Talk:Allie X

Possible COI

Can you specify who and where the COI is confirmed? Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible notability

I did find a few sources, including The Toronto Star, Variety, and as unlikely as it is to be RS, Buzzfeed. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Good faith

You are not acting in accordance to wikipedia policy. I tried to act in good faith now, but you very clearly are either not reading the article or you can't follow guidelines. On primary sources, this is what the guidelines say "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy." Another thing, the articles you removed like Vice are so far from a self published blog with no editorial oversight it's very clear you didn't even bother to learn about the institution. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_(magazine) I also cannot even fathom what kind of issue you had with a archived, broadcast radio interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanctuaryX (talk • contribs) 15:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Album capitalization

MOS:CT is pretty clear about how to do capitalization in titles. We don't use the work's own styling. hinnk (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Remove trivia and promotional/fan POV

I've cleaned out a bit of promotional fluff and editorial comments hidden within and without citations. These kinds of comments telling other editors not to edit existing content is a form of WP:Ownership and is not permitted. Please use the talk page for discussion if you have concerns about content changes. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Keithbob:Firstmost, the "promotional fluff" comments you removed provide insight into her career and how she creates music as well as the accompanying artistic vision for these. Secondly, the editorial comments about Vice I agree were properly removed; however, the rest of the editorial comments were only placed there because (as you will see if you go read the long thread of exchanges on the requests for deletion of this article) one person had previously tried to remove these lines, even though they were acceptable according to established policies. Thirdly, there were no such comments about attempt to prevent editing that you removed. The only such comment is one in line with the birthday, because many people were repeatedly adding a birth date without any kind of reliable reference to prove said date. It was an advisement of Wikipedia guidelines. There is a difference between Stewardship and Ownership, and it would have been nice of you to assume good faith, but that's okay. Fourthly, some of the material you removed is so blatantly relevant to the article I don't even see how one could conclude it is "fluff". For example, you removed the factoid that she is a Soprano; how would an article about an artist not vitally benefit from identification of general passaggio, tessitura, vocal coloration, vocal range, and vocal weight? If you disagree with the points I have raised, I will request a third opinion.SanctuaryX (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your reply. My editing comments were not directed towards anyone in particular so please don't take them personally. If there is some specific content and source you'd like to discuss I'd be happy to collaborate with you.

When the subject of an article gives their views about themselves I consider that self promotion. WP's role is to summarize information reported in secondary sources and with due weight per WP:Notability and WP:UNDUE. Is there a secondary source that discusses her voice? Why don't we take a look at it and discuss it? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I can understand where you are coming from about the self promotion; however, in most of everything you removed can you tell me how it was promotional? In what way did the removed content inflate her character unduly? As far as I can tell everything in the article was suited to WP:ABOUTSELF.(1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.) And according to WP:SELFPROMOTION it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standard of self-promotion. SanctuaryX (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed material that I found to be "unduly self-serving." If there is some specific content that you feel was not self serviing please cite that specific text and the source and we can discuss it together. The soprano issue is one example. If we continue to disagree on something specific than we can ask for a third opinion as you've suggested.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I find all of my following points to be pertinent information:The aforementioned Soprano voice type ;"Though her face was fully revealed in her music video for Catch, she is not comfortable with sharing too much information with the public and prefers to keep her face under wraps at most times." I find all This is part of the persona she has crafted as Allie X; I find it important information that she does not feel comforable with overly sharing herself with the general public. I don't see how stating someone is a private person is unduly self-serving. There is no value call here  ; "On why she likes the macabre, she states that she is expressing her Jungian shadow-self." Also important information; this is a part of her crafted character. I don't see how saying that someone is a bit disturbingly interested in death and death related things is any kind of self-inflation. If anything that has a bit of a negative connotation, but it is how she described it  ; even more integral than some of the others is your removal of "The X in her name corresponds with the X variable in algebra which is unknown." The X in her name is very arbitrary and to go without explaining it seems ludicrous ; Finally, "In spite of her local success in Toronto, she was not satisfied with her sound and spent years learning about sound design and production. This allowed her to reproduce the sound she heard in her head. She describes her melodies as being "soaring pop, borderline theatrical Disney," while her lyrics, "always seem to be darker." She compares songwriting to a science-experiment in which you put two people's brains together for a few hours and see what they can come up with." Again, this just details her creative process in her career, I don't see an issue here. And again there are certain words here that could certainly have very not positive things to say about her, like "theatrical Disney." Some people probably do not want to be listening to Disney-sounding music, it makes it sound as if she's childish. I can concede for the rest of the removed content that it was not necessary and more trivia like, but on these five listed points I see no tendentious issues that relates to any Wikipedia policy. SanctuaryX (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Soprano voice

