, and get it a positive rating. It also certainly isn't critical reception since it is user generated. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you could, but if you could also get literally hundreds of five-star-reviews, and then also if you could get that fact reported on by not one but three (3) secondary sources, then, yes, it would be worthy of mention. Sagecandor (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That's your view, but WP:V, requires consensus for inclusion, even if something is cited in sources. There is not currently consensus to include the line about the stars, and the phrase critical is certainly not appropriate regardless of whether or not we think the stars should be included. I'd ask that you undo your revert until we can get more people to weigh in on this. If the sources can be used to establish other facts, I have no opposition to them being cited in the article like was suggested on my talk page, but I do have a firm opposition to the inclusion of user generated product ratings. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: Removed word that was objected to, "critical". Removed word, "review". Trimmed size of sentence. DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That's better, I would prefer it out completely, but I'll wait for a third opinion on that. I also think the statement in the lede that the book became a number one best seller on Amazon.com is misleading. That gives the impression that it was on Amazon's overall best seller list, which is not what the source claims. The source instead states that the tale has climbed to No. 1 on the humorous gay erotica charts. This is a much smaller category than the language of the article currently implies. I'd suggest changing it to be more specific along the lines of after its release, the book eventually rose the the top spot on Amazon's best seller's list for humorous gay erotica. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done, removed all mention of Amazon five-star-review-rating, at DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Links for future reference

• Elijah Daniel on Twitter
• Elijah & Christine, etc's channel on YouTube
• Elijah Daniel on Facebook
• Elijah Daniel at IMDb
• Elijah Daniel on SoundCloud
• "Elijah Daniel & Christine Sydelko Win Best in Comedy", Shorty Awards (video), YouTube, April 25, 2017, retrieved July 18, 2017

---

Added links removed, above, for future reference and research. Sagecandor (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with removal of IMDB and other links

Disagree with removal of IMDB and other links, as was done, here DIFF.

These all have relevant templates on Wikipedia specifically designed to make it easier to add such standard default links. These include templates {{Twitter}}, {{YouTube}}, {{Facebook}}, {{IMDb name}}, and {{SoundCloud}}.

Further, I have absolutely no idea why the References section was changed to remove the column width. Sagecandor (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89:Let's keep three (3) links: {{Twitter}}, {{YouTube}}, and {{IMDb name}}, please, thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with keeping the IMDb (unless consensus has changed on allowing it as an external link). I agree with the removal of Twitter and YouTube links since that is effectively promoting his social media. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Policy is to have main links associated with the subject. The subject's main websites at the present time are Twitter and YouTube. Sagecandor (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done, removed YouTube, kept Twitter, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, at DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done, removed IMDB myself. Per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, trimmed section down to one (1) link only, Twitter. Twitter appears to be subject's most official maintained site for him. And per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, he also has links on that one to a couple of his other relevant sites. See DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"Daniel and Sydelko got critizied along their supporters" ???

"Daniel and Sydelko got critizied along their supporters" [1]

What the fuck is this supposed to mean ???

Please, do not edit Wikipedia article main space if you are going to add (1) spelling errors, (2) grammar mistakes, and (3) poor quality writing.

Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

White House petition received wide coverage and should not be removed

White House petition received wide coverage and should not be removed.

In 2013 Elijah created a White House We the People petition, in order to make the song "Party in the U.S.A." by Miley Cyrus the U.S. national anthem.

Coverage included secondary sources: ABC News, Hindustan Times, WCBS-FM, the Deseret News, The Huffington Post, The Daily Dot, Mashable, Inquisitr, and the Dutch language newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws.

Please let's keep this information in the article as extremely notable.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's please discuss removal of sources individually and not wholesale, please?

Agree with Binksternet. Let's please discuss removal of sources individually and not wholesale, please?

Now, can we start with one (1) source and discuss objections to it, and perhaps I'll remove it, myself?

