Talk:Tracklacers

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Tracklacers (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Please explain how we get our page posted here, the link to tracklacers did not go to our site as for some reason our site is under User:Tracklacers and we cant seem to remove the User part?? We simply want a page like every other artist on Wikki Thanks

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Iamstevefromntc (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

im sorry but this is ridiculous now, ive just created a new user profile as requested and tried to add in information, now ive added real ref links but its flagged again what am i doing wrong

Simply creating a new account doesn't mean you can remove the tag. Leave it there and let admins decide if it should remain. 69.181.248.16 (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Maintaining integrity of article

Recently I made some edits to remove/tidy - non-wiki worthy info - poor grammatical structure and non-wiki formatting - superlatives and possible self-promotion

My edits have been reverted by an IP with small number of edits focused mainly on this article and closely related ones. It is likely there may be a conflict of interest due to unreferenced and detailed information in article. When another editor attempted to restore my version, the same user (IP) again reverted back to their preferred version, which falls short of wiki standards.

examples of issues - insisting JLS are 'supergroup' and not 'boy band' - insisting on referring to new project - relatively unknown (no wiki article) rapper as 'up and coming' - insisting on reverting to errors such as missing apostrophe from 'the bands' (sic). - using sentences such as 'During this period they invented a sound called Jack the Lad Swing, which was a fusion of Laddish style vocal delivery on pop/rnb based backing tracks.' (double spacing, capitalisations and unreferenced information)

Please ensure all edits meet wiki guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by HallucigeniaUK (talk • contribs) 01:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

-From Colin- Then lets all work together to make this a great article for all to enjoy, not an article which you and you alone feel is proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.151.173 (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re posting here for clarity

HalluciageniaUK I have no affiliation with Tracklacers, although i do have great knowledge of their careers through my interest in pop and 'URBAN" producers, You can not keep undoing edits on this article to suit your motives. Im sure everyone on wiki appreciates your hard work in editing SO MANY articles and i'm sure that Tracklacers will be flattered that you have taken such a keen interest in the article about them. I have read the guidelines in detail and can safely say that my edits and most of the edits i have seen apart from yours have been encyclopedic and factual with regards to this article. I did note that your initial edits were helpful in cleaning up Grammar and i notice that you undid your own grammar error in one of your earlier edits, However since then you have been removing whole paragraphs which not only site the subject but state what i believe to be factual info relating to the subject which fall within the wiki guidelines. I also note that you undid an edit- 20:35, 28 September 2011 99.34.99.166 (talk) (4,325 bytes) (Edited Grammar and article content to bring in line with wiki Guidlines)- with no explanation and it would appear that this user had attempted to merge your edits with the original stating that they wanted to bring the content in line with wiki guidelines. which i would say is a fair middle ground and why wiki is such a great site. You can not operate on a site like this if you are not willing to work with other editors in bringing the articles in line for all to enjoy. Can i ask what your knowledge and experience is with Urban music and what would qualify you to change a coined term to Urban Contemporary? Also what your knowledge of Tracklacers involvement with JLS is which would again qualify you to completely change and or delete entire edits and paragraphs. I would suggest that if you have no background in any of the last paragraph, that you move along onto one of the many other articles and focus your attention there or work with the other users of this page to make it a great article for all to enjoy, not an article which is dictated by you with no room for collaboration. Kind Regards Colin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.151.173 (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Major tidy up

This article has multiple issues......written like a press release, very liberal with the truth, references don't actually mention what is claimed in the article, and formatting & grammar. I've added pov tags which if anyone disagrees with, they should argue their case in here rather than making more non-neutral edits. (I await the inevitable reverts of my edits by persons wholly unrelated to the subject.)

