Talk:Casisdead

Response

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.

• No, what happened here is this: I came across a page that had been repeatedly declined for being promotional. The article contains several things that would fail guidelines spectacularly in the mainspace. You made edits that did not solve the issues and I assumed that this was because you didn't recognize what was promotional about the article. The article also contained other major issues that would keep it from being accepted. For example, in several places you insert your own personal opinions about the performer's work and you devoted an entire section to memorialize one of the people in his team that had passed. Neither of these things are considered to be acceptable in the mainspace and if by some chance this was accepted in its current state (and wasn't nominated for deletion as spam) these items would be removed.

Since none of the other editors had offered to help and it looked unlikely that you would be able to edit the page to meet guidelines yourself, I decided to edit the page to meet NPOV guidelines and so it would also fall in line with how articles are traditionally written on Wikipedia. During this process I left several notes as to why I changed things and why some items wouldn't work. You reverted my actions once, which removed the comments I posted. You cannot remove someone else's comments on Wikipedia unless it's on your talk page (which it was not), the comments are considered to be harassment (which they were not), or unless you have the other person's permission (which you did not). You can otherwise revert general edits, although in this case I think it was highly unwise because there's very little chance that another editor will approve the article. By reverting the edits you're pretty much ensuring that the article will only be declined, thus making it extremely likely that it will never go beyond AfC.

What also concerned me about your edits was that you also seemed to be taking WP:OWNERSHIP of the page. I couldn't quite tell if you're someone officially affiliated with the performer intent on creating a promotional page for CAS or if you're a fan that decided to create an article, only for it to be extremely promotional and written from a fan's point of view. Either way, you seemed to be very intent on having a version of the page that suited your specific viewpoint. The problem with this is that there's no ownership of pages and as was said above, the article as you wrote it is unsuitable for Wikipedia.

After several back and forths with trying to re-add my comments (note, I did not revert to my version of the article) and you removing them, I nominated it for deletion via MfD. I did this because I assumed that you are not interested in improving the page to where it would meet Wikipedia's guidelines, rather you only want a specific version of the page that is unsuitable. I keep stressing this point because I need you to understand that these are not arbitrary guidelines that I came up with one day, but guidelines that are in place and in common use on Wikipedia. An IP visited the page and I have to assume is either you or one of your friends, given that the draft is only visible to a very few amount of people. This IP removed the MfD notice by reverting things in the same way you did, which raises the likelihood that this was someone you specifically sent here to do this for you.

I'm not doing this to harass you. The problem here is that the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. I've tried to help you and you've essentially refused that help. This article is not appropriate, which is a shame since I do think that CAS would likely pass notability guidelines. To put it bluntly, your edits are actually doing more to harm this person's chances of having an article than helping, and if this was in the mainspace your actions would likely be met with a harsher reception than what I've given you. With the way you're editing and the version you're insisting on keeping, you're pretty much spinning your wheels with the article, continually submitting an article that has almost zero chance of acceptance in its current state. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• To further my point, here's an example of promotional content still in the article:

"he continues to expand his creative repertoire with his newest venture of making short films"

Terms like "creative" are seen as WP:PEACOCK terms. The same thing goes for things like "visually striking". Things like this are put throughout the article, which is why I re-wrote everything.

Now here's an example of original research:

"The production on 'Commercial 2' has been heavily influenced by the work of 1980s New Romantic artists such as Gary Numan and Steve Strange."

This isn't backed up by a RS in the article. The entire subsection "Rap themes" is completely unsourced. When something is unsourced it is considered to be original research, especially when discussing things like themes because that's something that's extremely subjective to the listener. If you can find something that explicitly backs up these claims then that will make them not original research. Now the thing to take into consideration here is that original research is not permitted on Wikipedia and it can - and will - be challenged and removed.

You also drew a lot of your own conclusions from things. For example, you tried to assert that enough people were asking about Commercial 1 to the point where it'd be listed in the article, using this source. While the interviewer does ask, it's an extremely brief point in the article (and said in almost a joking manner) and this can be seen as original research on your part to say that this would be major enough to give more weight.

Furthermore there was a lot of indiscriminate data in the article. There's rarely need to list every person that has interacted with someone or every member of their team. It's expected that someone would work with many people and listing each person can make the article unwieldy and be seen as WP:INDISCRIMINATE data. That you hotlinked to each person's personal Twitter page doesn't help matters either, since hotlinking of this type is seen as promotional. If someone is mentioned in RS repeatedly as being involved with someone, then they'd warrant a mention. Otherwise it's just indiscriminate data and can be seen as WP:UNDUE weight. This last part especially goes for the memorial section in the article.

You also tried using sources that actually don't mention the performer at all, for example, that he performed at a specific venue. While it's likely that CAS performed at this venue, you need a source that actually backs this up. Wikipedia is all about verification.

These are just a few of the issues in the article that would need to be resolved. My editing to the article was not meant to be harassment, rather an attempt to help someone out that did not appear to understand policy - and still doesn't seem to understand policy. Any other person that helps you will likely tell you the exact same things that I'm telling you so again, these edits are based on established policy. They weren't arbitrary, nor were they meant to harass. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Note

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)

• As for not letting this go through MfD, the issue here is this: the tags are likely going to be continually removed and I think that deletion via MfD is kind of a given in this situation. The article is unlikely to be improved (as it's too promotional and by their actions the editor has refused any help that doesn't suit their purpose) and this just sort of speeds up the process, without having to continually worry about Sage or random IPs disruptively editing the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

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.

• See my comments above. The article had a lot of issues that would keep it from being accepted and while I know that you want a very specific version of the page, this version was not acceptable per established guidelines. If by some chance it was accepted, it would have been almost guaranteed to be speedied as spam or edited to a version similar to what I wrote. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

New note

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)

• I've been told that it's OK to put my version back, so I'm doing that and accepting the article. The sourcing isn't overly strong, but it's enough to where I do think that he'd pass NARTIST as a whole. I have no problem with material being added slowly back into the article as RS becomes available that backs up the material and if it ends up not resembling the version I made, I have no problem with that either, as long as it fits policy. That's always been the biggie here as far as the article goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Pharma business?

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)

References need care due to anonymity of artist

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)