User talk:Keybeeny

June 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at The Weather Channel. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that, unless sensitive personal information is at stake, discussions about a Wikipedia article should be conducted on Wikipedia, for openness and transparency among editors. If you have any questions, please post them here. Thanks 331dot (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "Kelly Cass and Alexandra Wilson are the hosts of AMHQ Weekend and Weather Underground, respectively" is so hard to accept??? HERE ARE THE SOURCES: www.facebook.com/twckellycass , www.facebook.com/twcalexwilson , as well as www.weather.com , which is one of the most highly trafficked websites on the Internet! I created an account. I provided sources and references. The explanations given for deleting my corrections include "Makes no Sense"...??? Would you please fix this and inform DMacks and bbb23 that they have not acted in accordance with the Wikipedia term of use? Keybeeny (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook pages (or anything user-editable) are not generally considered reliable sources. Wikipedia is not interested in what article subjects say about themselves, Wikipedia is interested in what other sources say about them. Weather.com isn't valid as a sole reliable source as they have an interest in writing positively about their employees. I again urge you to review the notability guidelines which will give you an idea of what is being looked for. Please stop with the Terms of Use violation claim; there isn't one here. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also highly suggest that you remove your statement that you just posted to the article talk page as it is not constructive to resolving this situation, and will only make it worse for you as you now appear to only be interested in promoting the two people. Please remain calm and discuss this matter. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook and Twitter have come up with a Blue Checkmark to denote "certified" pages. Most people do not have the Blue Checkmark and thus are less trustworthy and believable. However, the accounts of Weather Channel meteorologists have them.

Please click on this link from weather.com. This is not "writing positively about their employees", it is a factual summary of what Kelly Cass does on that TV Network.

https://weather.com/tv/personalities/news/kelly-cass

Please also click on this link from weather.com. It is also another summary of what Alexandra Wilson does on that network.

https://weather.com/tv/personalities/news/alex-wilson

If you are saying that these references, as well as Facebook and Twitter pages with the Blue Checkmark are not sufficient references, then it is you who are being unreasonable, not me. Keybeeny (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is video proving that Kelly and Alex are AMHQ and WU hosts on TWC . I guess next you are going to tell me that Youtube isn't a reliable source either?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEeCFMO-0k0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09iV4pQaSE8

Keybeeny (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook can give its pages all the certifications they want; that doesn't change anything. The pages are still user-editable and/or controlled by the user. It is extremely unlikely that anything from Facebook would be accepted as a reliable source. The Weather Channel's own entry might be enough for some information, but it by itself likely wouldn't be regarded as the only source of information for an article. YouTube can be a reliable source in some cases.

Understand that no one disputes that these two people are TWC personalities. That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not they merit inclusion in the article and their own articles. That's what you need to discuss.

I would stress that Wikipedia guidelines are not determined by me personally, but by Wikipedia users as a community. I regret that you don't find them satisfactory, but these are the guidelines that the community has arrived at over the many years that Wikipedia has operated. You can certainly attempt to change them but I'm guessing you don't have any interest in being that involved here. I can only suggest to you that you continue to discuss the matter with others on the article talk page. I would suggest that you not attempt to readd the information until a discussion arrives at a consensus to do so, as repeatedly adding the information after it is removed is considered edit warring and not permitted. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited the page since you pointed out the three-edit rule. However, your opinion of who "merits inclusion in the article" is merely an attempt to change the subject. The co-hosts of AMHQ Weekend are Reynolds Wolf and Kelly Cass. Period. The co-hosts of Weather Underground are Mike Bettes and Alexandra Wilson, Period. For you, or DMacks, or bbb23 to decide that one co-host (THE MALE) is mention-worthy while their EQUAL CO-HOST, the FEMALE, is somehow NOT mention worthy is WRONG. Keybeeny (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the sources on the footnotes for the Weather Channel page include David Kenny's Twitter page and many from weather.com, so your comments on whether or not they can be used as sources would appear to have been contradicted. Keybeeny (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what information is being sourced from Twitter. Additionally, as a volunteer project, sometimes inappropriate things make it into articles and go undetected for a long time; this is why each page is judged on its own merits, as other things exist.

I haven't decided anything; as I indicated, I don't know if they merit inclusion or not. It certainly isn't a sexist issue for me(I can't speak for anyone else, but I doubt it is for them either) I don't know if the other co-host should be mentioned or not. I was only commenting on procedure, guidelines, and sources to try to help you. If you find discussion on the article talk page unsatisfactory, there are other means of resolving disputes, which are described here. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I never would have imagined in a million years that some meddlesome and misguided users of Wikipedia would find it necessary to blacklist two female meteorologists who have been on the Weather Channel for 18 and 7 years, respectively. If the male co-host merits inclusion, then his EQUAL female co-host also merits inclusion. We have established that there is absolutely no exaggeration or misrepresentation being made as I have provided the video of both of them doing their jobs. They both have way, way more followers on Social Media than their male co-hosts and have plenty of influence in that regard. They are not harmed by the blacklisting taking place here by you, DMacks, and bbb23. I was trying to make the Wikipedia entry more complete and correct. The spitefulness and flat-out ignorance I have encountered for attempting to do so has been an educational experience. Keybeeny (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I probably shouldn't even point out the long-standing Wikipedia entry (put there by someone other than me) in which it is noted that Kelly Cass is a co-host of AMHQ since you and DMacks and bbb23 will probably go delete that line. But here it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Morning_Headquarters

So you are now in the position of actively deleting correct, verified information which has already been on Wikipedia for a long time. Good going! Keybeeny (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there is not much more for me to say then. I regret that I am not as knowledgeable as you seem to be. Please understand that Wikipedia is editable by anyone, and everyone has varied experiences. I or anyone is not "blacklisting" anyone else. I also told you that you posted Kelly Cass' name as a link when it should probably be posted as just plain text(as it is in the article that you cite). As I indicated, I haven't yet formed an opinion about the specific issue you have raised and was simply informing you of the proper means to resolve your dispute. I hope that you make use of them, and I wish you nothing but the best. 331dot (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to you for acknowledging that I know more about the topic than you, or DMacks, or bbb23, but that certainly doesn't stop the three of you from going in and deleting perfectly accurate and well sourced information, does it? Keybeeny (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, no one disputes that these two women are on The Weather Channel. That's not the issue. I've explained one of the issues with the Kelly Cass to you already and told you how it can be addressed. I've also explained that there seems to be some concern about the notability of the other person and I've advised you to review the notability guidelines and then demonstrate how that person meets them. Instead of this confrontational and hostile attitude, you would be much more successful if you engaged in this collaborative environment where we all must work with others with varying and different experiences. People aren't just going to bow down to your greater knowledge; you need to collaborate and work to provide what is being looked for. If you aren't prepared or willing to do those things, then I would submit that contributing to Wikipedia articles isn't for you. I don't really have anything else to say and I would close by again encouraging you to calmly discuss this matter. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Sorry to see you've got off to a rough start. The article you started at Kelly Cass looks like it has potential, once we get some references and expand it a bit. I removed the "#REDIRECT" line, so the text will be visible and it won't redirect anymore. If you need any help, ask me on my talk page. —Guan aco 00:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this editing dispute about Weather Channel meteorologists I started a discussion at AfD. My goal is to get a broader consensus from more editors on whether these should be included. —Guan aco 02:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Keybeeny. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Kelly Cass, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keybeeny, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Keybeeny! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Mz7 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Talkpages

Since you´re sticking around, please take a look at Wikipedia:Indentation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]