User talk:Kyle Peake/Archive 1

Hi Kyle Peake! 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 Cullen328 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're intending to create articles for Kanye West's songs that charted from Ye, why don't you just edit the redirects? You don't have to go through

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kanye West singles discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I Wonder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed this already

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Violent Crimes (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Parker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The editor whose username is Z0 13:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Two Words, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages GLC and Cynic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Response

I've fixed it now, will try not to do that in the future.

Template:Yeezus has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Watch the Throne has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kanye West singles discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beat Goes On (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Please only create redirects if there is at least a reference to the title you're creating a redirect for at the target article. Otherwise it can look like you're creating redirects based on fan speculation about what future song or album titles are, and this falls under the category of

Hello, I may have done this for "80 Degrees", but do you have any other examples? Kyle Peake (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say there was more than one. "When creating redirects..." is just framing what I've said as advice based on your creation of 80 Degrees. Ss112 09:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but when you put 'redirects' I thought you meant the plural as in I created multiple redirects. Kyle Peake (talk) 09:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Waves (Kanye West song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BPI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't add

Sorry, I will not in the future unless there is no other source. Kyle Peake (talk)

To clarify, in the cases of

WP:USERG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.61 (talk

) 21:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The point of the template is to serve as a navigation for individual recordings that have warranted an article of its own or at least have an extensive sub-section of an article dedicated to it. The template is not meant to inserted with every single remix/song that an artist has put simply because there's at least one DJBooth (fails per discussion BTW) or Complex web article written about it.

Regarding the Wikipedia pages themselves (most of which you created), most don't meet the aforementioned requirements, hence all those redirects. Have to be honest, you seem to be more concerned with generating page after page, one after the other, rather than taking the time to gather verifiable information, structure the content in accordance to the WP:MOS and compose a fleshed-out article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.61 (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, maybe you are correct to a certain degree, but ones such as "

One must be able to articulate the notability of songs.

Hurry, are broken up in three or so sections, each containing no more than two sentences each. Many articles in their entirety contain barely enough content to comprise a single paragraph. Also, "For example Obviously there was controversy, notable live performance and" isn't sufficient for the song. As for Good Friday

, the page is filled with eight sentences distributed into three sections structured on unreliable sources, its actually not much to read.

Other songs such as Spaceship, Two Words and Street Lights do possess potential. But as said before, you seem to lack the willingness or patience to search for and through reliable sources and use them to craft fully realized articles prior to creating the page or removing redirects. Hence the necessity to pad out articles by way of incongruously listing elongated quotes into the

skit

? Moreover, an entire section isn't needed just for one single sentence.

Try to take the time to gather verifiable info to convincingly justify relevancy. Use those verifiable sources to engender thorough, fleshed-out Wikipedia articles. If you're understandably not up for the task, let the article be until a time comes. Otherwise the

copyedits. Try pacing yourself, rather than crafting one thin page after another. Frankly, one Good Article is worth a thousand stubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.61 (talk

) 21:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Your recent editing history at Template:Kanye West songs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mz7 (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Bad News (song)

I saw your message. Not really sure what you want in response. Whereas I've been quite thorough and specific in my explanations, you give little to go on. If you seek further dialogue you'll have to directly address the topics I purported in my previous comments above and elsewhere. At this point, I don't see myself saying anything I haven't said before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.61 (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I have been using reliable sources and why would u edit it improving info if u just want the page to be deleted anyway? Makes zero sense. --Kyle Peake (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It helps to take a glance at those guidelines

I was going to use that word to describe your own approach to own creating/editing anything that has to do with the guy. But I didn't do so, as I believed you would not appreciate my use of of the word. Anyway, as you've revealed yourself, it take little effort to click on a button and view someone's past edits.

I actually didn't want to take it this far. In the likelihood you were unaware, I simply wanted to draw attention to your editing habits: your emphasis on incessant page creation based vague, questionable notability contrast with reluctance to take gather verifiable info and expand/structure content for these pages prior to moving forward. Thing is, when you trudge on ahead with the habit while offering minimal clarity for your actions, one has no choice by to pursue this lane. You'd think with past redirects and a least one deletion, you'd be willing to take more heed of all this. This is what I meant by the "I tried" comment. I didn't want to resort to deletions, save for obviously unwarranted, unexceptional articles (you know the ones by now). Nor do I desire to get other editors involved. I thought I could just give you a heads up, give advice on taking your time before going on to the next one, and leave it at that.

