Talk:Kyle Bobby Dunn

"Cescon"

There's a separate track called "Cescon" that was released sometime late 2014 - early 2015 and had minor coverage (digital copy is sold via Bandcamp). Is it worth mentioning in discography?

References

Controversies, continued

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It seems like the controversy around this artist was pretty serious and has had lasting effects on his ability to release music. Could someone please explain why that section is being deleted repeatedly by one person? Tiakat333 (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

In fact, it seems that user “Henchren,” who updates this page more than anyone else (by a long shot), is the one person repeatedly removing the controversies section. That doesn’t seem like a coincidence to me. Tiakat333 (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Henchen, could you explain why you don’t believe being dropped from multiple labels is important enough to be included on a wikipedia page for this artist? Tiakat333 (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

My opening comments are below. Xan747 (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Kyle Bobby Dunn and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

@Tiakat333: you have not notified @Henchren: that you have opened this 3O ticket, nor even pinged them to call attention to this conversation. I will notify the other editor immediately after posting this, but in future you should do at least one, but preferably both. Further, a 3O ticket is more appropriate when actual discussion has taken place on a talk page, which is not the case here. I have decided to weigh in anyway.

Both of you are edit-warring and need to stop immediately. If either of you at any time edit disputed content while this discussion is open and without consent of the other editor, I will immediately report you to WP:ANEW. As of this writing the current state of the article was last edited by Tiakat333, which contains the Controversies section Henchren wants removed.

The first thing I would like both of you to do is state your reasons why or why not the disputed content should be in the article. Provide reliable secondary sources, and base your arguments on Wikpedia policy. If there are any BLP concerns related to false information which paints the subject in a negative light, ping me and I will evaluate it immediately and strike it myself if necessary.

Otherwise, after both editors have given their "opening statements", I will review them and give my opening opinion, and then hear further arguments. Please refrain from engaging with each other until I have had a chance to do that review so that this doesn't turn into a WP:WALLOFTEXT, which I am likely to collapse and simply ignore. Xan747 (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

While I was writing the above, @Henchren: reverted @Tiakat333: to this state, removing the Controversies section in its entirety. I am going to let it stand, because after reviewing that section, the only citations are to X (Twitter) posts, which are not reliable sources. @Tiakat333: if you revert me, I am taking you to WP:BLPN where you will not fare well.

Both of you need to start leaving WP:EDITSUMMARIES so that other editors looking at page history can understand the reasons for your edits. Xan747 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. I understand that tweets are typically not reliable sources, however upon reading the wikipedia page about citing tweets I see that they are sometimes allowed in particular contexts, and I believe this is one of those contexts, because the tweets referred to are from the very labels themselves which dropped the artist. I gathered the info regarding the acceptable use of tweets from this specific wikipedia page: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources

Do you not believe those tweets are acceptable references? It seems that, short of an independent news article, which likely would not be made to announce that an indie record label is dropping an indie artist from its label, tweets from the actual recording label would fall into the category of the appropriate use of twitter references.

I have also yet to see Henchren provide an argument as to why it should not be included that the artist was dropped from three labels. All I have seen is his repeated removal of the controversy section over the years. It seems that he is also one of the only people updating the wikipedia page for this artist, which is interesting to me, and makes me suspect there may be an ulterior motive in his repeated removal of that section. However that is obviously speculation. Tiakat333 (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

> I understand that tweets are typically not reliable sources

Social media posts are almost never reliable sources unless they're repeated in a reliable WP:SECONDARY source, in which case the secondary should be cited.

Read carefully WP:BLPSOURCES followed by WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS which are consecutive sections of the same policy page about biographies of living persons. Then skip one section down to WP:BLPGOSSIP, and just below that WP:BLPREMOVE, then right below that WP:BLPEL. Note the emphasis throughout is that sources about living persons, especially potentially defamatory material, are held to much higher standards than in non-biographical articles, and that material based on questionable sources can be taken down immediately by anyone. Such takedowns are a specific exception to WP:3RR. See item 7 under WP:NOT3RR. That means that in this case, you are the only one guilty of edit-warring over the Controversies section.

> It seems that he is also one of the only people updating the wikipedia page for this artist, which is interesting to me

Me too. Whether or not there is a WP:COI issue, and no matter who added what content, the current state of this article is full of WP:PUFFERY and WP:PROMOTIONAL content based on few reliable secondary sources. Much of such content is entirely unsourced. The article is overall WP:POV and unencyclopedic.

I'll note that as of this point in time, @Henchren has 526 edits of which at least half are related to the subject of this article:

212 Kyle Bobby Dunn

46 A Young Person's Guide to Kyle Bobby Dunn

8 Bring Me the Head of Kyle Bobby Dunn

266 Total

Not quite a WP:SPA, but given the fawning prose about the subject and their work, something doesn't smell right to me. Whatever the case, the article needs a lot of improvement. Xan747 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I’ll be honest - I’ve always struggled with editing wikipedia and getting into it in general because the policies are difficult for me to understand and, frankly, I’m bad at basic coding and various other skills that would make this much easier for me. I’m trying my best though. Is there a way to flag this article so that some of the puffery and promotional aspects can be removed and the article can be cleaned up? I’m hesitant to edit it because it seems that I’m on thin ice, and I don’t know the particular correct way to remove the many seemingly self-aggrandizing claims. I don’t want to cause more of a stir than I already have but if there’s a way to flag this article to be cleaned up, or to clean it up myself, I think that would be appropriate. Tiakat333 (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Small update, I went ahead and removed any parts of the article that did not cite a single source. Hopefully that is ok. There is still quite a bit of subjective and unsourced information in there, and gratuitous flattery, but I figured I would stay away from anything that could be in any way contentious and instead just remove unsourced material which felt easily justifiable for obvious reasons. Tiakat333 (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I wish you would not have done that while the dispute is going on. I won't revert you or report you, but as a show of good faith you might consider self-reverting. Xan747 (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, sorry! Will do. Tiakat333 (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I feel insane for this but I can’t figure out how to undo my edits. Maybe it’s because I’m on mobile? If you think it’s appropriate please feel free to revert them, I won’t take it personally. I can also try to do it later when I get home and have access to a computer. Tiakat333 (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I will do and link to your comment for the record. Xan747 (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, done. The best outcome here is for you and the other editor to come to an agreement about what should be in the article. So let's let them respond before making contentious edits even though they are justified under policy. Xan747 (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate you making the good points and effort in this and it is seeming more and more the person in question here is someone who really dislikes the artist. There is no need for that section and any of the sources that seem out of place in the article can be cleaned up by those with the proper sources or citations. I will not be speaking further with them and leave it up to you to monitor their actions. Henchren (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

That’s a very strange thing to say. I know literally nothing about the artist, and have no opinion on them, I merely came to this page and saw that you had removed the controversies section in the past with no explanation, so I figured it made sense to re-add it. As has been stated it seems that you have a COI issue here. It is unfortunate that you do not seem to have any interest in resolving this conflict directly. Take care. Tiakat333 (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Please both of you stop interacting with each other until things have cooled off. If you each can trust me to be fair with both of you, this will go so much better than if you are constantly going at each other. Xan747 (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The recognition you showed there puts you on much less thinner ice. The way to flag, or "tag" an article with issues such as these is to use WP:TEMPLATES. Good ones for this article would be {{POV}}, {{BLP sources}}, and {{COI}} Each of those have other options which add additional information. I think all of them will allow you to link to a talk page discussion where the specific issues are under discussion. And in fact, it is a good idea to start a talk page discussion describing the specific issues that need to be addressed, otherwise it can be seen as drive-by tagging" or "template bombing", which can be WP:DISRUPTIVE. Try playing around with them in your User:Tiakat333/Sandbox to see how they work. I suggest you hold off applying these, or any other templates until things have died down. Let's resolve one fight before starting new ones. There is WP:NORUSH here. Xan747 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, I’m still struggling with the references to tweets. I’ve read the pages you linked and the issue seems to hinge on whether the tweets are “reliable published sources.” I understand that the vast majority of tweets would not constitute that, however I would think that due to the sources of the tweets being the record labels themselves, they would be considered reliable sources? It’s hard for me to consider a tweet directly from a record label saying that an artist has been removed from that label a “questionable source.” I also understand that these rules are even more rigorous regarding biographies of living people, but I don’t see any way that tweets from record labels saying that an artist has been removed from their label could be considered defamatory or unreliable.

I guess my question here is this - as far as I can gather, this artist put music out on three specific record labels and was then removed from those three record labels. The most straightforward, easily found source for this is the tweets directly from the record labels. If those tweets do not count as reliable sources, what would? It is clear that those three record labels previously released music by this musician and then after posting those tweets ceased to work with the musician, would an appropriate source be the labels’ websites where the musician is not listed any longer? I’m just truly not sure what is expected here Tiakat333 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Except for reliable news agencies with editorial oversight, tweets are considered self-published content, and are generally unreliable. When a reliable secondary source posts a tweet, they almost always link to a longer-form published article on their website. So you should just cite that. It's just better overall to never use a social media post, or any other self-published content unless a secondary source has vetted it. And again in that case, it's just better to cite that secondary source by itself. Xan747 (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

> It is clear that those three record labels previously released music by this musician and then after posting those tweets ceased to work with the musician, would an appropriate source be the labels’ websites where the musician is not listed any longer?

No. What you are proposing there is called original research and actually more specifically synthesis. You need a news agency to put that together for you and publish it. You can't go around assembling primary sources and coming to your own conclusions about how those all add up, especially not in articles about living persons. Once a WP:RS has connected all those dots, then you can cite it in an article, but not before then. And for something as potentially damaging to the subject's reputation, it is better if you have several sources covering it, and even better if that coverage is sustained for significantly longer than a single news cycle. One mention in a local rag I would stay away from. And if you did decide to run it, better only one or two sentences at most, and definitely not in its own section at the top of the article. See WP:DUE for how some guidance on how prominent to make certain information, how much of it to include, etc. Xan747 (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense… I think the issue here is that this artist is not particularly well known, and neither are the labels who released his albums, so there’s no reason any news outlet would pick up on the story. If it were just one label that posted publicly about removing the artist from their label I would not be as concerned with including it in the article, but the fact that three different labels publicly announced (yes, via twitter) they were refusing to work with him seems pretty noteworthy. I understand the question of defamation, and I wonder if maybe it would be less contentious for the header to be something less vague than “controversies” such as “removal from labels?” I understand there is still the concern about citing twitter but I do think the fact that the tweets came directly from the labels, and that twitter is (or at least was) the specific outlet those labels use(d) to make announcements, qualifies those specific tweets as reliable sources for the pertinent information. Tiakat333 (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Trust me, it won't fly. You need at least one newspaper to say something about it, and then it's only worth about as much text as a single tweet, in the career section, not its own section. Xan747 (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

In that case, it seems like it would be impossible to include the information that this artist was dropped from three labels without there being a news article specifically written about those incidents - is that correct? It just seems odd to me that something as serious as three different record labels dropping an artist, and announcing it via their twitter page, cannot be included in the wikipedia page for an artist unless it was written about in the news. I can understand the point that this would make more sense in the career section, but I guess it’s just hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that it’s not possible to include the information that an artist was dropped by three labels unless it was written about it in the news. The record labels that dropped him don’t even have their own wikipedia pages as far as I can tell, if that helps demonstrate the scale of the issue. Tiakat333 (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

> In that case, it seems like it would be impossible to include the information that this artist was dropped from three labels without there being a news article specifically written about those incidents - is that correct?