Let's discuss these one at a time and see if we can find some common ground. OK? What is the citation for this info about the soprano voice? Is it this 2010 Interview with CKCU-FM? CKCU Interview -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Correct; the information about the Soprano voice is from the CKCU radio interview. This information is provided around 1 minute and 50 seconds into the interview. Is there some way we could communicate more efficiently? Call me impatient, but I don't like the prospect of this taking a month or more.SanctuaryX (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, There are several reasons why including text based on this source might not be appropriate:

• The source is an interview and the information is reported by the subject herself.
• The source CKCU-FM lends no notability or significance to the interview.The WP article for CKCU is cited solely to the radio station itself
• The quote is cherry picked from the interview and has no more importance than any of a dozen other self reported items of information.
• The quote from the interview is: "I didn’t even really have, like a, head voice or a, you know, soprano range so that was challenging. But I’m glad that I learned that because its now kind of where my voice sits and I’m kind of a higher register".

Given that the info is self reported during a non-notable interview and that the quote is cherry picked and gives inconclusive information. I do not consider its content to be worthy of inclusion in the article. If you disagree, and would like a third opinion you can list this discussion at WP:3O.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll be requesting that third opinion, because none of your raised points fail to disqualify it according to WP:ABOUTSELF. I already listed reasons for why her being a Soprano is important to the article somewhere above this segment; the essay WP:INTERVIEW shares my view that "Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewees said something, but not necessarily for the fact that what they said is accurate. The publications are merely repeating their comments word for word." which is why I chose to phrase it's inclusion as that she identifies her own voice as a soprano, not definitively stating that she is a soprano. There is another source I've found besides this one, from dreammachine.me, a group that Allie X is a part of and she is described as a soprano. http://dreammachine.me/team/allie-x/ SanctuaryX (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I consider Keithbob a wiki-colleague and close wiki-acquaintance. I was not solicited by him to come here but saw this listed at Third Opinion where I'm a very frequent contributor. I'm not offering this under my 3O volunteer hat, however, and have left this listed at 3O, because SanctuaryX would be entirely justified if he were to complain that I'm not neutral under the standards required to give a 3O. I am, therefore, just another editor entering this discussion. I've got a couple of problems with the CKCU Interview as a source for this information. First, I've taken a very hard look at the CKCU website and the volunteer page there says that just about anyone who wants to put on a show there can, after some training, do so, and that per that page "All of the programming ... is done by our 200+ volunteers." While the station requires a volunteer to sign an agreement there's no sign, at all, that the station checks content for reliability and accuracy. Since Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source requires a RS to be a source with a reputation for reliability and accuracy, CKCU cannot be a RS. All of the programming on the station is, therefore, much more like a self-published source which can be used as information about itself, but not about third-parties, such as the subject of this article. Second, I would note that the source for this interview is not CKCU itself, but archive.org where this was uploaded in a wiki-like fashion by someone with the username "WildWorks80." That clearly makes that a self-published source which cannot be used for information about third parties. Worse, the volunteer agreement previously linked says that copyright of original material on CKCU is "shared" by the volunteer and the station and there's nothing at the archive.org site that indicates that WildWorks80 had the right to act for the station even if WildWorks80 was in fact the volunteer who originally produced the Wild Works show, so the copyright status of the recordings of this show on archive.org are very suspect in addition to the fact that it's a self-published source. In general, interviews are usable here if they're published by a reliable source, are only used for facts about the interviewee, and don't violate any of the WP:PRIMARY rules. But this one simply does not seem to be a reliable source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@TransporterMan:I understand what you're saying, and I suppose I can agree to some extent, but maybe I'm a bit confused on whether or not the fact that this is self-published matters at all? I realize CKCU falls the rules of self-published, but as you said it's also an interview. I don't see where it says anything about interviews in specific on any of these pages, but I would think this falls under about-self, and I could see if it was a text-only interview that you could doubt it's authenticity, but if you can literally hear the person discussing these things, I don't see how it could be falsified. And for that matter, you mention all of these things about archive.org, but that was a convenience link ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Convenience_links ). It was just so you could have access to the recording I had referenced; I could have easily made this reference without making a link available for you to listen to the interview, so I fail to see how anything pertains to where you listen to the media. Furthermore, I see you made no mention of the alternative dreamamchine.me reference that provides the same information and is also another about self, but from an organization she is directly affiliated with unlike CKCU. Thank you for your thoughts. SanctuaryX (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The dreammachine.me site is not a reliable source. Again it's a self published source which can be used for basic information about that company, but not for information about a living person. The Biographies of living persons self-published source policy says, "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" (emphasis added). That site says that Dream Machine Music is a "partnership between Henry 'Cirkut' Walter and Adrien 'AG' Gough" so the information about Allie X and the other members of its "team" was not written or published by Allie X. Going back to the CKCU interview, we require interviews to be published by reliable sources (and in the case of living persons, non-SPS sources unless published by the person her/himself) so as to reduce the chance that they have been faked or edited in a way that they are not accurate. Merely listening to the interview and, first, identifying the voice as the person the recording says the voice is and, second, determining that it has not been misleadingly edited is prohibited original research. Understand this, please: I'm not saying that the interview is fake or that you're lying to us or anything like that. I'm absolutely certain that you're acting in good faith and I have very little doubt (which is not to say no doubt at all) that the interview is genuine and isn't edited in a misleading way, but it simply doesn't meet our standards for sourcing. And since we don't have a team of paid, professional editors to decide what ought to go in here and what should not, those standards are what Wikipedia uses to make sure that information here is accurate and reliable and we have a special mandate to be careful about that when we're talking about a living person. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: I'm really surprised that dreammachine.me doesn't fall under the rules of reliability considering it has continuously received funding and support from the Canadian government, the Ontario Media Development Corporation which is an agency of The Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport). And no where does it mention who actually wrote that on the website; so your automatic conclusion it was not her or a representative of hers is a bit rash. SanctuaryX (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