That's the reason I made those edits (which you've since undone) to

Bad News

, even though I believe the page should be redirected. I'm trying to work with you, but there has to be input on your part.

And oh yeah, let's keep things civil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.61 (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I have not been redirected/deleted more times than I have so ik what I'm not doing for sure. Kyle Peake (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "more times than I have so ik what I'm not doing for sure" and please be more elaborate in your responses.

I mean that the the pages I've created have not being redirected/deleted a higher number of times than they have been redirected/deleted. --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand that recursive statement. Also use the the colon to indent response, makes this easier to read. Either way, it's inconsequential. Try addressing something beside the one aside.

AN/I notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of

Lord Lord Lord

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Lord Lord Lord 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/Lord Lord Lord until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of

Looking for Trouble (song)

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Looking for Trouble (song) 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/Looking for Trouble (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Good Friday (Kanye West song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Good Friday (Kanye West song) 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/Good Friday (Kanye West song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of

Primetime (Jay-Z and Kanye West song)

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Primetime (Jay-Z and Kanye West song) 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/Primetime (Jay-Z and Kanye West song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of

School Spirit (song)

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

School Spirit (song) 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/School Spirit (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of

Siiiiiiiiilver Surffffeeeeer Intermission

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Siiiiiiiiilver Surffffeeeeer Intermission 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/Siiiiiiiiilver Surffffeeeeer Intermission until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I have also completed the following nominations:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Joy (song)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad News (song)

Mz7 (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Say You Will (Kanye West song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idolator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The Verge link

There's no need for that when there are reliable sources available.

Another thing to keep in mind:

There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. There is no consensus regarding The Verge's articles on "culture".

As said time and again, the Verge link you keep citing is inaccurate. This is what happens: People listen to albums and set about creating web pages compiled with extensive lists of supposed sources. And they leave nothing more than a defunk

All that aside, at least you've demonstrated that you're willing to look at and acknowledge guidelines. Some anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.97.61 (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The next time you reinstate that article, I will report you for edit-warring. There is a clear consensus for redirection (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crack Music (2nd nomination)) and your behaviour is disruptive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That article was redirected in the past when it didn't express notability. If you actually look at the version I have published since then, it doesn't lack notability. The consensus was decided on back in August and it's October now with a different article, place the Articles for Deletion template on it instead of reporting me or I will report you for edit-warring because you're not providing any evidence of a redirect. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Richardson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Kyle Peake,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Amen (Pusha T song) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amen (Pusha T song) .

If you're new to the process,

Thanks,

TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

And I would point out that being released as a single does not confer notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Richardson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song) 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/Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Richhoncho (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

This is wrong to do because you are disregarding the required attribution of others' edits to the article. See

Thanks for creating Spaceship (Kanye West song).

Thank you for your new article on "Spaceship" by Kanye West. You may or may not be aware that other editors have recently raised objections to the existence of several other articles on individual Kanye songs, and will probably demand more evidence that such a song is

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Glory (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coldest Winter (song) 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/Coldest Winter (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You are NOT allowed to remove AfD nominations, no matter how "obvious" the issue may seem to you. Make your case in the deletion discussion. Repeated removal of nomination templates will be reported. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Responding with account due to tech issues. In no particular order:

There are differences throughout the noms, a third of them were Merges and I'm sure you're aware another editor posted them all on my behalf.

It would seem your reasoning when comes to all this article generation is based on the premise that if you've managed to create a page for a song, it signifies that the song is therefore notable enough to have a page created for it. There's that recursive logic again.

In regards to infoboxes, that used to be the case. But as a result of incessant

Lastly, dial down on the arbitrary comments and premature name-calling. This isn't Twitter nor are you on some fan forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascribe4 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

An editor has opened an investigation into

sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kyle Peake, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations

, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

wumbolo ^^^ 16:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Whatever U Want (Consequence song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Common (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Kyle Peake. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Father Stretch My Hands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Champions (GOOD Music song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inverse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi mate, just wanted to let you know I'm reviewing Waves (Kanye West song) for GA soon. See you. MikeOwen ^discuss 18:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MikeOwen -- MikeOwen (talk

The article Waves (Kanye West song) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Waves (Kanye West song) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MikeOwen -- MikeOwen (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The New Workout Plan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idolator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bounce (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Ascribe4 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Make note that Controversy sections are for detailing an extensive controversy engendered directly by the conception, content and release of a given song that is the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist. Ex. Its not intended simply for: a) Random lyrics that you believe are provocative, which is subjective to begin with b) Expounding on lines that address a preexisting controversy associated with the artist in question. c) Expounding on lines that address a random incident involving the artist in question that you find controversial, again subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascribe4 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Champions (Paid in Full song) 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/Champions (Paid in Full song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Ascribe4 (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