Thank you, Sagecandor (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, please self-revert. There is not consensus to include that content. Content that has been challenged must receive consensus before it is restored per WP:ONUS. There is not currently consensus to keep that content in the article. If there are specific things you want added back, make a case for them here. Having reviewed the content, I agree that the content removed was either trivial details or not reliably sourced. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:Which source are you referring to, specifically, please? Let's discuss the sources, specifically, and perhaps I'll remove them, myself? Sagecandor (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The YouTube sources are not reliable. All the prose removed from what I can see were trivial mentions such as minor details from interviews that are excessive details, which were a large part as to why this article read promotional. You should self-revert because policy requires you to achieve consensus on challenged content. There is currently no consensus for the inclusion of the material you have restored. If there are specific details that were removed that you feel should be included, we can discuss them here. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Which YouTube source? Can you please be more specific? Sagecandor (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Any YouTube source. Also, please revert and then discuss what you feel should be included. As I have pointed out, the burden is on the editor who restores content to explain why it should be in the article. You have at least two editors thinking the removal was good, one who doesn't think it was necessarily bad, and two that think it should be restored. That is not consensus for inclusion and the content should not be in the article until we can come to an agreement on what should be there. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're referring to a YouTube source published by the subject of this article, that is okay per WP:ABOUTSELF. Can you please be more specific and tell us the link to the YouTube source? Sagecandor (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that it should be included. Stop editing and talk about the content that you have added. You're trying to save this article from deletion by packing it with sources. The AfD discussion has already largely come to agreement that there is enough sourcing to show he is notable. What we are currently discussing is what sourcing should be used and what is too much detail. There is no current consensus for the content that was removed to be in the article, and two editors have said that the removal actually helps its chances at AfD. You need to explain why the content should be in the article and convince others to agree to specific content (again, see WP:ONUS). I think the entirety of what was removed was justifiable as it was too many details and contributed to the promotional tone of the article. If you think parts of it should be restored, make the case here and I might agree with you, but the content that was removed should be removed until there is agreement on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you please identify a specific source that you are complaining about, and I will gladly address it here with you? Sagecandor (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You need to stop source bombing the article when there is an ongoing discussion about source bombing an article. TimothyJosephWood 17:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Explanation: Elijah Daniel action about petition to make "Party in the USA" was removed by Anonpediann at edit [2]. It received wide coverage. Adding wide coverage to show why this should remain in the article. Sagecandor (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The petition's media coverage is related to the petition itself, not to the person who created it. Most of the sources you mention not even mention Daniel himself, others just talk about Daniel as a "comedian" and mention it as a curious fact. Do you really think making a petiton can make someone's career start? Anonpediann (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"Do you really think making a petiton can make someone's career start?" = not my decision to make, rather that of secondary source coverage. Sagecandor (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The first part of this argument makes sense, and the counter to it is to find sources discussing the petition in the context of the subject, and not one or the other in isolation.

The second part of this argument does not. The coverage of the event is what matters; not the nature of the event they're covering, and there are certainly others who have had what individual editors might consider equally ignoble starts to their career. Find/replace with "Kim Kardashian" and "sex tape" if there really needs to be an illustration of the point. TimothyJosephWood 19:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Timothyjosephwood, that we should not be making up our own personal opinions about what we Wikipedia editors personally feel is something that "can make someone's career start". We should rely upon reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Added info from secondary source HP/De Tijd, itself citing Vice magazine

Added info from secondary source HP/De Tijd, itself citing Vice, at DIFF.

We now have a secondary source, itself citing his coverage in other secondary sources.

This means we can mention those secondary sources, in-text. Sagecandor (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Added a bit about Bing Bong video

Added a bit about the Bing Bong video, at DIFF. It's important to note that, per secondary source, this went viral. It has over 2 million views on YouTube. YouTube can be added as a cite, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Sagecandor (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Reception should have some info on Reception

Reception should have some info on Reception.

Previously it had quotes.

On advice from Timothyjosephwood, I removed all the quotes.

Then it had paraphrased info.

All that was removed in its entirety.

I've instead added back merely mentions of the sources that gave positive reception. DIFF

Hopefully this is now an acceptable compromise. Sagecandor (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd be content with that as a middle ground. I'd prefer if there is going to be a reception section we tone done the listing of the media outlets that he has been mentioned in as a part of the career section. Ideally that should focus on what he has done rather than who has said what about him. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that he gets mentioned by secondary sources worthy of mention, as without it, certain users (above) have already complained that these acts are themselves not worthy of any mention, at all? Sagecandor (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

