Talk:Tsumyoki

Fan POV

Hi @Rejoy2003, I have placed the Fan POV tag as per my own discretion. Please do not remove it until the issues in the article are resolved. Thanks! SerChevalerie (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie, you wouldn't had placed it until you saw the comment left by this editor, I mentioned. I have placed the Fan POV tag as per my own discretion, sounds very much misleading and false. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 12:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Please also see WP:BRD-NOT: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.". This "essay" you cite is not an excuse for getting into an edit war, especially not over a template to improve an article. I'm readding the template due to phrases like below:

1. Mendes is one of the leading artists from Goa and is credited for revolutionizing the English genre of Hip hop music in the coastal Indian state of Goa. He is the first Goan music artist and the youngest member at age 19, to be signed by DIVINE's record label, Gully Gang Records in 2021. He was also featured in Goan Insider’s 50 Most Influential People of 2021 and has been described by It'sGoa.com as Goa's best rapper.
2. Mendes embarked on his musical journey in his late teenage years, beginning at age 17.
3. At age 18, Mendes started performing at clubs and has also judged several college events. One of his first two gigs was with DJ Skeletron.
4. In October 2020, Mendes supported a peaceful protest of rape awareness at Ravindra Bhavan in Margao. The protest was started by a 15-year-old, Sheniah Menezes with the help of her parents and participated by over 50 people.

All of the above phrases need to be rewritten per WP:NPOV, the last one being WP:RECENTISM. Also, these phrases can only stay with high quality third-party WP:RELIABLESOURCES: Eg. ItsGoa.com stating that Tsumyoki is "Goa's best rapper" holds no weight because it's most likely paid to say so by him, and in any case has no hold over the opinions of Goa or rappers. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the last one so we don't need to count that. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Also sounds very much misleading and false? Please refrain from the aggression, I am simply stating that as a Wikipedia editor I don't have to be influenced by someone else's comment to make a conscious decision. We are all working together here to improve Wikipedia and WP:GOA. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I find no aggression there, I'm just confused as to what actions you're taking, especially after a long break from editing. You cannot deny the fact that you acted on behalf of another editor, as said by you "Tagged to reflect this." it does imply that you have acted on someone's comment left months ago. Secondly, I too want to improve and have been improving within the context of WP:GOA almost everyday. There is no bad faith here, best is to stop assuming any. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 14:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's move ahead then, I've listed my problems with the article in the above points. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

1) See [1], the article basically talks about him revolutionizing. Regarding the second statement see the TOI article, is basically states the same [2]. For your third statment, see WP:SPECULATION. You cannot just say that the subject paid the article to do it. You don't have any proof, the statment is merely stating what the publication has voiced. It isn't making a big claim like "He's a greatest rapper". and in any case has no hold over the opinions of Goa or rappers, I don't know how you know how they function. I hope there's no WP:COI, or you an ex employee of the media house.

2. This is a simple statment. I don't understand what else should be neutral about it.

3. Same as the second. I see no reason what else to make it neutral when it is already neutral. Maybe read WP:Neutral again

4. Your claim of WP:Recentism doesn't add up. Try to be more specific. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 14:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the thinly veiled allegations in favour of a healthy discussion:

1. Needs more high-quality third-party RS, especially if it must be in the lede. Herald and TOI are simple local news outlets. ItsGoa.com an even lesser-known one. Need the local equivalent of Rolling Stones magazine to warrant these statements in the lede.

