User talk:Novemberjazz/Archives/2020/June

YMS Kimba video

Can you explain why it was reasonable to delete the information about the YMS video on the Kimba the White Lion wiki page? Yes it is all speculation, but so is everything under the Lion King controversy subtopic. It's as though you're censoring people from finding out the other side of the story, even though there was more research done by YMS than anyone else. Connorwebb2244 (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Connorwebb224 First, avoid any accusations of "censorship" per WP:GOODFAITH. Opposition to the inclusion of content on a page – especially in a case as trivial as this – has nothing to do with censorship. Seeing as you've made no other edits to Wikipedia other than your comment on my talk page, I'll assume that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia content is based upon Wikipedia:Reliable sources. For example, a reliable source may be a nationally-recognized newspaper (NY Times, LA Times, Seattle Times, WSJ, etc.) or a TV channel (CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc.). User-generated content is not a reliably source, so it should not be used on Wikipedia (Per WP:YOUTUBE and WP:USERGENERATED. That isn't to say that a YouTube video can never be used on a page, but it must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If a YouTube video was released by official channel of a reliable source, it could probably be included. The video you reference does not fit into that category, so it will not be included. KidAd (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You clearly like editing on here. Maybe watch the video and see the claims he debunks (with proper evidence, as if he were a reliable source) so you can delete more information. Connorwebb2244 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Connorwebb2244 I don’t exactly know what you mean. Could you be a little more specific? KidAd (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The video by YMS debunks the entire conspiracy. Unlike most people who decided to speak about the Kimba/Lion King controversy, Adam (the name of the guy who runs the YMS channel) actually watched all of the Kimba media. Literally no stone left unturned, made clear just by how long his video is. Debunks a law professor (someone you'd think would make for a credible source) and makes it seem fairly obvious that the person hasn't even seen either Kimba or The Lion King. I suggest you watch the video, as it is as informative and objective as most reliable sources. See what you can do with the information presented in the video. If information about his video can't be added to the page, then there should at least be a note that the conspiracy should be taken with a large grain of salt. Connorwebb2244 (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Connorwebb2244 I do not plan on combing though the video meticulously for usable information. The video cannot be used on the page because it is, itself, a user-generated source – despite being composed of several sources that the video creator used. If the video creator published a list of the sources he used, then I suggest you update the page accordingly. KidAd (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

But you do comb through a bunch of Wikipedia pages to delete any "user-generated sources" whether or not they're reliable?

I'm done. No one's getting anywhere with this. Connorwebb2244 (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Connorwebb2244 It is wikipedia policy to not include user-generated content on pages per WP:USERGENERATED. It is not your fault for being unfamiliar with policy, but don't blame me for adhering to it. You're welcome to add content to the page based on sources used in the video you mentioned. KidAd (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

But then someone like you will find some reliability loophole in what I write and follow Wiki policy by deleting it completely. I could write something and make it sound good in two hours which you could delete at the click of a button. Because I'm not as familiar with policies as someone like you. People can still view it under the page history, but what are the odds of that? What are the odds of them taking the info at face value?

Not worth my time. People will find the video without Wikipedia anyway. Connorwebb2244 (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Connorwebb2244 I'm sorry if you're feeling frustrated. Writing for Wikipedia can an incredibly rewarding and satisfying hobby, but there is a bit of a learning curve. You can use Help:Getting started to find all the information you need. I would also suggest asking questions at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, which is populated with many editors more experienced and knowledgable than me. Don't let this discourage you. KidAd (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi KidAd! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Renaming an article with italics, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anthony Labruna

The article Anthony Labruna has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not BLP level notable, has not attracted substantial 3rd party notice since the announcement of his appointment, and appears unlikely to become more notable in the near future. If this changes, of course, we can recreate the page.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Round and Round

I'm not sure what is and what isn't important there, but it is all sourced. You would be free to regard the source as not reliable.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Vchimpanzee What is this about? KidAd (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Right. I should have been specific and forgot. Here is what you did.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. The edit was minor, and the source wasn't removed. KidAd (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It's obviously not minor, since I am disputing it. Minor means no one is likely to dispute it. I see those details as important, although another article has them.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Noted. It doesn’t seem all that controversial however. I’m not against the inclusion of the content, but the clunky wording. I can take another look at the lanaguage when I get back to my computer. KidAd (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, whoever added it didn't do that good a job, I'll admit.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This edit added the content: here. A simple reword and the removal of "---" should suffice. I prefer the simple "In 2020, the band was featured in a Geico commercial performing the song." I don't find it necessary to explain the joke of the commercial on the page. KidAd (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It is explained on another page, so I guess that will do. But as well written as the description was for comic purposes, I suppose this is Wikipedia and needs to be more serious.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for your cordiality and cool-headedness. 23:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Melissa Benoist

Hi, when you removed a named ref from the infobox in Melissa Benoist, it broke the ref where it was called elsewhere in the article. It's a good idea after you make an edit to check the ref section to make sure you didn't break something. I added the ref back into the article to fix the problem. Schazjmd (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Schazjmd Sorry about that. Thanks for the fix. KidAd (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox edits

Please don’t screw around with the infobox as you did at John McEntee. Leave it in the order that the template places it. Corky 01:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Corkythehornetfan What I did was not "screwing" of any kind. The fact is that John McEntee served as "Personal Aide to the President" from January 20, 2017 to March 13, 2018. He then returned to the White House to serve as "Director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office," not in his old role. The infobox should obviously reflect that. (Sources: politico, axios, the hill, nymag, etc.) KidAd (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m not talking about that, the order of the parameters were all mixed around. The way I’ve positioned them now is how they should be per the template. Please don’t mess with the order of parameters. Corky 02:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Why didn't you just say that? How am I supposed to know what you mean by "screw around"? KidAd (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Your signature

Your talk page signature doesn’t seem to have a link to your userpage, which is pretty much universal among Wikipedians. I believe it would be helpful if you added one. Dronebogus (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Dronebogus Yikes! I just switched the color of my username a few days back. I guess I messed something up. Thanks for the alert. KidAd (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You’re welcome! Dronebogus (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You do realise, don't you, that the custom signature you recently created does not have links back to your user or talk page. It causes problems if you don't have at least one of these. It makes it more difficult for users to talk to you and some bots, such as some archiving bots, will fail to recognise it as a signature leading to the section not being archived. Also, when you try to ping someone it won't work, again because your sig has not been recognised by the parser. SpinningSpark 10:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh doh, didn't see someone else already noticed this. Apologies. SpinningSpark 10:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel so loved. Thanks SS and DroneBogus. 😍 KidAd (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)