That is noted by the footnotes. We don't need to mention it in the prose because they already attest to the fact of coverage in secondary sources. The article is also about him, not about the book. That he wrote the book is notable. What the publications say about the book would probably be better on an article about the book if one needs to be written. If you look at Stephen King, who is a more famous literary figure than Daniel, you see less naming of specific sources throughout because the focus is meant to be on the life of King. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Your points make sense, but without the secondary sources, another user above already tried to remove the whole entire mention. You see the problem here? Don't we need the secondary sources to show, for the future, why this is worthy of retaining on the page? Sagecandor (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

We have the AfD as a record that there is substantial sourcing, and the edit history also shows it. I just moved a few sentences from one paragraph up. Most of the paragraph that now starts The book was featured in The Washington Post... can be removed as it isn't actually about Daniel, and a few of the more notable sources can be mentioned in the reception section. This will cleanup the career area to be more reader friendly and make the tone of that section more in line with Wikipedia's voice on biographical articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is, earlier a user removed all mention of his White House petition, based on the (false) claim that it was not noteworthy and did not get secondary source coverage. It did. That is why I'm hesitant to remove secondary source coverage, you see? Sagecandor (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

"a few of the more notable sources can be mentioned in the reception section." -- I'm curious, which ones can be moved to the Reception section, in your opinion? Sagecandor (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The ones I just moved with this edit. Those are the most significant sources to cover him. The rest are relatively minor sources and are more about the book than about Daniel, and can be removed since they are commentary about the book that doesn't substantially add to our understanding of his life. We now know that his work was featured in several significant global publications, so there isn't a need to cover every detail that was written about the book. We might want to include them if we do have an article on it, but they aren't needed for his biography. Let me know what you think. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with what you've moved. Are you saying we can leave what you moved, as is, in the Reception section? Sagecandor (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and ideally remove the rest of the paragraph with all the listings of media coverage about the book because those don't really tell us much more about his life and are really coverage about the book. That will go a long way to cleaning up the career section. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd be against that, as it is noteworthy that he received such discussion, which is directly about his writing style and his life. Which ones do you suggest removing? Sagecandor (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I definitely think the line about the Trump biographer should go. As a middle ground, I'd be open to adding the publications to the list of ones that the book was featured in as a part of the reception section without adding their commentaries. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that idea of "adding the publications to the list of ones that the book was featured in as a part of the reception section without adding their commentaries." -- except that I think the Trump biographer comment is the most noteworthy for inclusion to remain, as it is a published book in dead trees printed format. Sagecandor (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

This [3] is okay, so long as it remains and doesn't get chopped. Sagecandor (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Cites to Daniel can be used per WP:ABOUTSELF

Cites to Daniel can be used per WP:ABOUTSELF.

Corrected official name of music video per cite, at DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Lots of talk page activity here today! I'd minimize most of these artistic credits. He appears much better known for other work, such that a series of primary-sourced appearances almost make him out to be an actor. If a majority of these had reasonable secondary sources, situation would be different, but I don't see it as is. Remember to keep the article geared for a general audience: A reasonable reader with a state education who knows what a comedian is but hasn't before heard of this person/topic. czar 03:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Good points, but this particular one also has secondary sources, as well. Sagecandor (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Removals

I concur with the removal of the excess content by Anonpediann. This actually makes me much more comfortable !voting keep at an AfD. The sourcing has already established for most editors that this article passes the GNG. There is not a need to overload it in a way that appears promotional or based on non-RS. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree 100%. If we keep it this way, i'll vote Keep. Anonpediann (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Umm... yo User:Binksternet. If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. Folks are free to engage in good faith efforts to address issue raised an an AfD. If you have a problem with portions of the content removal, you should raise your concerns and discuss them here, but an article is not frozen in place for the duration of a deletion discussion. TimothyJosephWood 16:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree with Binksternet. Anonpediann is attempting to actively remove multiple sources from article during ongoing AFD in attempt to cut down number of sources in article without any discussion. Sagecandor (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I've reverted again per WP:ONUS. There is not currently consensus for including the removed material, and as I stated above, I actually think the edits make a much stronger case for keep at the AfD because they removed the WP:NOT violations while keeping more than enough sources to pass the GNG. The trimmed down article is far less promotional in tone and keeps the biographical information about the subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If reversion continue, I will probably pay a visit to WP:RFPP. Just FYI. TimothyJosephWood 16:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I see no mention on this talk page of any specific source that is requested for removal. Let's please discuss specifics per each individual source, below. Sagecandor (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, no need, I only revert once because 1RR plus discussion is the way to go. WP:V requires that the material be disucussed before being restored, and there are at least two good faith editors who agree to the removal, which is why I felt fine reverting the restoration. \

