This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. 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. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I wish to report Tokyogirl79 for the following:
I am reporting you for your highly unethical behaviour. You appear to confuse your role as a voluntary editor with the arbitrary use of rules to suit your rather fragile ego.
The fact that you persist in stalking this page which is clearly evidenced by your determination to put it up for speedy deletion twice; your outrage that your arbitrary edits were reveresed; your completely untrue allegations that this page is PR is highly worrying.
ADVICE from other editors has been taken on board. The use of adjectives & promotional material has been removed. This has been completely overlooked by you solely on the basis that your advice was not implemented. This is not neutral, fair editing on your part, but highly suggestive of ego-driven behaviour.
YOUR BEHAVIOUR shows in fact that you lack neutrality in your job as editor. And you use editing as a tool to exercise highly unethical behaviour.
All information in the page is to provide relevant information about the artist: history; the music released; the use of a specific Hashtag; the concepts behind the artist's identity & music.
Tokyogirl79 seems to have made it her personal mission to stalk this page because her suggestions were not implemented. This is very bizarre behaviour.
This is for any incoming admin, since you may not want to wade through the long comments on the other page.
The long and short is that this page has been repeatedly declined as being promotional. Edits were made after the declines, but the promotional content still remained for the most part. I declined the page but decided to help try to cull the promotional content, but my edits were repeatedly reverted to go back to the promotional version. Reverting edits isn't automatically an offense, except that this removed my decline and comments I'd left on the draft, in favor of putting it back for AfC consideration. I tried contacting the editor directly, but was solidly ignored and any comments or further remarks I made on the page were reverted. As far as the issues with the page go, you can see the problematic material very easily. There's no way that this page would be approved via AfC by an editor that knew what they were doing.
I finally had to assume that the editor was here with a specific agenda, to promote the performer, and that they were unlikely to ever make the page suitable for acceptance given that there had been four declines, all of which were either because it was promotional or mentioned it as a major issue. Four declines without serious changes to the article - especially when help was freely offered - should be enough to show that an article will not make it into the mainspace. I put it up for MfD, but this action was reverted by an IP that I believe is either the editor or someone they know - it's too random that an IP would suddenly appear to remove a MfD template in the same manner that the editor had been removing my edits.
So I've marked this as spam. There's no fixing this draft and at this point I have my doubts as to whether or not the editor in question can really edit Wikipedia in a responsible manner. The performer looks like he may be notable, but even if my cleaned version was accepted, I think it's extremely likely that there will be attempts to revert to the promotional version. TNTing the article and forcing them to start with a clean, non-promotional draft is really the only true option here. If they are genuine in wanting to create an article, I feel that this might be the only way to show them that promotional content like this is unacceptable, since they seem to clearly not be willing to listen to multiple editors telling them that the content is promotional. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) -- Sage1200 ( talk) 14:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I wish to report Tokyogirl79 for the following:
I am reporting you for your highly unethical behaviour. You appear to confuse your role as a voluntary editor with the arbitrary use of rules to suit your rather fragile ego.
The fact that you persist in stalking this page which is clearly evidenced by your determination to put it up for speedy deletion twice; your outrage that your arbitrary edits were reveresed; your completely untrue allegations that this page is PR is highly worrying.
ADVICE from other editors has been taken on board. The use of adjectives & promotional material, has been removed. This has been completely overlooked by you solely on the basis that your advice was not implemented. This is not neutral, fair editing on your part, but highly suggestive of ego-driven behaviour.
YOUR BEHAVIOUR shows in fact that you lack neutrality in your job as editor. And you use editing as a tool to exercise highly unethical behaviour.
All information in the page is to provide relevant information about the artist: history; the music released; the use of a specific Hashtag; the concepts behind the artist's identity & music.
Tokyogirl79 seems to have made it her personal mission to stalk this page because her suggestions were not implemented. This is very bizarre behaviour.
I'm removing the speedy per the comment here. My recommendation here is that you use my version of the article as a starting point and re-add information into the article as you find sourcing to back it up. I'm not opposed to things like theme sections, but these are incredibly hard to have in many articles because it needs to be sourced very well and with things that explicitly back up the claims made in the sections. Since most times performers and reviews only briefly mention that a song or album uses a theme (ie, using only 1-2 words or a sentence to state something) it's hard to have lengthy sections that go into a lot of detail. In some cases I've seen many themes sections have to only comprise of sentences like "John Smith's work frequently makes use of themes like horror, death, and drug usage. In their review for the 2012 album Random Album Name Rolling Stone stated that this is likely due to growing up in New York, which Smith confirmed in an interview with Pitchfork." It's that hard to establish sections like this. I have no problem with someone else being the person who judges the article next, as I tend to not like the idea of someone declining an AfC article twice in a row. I am still willing to give advice, however. My end goal here is to get the article into the mainspace, not delete it. I only went for deletion because actions here strongly gave off the impression that there was no chance of it meeting guidelines with the current state and editing style. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 16:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The article states:
"Castro stopped rapping in 2007 to pursue business ventures and run his pharmaceuticals business."
The citation given for this says absolutely nothing about a pharmaceutical business or even any business ventures at all. It seems like this claim has no real source, or at least not one linked within this article. Etizolam ( talk) 23:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd not heard of this performer until today. As he hasn't revealed his identity and also appears to incorporate his anonymity as part of his mystique and music, I think we have to be careful with references that come from his interviews. I wouldn't normally say this about any performer, but in this case I think some caution should be excercised. I'm going to try and edit down this article as it seems to detailed. Seaweed ( talk) 19:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. 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. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I wish to report Tokyogirl79 for the following:
I am reporting you for your highly unethical behaviour. You appear to confuse your role as a voluntary editor with the arbitrary use of rules to suit your rather fragile ego.