The article

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

The article

Hey there! Just a heads up, if a song has a music video, they are normally externally linked in the infobox, not in the "external links" sections at the bottom. You can check out

Hello, Kyle Peake. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. DannyS712 (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712 Back when I first starting editing on Wiki in 2018, I made a bunch of draft articles with lack of awareness on how to create proper articles. I haven't made any since after understanding Wiki a lot more. --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

When doing accolades tables like you do for Kanye West pages, its better to include the year rather than ceremony and year:

Year - Organization - Award - Result - Reference

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_Space#Accolades

The article

The article

The article

Congrats! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Another Believer Aha cheers knew I'd get there eventually! Kyle Peake (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

The article

The article

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

The article

The article

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

The article

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

The article

The article

You say that you reverted my edits on All Mine (Kanye West song) because of concerns that all the images needed alt text. However, my edits never touched alt text at all - what I deleted acted as a caption, which is a problem when an image caption already exists. In fact, that was the sole reason I was visiting the page: those three images had more than one caption, which generates a Linter error.

Any alt text in an image, as stated in

"3 - Naomi Campbell 001", for instance, is just a derivative of the file name, and does nothing to describe the image displayed that the caption doesn't already handle. The other two deletions I performed were more suitable alt texts, as they're a bit more descriptive of the who and where the image contains. In this situation, though, I wasn't taking them as alt texts, but captions - to that end, I deleted what I did because I was preserving the captions that were the most relevant to the article.

The three images I deleted options on never had alt text in the first place. I'll do my best to insert apropos alt text if it will assuage your concerns regarding good article criteria, but please keep the above information in mind for the future.

Hey Kyle. Since we talked about "

BeatlesLedTV Hello, happy belated Easter right back at ya! I would be possibly willing to help you out with "C.R.E.A.M." after I have looked at the article to see what I could add. As for "Stronger," it still has quite a while to go before becoming a GA and the editors don't need to be reached out to, since I looked in the CheckLinks box then saw that all dead ones were already archived (apart from a few which I sorted out). The article still requires more sources in the Cover versions and media usage section, more information under Commercial performance, sources for Track listings and some more improvements before it can be at least worthy of a nomination. Nice to hear from you and will post to you when I've decided on the next West GA! --Kyle Peake (talk

) 17:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Ascribe4 If you look throughout the composition section, the content does make the song acceptable to list alternative R&B as a genre. Also thanks for sourcing pop. --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The assertion is quite vague. As I just said, this amounts to original research per WP:SYNTH. Your welcome for the source though. Ascribe4 (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ascribe4 Fair enough and can you stop putting that sentence about West and Jeezy collaborating in the lead in the background and conception section because it's already in there reworded? I have now removed it from the article and left the original in background and conception btw. --Kyle Peake (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I've since edited the page for clarity while also avoiding redundancy. Think it should suffice for us both. I was intending to make more follow up changes, but this was not really a good time for me to begin with. Even though you came in a bit derisive, you seem willing to cooperate so I think I can a put most of this off for now. Ascribe4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Genius has been cited as unreliable per discussion. This one being the most recent. Its simply a matter of someone adding it to the the list. I know you have an affinity for the site, but you need to move on and stop relying on it. In this case in particular, would've it really been that much to use the given New York Times link instead?

I've already addressed that fallacious GA argument, so I don't know why you're making again. One reviewer is not the absolute authority one any given topic/article, hence why challenges and delistings exist. Still trying to avoid the latter. Also unfortunately, not everyone here knows better than to take your word for it [1]. Everything regarding the relationship you make with Power on ITAKY amounts to OR. None of those sources you provide make that connection. Once again, derive and apply the information intended for an article's text from verifiable sources first and foremost, rather than stringing together random sources to form bridges and backup one's preexisting ideas. Ascribe4 (talk)

