User talk:WeAreAllStars

Welcome!

Hello, WeAreAllStars, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{help me}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Hello, WeAreAllStars. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

________________________

Thank you for the message. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Clearly the few editors that are conducting themselves in this article are not even close. They have clearly broken Wikipedia terms as recorded on the wikipedia history of the page in question (in terms of not writing and editing in a neutral fashion) several times. As someone who does not understand smartphones but does understand entertainment, I would say clearly this is a noteworthy group.

Not only did they release an album composed of original improvised material, but they "filmed their own birth" on YouTube for their first meeting, and released all of their material within an app that they programmed. I use Facebook and Instagram everyday, and I downloaded their app out of curiosity. It is astonishing to see how multi-talented they are. In fact I would say that due to the singer coming from out of no where and having the confidence to perform and record live / in studio and on the internet improv takes guts. Guts that I don't have.

I also saw that one of the members is a body painter. His work is confusing, imaginative, playful, and while I don't understand it, he has notable press all his own. I stumbled upon his other media projects and was almost certain he couldn't have done it all himself. The other member is also seemingly a very great artist and even built the Radio K app for the University of Minnesota.

I became a fan as I checked out the references. I get upset when I see people continually removing verifiable sources that fall in accordance to Wikipedia terms. I know that the sources in question are acceptable as verifiable and reliable because I've cross compared the fact-checking on this group to what constitutes as "notable" and "verifiable" to Wikipedia terms. I have remained neutral despite the group's story growing on me, but I do not tolerate bullying or harassment in any form. I suspected that there was some harassment going on with this article and did further research and it has clearly been subjected to disruptive editing with reliable sources continually being deleted, pretty much since the article first went up.

Although I am fascinated by the group and curious to see where they go, I assure you that I am looking at this article objectively and coming at it in a neutral mindset. In terms of technology, art, music, editing, video, photography, modeling, the world has its arena where many play and perform. This shouldn't be an issue if it's deleted or not, but how the article is formulated and if it is educational and helpful. The fact remains that there are credible sources that fall in accordance to Wikipedia's terms of notability and verifiability that are continually being removed via Wikihounding by TenPoundHammer and Edward321 in particular.

A Fan

Wikihounding

Explain to me how simply nominating an article for deletion twice is wikihounding. At no point have I outright removed a reference from the article, and the only reason I've nominated the article twice is because the first nomination failed to reach a consensus to delete or keep. At no point have I said anything negative toward you nor have I pursued you in other articles. There is also no evidence that I am scaring off any other editors in my actions. Nominating for deletion is a common process here, and my intent is not to scare anyone off by being the big scary deletionist. Again, The only reason I have nominated twice is because the first discussion did not reach consensus, and renominating after a "no consensus" is the normal outcome in that instance. Filing an OTRS ticket on me for "wikihounding" you is beyond ridiculous, not to mention retalitory, hyperbolic, and laden with lies — again, at which point did I remove a source from the article? At which point did I "campaign" against the article?

In addition, I have given you the benefit of the doubt in admitting that a couple of the sources in the article are indeed valid, and may be enough to save the article. The additional mention of the Twitter reference was merely cautionary; your use of it as-is is fine in the article, but I was only intending to caution you not to use Twitter citations excessively as a well-intentioned suggestion for improving the article. And yet you return by flinging more wildly false accusations my way. Keep in mind also that individual editors do not "own" articles, and should not grow possessive and throw wiki-tantrums when "their" articles are put up for deletion.

If you continue on this streak of wiki-tantrums and outright lies, then you are very likely to be blocked for personal attacks and failing to assume good faith. I strongly suggest that you calm down and seek suggestions to help save the article. Work with other editors, not against them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WeAreAllStars, one more accusation of wikihounding and I will block you, alright? And when I do, I will make sure to make it a hardblock, which means that no registered account can edit from that IP address of yours. Not that you would have alternate accounts, of course. Anyway, enough with the personal attacks. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jacob Alexander Figueroa has been accepted

Jacob Alexander Figueroa, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jacob Alexander Figueroa

The article Jacob Alexander Figueroa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable; sources are all WP:LOCAL or passing or both.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jacob Alexander Figueroa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jacob Alexander Figueroa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Alexander Figueroa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Alexander Figueroa

Hi, I am not going to protect Jacob Alexander Figueroa as I have a conflict of interest, in that I moved into article space, and anyway protection will not stop a delete. The way to address this issue is for you to edit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Alexander Figueroa to make your case as to why the article should stay on Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