Sagecandor, I've requested you self-revert because policy is that we discuss the specifics for inclusion. I concur with virtually everything that Anonpediann's wrote in the edit summaries, but since you want to talk specifics:

1. Creating a petition on the White House website that is cited is a prank that anyone could do and not really needed. Mashable is also generally speaking a source we don't want to cite things to.
2. Uploading to soundcloud isn't worthy of coverage in Wikipedia. I'd be open to discussing the Twitter unfollowing, but do want to hear Annonpediann's view of it before it is restored. I could see arguments on both sides.
3. A YouTube video of him being interviewed and then citing a promotional quote about himself really has no place in Wikipedia.
4. Spider bites and promotional style quotes shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. Rather than quoting everything every source says about him we can simply say that he became notable through YouTube. If we covered everything that ever happened about a celebrity's health
5. We don't need a source from YouTube when the statement is already sourced.
6. I concur with this edit summary, though I probably wouldn't have phrased it that way.
7. We don't cover every Tweet
8. This one I'm open to discussing but agree that it might be too much detail.
9. This one is a case of too much detail.
10. Wikipedia is not a CV and we don't cover every panel appearance.
11. We don't cover every prank

This is a lot of content to discuss and most of it was removed for valid policy reasons. WP:ONUS makes it clear that we discuss readding challenged content piece by piece rather than restoring challenged content and then removing piece by piece. Please revert back to the removal and then we can discuss which ones might need to be restored. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The White house petition is notable and should be included. It received secondary source coverage from ABC News, Hindustan Times, WCBS-FM, the Deseret News, The Huffington Post, The Daily Dot, Mashable, Inquisitr, and the Dutch language newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws. Sagecandor (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

We can discuss it and see what the consensus is, but the content needs to be restored to the version after Anonpediann. This is because it helps prevent edit warring to slowly restore things rather than remove everything piece by piece and have to go through BRD. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not in dispute that the White House petition received coverage from ABC News, Hindustan Times, WCBS-FM, the Deseret News, The Huffington Post, The Daily Dot, Mashable, Inquisitr, and the Dutch language newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws. This is global coverage. In multiple languages. From multiple different countries. Sagecandor (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: I've self-reverted pending talk page discussion at DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• I skimmed through some of the above diffs and while I agree that the content should be trimmed, the more congenial approach would have been to rephrase several sentences of specific details into a single sentence generalization with multiple refs. For instance, "His pranks were noted for X qualities" rather than the actual details of each individual prank. I.e., it needs to be rephrased, not lopped off. (In general, it's hard to build solid prose from a series of brief mentions in source material.)  czar 22:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Czar, just seeing this. I'm actually in agreement, I just think that once they had been removed by Anonpediann, its easier to work through what should be restored and gain consensus on how to do it than to revert and begin working through from scratch. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree with Czar, disagree with Tony, as the user Anonpediann had introduced terrible writing including such gems as "Daniel and Sydelko got critizied along their supporters" [4]. Sagecandor (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't have done it the way Anonpediann did, but WP:ONUS says that once material is challenged, we work towards consensus to restore the content, not revert and decide what to remove. That has been my main issue here all along. I think the version we are working on now is good and we can make progress on restoring some of the removed content in a way that doesn't overwhelm with details. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Prefer footnotes section to reflist

Prefer Footnotes section to reflist version at DIFF.

Would rather go back to previous version.