Ascribe4 Okay fine, I will leave it as removed. But you haven't given any reasons to remove so much content from the lead when literally everything you removed doesn't need to be rv, as it gives information about the song's production, changes and its chart positions. You can't just list the US position and nothing else, that is ridiculous. As for the background being OR, it is obvious that ITAKY is linked suicide and this is even referenced in the article so it gives a background into West discussing suicidal thoughts and I am removing that tag now. The connection is obvious and I didn't put OR like "so-and-so said a connection between..." so do you understand now to keep it? --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is listing every country a song happened to chart. Not to mention the fact that the chart positions of most of those countries aren't very significant. The only countries where it cracked the top 40 were Canada and Ireland. You can see why I'd be open to including those two in the lead but not, say, France. The rest of the content I removed is trivial within the context of the lead and/or had questionable sourcing. As said before, you're synthesizing. If you can cite a specific, verifiable source in which a credible writer/reviewer/journalist/etc explicitly notes and expounds on the direct relationship between ITAKY to previous songs/comments where he touches on the subject (i.e. "Power"), then by all means this would warrant inclusion in the article. Anything else is original research per

WP:SYNTH. Also, would it hurt to run some of your copyedits through Word before submitting? Ascribe4 (talk

)

BeatlesLedTV on one review to make sure chart listings (plural obvy) are included in the introduction, unless there's TOO MANY like "All Mine". I feel this can be used for reason to edit as this user has proposed to review this article for GA criteria and he's got 1000's of edits and will ask for all the countries to be mentioned as there's not many. Whilst you only have less than 500. I have been trying to engage in civil debates with you over what can and can't be sourced, but you haven't linked to anything proving me, as open minded as I am, wrong so not to be offensive but I'm starting to wonder if SOME of your comments are trolling. Oh wait, forgot to say: Stop putting the unlicensed sample in background; it is about the song's comp. --Kyle Peake (talk

) 18:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You haven't been trying very hard. These things always kick off or end with some adolescent labeling or a histrionic accusation. And they always seem to come at the worst time. That aside, you keep on regurgitating the same fallacious arguments. The rebuttal invariably comes down to a petulant, "Well, I have more edits." You have no idea how long I've been visiting the site prior to deciding to start this account or what reasons played a role on why I decided to hold off so long. Despite your presumed experience, you demonstrated time and again the disparity between the two us in regards to knowledge of Wikipedia policies. So I really don't understand all this editorializing on your part. As for the countries, your taking one single individual editor's formal statement to the literal extreme for the sake of rhetoric. Obviously, the intro includes chart positions (as in "position(s)") hence why I did not leave it devoid of one. The intro is not going to include every single one, especially when a chart placements is as low as 125. As for everything else in that lead, organize it into sensible paragraphs, with each related sentence flowing into the next. Ascribe4 (talk)

BeatlesLedTV Since you will be reviewing "ITAKY" soon, could I have your opinion now on the "issues" claimed by this user please? And I would like you to read both of our messages + look at history so you 100% know what's going on as I do not see why he/she keeps claiming content is inappropriate when it's not. --Kyle Peake (talk

) 18:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I'm still a little confused since idk where this argument started, but I'll try to do the best I can. I do remember when reviewing "

talk

) 19:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV ok here we go. So Genius has been agreed on as unreliable by both of us at this point, though there are issues with "ITAKY". I believe that the lead should have more info (see previous revision for what I view as suitable, though I will change the chart summary when I next edit it) and there is a debate about Background: does the content about "Power" classify as OR like Ascribe4 is claiming so? I believe otherwise because it only says that he reference suicide in the song, no mention of ITAKY is in the sentence but that is because the article later discusses the song being about suicide. So do you agree that the lead should have content included but with chart summary shortened to "numerous" and what are your thoughts on the Background debate that I explained? By the way, not to be offensive but this debate has stressed me out and I am logging out so won't be back on wiki for 2 days. Respond whenever though because I'll get back to you. --Kyle Peake (talk

) 20:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV Just got back on Wiki again, I was expecting to see a response from you after I'd been offline for two days but there's none so I'll ask you to read the above para again and then respond^ That would be nice thanks a lot! --Kyle Peake (talk

) 13:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I am so sorry I was going to last night but got completely side-tracked. In response to your question, I don't think the info about "Power" in "ITAKY" is OR, mainly because it's sourced by Billboard, who is seen as reliable. I would say it is relevant to the text since it DOES gives background on West's suicidal thoughts throughout his life. I know the death of his mother Donda was extremely heartbreaking for him (leading to 808s) and the backlash of his interruption of Taylor Swift at the 2009 MTV awards was also hard on him (leading to a self-imposed exile and shortly after MBDTF) so it would make sense that he had suicidal thoughts since 2009. I definitely don't think that info classifies as OR, especially since it's sourced by an RS. Unfortunately, I can't review the song until that tag is removed (as GAs can't have any tags of any sort) so it will have to be sorted out before I'll be able to do a proper GA review for it. Anyways sorry for the late response, I hope things have been going well (other than this). :-) –

talk

) 15:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV Thank you for your input, Ascribe4 I will remove your tag so this article can be removed and I am not stating this user's opinion as better than yours, just referencing the fact that GA reviews need such tags not to be in place. Also BeatlesLedTV, there was some issues over me and Ascribe4 about the lead's length. If you look through the previous revision by me, you can see what I set it out as and this user believed it should've been trimmed (look for most recent edit of mine to see what is was and I will summarise the charts by the way) --Kyle Peake (talk