Correct. No matter what other arguments you have, you cannot add potentially libelous material about living persons without reliable sources to back it up, not even on a talk page. Xan747 (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

But which part of saying he was dropped by three labels, and sourcing tweets from the labels themselves which state that they were dropping him, is libel? Tiakat333 (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Potential libel. Those three tweets gave reasons for terminating their relationship with the subject of this article. As those record labels are primary sources--they have a direct relationship with the subject--and their twitter accounts are not subject to editorial oversight, fact-checking, etc., we simply cannot add anything they say about a living person to a Wikipedia article. Good or bad, but especially not bad. Xan747 (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

But here’s what I don’t understand - the tweets state that they are severing their relationship with the artist. The statement on wikipedia that would reflect this would say something like “in X year X label dropped X recording artist from their label” and would use that tweet as a citation. It could be left at that, which is a relatively demonstrable fact, so I’m not understanding what’s libel. If the artist feels that the label was libelous in what they state their reasoning for dropping him was, then he could go after the label for their tweet, but just the fact that the label dropped him alone doesn’t seem even potentially libelous to me? Tiakat333 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm running out of ways to explain this to you. At this point I would really like you to just accept that it is against policy to use Twitter in Wikipedia articles except in very limited circumstances, but especially articles about living persons. Here, I'll just paste the guidance in WP:RSPTWITTER below:

Twitter (rebranded to X since July 2023) is a social network. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description. In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. Twitter should never be used for third-party claims claims related to living persons.

The final sentence there is what you are running afoul of here. The record labels are the third parties making claims about the subject of this article. Therefore Twitter sources should NEVER be used. That even includes Twitter saying *nice* things about a living person. Xan747 (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

But the citation wouldn’t be regarding the record labels’ opinions or beliefs about the artist. It would be citation to prove that the record label did indeed cut ties with the artist. The claim is not related to the cause of the record label cutting ties, merely that the record label DID cut ties. Tiakat333 (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

So you want to say something like "In July 2019, three record companies, A, B and C, dropped him from their label." Full stop.

I don't know about you, but if I read that, I'd click through to the Tweets to see why. Xan747 (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

But… that would be your right, wouldn’t it? It’s anyone’s right to do more research. I just don’t understand how the solution here is to not include relevant information because it might lead to someone doing more research. Tiakat333 (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Because it's poorly-sourced. Because there are only three Tweets about it in oceans of drama about R. Kelly molesting children documented by thousands of articles in impeccably reliable sources. Because Wikpedia is not a megaphone for members of the general pubic with an axe to grind against a marginally notable recording artist, no matter how vile his former labels say his actions were, and because "I just linked to the information, I didn't comment on it" isn't fooling anyone. Eleven years ago, an editor I respect gave you some good advice on your talk page. I echo their sentiment. Xan747 (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Gotta say, I’m a little baffled as to why you referenced R. Kelly, but I’ll check back in a week and hopefully the article will be in better shape then. Maybe at that time I’ll be able to provide some better context as to why it is relevant to include, in a page about a musician, the fact that the musician was dropped from three labels, and why it is appropriate by wikipedia’s standards to use the labels’ twitter accounts as citations. Or maybe by that time a source you personally find reliable will have written about the artist’s apparent controversy. Tiakat333 (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up that they are the only one guilty of edit-warring over the Controversies section. The problem with twitter sources is that everyone thinks they are in charge even if no factual basis is given. Henchren (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean by this - are you suggesting that the accounts run by the record labels are imposters? Tiakat333 (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Please both of you stop interacting with each other until things have cooled off. If you each can trust me to be fair with both of you, this will go so much better than if you are constantly going at each other. Xan747 (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn’t intending to go at anyone. You had said that ideally we would be able to come to a decision together, but I suppose that’s no longer possible. Thanks for your insight. Tiakat333 (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed that there seems to be a separate wikipedia page for many of this artist’s albums, all written by this same contributor. Is that acceptable by wikipedia standards? It seems extremely odd to me that a relatively unknown musician would have a separate wikipedia page for so many of his albums. I don’t want to incur further ire and I feel like I’m starting to go down a rabbit hole I may not be prepared for, nor have anywhere near the level of investment required. I wish I was more intimately familiar with wikipedia editing so I could know the best way to flag this kind of thing. Tiakat333 (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I am wondering why this user who clearly doesn't have an account with the site is hellbent on constantly reverting it and after speaking personally to individuals who were involved seem it is not proper to publish on the page. The labels who were involved can publish that information if it is "really needed" on their own Wikipedia pages. It is not relevant to the artist's entry. Henchren (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Henchren: I have moved your comment down here from above. Tiakat333 does have an account here, and even if they didn't, it doesn't affect the strength of their arguments, or imply weakness.