Reply to Rayman60

Rayman60 let's address some of your points in one place, Perhaps your anticipation of the inevitable reverts is justified because of what would appear to be your personal attachment to the subject, I see no other reason why you would revert to a negative tone in the article, changing wording from 'Producing the song' to 'Producing one song' and 'Ultimately losing to'. Would it not be a better use of time to work together as fellow editors to make the article something that everyone can enjoy and not one that it is written from your point of view only. For example the first week sales aren't relevant to you but to the rest of the P!NK fans not only are they relevant taking into account P!NKS previous albums, But this is also her first number One album, which makes sales figures and her record first week both relevant and informative to the majority. In my opinion there are some good contributions from you and you're absolutely right that one of the citations doesn't mention the source, which is for me a better use of your time.

I think that the banners should be removed, just because there are only a few of us making edits to the page, that doesn't meant that the neutrality of the article is biased or jeopardized. Again that's just your opinion, there are a few more users that just you that browse Wikipedia as I'm sure you're aware.

In my opinion, there is no citation needed for the 'Laddish style vocal delivery comment' the band is called JLS, which stands for Jack The Lad Swing, I have more pressing issues to attend to so please feel free to do your own research on what a 'Jack The Lad' is. Again I would say that the edits are from your point of view and not a neutral stand point. Just because you do not understand something doesn't mean that the rest of the population do not, once again let's please work together as fellow wikipedia contributors to make this a great article for all to enjoy, not just you and i. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.249.75 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Rayman60

Rayman60 let's address some of your points in one place, Perhaps your anticipation of the inevitable reverts is justified because of what would appear to be your personal attachment to the subject, I see no other reason why you would revert to a negative tone in the article, changing wording from 'Producing the song' to 'Producing one song' and 'Ultimately losing to'. Would it not be a better use of time to work together as fellow editors to make the article something that everyone can enjoy and not one that it is written from your point of view only. For example the first week sales aren't relevant to you but to the rest of the P!NK fans not only are they relevant taking into account P!NKS previous albums, But this is also her first number One album, which makes sales figures and her record first week both relevant and informative to the majority. In my opinion there are some good contributions from you and you're absolutely right that one of the citations doesn't mention the source, which is for me a better use of your time.

I think that the banners should be removed, just because there are only a few of us making edits to the page, that doesn't meant that the neutrality of the article is biased or jeopardized. Again that's just your opinion, there are a few more users that just you that browse Wikipedia as I'm sure you're aware.