) 15:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I personally think leads for GAs should be at least 2 paragraphs but I've seen many that just have one. The point of a lead to an article is to introduce the reader to the article's main points; henceforth, the main points should be summarized in the lead. As long as the main points are summarized, it doesn't matter how long it is. –

talk

) 18:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

GT & ITAKY

I honestly had trouble understanding what you were trying to say because you packed everything into one single run-on sentence. But here I go. The Composition section is meant to be a descriptive encapsulation of the composition of a song. This includes musical elements it constitutes of, the genres it incorporates, the instruments that are used, an overview of the lyrical themes, etc. Much of the info you keep placing there is more suitable in a Background and/or a Recording section.

As for the lead, I agree with the notion of having a relatively dense lead. The issue I have is with the content you keep inserting. The lead is supposed to summarize the main aspects of an article without going to go too far into unnecessary detail. That's kind of still somewhat an issue with the articles you create. Even if they're decently sourced, they're still lacking because there's an emphasis on taking and slapping down strings of quotes rather than thoroughly reading and extracting the substance of a web page's content and then seamlessly redistributing the info into the fabric of an article's text. Hence why in the end, you still have to try stretch things out just for the sake of appearances to achieve said dense look. Ascribe4 (talk)

Don't feel like repeating myself so here's a coy/paste: "If you can cite a specific, verifiable source in which a credible writer/reviewer/journalist/etc explicitly notes and expounds on the direct relationship between ITAKY to previous songs/comments where he touches on the subject (i.e. "Power"), then by all means this would warrant inclusion in the article." The Metro link does that for "Runaway," that's why it was included. Ascribe4 (talk)

BeatlesLedTV has agreed with me and I know you said don't ref some user with more edits, but it makes sense here as he/she is reviewing this for a GA, not you. Plus as I have pointed out before, just leave a message on the talk page asking about this and see if you can get people to agree with you since that is civil and if you think I should, sorry but my edit was first so it's your position to do so. You have literally zero valid reasons to rv the content on your own as it is a reliable source on a relationship of the other song and the film, sorry if there's some repetition in these sentences but it's still true that I don't have OR. Understand now? Also, I had to fix your repetition of the same ref twice in the page by using a refname. On top of this, why was the slavery update removed from lead when it is definitely notable? Actually respond to all of my questions rather than being ignorant... --Kyle Peake (talk

) 14:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly not entirely sure why there is such a big argument going on between the two of you on this subject. The articles that discuss "Power" and Runaway were published back in 2010, during the actual MBDTF days, so there's obviously no possible way they could mention "ITAKY". The Metro article does actually mention the Runaway film, so I would say it's ok to mention it, especially since West has had a history of suicidal thoughts. The Billboard ref from 2010 also mentions "Power" and Runaway, and while the article for "Power" itself doesn't explicitly mention suicidal thoughts, it reads "The track seemingly culminates with the suicide of its main character, ending with a menacing laugh provided by West", as well as mentioning that its lyrics partly deal with personal issues; so, while Runaway should obviously be mentioned, as long as there are RSs that specifically mention "Power" being related to suicidal thoughts as well, then include it. If not, remove it. This is my two sense on the subject matter. If the debate continues, I suggest bringing it up to an administrator or something, because it seems like this is becoming a much bigger deal than it needs to be. –

talk

) 21:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV The Billboard ref's relevant content reads: 'He has hinted at the subject of suicide in his recent song "Power," which includes the repeated lines: "Now this would be a beautiful death - I'm jumping out the window, I'm letting everything go."', so yeah it does mention suicidal thoughts about the song. The debate is about how Ascribe4 believes that a source needs to be published that mentions both "ITAKY" and "Power" in order for the song's suicide-related content to belong in the article, though Runaway has been directly related to it - also, Runaway and "Power" have been directly related, therefore it works. Understand now? --Kyle Peake (talk