> and after speaking personally to individuals who were involved seem it is not proper to publish on the page

Are you saying that you are the one speaking to individuals involved? Do you know the subject of this article personally? Are you the subject of this article? If any of those, read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:COI. You might want to stop editing this article until you fully understand those policies and are ready to start complying with them. Xan747 (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Surely this confirms my suspicions about this user having ulterior motives in removing the controversies section, right? Tiakat333 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Confirmation is tough to come by in these cases. Let's just wait and see how they play it first. Xan747 (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no ulterior motive it's just not fair to the artist to have this constantly reverted to a living persons biography with no factual or deatailed information given other than the labels decided they didn't want to work with him anymore which could imply a whole range of things, legal or not. Henchren (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, the Twitter sources were very clear why they ended their relationship with the artist. The problem is using tweets from primary sources to cast a negative light on a living person. That's against Wikipedia policy, plain and simple, and you were correct to remove it. If something like this happens again, you should revert it, and then report anyone trying to put it back in to WP:BLPN so that an administrator there can block the person adding unsourced or poorly-sourced information. You should also use edit summaries when removing such content so that it is very clear why that content was reverted.

Now that we're on the topic of poorly-sourced material in this article, would you not agree that at least half of it doesn't have proper citations? Xan747 (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Most of it comes from reputable news sites and music publications. Henchren (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

ALL of it needs to come from reputable WP:SECONDARY sources. Further, see the guidance above about WP:PUFFERY and WP:PROMOTIONAL. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this article is in terrible shape. If I were you, I'd read all three policies I just cited and set to correcting the things in this article which violate them. If you leave it to me to do it--and I will if I don't see some progress in the next week or so--and you revert my changes, things will not go well for you. Xan747 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Am I crazy or does it seem a little absurd to allow this person to “clean up” this page knowing these circumstances? Seems like they have made it clear they are not able to approach the subject with any sort of lens of objectivity? (I’m also more than happy to refrain from editing - I don’t know this guy and have no stake in the situation - it just seems obvious that the person who made this mess and refuses to acknowledge that there is anything wrong probably won’t be able to clean it up) Tiakat333 (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

> Am I crazy or does it seem a little absurd to allow this person to “clean up” this page knowing these circumstances?

No, this is how Wikpedia works. Editor messes up. Community points it out. If editor amends their ways, community is happy. If not, editor is banned.

By the way, asking another editor to not interact with you at all, and then make disparaging remarks about them is not a great strategy. Xan747 (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hang on, I never asked anyone not to interact with me. I had hoped from the beginning that we could all have a civilized discussion about this and come to a conclusion that everyone was comfortable with. I welcome anyone to talk to me at any time.

The issue here is that the editor in reference has already messed up quite a few times, which I just read about on their page. They are the original author of the article back in 2009, and when it was deleted due to lack of notability they repeatedly re-posted it. Three years ago they were reported for getting into an edit war over this exact same situation which was seemingly never resolved, but rather the other editor gave up (I found no discussion about it, though I do remember there being another “controversies” section on this talk page that has since been removed). How many times does an editor get to do this with a page before they experience repercussions? Tiakat333 (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

My mistake, it was the other editor who asked you to stop interacting with them at 01:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC). It would really still be best for you to not mention them at all at this point, but do as you will.

And yeah, the very same material you added today and reverted by @@Henchren: was added three years ago by an account not the same as you, and again reverted by Henchren. You can read all about it at the edit warring notice board.

Same. Exact. Material. Xan747 (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Right, I literally just re-added the exact same content because the person I am not supposed to mention did not supply any reason for deleting it. It wasn’t clear to me why it was deleted in the first place, and they would not give any explanation as to why they were deleting it (prior to any of this discussion/my request for a third perspective). Tiakat333 (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I hope by now it is abundantly clear why you should not have restored it. Srsly the best thing now is for you to find something else to edit. Maybe a recording artist you have a good opinion of? Anything but this article because, I'm trying to not be rude, you are not helping. Xan747 (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It also seems this person is desperate to have this section included in the article without any other sources outside of an immature twitter defamation. Henchren (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Which I recognize and I am handling. Best you let me deal with it, though you are under no obligation to "obey" me. I have no more rights or privileges here than either party in this dispute. Xan747 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Again I appreciate you trying to resolve this with the rights or freedoms apparently included in editing on this site. Henchren (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Just very tired of reverting it from this and other individuals who clearly do not understand the process or simply want to see this 'overblown section' for their own sick interests. Henchren (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Better that you not comment about other editors' motives with such vehemence. This is a warning. There will not be another. Xan747 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

If you go back in the edit history you can clearly see people trying to revert it over a period of years. Henchren (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

That's of no relevance to what I am warning you about, which is WP:ASPERSIONS. The consequence for doing it again is that I will report you to WP:ANI, where administrators have the power to block you from editing, indefinitely if need be. Normally one or two insults would not trigger a trip to such an intervention, but there are other disturbing aspects to your editing behavior that concern me, already plainly laid out above. The best thing you can do here is not argue with me, not try to shift blame onto other editors, especially don't accuse them of ulterior motives, but to fix the issues you have introduced into this article which are clear violations of articles about living persons. Xan747 (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok let me know what you need edited. There is no blame shifting - just stating what is clearly laid out in the policy of Wikipedia. Henchren (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe they made it clear that what needs to be edited is the large quantity of unsourced material and the non-factual tone of the content. Tiakat333 (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Stop interacting with me period. Henchren (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It was clearly wrong for the other editor to have added poorly-sourced information to the article that cast the subject of it in bad light. The other editor has recognized their fault and amended their behavior. Please do not mention it again.

