Talk:MyKayla Skinner

schooling?

Not clear if she is currently at Heeley High School or not. Her website says home schooled tenth grader (which is reasonably common for senior elite gymnasts). Perhaps she attended Heeley at one time? TCO (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on the sources, looks like she had some high school at least in NOV 2011, but is now home schooled.TCO (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Citations for the Mykayla Skinner article

Hasteur:

Most of your "cn" tags are already covered in the article.

The lead is not required to have citations unless it is a quote or something controversial. It is normal for a summary lead to be citationless (the citations are in the body, the lead is a summary of the body). Almost every reference in the article covers that Skinner is an elite. Ref 5 (the one from the Federation website) is probably the most authoritative one, but her website has this as well as do all the meet result citations where she is in junior or senior elite divisions.

You also have a cite needed tag for the double layout, but there are several cites given clearly. They are at the end of that paragraph. This is very normal and pretty apparent if you look at the actual content (that whole para is discussing the double twisting double layout).

Similar situation for most of the rest of your cite needed tags.

The one tag that does make sense is the one for the quote (will add that, it is a named ref in article, but will put it right at the quote area).

TCO (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have about 20 sources open right now...but no point in writing given the article is clearly under attack.

I have about 4 discussing her as a Worlds and 2016 candidate. Then some on the beginning of her career (can build a couple paras of content). Couple more on the DTWL. And just several from pretty large newspapers and TV stations. I have one for the quote (it's actually a name ref already in article, the Universe piece).

No point really in adding content when the article is being trashed.

TCO (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

TCO, do you think people have some kind of vendetta against you or Skinner? If not, "I could cite this but I'm not gonna because you guys want to delete it because it's not cited" is frankly by far more "kiddie" than nominating it for AfD. Ironholds (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a truthful statement that you are losing the participation. What is the point of adding sources when the sentences are being deleted willy nilly and editors are coordinating en masse in minutes. I'm too mellow tonight to let you rile me up man. You can have the last word, dude.TCO (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'm not trying to rile you up. Just saying, you can't go 'I'm deliberately not going to source this' and then claim its deletion is some personal wrong. Ironholds (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Pointy deletions of content

Content was being cut out of this article as soon as a half hour after a sudden attack of {CN} dumping had been done. The content was neither controversial nor wrong. The CN dump, followed by rapid cutting was inappropriate and pointy. It looks like this was done to (a) back up an initial decision to decline an AFC and mount an (unsuccessful) AFD and (b) in reaction to my provocation at ANI. (You can see it from the user contribution patterns and timing.) But messing with the article to "get back" at someone is not the right way to do content.

Some instances:

1. The quote was cut and it is BOTH relevant and sourceable (from the Universe peice in article). Just copy the named ref. I actually already indicated on article talk (you know where we discuss how to build articles) that I agreed this was needed and was going to do it. But the rapid fire cn-tagging and follow-on cutting got it in an evening. And this was pointy. Since article talk already said, "yes we have a reference and will fix that". But no time...gotta cut it fast. And why? It's nothing negative. And it adds to a thoughtful article (explaining the 2012 versus 2016 and Worlds issues for instance). This is actually important to the article development since a lot of the media for Skinner was pre-2012 (when she was a dark horse). [And if you think this is not relevant, then you are basically just continuing the NGYM rationale that was already rejected at AFD. GNG trumps NSPORT.]

2. Skinner being an elite was CN tagged and then cut. This is completely non-controversial. It is almost like saying that Adrian Peterson plays running back. If a cite was needed, several already in article could have been used: the National Federation bio (look under level it says "senior" [this means senior elite]), her own webpage or several different sources that were meet reports where she is listed in the senior elite (or earlier junior elite) division. The cutter knows enough gym (easily) to know how trivially true this claim was and how easy it would be to back it up. And that there was no "rush" to cut this (it's not a negative or controversial claim in any way). I would have gotten around to adding the cites after the whole bruhaha died down if everyone else was to lazy. I was dissuaded to do so though as cuts were already happening (two sentences clipped under the guise of "ce" in edit sommary). The real answer is to make some content lower in article that discusses the conversion to elite (ref that) and then leave the refs out of the lead. [The tagger did not seem to understand the basic concept of summary leads though...just mechanically slapping up the cn dump in attack mode.]

3. The content of Skinner performing a double twisting double layout was first questioned with a CN and then cut. There were actually three (3!) references in article already supporting this including an international source. The tagger did not realize that citations can be at para end instead of sentence by sentence. (And in this case really made sense at para end, since they either covered multiple skills or because the DTDL had two separate sentences on it in the para.) In any case, I explained this to the tagger but he did not react to the point. In addition, (if there is some issue with the three sources) I gave a source of a 3 minute state-wide broadcast by Channel 12 news (you know full time paid big time journalists) discussing the skill and showing it. I BOLDED it in the deletion discussion (which the cutter had read). So it is completely non-controversial (everyone KNOWS she did it) that the skill was done AND that it was notable to the media (even if an individual Wiki editor does not care for it). The cutting of this content continues an individual preference that was already shown flawed at the AFD (IOW, if it gets a lot of media credit...that's notable and relevant to the article even if an individual editor doesn't think unnamed skills are important.) Heck it is probably the most notable thing she has ever done...even if she quits the sport tomorrow. If the cutter wants to add some explanation that the skill will not earn naming credit yet...cool...great...that is additive content and can easily be reffed just from the 3 minute video (the coach totally explains it). But in any case there was never any article claim that she had gotten naming credit for the skill, but just that she had done it and that it had gotten media notice. Look here: discussion and performance of the double double layout. (The Italian source further explains that it was done in competion also a few days later...which is relevant.)