This one is a close call, but given the quote, I would say that the notion of Ms. X having a soprano voice isn't quite confirmed from the interview, so I would err on the side of caution and leave that aspect out of the article. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: And in the dreammachine.me link I have provided? It's not so ambiguous. SanctuaryX (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Toronto Star

This I consider to be a reliable source. To this end I've added a modest summary of what the article reports in terms of the subject's persona:

• That same month an article in the Toronto Star described her as a private person who often conceals herself behind sunglasses and hair and a "shadowy Priestess of Pills persona".

Is this alright with you? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that seems equivalent in meaning and is acceptable.SanctuaryX (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Great! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

And the remaining three points?SanctuaryX (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead section flag/clean-up

New editor here, finally made an account and this is my first more-than-minor page edit. I noticed the lead section banner so I used similar pop artists as a template (Lady Gaga, Marina & The Diamonds, Betty Who) to rewrite the existing lead. Hopefully my changes are appropriate!

I also worked to restructure and logically sub-head the Career section, and I sorted out some relevant information that seemed for suited to an Artistry section. The info is more clear in its organization, but the sections seem a bit thin now so maybe a second pair of eyes can decide if these changes were warranted or not.

Also, this page seems to cite the same sources multiple times, specifically the Billboard interview. I'm new to Wikipedia citation format, but is there a way to direct multiple in-text citations to the same singular source in the References section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OverwhelminglyLargeTelescope (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Lede section expanded. The self-released material must be better confirmed or otherwise removed (vanity publishing). Karst (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Karst. The self released material needs to go (vanity self released promotional material). It is not well enough confirmed. I am removing it. If any editors can find a WP:RS that reliably confirms these we can always consider adding the material back later after we discuss the reliability of any other sources that might be found. Zpeopleheart (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Karst:I'll find some more acceptable citations for you, but there is a very large difference between vanity publishing and indie releases that were hand made; either way, I didn't find it very clear that "self-published" material was referring to the albums. SanctuaryX (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It said 'self-published' in the album infobox before you just changed it to 'indie'. I could not find a reference to the albums being released through any label? I noticed you added musicbrainz, an article that mentions the two albums in passing but focusses on the latest release and a page about artwork? Just wondering if there are any reviews or even interviews where she goes into detail about these two releases? Karst (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well when I saw self-published I thought of self-published sources of information. Muicbrainz was already there;I'm guessing you mean the Georgie Magazine interview? Anyway, there are a few reviews and other brief mentions in passages, as well as a few songs online from the albums, but she (Allie) does not want the material on these albums released and has had most of it expunged from the internet. They were made in small quantities and sold after concerts only. SanctuaryX (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so now you just changed self-published to indie, and when we ask for reliable sources to verify and confirm the self-published albums and such you Sanctuary, are now saying, "she (Allie) does not want the material on these albums released and has had most of it expunged from the internet" So if she(Allie) had all of this about the self-publish ones "expunged from the internet" I am sure you know we are not just going to take your word on that. Wikipedia requires significant coverage of something across multiple sources for verification to have it included in the encyclopedia. All there is there now are brief mentions and unreliable sources. I am going to remove the unreliable sources and info that are not verified in WP:RS. If she(Allie) did have the internet expunged with the materials about the self-pub albums, I am hoping she will understand we must follow wikipedia policy here. Zpeopleheart (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate your rather aggressive tone; you don't have to take my word on it. A bit of simple googling will show that to be the case or if you look at other interviews she has done. That tid bit was not included in the article so I don't see why I have to cite what I'm saying in a discussion thread. That's beyond ludicrous and crude. And I didn't "JUST" change it to "Indie" from self-published. I'll leave it as is until I find something truly reliable. SanctuaryX (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Attempts to Merge/Informally Delete