The first thing you should do is remove all content from this article not based on information obtained from reliable secondary sources. That generally means anything with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. Anything that is self-published, blogs, social media, etc. are NOT acceptable. If in doubt, delete it. Then ask. It can always be restored. Things like the discography can be sourced from Spotify or Apple Music, but their reviews of the music, or fan reviews of it, are self-published and not acceptable sources. Once you've done that, ping me and I'll take a look. Xan747 (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I see they mentioned this yet again below and asked you to ask me to change my behavior. This whole thing makes me very uncomfortable. Just letting you know I am aware of this, and I will refrain from replying to them as requested. Tiakat333 (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I understand your discomfort. Things seem to be calming down. The other editor has asked you to stop interacting with them as well, so I think you both have gotten the message. Xan747 (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The box up top of this page:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. Henchren (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I'll handle that, thanks for pointing it out. Xan747 (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It's been removed. Xan747 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks maybe just mention to the editor they can always edit the article in the way you described to me above instead of constantly posting poorly sourced or contentious material. Those sources are more readily available and not twitter posts. Henchren (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The other editor has agreed to to not add back the disputed material. Please do not mention it again. If the other editor breaks that agreement, you may immediately remove it and report them to WP:BLPN. I would appreciate a ping if that happens. I also suggest you do not interact with them if that happens. Xan747 (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source problems

I decided to check a few of the article's sources. While I've not done a full review, I did note a couple problems:

• The Guardian review that is used as the source for the film Mother does not mention the subject of this article, and thus does not demonstrate the claim that he provided music for it.
• The Huffington Post review is by a HuffPo "contributor", which per WP:HUFFPOCON cannot be used for material about a living person.

-- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The 2nd source referenced also does not seem to exist. It claims to be a link to a particular music review but instead just links to a music review website, like a music equivalent of goodreads. Tiakat333 (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Arguably the bigger issue here is that seemingly 80% of the content of the article is not sourced at all, but I’ll let someone else deal with that for now. Tiakat333 (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I suspect this is the intended link. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah thanks for that. While we’re on the topic of sources, the second line of the page references the artist playing in a national park and includes three sources, none of which confirm the claim. This page certainly needs a lot of work. Tiakat333 (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The 5th source, for the website “fanzine,” also does not seem to meet wikipedia’s criteria for legitimate sources. Tiakat333 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true. They did at least have an editorial staff and took submissions, so it's not just a group blog. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Good catch - I had gone to their “about” page and noticed it was blank, which left me skeptical. Tiakat333 (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The main contributor to this page has now greatly expanded the page and added more sources in number, but many of numbers are the same source. My guess is that this was done in the hopes of trying to add legitimacy but who knows. A cursory glance shows that as the article stands currently, sources 4 and 8 are the same, sources 5 and 9 are the same, sources 7, 12, and 24 are the same, sources 13 and 26 are the same… It’s borderline egregious. Tiakat333 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@NatGertler I read the HuffPo contributor review and I think it may be allowable so long as it is limited to attributed opinion about the artists' album, and not used for claims about the artist himself. Xan747 (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

It says here - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#HuffPost contributors - explicitly - that writings by huffpo contributors are not allowable as citations unless the contributor is a subject expert (they are not). Tiakat333 (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The current source #1 has no listed author, which leads me to suspect it was written by the subject of the page - wouldn’t that invalidate it as an objective source? Tiakat333 (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tiakat333 Absence of a byline is not necessarily such an indication, nor does it automatically render a source unreliable. A notable case of where it doesn't is WP:THEECONOMIST, which never uses bylines, but does list its editors and contributors, and is highly reputable for its fact-checking and depth of analysis. In this case, the about page shows no evidence of any editorial oversight at all, every indication that it is a promotional website containing self-published content, and probably shouldn't be used for anything—particularly claims about living persons.

@Henchren I encourage you to remove this source and any article content relying on it, and review WP:RS, WP:SELFPUBLISH Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no byline... but there is a "writer links" section that links to a Facebook page for the article's subject. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to know. Tiakat333 (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

More notes on sources - the third source leads to a 404 page, and the 11th source is literally just the musician’s own bandcamp website. I don’t understand how this page is being edited and still made worse, it’s baffling to me. I would think it should be easier to only add sources that are both active links and not self-promotion. Tiakat333 (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with using the subject's own page for non-boastful information, such as that a certain album was released on a certain date, which is all the Bandcamp link is being used for. See WP:ABOUTSELF. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok - what about the 3rd source, the 404? Tiakat333 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tiakat333, I believe you are referring to the "Boomkat" source. I am also getting a 404, and no archive websites I use have a snapshot of it.

@Henchren please remove this citation and all article content related to it. And a reminder of my previous request, the Mutesong source is self-published, and as @NatGertler notes, points to the facebook account of the artist. Therefore it cannot be used for any subjective opinion about the artist or his works, and any such instances should be removed—which in my view is pretty much all of it. Xan747 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I suspect this is the intended Boomkat page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. There is an archive link but the song list won't load so I didn't include it. Xan747 (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