2. Proposed change per WP:NPOV: Mendes started his musical journey...

3. DJ Skeletron doesn't deserve a mention here, unless they have their own Wiki article. See WP:N.

4. If you didn't understand why it is WP:RECENTISM, read the full essay again. In any case, the rule of thumb is that if an event doesn't deserve its own Wikipedia article, it isn't worth a mention. There are multiple such protests every year: Wikipedia is not the place for them. SerChevalerie (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

1. As per what Wikipedia policy do I need another "high quality third party RS" to prove the claim of the subject's involvement to the English genre of rap when it is already well cited by a local most cited news publication from Goa?. The Times of India is definitely not a local news outlet. They have braches all over India. Read their article it says It is the fourth-largest newspaper in India by circulation and largest selling English-language daily in the world. If you're using a ref, not every reliable source must be included at WP:RSP. Rolling Stone is an American magazine. Comparing a foreign magazine with a local news publication with significant presence in it's home state of Goa, doesn't add up anything. Also the statement doesn't "actually appear in the lead per say". See MOS:LEAD, what lead actually means or is more focused on, It is located at the beginning of the article, before the table of contents and the first heading.

2. That basically means one and the same thing, just a different grammar tone. I don't think the present content hurts in any way of NPOV

3. Point me out the exact policy or statement that says you can't mention other artists who are potentially notable or will be notable in the near future. WP:N, is more like a big essay and I don't really have much time to go through everything.

4. Again, I don't have time to read full essays. We are volunteers here and usually busy in real life, best is that you point out the exact policy or highlight the point in the essay. Second of all, I don't know to what extent WP:RECENT even applies since that particular protest happened like four years ago. I couldn't find any such thing on the particular essay. Second of all as you've said In any case, the rule of thumb is that if an event doesn't deserve its own Wikipedia article, it isn't worth a mention. There are multiple such protests every year: Wikipedia is not the place for them, can you point me out the exact policies that agree with two of your above given statements? Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 04:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

1. See WP:TOI, it is not considered as particularly reliable as per WP:RSP. WRT the lead, the lines I cited are before the first heading of "Early life" so definitely falls under MOS:LEAD.

2. Please see MOS:PEACOCK, which this article is full of.

3 and 4. We are all busy IRL. Since you are the one who wants to remove the Fan POV tag, it is your responsibility to read the material that is shared with you. I am more than happy to leave the tag here forever or until someone has the time to fix all the issues in this article. I have pointed out the policies; it is your responsibility to read them and fix the issues. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, it's already our third day here today. I don't know how long this discussion will be going on, to be honest I'm all up for it. But over time my editing behaviour have been in much favour of WP:IDGAF especially after dealing with Wikipedia:Deletionist. Your editing behaviour and past history possibly aligns more to the latter, which is completely fine by me. I was thinking this discussion would be going over WP:NOREPLY, but I guess it won't now that you've raised your disagreements again. We could rather opt for a NO CONSENSUS, since I think I'll just counter your claims and arguments again and then we wake up the next day and argue over the same discussion over and over again. This is just a proposal because I don't want to spend an eternity here talking about policies and what not. Are you interested in closing this per WP:CON or would like to take this discussion further?, I'm proposing removal of Fan POV and the recently added section tag [3], just like how the article was before. Last but not the least, the removal of tags doesn't mean I won't do anything to adhere to the policies of Wikipedia. Im planing to ask an opinion about this with another editor and will work on this article to keep it encyclopaedic. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 09:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:TEMPREMOVE: Please make sure the issue has been resolved before removing the template. That does require some effort on your part—to understand both the problem and how to solve it.

If neither of us has the time or patience to fix these issues, we can leave the maintenance templates for some other editor to do so in the future. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Also see WP:WTRMT. If there is consensus or a general agreement, anything can be possible even accepting my proposal. Secondly I don't want to leave a tag on my article, it just irritates me (it is just a thing I have). I just want to get over with this. Now coming back to your previous arguments you made. I have solved the 2 point, you initially had made during the start. Speaking of #1 It isn't a sin to use TOI in articles apart from Government related, this source isn't blacklisted. Also a secondary source to back TOI can be found here by Hindustan Times [4].

