User talk:Kaden Bayne Vanciel

February 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Columbia Pictures films. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Police, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Rob van vee 08:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hasbro Studios

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Hasbro Studios. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do not add false information like the false "Hasbro Factory" film you place in this article with a false source, ie. the source does not support the existence of this movie. Spshu (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Fantastic Mr. Fox (film). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joseph Pisenti (April 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Heliosxeros was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joseph Pisenti and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Joseph Pisenti, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

EROS ^message 11:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kaden Bayne Vanciel! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! EROS ^message 11:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia Articles

I have this idea to create Wikipedia articles for my friend, Joseph Pisenti of RealLifeLore, about all members of Standard Broadcast(except for Sam Denby), and the group itself. I even have ideas for Wikipedia articles for Shaker & Spoon, just like Blue Apron does, and an article for Pisenti's book, Answers to Questions You've Never Asked. How can I get help or let others do this work FOR me?

Production companies and sourcing

Please do not add unsourced production companies to infoboxes, as you did in this edit. The reason why reliable sources are used is because people tend to guess at companies based on primary sources, such as posters and trailers. Just because a company is listed there doesn't mean they're a production company. They might be contractually obligated to appear, they might be a distributor, the might be an investor – they could have almost any level of involvement. It is original research to determine for ourselves what this level of involvement is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. See WP:IMDBREF !!! Toddst1 (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite hotel

It is not possible to have Diagonal argument per infinite hotel, first since it is proof by contradiction so doesn't work so no analogy to something that does work, second because Diagonal argument is false, that's why it refers to CARDINALITY rather than SIZE. Infinite hotel argument neither refers to size nor cardinality. They write things in to definition of cardinality to make it work. Since you're argument is original research it I deleted it I'd get away with it. See my papers on Academia on set theory Victor Kosko (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

before I answer I need a link to the keystone video, name alone won't find it.

As for your references, I guess your female, females avoid editing Wikipedia being the editors are male thus bullies thus editing involves bullying. Also too lazy to pear review submissions or decide who reviews what. Thus policy (which is not absolute) is major submissions (long as sentence or longer) must already be pear reviewed. If exception author of reference must have heavily had papers pass pear review.

Also, when in a fight, you should fight.

This was not the original policy, it quickly changed to that since original policy was policy is decided by the editors Victor Kosko (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g02KJ4kxldA Here's the link. Also, I can tell of your imperfections in terms of your writing, even with lack of punctuation where needed, especially on some of your Academia papers. Kaden Bayne Vanciel (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like criticism Victor Kosko (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not the video you heavily praised on the article talk page youtube chanel keystone Victor Kosko (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"keystone" is the username of the YouTuber that created the video. Kaden Bayne Vanciel (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Dead Man's Party (song). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Your descrption of the video clip's contents was a clear WP:OR, which is not allowed. Additionally, YouTube itself is generally not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia (see e.g. WP:VIDEOREF and WP:YOUTUBE-EL). CiaPan (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ainu

Hi. Thanks for your additions to Ainu languages! However, if you show a phoneme as being doubtful or marginal in the table, e.g. *q, that should be explained in the text, otherwise it's not clear what the table is supposed to be telling us. I assume that the three more central vowels are doubtful? — kwami (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IDK. I was just going by this: [1] I'm still a linguistics rookie. Kaden Bayne Vanciel (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]