TCO (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

P.s. Please don't tell me to "fix it myself". I have already made comments about sourcing on this talk page and in the deletion discussions. And been given no significant time to supply sources (cuts going in less than an hour after the CN barrage). At the end of the day, it is not "my article" and it is the reader who loses if no one writes the content or fixes the errors above. I reject that entire weltanshauung of our content here. If no one else wants to fix it after the points were brought up...so be it. (And this is not me holding out on the sources...the named ref for the Universe piece was GIVEN here in talk prior to the cut. It's still given...multiple times now.) And I am DEFINITELY not going to play edit war (counting my reverts and all that crap) or to litigate small content decisions. Life is too short. I'm not fighting to win where the sand goes in the sand castle.

P.s.s. I am not spun up right now (or spin-uppable if anyone is hoping to tease me into getting re-perma-banned ;-)). I just like bolds and caps...since I know a lot of people don't read paragraphs...it gets attention. I'm whimsical about the whole situation and the meta thing of what it shows about writing versus web-forum social gaming.

P.s.s.s. And Sue was right about the first person shooter thing. I have just looked at some patrollers contribution histories. And I look in 500 edit mode. It's amazing. You can't find a single additive contribution. Just a barrage of reverts and deletions speedies and PRODs. Meaningful engagement on talk (either user or article) is totally missing as well. The comments left on user pages are all automated templates and the like. Do they know how to make structured content in the real world? How to engage with people? Sue fu...lly nailed it. I can just imaging the poor civilians and nuns and college professors and businesspeople and journalists and the like getting ripped by the teen-aged, swelled-chest pa-trollers (Insert comment about people who play wargames on the computer.)

P.s.s.s.s. If you want to reply, please do so below. Don't cut into (edit) my post.

• If you're not spun up, could you please try to avoid unsupported personal commentary about contributors? Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I'll tone down the spice volume from paprika to ginger. (The comments are supported...and supportable, but let's move on to the content unless you really prefer to stay with the BBS dramah?  ;-)) Look up the Channel 12 video that I bolded. Is it an RS?TCO (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

...seriously? "that's not a supported statement" "it's totally supported! But I promise to tone it down. Which is why the comment has stayed the same. And no, I totally won't provide any evidence, just restate that it exists". You can't even get IShadow's gender right, much less her background. For a guy who is totally, like, cool and mellow with this whole thing you're doing an excellent impression of someone jumping up and down on their sofa butthurt that they didn't get their way!!!!. Not that you own the article or anything. It's not like, "your article". You write a small thesis every time something annoys you. Moving on from insignificant annoyances is a fool's game, and totally not a reasonable indicator of whether someone's totally, like, chilled out about the whole thing, man, or just using that line as the on-wiki equivalent of "I'm not racist, but".

Anyway, I'm going to catch up on some TV and drink some nice Islay single malt. I'd recommend that if you're seriously, like, totally cooool, duuuuude you do the same, or some equivalent. Ironholds (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Priorities and Corrections

Priorities: This article is currently listed as "Low Priority". In due course, we should make a case for increasing the priority, based on results of international competitions.

Corrections: The article has a reference to a video which says that MyKayla Skinner pioneered the double-double layout. This needs to be corrected, as it was pioneered by Victoria Moors and is in fact named after her, as she first performed it in an international competition. However, Victoria Moors has now retired from gymnastics, and it appears that MyKayla Skinner is now the only woman doing this difficult move.

Photo: The article could use a photo, preferably an action shot of her in a gymnastics competition, and probably under an Attribution Sharealike licence (with documentary proof), which means that the photo could be freely used by others as long as it is attributed to whoever took the photo - standard for Wikipedia.

JD Fan (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MyKayla Skinner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120928145543/http://www.internationalgymnast-digital.com:80/internationalgymnast/201206/?pg=32 to http://www.internationalgymnast-digital.com/internationalgymnast/201206?pg=32#pg32

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

2015 World's Glasgow

She was an alternate for the gold-winning team at worlds in 2015 and should not have a team medal listed for that event 2605:4A80:7800:7E0:2363:8223:9759:4E44 (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Alternates began receiving team medals at the World Championships in 2014. You'll see that's why she's listed in the medalists section of the 2015 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships article and is listed as a medalist in the official results book (page 7). This is also why the 2019 medal is included. -Riley1012 (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)