This is already looking much better, good work both of you. A suggestion if I may. Articles about artists typically start with their bio, then background and progression into music. So I would put the two grafs in Background & musical history just below the first paragraph of the lede, and maybe rename it simply Career which is also common. The below a section like Reception or Reviews— anything which makes clear that what follows is opinion. Then maybe expand the lede section another two sentences, three at most, summarizing the rest of the article. Finally, stuff like yet his own music often exhibits a more quiet, minimalist, and droning nature that is often compared to ambient contemporary musicians simply cannot be said in Wikivoice. Those terms would best be attributed inline to a source, quoted directly rather than paraphrased. And if the source doesn't explicitly link how he describes his influences in interviews yet his music more often exhibits certain other qualities, remove the yet. Xan747 (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Without using ChatGPT which formatted perfectly according to Wikipedia standards, would you be interested in re-formatting it? I noticed the other editors comments above even after discussion said closed that they seem to suspect I am not able or have the proper lens to amend the page. Henchren (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd rather limit my editing to the article itself; it's not my area, and editors who most care about the subject are actually more likely to make better edits than me. I also strongly believe that editors should be allowed the chance to respond to community input, and become better contributors. You deserve that chance the same as any other Wikpedia editor. You could start by simply trying to do what I suggested in my previous comment, and leave a good edit note referring to this discussion. See if you can find reliable secondary sources for the article content tagged as needing them, and put those in. Otherwise, you should definitely remove them. Then wait a bit and see what happens. Hopefully relations will improve, and this can become a collaboration rather than a battleground. Happy editing. Xan747 (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions regarding what to do with the second paragraph, which is just a direct quote? Tiakat333 (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, the “background and history” section has a lot of unsourced information, would it be appropriate to delete the information with no sources? If that were done it would only leave one sentence, not sure what’s appropriate in that case. Tiakat333 (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe give the other editor a chance to respond to my feedback on that one. There is WP:NORUSH at this point because there are no BLP-level violations of policy in the present state. Xan747 (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

If you're talking about the one which begins His work has been described as "compositions that are patience incarnate", I think it's perfect the way it is. We definitely cannot say in wikivoice that quote. It must be inline-attributed to an opinion writer. And whatever we do, it should not be the second paragraph. It should be below career, in a Reviews or similarly named section. Xan747 (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I’m referring to this paragraph: “The austere, tempered tonal shifts featured in many of his compositions subtly echo the work of minimalist forerunners like Morton Feldman and La Monte Young. At the same time Dunn occasionally intersperses quaint, almost chamberal touches which evoke more traditionally classical sources.” - Mark Lesseraux Tiakat333 (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be better broken up. Start with: Mark Lesseraux, a reviewer for some reliable source, compared Dunn's compositions to influential minimalist composers Morton Feldman and La Monte Young. Then segue into the *reviewer's* contrast between those musicians and Dunn's "more traditionally classical sources." Xan747 (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm off to D&D night. Happy editing to all. Xan747 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Enjoy, I tried to clean it up with best sources and new layout. Let me know when you get a chance to look at it. Henchren (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I did.

Alright, it looks like @NatGertler came in behind you and made some changes as well. Things are getting better.

There are still too many places where emotive and subjective language are in Wikivoice. An example: His practice emphasizes restraint, subtlety, and memory, creating music that balances austerity with affective power. We officially do not have subjective opinions, and cannot write as if we do. There are multiple examples like this that need to be fixed.

The main sections Style and influences and Artistic philosophy contain some redundant information, and should be collapsed into a single main section. There just isn't enough content there to justify more.

The Mark Lesseraux quote is too long. I'm too tired to articulate why, but I'll just say that it needs to be cut down to a single sentence, tied together with paraphrasing. Try: Mark Lesseraux, a reviewer for Delusions of Adequacy, compared Dunn's music to influential minimalist composers Morton Feldman and La Monte Young, saying .... and then pick on the order of ten words to quote directly.

I see at least one duplicated citation: Chuter, Jack (March 20, 2011). "Interview: Kyle Bobby Dunn". ATTN:Magazine. There are other citations issues I am too bleary-eyed to review. Xan747 (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Did try to streamline it and fit the Wikivoice better. Please let me know if you see other problems. This other editor is now nominating entries from the artist discography for deletion. Henchren (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll look at it tomorrow. Xan747 (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

It still doesn’t come close to fiting Wikivoice - in fact I see no changes at all regarding the subjective tone. There are now two different “history” sections and new unsourced material. The sections you suggested be combined were not combined. The article is, quite frankly, a mess.

I decided to look at the album articles for the same artist, which were also written and edited almost entirely by the same editor. They have massive problems of their own accord, many similar to the issues on this page - unsourced material, repeated sources, sections that are all cherry-picked quotes, and sources that are straight up non-existent. One of the three articles was better sourced than the other two so I didn’t start a discussion for deletion regarding that article, however it still needs to be cleaned up dramatically. I’m seeing no efforts on the part of the original writer and current contributor and editor for all of these collective posts to fix them. I believe he has made this article objectively worse, has an obvious COI issue, and no commitment to the importance of WikiPedia as a tool for access to information, but merely intends to use it for self-promotion. I’m very disappointed. Tiakat333 (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Tiakat333 (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m concerned that the article has not been cleaned up but rather expanded dramatically with many redundancies and citations of sources that do not say what is being said in the article itself, among other issues. Can’t say I didn’t see this coming but figured I would check in here before I start paring the article down so that it’s back within wikipedias guidelines. Tiakat333 (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

There are now two entirely separate sections for sources. This article has gotten demonstrably worse. Tiakat333 (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Is it true you can't focus on any other article right now? I am the only one trying to clean it up? You are nominating other items from the entry like from the discography for deletion? Henchren (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Best you just ignore the other editor, especially since you previuosly asked them to not interact with you, and concentrate on improving the article. Actions speak louder than words. Xan747 (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Tiakat333 (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm just not seeing the other editor making any effort to improve the article except that I've made it worse but you are saying it has improved? Henchren (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Henchren It's improved, but still needs work, which can be difficult in a hostile environment. The most important thing right now is that you're trying. Xan747 (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that. It seems the other editor has dropped out and that we were only trying to please them this whole time. I will try and refine more of it over time but thanks for the help. Henchren (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Good luck out there Kyle - with everything I read about you while trying to improve this article, it looks like you’re going to need it. Tiakat333 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