You have no standing to be merging/deleting the article; you made many drastic changes without proposing them. You did not read previous deletion discussions that did not side with your view. This article does meet WP:MUSBIO. Many of the things you removed are posts she has made about herself, which it makes it WP:ABOUTSELF, which IS acceptable. These were deemed acceptable in the deletion discussion as well. Many things you removed (e.g.

(cur | prev) 22:13, 17 November 2015‎ Zpeopleheart (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,621 bytes) (-1,055)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 691137162 by Yokoono5440 (talk): With due respect all that fluff and promotional stuff needed to go. (TW)) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 22:11, 17 November 2015‎ Materialscientist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,676 bytes) (+1,786)‎ . . (Reverted 2 good faith edits by Yokoono5440 using STiki) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 22:02, 17 November 2015‎ Yokoono5440 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,890 bytes) (-731)‎ . . (→‎Early life) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

(cur | prev) 22:00, 17 November 2015‎ Yokoono5440 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,621 bytes) (-1,055)‎ . . (Birth information.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)

these involve her date and place of birth ) is not "promotional fluff." I'm not sure how you mistook it for that but it is simply not. If you want to do this propose it or submit it to arbitration, but I don't think you'll find much luck after previous discussions have negated these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allie_X. Please take a look at WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:YOUTUBE, WP:MUSBIO, WP:DELETE, WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT, and WP:MERGE. Also take note of WP:TWINKLEABUSE. SanctuaryX (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

@Zpeopleheart: Can you explain how this article is not neutral and is "glowing?, since you didn't make a discussion here. I don't see any kind of value in this article, because there's really no judgement in the article. SanctuaryX (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Birth date and Location

@Karst:Can someone please explain why the birthdate and birth place has continuously been removed? There were reliable references for it. The reason it took a few references is because it was bits and pieces of it on each different link. SanctuaryX (talk)

The two articles cited provide her age, but not her actual date of birth. This leaves us with a date range of 1985/1986. In general WP:DOB indicates that should a year should given. I see no direct issue with the Oakville reference. Karst (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this counts as original research, but from her Twitter post you can deduce the date; being given her age in a news article you can deduce her age from the publication date of the article. SanctuaryX (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

NO See this: Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Also see here: "Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy." Original research is not allowed! WP:OR Zpeopleheart (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, this has happened with other articles, where a combination of sources (including Twitter) have been used to deduct someone's date of birth. IMHO we should try and follow WP:DOB on this and put it simply at 1985 unless there is a direct reference somewhere to it. Karst (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "novel" position. It's common sense. Any normal person could verify that. I obviously know original research isn't allowed, that'is why I said I'm not sure if this constitutes as that. However, since Karst was actually polite and explained it, I think just including the year would be fine. The DOB guideline does say "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object," though. And apparently original research does not apply to this. " To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented," and about self is fine for non-grandiose claims, SanctuaryX (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add her date of birth (Please look at the references and note how it is concluded; if you feel the year should only be included, even though the date can be found by looking at a calendar, fine):

| birth_date               = {{Birth date and age|df=yes|1985|07|31}}<ref name="Nee Sous X (archived)">{{cite web|title =Nee Sous X |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151015065753/http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/chroniques/nathalie-petrowski/201504/30/01-4865793-nee-sous-x-ou-presque.php|website=La Presse|accessdate = 2015-10-19}}</ref><ref name="birth1">{{cite web|title=Allie X tweets birth date (no year)|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151003195029/https:/twitter.com/alliexxxxandra/status/97120196334071808|website=Allie X Twitter|accessdate = 2015-10-19}}</ref>