3 & 4; again you can't expect editors to read essays or a full wiki policy page. Since you have a problem with the article, it should equally be your responsibility to point out the necessary wiki policies to back your claim, this goes as far as being WP:CIVIL. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I've listed our discussion at WP:3O, it's already been four days over here. I don't want to keep getting back to this talk page. A third opinion will be appreciated. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not averse to reaching a consensus as long as the article's issues are fixed. Thank you for taking the efforts to understand what I'm trying to say. How about we cite the HT source in the lede?

I've been busy too, I'll try to fix the issues myself (but in my defense, I did, and you reverted my changes for the "In the media" section).

3 and 4. It's not a specific line I am referring to, it's the entire policy. I removed the section citing WP: 10YEARTEST but you went ahead and reverted it just because you refuse to read it. In summary, Tsumyoki may participate in hundreds of protests but they're not considered notable unless there was significant coverage of the protest itself, like the Nirbhaya case. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Look, I too want to reach to a consensus as fast as possible now. This isn't an WP:AFD, where we wait for a week to discuss and close the discussion. Secondly, I'm ready to use the HT source for the lead. Now that remains only 3 & 4 of the point to reach consensus yet. As you've out first for your third point At age 18, Mendes started performing at clubs and has also judged several college events. One of his first two gigs was with DJ Skeletron., I don't know how this relates to WP: 10YEARTEST.

4. You've placed much emphasis on me reading an essay i.e WP:RECENTISM. Do note that this is an essay about a policy and not a wiki policy itself. Before diverging into WP: 10YEARTEST, see the essay's lead This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.. I don't believe I should take your removal serious since this isn't a wiki policy. Although I can assume good faith, but if you keep doing this to other articles it might even be low-key WP:DE. Actors, musicians, entertainers often receive news coverages, the article says that the subject supported a rape protest awareness. It isn't making any other blantant claim or anything that comes down to WP:Gossip to have to removed. Nirbhaya case is completely different from this as the victim wasn't a celebrity, best to avoid such comparisons here. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 07:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to blatantly accuse me of WP:DE then there's no reason for me to continue to try reaching a consensus. Let a third-party come in and intervene. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

We're all here to improve Wikipedia. Please, take the effort to understand what policies I've shared and work upon improving the article based on them. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Eg. If you read MOS:PEACOCK, you would understand that the whole article is full of it, and that I was just citing a couple of examples here. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a difference between "blatantly accused" and might even be low-key. There's no bad faith here, it's okay for you to assume as I don't use emojis to express if I'm serious or confused or angry at this point. You've placed much emphasis on WP: RECENTISM, by all means even the SD of the page says it's an explanatory essay. I do not know how can you term that as a policy. Then again lastly your statement seems to be aligned with WP:WIN. You picked out some of the phrases you disagreed per WP:NPOV, I fixed the above two. Now you want to make this discussion of trying bringing peacock issues. If we can't reach a consensus on the initial 3 & 4 point, I don't know how you expect me to deal with your now additional argument. Anyways I'm glad I asked for a 3O. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 07:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hello, I am responding here from a request for a third opinion. A few observations:

• The discussion above contains much more heat than light. Please focus on content, not on one another; and consider how much time was wasted arguing over templates rather than addressing real content issues. If you continue to struggle with focus on content as discussed at WP:TPG, please consider requesting mediated discussion at WP:DRN.
• The prose in the article does appear to need to be completely rewritten to remove the promotional tone and overly-enthusiastic language.
• The "personal life" section currently contains only a pair of sentences about a sexual assault awareness protest. Admirable, but it is a trivial mention of the subject and doesn't appear to merit any mention in this article unless other independent sources have covered it in more depth. Bear in mind that finding a verifiable fact about a subject does not mean that fact merits inclusion in an article as discussed at WP:VNOT. VQuakr (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your taking your time and giving your opinion. Y'all are doing a great job at WP:3O. Cheers! Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 06:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Rejoy2003 for taking the time to fix this article as guided. And thanks to @VQuakr for spending your quality time to share your inputs here. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)