This person is now referring to me as Kyle. There must be something wrong beyond the article having some minor fixes and repair needed. Henchren (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Best if you simply ignore the other editor unless they are interacting with you elsewhere in a harassing matter. I wouldn't necessarily consider WP:AfD on articles related to this one such an interaction, but that can rise to the level of harassment if the arguments are found to be baseless. Xan747 (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I have chosen not to interact with that user purposefully after they have repeatedly insulted and attacked me, and then told me not to interact with them despite later responding to my comments, presumably in an attempt to bait me. I nominated two of the articles for albums by the subject of this page for deletion, which I believe was appropriate as those two articles respectively had similarly massive issues that this article had initially, the most important of which (in my mind) was the lack of sources, since most of the sources linked either did not exist at all or did not include the information that was quoted on the album page in the claimed source.

Further, while I do not know the subject of this article personally (hell, I don’t even live in the same country as him), the user that has shown repeated aggression towards me outwardly identified himself elsewhere on this page as the subject of the page, which is obviously a massive COI issue, and I’m not sure why it wasn’t addressed. I stepped away from trying to improve this page in the hopes that the harassment and insults would cease. Again, good luck to all of you. Tiakat333 (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll just acknowledge reading this, and have nothing further to add that I haven't already said. Luck and happy editing to you as well. Xan747 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I think they might be obsessed with this article. Henchren (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll just acknowledge reading this, and have nothing further to add that I haven't already said. Xan747 (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

P.S.: editor behavioral issues are better discussed in user talk space, not article talk. Xan747 (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

They are now responding to my comments elsewhere, despite aggressively telling me not to interact with them. I have spent too much time and effort cleaning up this page in the last 24 hours to have it all undone by a user I was trying to help. I’ve hit my limit. I love WikiPedia and am deeply invested in its existence as a source for unbiased information but there’s only so much I can do. I have no interest in fighting with anyone and I do not have the energy or patience to deal with online hostility from a stranger with an agenda. I’m out. Good luck. Tiakat333 (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Henchren: Structure is getting better. The main issue I continue to see is that you are writing as if you are reviewing the artist yourself, i.e., using Wikivoice to express your own opinions, not the opinions of the sources you are citing. It's an easy thing for editors to do, and can be a difficult thing to unlearn, or even be aware of. So I think the best thing to do is for me to jump in and start editing directly, despite previously expressing hesitance to do so. I will make small changes, on the order of one or two sentences at a time, with edit notes explaining why I did those changes. I'll let you know when I'm done, and we can discuss if you want to. Xan747 (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay I am done. The first thing you need to do is go through all the citations I tagged as dead links and recover them, or find other sources that support the content. If you cannot do either, you need to remove the content. Now that I'm actually getting into the material, I'm having different thoughts about article structure than what I previously recommended. In particular I think the now-renamed Career section (previously History) can contain a light amount of material based on reviews which describe the albums' content, and reviewer opinions on quality. There is already a lot of album-specific material in the Reviews section that could then be moved up into the career section. Then I think we could change the Reviews section to Style, or Style and influences (similar to the previous section, Artistic philosophy, which is less standard and implies a little too much knowledge of what goes on inside the artist's head). Having read through many of the sources, there is a significant amount of material in them describing the overall qualities of Dunn's compositions even though pretty much all of those articles are reviews of specific albums. I think there are at least two pretty substantial paragraphs in the sources, maybe three. If you disagree or have other ideas, by all means let's discuss. Xan747 (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes open to discussion or if any other editors can jump in and help with things would love to collaborate or work togehter. Thanks again so much for this help and hope your weekend is a lovely one. Henchren (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok tried to fix the feel of it and dead links or replace/got rid of things. Let me know how you feel. Henchren (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks am trying to get it to look better and feel more neutral - any other suggestions to help make it read better? Henchren (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I added a citation needed tag. That's all I have. Xan747 (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, removed. Tried cleaning up and keeping it as neutral as possible. Hope the overall read and look is cleaner and more what you were hoping for overall. Thanks again. Henchren (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Puffery & Self-promotion

I have serious concerns about both the tone and content of this page. It seems to be full of puffery and self-aggrandizement, perhaps related to the fact that this page and every page for this particular artist’s albums is written by the same person. Further, this article is mostly quotes, which is not appropriate for a wikipedia page. There is very little original writing that even synthesizes the quotes or uses inline citations. The small amount of original writing that doesn’t use inline citations rarely reflects the content of the sources provided. The tone of the entire article reads as subjective puffery at best. It seems that the recent overhaul made in a supposed effort to resolve this problem has made it dramatically worse. Tiakat333 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

One example - a subheading called “Deep Emotional Expression” is wildly inappropriate and a good example of why wikipedia pages should not be written by chatGPT, which the author and main contributor mentions they used in another comment on this talk page. Tiakat333 (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Further, many of the sources are the same. There are significantly fewer sources than there are numbers, due to single sources being included two or three times as different numbers. One of the sources is just the press release for the album, which is typically not allowed, and I see no reason for this article to be an exception.