The fact that you persist in stalking this page which is clearly evidenced by your determination to put it up for speedy deletion twice; your outrage that your arbitrary edits were reveresed; your completely untrue allegations that this page is PR is highly worrying.
ADVICE from other editors has been taken on board. The use of adjectives & promotional material has been removed. This has been completely overlooked by you solely on the basis that your advice was not implemented. This is not neutral, fair editing on your part, but highly suggestive of ego-driven behaviour.
YOUR BEHAVIOUR shows in fact that you lack neutrality in your job as editor. And you use editing as a tool to exercise highly unethical behaviour.
All information in the page is to provide relevant information about the artist: history; the music released; the use of a specific Hashtag; the concepts behind the artist's identity & music.
Tokyogirl79 seems to have made it her personal mission to stalk this page because her suggestions were not implemented. This is very bizarre behaviour.
This is for any incoming admin, since you may not want to wade through the long comments on the other page.
The long and short is that this page has been repeatedly declined as being promotional. Edits were made after the declines, but the promotional content still remained for the most part. I declined the page but decided to help try to cull the promotional content, but my edits were repeatedly reverted to go back to the promotional version. Reverting edits isn't automatically an offense, except that this removed my decline and comments I'd left on the draft, in favor of putting it back for AfC consideration. I tried contacting the editor directly, but was solidly ignored and any comments or further remarks I made on the page were reverted. As far as the issues with the page go, you can see the problematic material very easily. There's no way that this page would be approved via AfC by an editor that knew what they were doing.
I finally had to assume that the editor was here with a specific agenda, to promote the performer, and that they were unlikely to ever make the page suitable for acceptance given that there had been four declines, all of which were either because it was promotional or mentioned it as a major issue. Four declines without serious changes to the article - especially when help was freely offered - should be enough to show that an article will not make it into the mainspace. I put it up for MfD, but this action was reverted by an IP that I believe is either the editor or someone they know - it's too random that an IP would suddenly appear to remove a MfD template in the same manner that the editor had been removing my edits.
So I've marked this as spam. There's no fixing this draft and at this point I have my doubts as to whether or not the editor in question can really edit Wikipedia in a responsible manner. The performer looks like he may be notable, but even if my cleaned version was accepted, I think it's extremely likely that there will be attempts to revert to the promotional version. TNTing the article and forcing them to start with a clean, non-promotional draft is really the only true option here. If they are genuine in wanting to create an article, I feel that this might be the only way to show them that promotional content like this is unacceptable, since they seem to clearly not be willing to listen to multiple editors telling them that the content is promotional. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) -- Sage1200 ( talk) 14:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I wish to report Tokyogirl79 for the following:
I am reporting you for your highly unethical behaviour. You appear to confuse your role as a voluntary editor with the arbitrary use of rules to suit your rather fragile ego.
The fact that you persist in stalking this page which is clearly evidenced by your determination to put it up for speedy deletion twice; your outrage that your arbitrary edits were reveresed; your completely untrue allegations that this page is PR is highly worrying.
ADVICE from other editors has been taken on board. The use of adjectives & promotional material, has been removed. This has been completely overlooked by you solely on the basis that your advice was not implemented. This is not neutral, fair editing on your part, but highly suggestive of ego-driven behaviour.
YOUR BEHAVIOUR shows in fact that you lack neutrality in your job as editor. And you use editing as a tool to exercise highly unethical behaviour.
All information in the page is to provide relevant information about the artist: history; the music released; the use of a specific Hashtag; the concepts behind the artist's identity & music.
Tokyogirl79 seems to have made it her personal mission to stalk this page because her suggestions were not implemented. This is very bizarre behaviour.
I'm removing the speedy per the comment here. My recommendation here is that you use my version of the article as a starting point and re-add information into the article as you find sourcing to back it up. I'm not opposed to things like theme sections, but these are incredibly hard to have in many articles because it needs to be sourced very well and with things that explicitly back up the claims made in the sections. Since most times performers and reviews only briefly mention that a song or album uses a theme (ie, using only 1-2 words or a sentence to state something) it's hard to have lengthy sections that go into a lot of detail. In some cases I've seen many themes sections have to only comprise of sentences like "John Smith's work frequently makes use of themes like horror, death, and drug usage. In their review for the 2012 album Random Album Name Rolling Stone stated that this is likely due to growing up in New York, which Smith confirmed in an interview with Pitchfork." It's that hard to establish sections like this. I have no problem with someone else being the person who judges the article next, as I tend to not like the idea of someone declining an AfC article twice in a row. I am still willing to give advice, however. My end goal here is to get the article into the mainspace, not delete it. I only went for deletion because actions here strongly gave off the impression that there was no chance of it meeting guidelines with the current state and editing style. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 16:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The article states:
"Castro stopped rapping in 2007 to pursue business ventures and run his pharmaceuticals business."
The citation given for this says absolutely nothing about a pharmaceutical business or even any business ventures at all. It seems like this claim has no real source, or at least not one linked within this article. Etizolam ( talk) 23:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd not heard of this performer until today. As he hasn't revealed his identity and also appears to incorporate his anonymity as part of his mystique and music, I think we have to be careful with references that come from his interviews. I wouldn't normally say this about any performer, but in this case I think some caution should be excercised. I'm going to try and edit down this article as it seems to detailed. Seaweed ( talk) 19:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)