) 21:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that makes total sense. I don't really don't know why "ITAKY" and "Power" need to be directly linked but again that's just one person's opinion. It might help to bring it up to more veteran editors for their opinions on the matter. –

talk

) 22:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV Thanks for telling it like it is, Ascribe4 see now? Also, Another Believer what do you think of this? --Kyle Peake (talk

) 06:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Had stuff to do. Still do, so I'll again keep it short but comprehensible. I'm calling for a source in which the writer concretely connects (as in "reveals and speaks on the relationship between...") "ITAKY" to a previous song and the subject of suicide. The writer of the 2018 Metro article does that for "Runaway" in the sixth paragraph. The 2010 Billboard article does not. I can do the

same thing you're doing by citing a random article written prior to the creation of "ITAKY" that quotes the closing bars of "Bring Me Down" or provides a brief description of the ending of that alternate video for "FL" or a features a summary of the short film WWOAFT and so on. Ascribe4 (talk

)

Ascribe4 Well the thing is, as you said the Runaway relationship works, though so does "Power" as it has an article relating it to Runaway which means that even though not mentioned in the same source, it should work as a connection to "ITAKY" since as I said, the source refs what has been directly compared to it. On another note, I have told you about this before but you haven't paid any attention; stop using duplicate refs on the article, just use refname! I'm on about The New York Times source. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of It's My Birthday

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zmbro -- Zmbro (talk

) 20:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of It's My Birthday

The article

good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:It's My Birthday for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zmbro -- Zmbro (talk

) 20:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of It's My Birthday

The article It's My Birthday you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:It's My Birthday for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zmbro -- Zmbro (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Power (Kanye West song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KTG (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black Skinhead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Ultralight Beam"

Hey Kyle. Regarding this, where did you find that? – zmbro _(talk) 13:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Zmbro I sourced it in the release and promotion section a while back. --Kyle Peake (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see now, all good, was so confused at first. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 14:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Low Lights

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk

) 18:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Be Like Me

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk

) 17:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Low Lights

The article

good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Low Lights for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk

) 07:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Be Like Me

The article

good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Be Like Me for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk

) 08:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Low Lights

The article Low Lights you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Low Lights for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paranoid (Kanye West song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zmbro -- Zmbro (talk

) 20:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paranoid (Kanye West song)

The article

good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Paranoid (Kanye West song) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zmbro -- Zmbro (talk

) 22:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Be Like Me

The article Be Like Me you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Be Like Me for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Response

The song does not contain an interpolation, nor does the given source even claim that it does. That aside, the critic was making a comparison. Saying something reminiscent to a different other thing is not the same as saying the two are one an the same, that it is that very thing. This is in direct contrast to the sources that I provided, both of which explicitly describe the genre of the song. But the comparison is notable and verifiable enough to be cited in critical reception. Ascribe4 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paranoid (Kanye West song)

The article Paranoid (Kanye West song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paranoid (Kanye West song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zmbro -- Zmbro (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Eerie Destruction

Hi ther again! Thank you for your reviews, I'm happy someone finally picked them. I just wanted to say that I write and produce music in my spare time. I recently released an EP, comprising four demos: https://open.spotify.com/album/1MJn3bTjVjBzGSZmYkdRg7. Would love to hear some feedback, if you have time, although it's very dark pop and electronic (not your genre I guess)... :) Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak I am not offended by your mistake, but I am actually a fan of electronic and pop, though rap is my main genre. Did check out your music, actually was quite good! --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry :/ I'm glad you enjoyed some of my stuff though :) Greets back; Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak Good voice, though the production is the highlight. Kyle Peake (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, wow, many thanks. Nothing there is really professionally done, so I'm quite surprised by your comment. I'm glad you noticed. Any song in particular that you liked? Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yikes (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Black Skinhead

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article "Black Skinhead" has been completed.

I agree with the FA reviewers who felt the Good Article review was superficial and that the article's writing should have resulted in a "Fail". I believe this has now been addressed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Aja GA nomination

Well, thank you for sticking to your deadline; I guess it just wasn't the best two-week period for me to be addressing it (no, scratch that ... it just wasn't, period).

I'll continue to work on your punch list when I can and renominate it at some point in the future. Thanks for your reviewing! Didn't agree with everything, but does anyone ever? Happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Yeah I did read some of your points and you were right at times. --Kyle Peake (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you. Cheung2 (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cheung2: Sorry I don't have interest in copyediting such a small article. Good luck though! --Kyle Peake (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thank you for getting articles in good article status. Keep up the good work! TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.