Current version breaks apart the References section and does not allow for even spacing of references in each column. Sagecandor (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Czar:Can we please go back and restore the Footnotes section? Sagecandor (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Czar's formating is pretty standard for bundled refs, and is preferable in my opinion to the footnote style because it is simpler. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Prefer the footnote style as it is simpler and doesn't break up the refs columns. Sagecandor (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The note just repeated what was in the prose anyway. Did you see it doing some additional good? The refs should automatically form columns according to your screen size—looks okay on my end. Try refreshing? czar 04:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Czar:No, it looks terrible. The refs and the columns are totally off. Really would like to go back, please, okay? Sagecandor (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Czar:Can we please go back to footnotes section, please? Sagecandor (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sage, you have my permission to revert any of my edits on this article. I'm very disappointed by what I see as unreasonable ownership issues and I won't be participating further. czar 04:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Czar:I'm sorry you feel that way. But I won't revert your edits. I'm disappointed by having a refs column style broken apart with unequal formatting. Sagecandor (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Czar:Not trying to have ownership issues. There are multiple times, on this talk page, that I've directly implemented your suggestions and those of others, myself. I won't revert your edits, Czar. But I can express, on this talk page, through text based communication, my opinions. Sagecandor (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Added subsection names for Career section

Added subsection names for Career section, at DIFF.

Article now progresses in a straight chronological format, making it easier for WP:Readers first to see how career evolved, over time.

And to see how one event led to another.

For example, how increased press from the book led to film and television deals. Sagecandor (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Please move book section back into chrono order

Book section change by Czar moves everything out of chronological order DIFF.

Please move it back.

Otherwise every new thing he does in his life will appear out of chronological order, forever.

That is silly and wrong. Sagecandor (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Czar:Chronology of article now goes like this: 2013 --> 2014 --> 2017 --> 2016 --> 2016 (section). This is wrong and out of chronological order. Sagecandor (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Chronology doesn't always make the most sense. In my edit, the comedy career is separated from the book. Alternatively, the book section would appear in the middle career and what would be the heading for returning back to his comedy career? I gave it thought before I made the change, but see my reply above. Moving a little too fast here for me to reply to the previous section czar 04:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Czar:Yes chronology does make the most sense. The book IS part of the comedy career. The article as structured now is absolutely terrible. Much prefer a straight chronological presentation, please, okay? Sagecandor (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, and the book is a subsection of his career, so I really don't understand the contention. But as I said above, revert if you must—I was only trying to help czar 04:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Czar:Can you please self revert? It goes from 2013 --> 2014 --> 2017 --> 2016 ? And it will appear like that forever? And new stuff will go above the older stuff? Can you please change it back? Sagecandor (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I think Czar's edits (discussed in this section and all of the ones above) make the article much more readable, and help address some of the concerns I had previously. You can make the content go thematically rather than chronologically and it makes equal sense to most readers. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm stepping away from the article now (points reiterated on my user talk page) but if I were to have continued copyediting, I would have reduced the article's dateline/proseline-style listings (In 201X, B; in 201Y, B). Remember that this is an encyclopedia article for a general reader, not a laundry list of events in which the subject participated. The biography should meaningfully cohere these aspects of his life rather than segregating them as separate events in an endless chronology. czar 04:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Czar:I think the reader will be quite confused as to why we are choosing to organize the page as 2013 --> 2014 --> 2017 --> 2016. I think we should follow WP:Readers first. I think we should go back to straight chronological order. Sagecandor (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted since you've asked a zillion times now. The reader will undoubtedly be more confused by an Early life section that contains no early life and a Reception section that doesn't connect to the object being received than confused by a chronology out of order by a single year. The years could ostensibly even be wholly removed from the article with no material detriment to the article's meaning. And what I said before about Pyrrhic victories... czar 04:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Czar:Thank you very much. I've now organized the Career subsection with section headers in chronological order. The WP:Readers first will now easily be able to follow a straight chronological progression. WP:Readers first can now much more easily see how one thing led to another led to another. For example, how press attention from the book, led to film and television deals. Sagecandor (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything in "Readers first" about requiring a "chronological progression". I've written dozens of GAs, hundreds of articles. You asked for my mentorship and my good sense of "Readers first" and I gave it to you. If you disagree, c'est la vie, but I'm not sinking any more time into this. An occasional ping is fine, but this is getting on badgering. I copyedited & reverted those edits for you, wasted hours today in good faith that I could have spent writing something I actually wanted to write. Please don't ask for my input (or anyone's for that matter) if you're going to steamroll over any proposed changes. I'm fine with letting this lie as it is, so you don't need to ping me again. czar 05:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Czar, please, I'm sorry if I've upset you, please understand it's been quite stressful lately to deal with all of this, during an ongoing deletion discussion. I apologize if I've frustrated you in any way. I really think the article looks better in a straight chronological format. Sagecandor (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)