In my opinion, there is no citation needed for the 'Laddish style vocal delivery comment' the band is called JLS, which stands for Jack The Lad Swing, I have more pressing issues to attend to so please feel free to do your own research on what a 'Jack The Lad' is. Again I would say that the edits are from your point of view and not a neutral stand point. Just because you do not understand something doesn't mean that the rest of the population do not, once again let's please work together as fellow wikipedia contributors to make this a great article for all to enjoy, not just you and i. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.249.75 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason I fixed the article is because it has all the hallmarks of conflict of interest edits to positively promote an article in a manner that is unacceptably favourable to the subject rather than an objective, fair and complete view, which is what Wikipedia's aim is. One of the main flags is that unregistered users with no contributions on any other articles except Tracklacers and related (i.e. inserting tracklacers's name into every associated page) articles seem to direct the content of this page and monitor it, swiftly resisting edits that don't satisfy them. If you consider yourself a Wikipedia contributor then please go ahead and contribute to Wikipedia and study the guidelines in detail, but if your only contributions and interest are in this subject then it seems you don't fall into that category and you cannot demand or request that an article be worked to bring it to within your accepted standard. You are more than welcome to make edits on wikipedia on other pages but if your only interest is Tracklacers then don't expect to turn up out of nowhere and call the shots. Tracklacers's About.me page (http://about.me/tracklacers) copies verbatim the old version of this page, so unless they've been the victim of overzealous cyber-squatters, one can expect to believe that that version was one that had Tracklacers's personal blessing, and it is more than coincidental that you, despite having no previous history on wikipedia, rock up here and attempt to re-inforce exactly the same points as they did. I do understand what the term 'Jack the Lad' means, but it has never ever been associated with a style of vocal delivery. Please don't think that your opinion supersedes Wikipedia's requirement for references. That sentence doesn't even make sense, however it is was backed up with a reference (e.g. a critic from a respected publication), then it would be included, just like the 'London pop dons' quote is. If you can find a reference of someone applying that term to JLS (or even that there is a defined and recognised vocal delivery style for Jack the lads) then go ahead, add the reference, and it will remain on the article. All information added must be verifiable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
Don't mix up 'negative' with 'not hugely favourable' - all my edits were objective in tone - neutral. They did not put any undue spin on any statement. I did write on the talk page that I expect this article to be reverted in due course and I believe I have been vindicated by fact that in less than 4 days exactly what I predicted based on past activity has happened.
If you are indeed the subject, or closely related to it, then you are expected to declare this and refrain from editing this article. If you are not, and are just genuinely interested in striving towards Wikipedia's established goals, then I expect you will be an active editor who contributes to a range of articles, rather than the majority of editors who've posted favourably on this subject and contributed little (nothing) else. Remember that Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion. You can use an alternative service where you are free to write as you wish. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself_and_people_you_know
As for the P!nk Grammy nomination, I clarified exactly what the nomination was for. If an extra plays a bus conductor with one line in one scene in a film that's then nominated for an Oscar, that person can't add 'oscar nominated' in the opening line of their Wikipedia page and then proceed to talk about box office performance in its opening weekend in the North American market, it's just misleading. I acknowledged the album was nominated, and that they contributed to one song, at no point did I post anything that was factually incorrect. I also made it clear that the award was not pending, the winner had been announced. What I didn't do, and what was done previously, was mislead the reader into thinking they were specifically nominated for an award. And yes, I completely agree, chart position and sales ARE relevant - on the relevant page. The article links to P!nk's page and to the album's page, where that information belongs. If you look at, for example, Neptunes's wikipedia page, you'll see it doesn't talk about chart and sales performance of every album they contributed to - it merely carries relevant information to the subject and offers the reader the opportunity to explore in-depth if they so require.
The unsuitablity of certain edits is also very evident - Grammy is a proper noun and requires capitalisation. It should also be linked to its wikipedia page on first mention. Some of my edits addressed these issues, but you have again introduced this poor formatting into the article.
If you believe these edits are unfair then you are free to call upon help from senior editors who will give support and an unbiased opinion, however until then the article will stand as it was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard Rayman60 (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have as much right to "Rock up" and edit the page as you, my edits are completely valid, clearly citing factual information, I can't comment on your Oscar comment but as I said the Grammy title still stands as producers in that category are not only nominated but are recipients of the award. I made no attempt to hide the fact that the awards had taken place the term 'nominated' works for past preset and future, 'I was nominated, I am nominated, I will be nominated 'As for 'Calling the shots' it would appear as if you are the dictator here with a clear need to lead the way on all edits. as for the subjects personal web page again i cant comment as i do not know them but i can say that a lot of sites source their information from Wikipedia. The Neptunes and Tracklacers are not the same subject so i don't see your point for example if your were to cite a more relevant source of information then i would say look at Dr Lukes wiki where you will see chart positions and so on. As for 'Laddish vocals' the band named them selves after their sound / style as per citation. I mentioned that Tracklacers produced a song on P!NKS album, not at one point did i post anything that was factually incorrect. You decided that in your opinion 'One song' was a preferable edit, again this is not your page its a public page unless you are related to the subject. Im happy to tidy up the grammar with the 'Grammy' title etc, the rest stands up.

Rayman60, to quote your own advice, If you believe that these edits are unfair then you are free to call upon help from senior editors who will give support and an unbiased opinion, however until then this article will stand as it was. All the best. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

I expect this article to be reverted by Rayman60 in due course due to his her personal vendetta / relationship with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.249.75 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)