First of all consider where did the picture come from. If you took the photo yourself you can upload it at commons:Special:UploadWizard and release it under a free license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture that you used File:The Artist Zander.jpg was not taken by yourself. We cannot use pictures of people that are still alive under fair use provisions, as you could still go and take a photo yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To make use of the picture you will have to find the photographer and copyright holder and get them to issue written permission as per WP:PERMIT. This can be a lot of trouble. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: Thank you for the info! So if I contact the photographer, would having them email permissions suffice? WeAreAllStars (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Band Famous

Since this had an AFD so recently, and there is no proposed alternative content, I will not restore it. Instead you will have to use WP:DRV to argue. You could ask for a draft to be made from the deleted page though, and then try to improve it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Live canvas

Hello, WeAreAllStars. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Live canvas, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Trivialist (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Band Famous (February 21)

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

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Band Famous and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RadioFan (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! WeAreAllStars, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! RadioFan (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! RadioFan, Thanks for your friendly and helpful input in regards to my Draft:The Band Famous. I have been working on it in my spare time and greatly look forward to your thoughts as to its progress... Thanks again for your time and help! WeAreAllStars (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Band Famous (June 9)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Use only high quality sources. No blogs, no fan sites, etc. No sales or promotion is allowed.

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Band Famous and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:The Band Famous

Hello, WeAreAllStars. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "The Band Famous".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:WeAreAllStars/The Band Famous

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:WeAreAllStars/The Band Famous, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Legacypac (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seeyou contested the speedy deletion. Can I request you read WP:BAND. I use automated tools that post notices, so Inwas not fully aware of all the history around this content. Legacypac (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jacob Alexander Figueroa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jacob Alexander Figueroa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Alexander Figueroa (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theredproject (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Alexander Figueroa

Just to be clear, it is not automatically evident that there's any bias or conflict of interest going on just because the subject of the article happens to be LGBTQ or LGBTQ-friendly and the person participating in the discussion happens to be LDS — for one thing, just like any other religion, not all Mormons necessarily agree blindly with everything the church states as its official position. There are LGBTQ people in the LDS church who advocate for change in the church's position, and pro-LGBTQ allies in the LDS church who support them — so to argue that somebody is being biased against an LGBTQ-related topic because of sexuality per se, it's not enough to just point out that the potentially biased person happens to be Mormon, you have to show concrete evidence of them saying and doing homophobically biased things.

I don't always agree with JohnPackLambert on everything, but I can tell you that never, not once, have I ever seen him argue that a person who was otherwise properly shown to clear our inclusion standards should still be deleted just because that person was queer — and I have seen him argue several times for keeping articles about LGBTQ people who were salvageable with better sources. So you need substantially more evidence than just his religious affiliation before you have a credible case that he's being biased.

I can tell you this right now — and remember, I'm saying this as a gay man who's very obviously not biased against LGBT topics — the sourcing in Figueroa's article is almost entirely unreliable garbage that does not constitute support for Figueroa's notability. You cannot source a person's notability to anything YouTube, Twitter, Vimeo, blogs, Instagram, Google Maps, podcasts, Yelp or IMDB, just for starters — and I'm going to have to review the other sources in more depth, so there may be additional problems. In this form, you definitely have not demonstrated that Figueroa clears the notability bar for inclusion in Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- Perhaps the sources are over-saturated. I will work on cleaning them up. Thank you for your unbiased opinion and feedback. This is why I reached out to you in the first place. I apologize for my ignorance, I had not seen his advocacy for keeping articles about notable persons who are LGBT or LGBT-friendly. WeAreAllStars (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Hello! Could you clarify your connection to Jacob Alexander Figueroa? You have been updating his page for years to the exclusion of the other 5 million + articles on Wikipedia. This is often done by persons connected to the subject. We have special procedures for that. Please let us know how you are connected. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not connected to him, he is just an artist I found interesting. I created a page on Wikipedia for an artist for a partial English credit in school several years ago. I am trying to keep it updated because I don't like leaving things incomplete. I plan to expand into more subjects on Wikipedia as well. I am particularly interested in music and art so if you have any pages that need help editing about those subjects please feel free to share them with me. I would be more than happy to help, especially having more time to edit now being done with school.

-A WeAreAllStars (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Grandpallama (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]