It is clear to me that this article needs a massive overhaul, and that the author of the article and frequent editor is not able to do this with the level of objectivity WP is known for. I’d love to hear some opinions from others on appropriate next steps. Tiakat333 (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

"early 2000s"

The article currently says that he was active since "the early 2000s", and that is a particularly fuzzy term; unlike, say, saying "the early 2010s", one can't tell if we're saying "early for the decade", "early for the century", or even "early for the millennium" (which would even include today.) To make things trickier, the infobox says he's been active since 2000. If we actually have a source for 2000 flat, then great, let's put that in the opener... but if not, we may need to both rephase the opener and change the infobox claim. I have not delved into the sources to see what is right... and I'd rather not. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

We could always be archaic and say, "since the early aughts". I'll see if I can run it down. Xan747 (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

His discography shows the first album released in 2002, so I just used that for the lede and infobox. Xan747 (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

That works. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

AI editions

Some of the edits show blatant Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing. I'm going to ask that folks stop using AI for their contributions, as it doesn't know how to format correctly for Wikipedia. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Ongoing article improvements

@Henchren, @NatGertler and @Tiakat333; as existing threads above have become quite long, non-linear, and contain contentious and ancillary discussions, may I suggest using this topic moving forward. Only a suggestion of course. :-) Xan747 (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi thanks yes let's keep it more professional and related to the article here. Henchren (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Henchren I've been reviewing MOS:SAID, and found some issues in this article related to it. For instance, the lede says His work [...] is noted for extended, drone-based compositions .... Better would be is characterized by or perhaps best his work contains. (Also another reminder that this section is supported by this self-published source that cannot be used to describe the artist or his works in such subjective terms.

Another example in the Reviews section: Resident Advisor described Kyle Bobby Dunn and the Infinite Sadness as a deeply immersive listening experience, noting that "delicate musical figures ...". Better is saying that "delicate musical figures" emerge ...

Just down from that, The review highlights "Boul. Gouin" for its organic synth-drone opening. Yes, it is true that the review does single out this particular track, it is still editorializing to say that the review "highlighted" it. Better is The review described the opening of "Boul. Goin" as having "synth drones that sound organic, giving an impression of boundless and serene landscapes." Xan747 (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks I'll restructure those. Henchren (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems that the “Revista” source is being quoted in the article with the quotes in english, while the entire article is in Spanish… Is that normal? I’ve never seen that on a wikipedia page, or maybe anywhere for that matter Tiakat333 (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:NONENG is the relevant policy here. Because this is a BLP and because I relied on a machine translation to do it, it's a violation. I'll just go ahead and remove that right now until such time as @Henchren can find a human to translate it for them. Xan747 (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Enough. Differences between editors need to be discussed in user talk or a notice board Xan747 (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Sources 4 and 12 are the same. It’s hard for me to understand how the article is being continually updated but making the same mistakes repeatedly. It’s difficult not to feel like all of our energy is being wasted here. Tiakat333 (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Sources 1 and 2 are also the same. Sigh. Tiakat333 (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Is anyone able to view source 14? I’m just being told the webpage is not secure. I’m not seeing a way to read the actual source being referenced Tiakat333 (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I just cleaned up Mullen 2019 which may have changed what you are referring to as 14. It is best to refer to citation name with a link as I just did above since future article change will make it even more difficult to know what was being discussed. Also, fixing duplicates or other citation formatting problems are quite helpful, should be non-controversial and thus need not be brought to talk. Xan747 (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Why are they just commenting instead of helping or improving the mistakes or duplicates? Can they just be blocked from making further comments? Henchren (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll discuss this on your talk page or mine--your choice--but not here where we should be focused on improving the article and not other editors' behaviors. Xan747 (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate you noting that my contributions are helpful. I would request that the other user who commented here who has been repeatedly insulting me for days - short of acknowledging the helpful contributions I have made to this page - at the very least refrain from making suggestions as serious as blocking me from an article I have now spent a significant amount of time improving. Tiakat333 (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Sept. 2 evening review @Henchren: I've gone through all your diffs since my last feedback.

The citation says nothing about what the artist is best known for that I can see. If it does, it should be attributed, as "According to this review, Dunn is best known for..." collaborations with notable guests from Labradford cites the same source, and does not contain the word Labradford. Also better to simply say who the guests from Labradford are, rather than saying they're "notable" in Wikivoice, and let the reader decide how notable they are. most of his albums have received critical recognition You give three citations for that one. Please tell me which one(s) support that claim, and quote them directly so that I can more easily verify the source(s) are not being misrepresented.

emphasized extended forms and layered harmonies None of those words except for "and" exist in the source.

These are improvements.

Is pretty good, but "noting that it conveys" is still problematic per MOS:EDITORIAL. See also: WP:SAID.

Has been reverted by me. It sounds like one hell of a set, but the reviewer needs to describe it, not Wikipedia. Xan747 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I have handled 1 and 2: , leaving 5 untouched for now. Xan747 (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, hope you find it has improved. Let me know if any other ideas for formatting come to mind but I think it feels a lot more simplified now. Henchren (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Repeating Sources

It’s been an ongoing issue now that the same source is cited multiple times under different authors’ names. How do we fix this? Currently, this source https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/kyle-bobby-dunn-from-here-to-eternity/ is cited as reference number 3 and reference number 11. Can someone explain to me how we can fix this and prevent it from continuing to happen? Tiakat333 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Self-aggrandizement

This article has not improved in the three months since the excessive puffery and subjective tone was brought to the attention of the one person who has contributed vast amounts of unsourced information and made multiple references to their own COI regarding this article. I’m guessing @Xan747 gave up? Tiakat333 (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)