And add her place of birth:

| birth_place              = [[Oakville, Ontario]], Canada <ref name="oakville">{{cite web| title= Allie Hughes May Be The Next Maria | accessdate= November 9, 2015| url=http://www.insidehalton.com/whatson-story/2929434-oakville-s-allie-hughes-may-be-the-next-maria/}}</ref>

SanctuaryX (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@SanctuaryX: There is something wrong with your first citation template. I've added the birth place. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The birth date line cannot be added as it is noted above. It includes the full date of birth which is not in the sources. It can say 1985 using the lapresse link without the archived part. The article is still available on the website. Please note that the article is in French. Karst (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ: @Karst: I fixed the template for the date. It is in it though isn't it? Her Twitter gives the date of the post and she says it's the following Sunday I believe. Anyway, I just noticed I left that citation out on accident. I have fixed it. Also, the archiving is pre-emptive.SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 22:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Using a combination of twitter and an article to deduct her age is perhaps WP:OR. Karst (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The DOB guideline does say "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object," though. And apparently original research does not apply to this. " To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 15:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

By the absolute letter of the guideline, this would be WP:OR, but I think in this case it's easily demonstrable that this is harmless. If we want to be insistent about only including the date if it's published in full in sources, then so be it, just add the year. In the meantime, the article is no longer protected, so I'm closing the edit request. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Image?

Allie X in 2013 at the Canadian Film Centre 25th anniversary celebration

I'm hoping this will be a non-controversial pair of edits to clearly enhance the page. Could an admin add this image of the subject to the article infobox, and a link to the subject's Wikimedia Commons category to the bottom? The necessary edits will be:

1. To the infobox form at the top of the article:

{{Infobox musical artist
| name                     = Allie X
| image                    = Allie X at CFC 25th Anniversary Celebration in LA.jpg
| caption                  = Allie X in 2013 at the [[Canadian Film Centre]] 25th anniversary celebration

2. To the bottom of the article (would go in the External links section, if there was one):

{{commonscat}}

Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice picture. Should probably wait for consensus from other editors though. Feel free to reactivate later. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Good find. I waited to comment after it had gone through a license review on Commons. It appears to have passed that, so as far as I'm concerned it can be added. Karst (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! However, so sorry, but I didn't notice that the infobox already had another line in it at the bottom:

| caption                  =Allie X performing at The Drake, 2015 

That seems to be overwriting the correct caption which was added above it. Could you please remove the 2015 caption line, so the correct caption line works? --GRuban (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. CIreland (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

AFD notice

There is currently an AFD running for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allie X (2nd nomination). There needs to be an AFD template on the page. Thanks, shoy (reactions) 18:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Kevin Gorman — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Link to "Catch"

In the lead, could a link be made to Catch (Allie X song)? Specifically:

After moving to the United States, she released the song "Catch," which reached the number 55 spot on the Canadian Billboard Hot 100.

to

After moving to the United States, she released the song "[[Catch (Allie X song)|Catch]]", which reached the number 55 spot on the Canadian Billboard Hot 100.

Thanks. clpo13_(talk) 19:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I second this; these inter-wiki links were removed because of the ongoing content/conduct dispute.SanctuaryX (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

A neutrality tag has been applied to this article as a drive-by tagging. Will the tagger please explain and discuss on this talk page? If the tagger does not explain and discuss, the tag may be removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears Zpeopleheart is insisting on holding the article hostage with the {{POV}} tag, objecting to the weight of positive reviews used as references ([1], see edit summary). They say they added one "negative" reference, but I can't find the edit where they did so, all they seem to be doing is removing references, stripping simple biographical info and calling it fluff, and repeatedly trying to blank the article. There isn't anything within the article which presents a "glowing" image of the singer, just neutrally worded info and the usual tidbits we find in these articles. With respect, the only POV here seems to be Zpeopleheart's "I don't like it" attitude, and as such I endorse immediate removal of the tag. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Remove {{POV}} tag from top of article. As above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if the article was rolled back to before all his tendentious edits and then all the content requests on this talk page re-added; approximately this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allie_X&oldid=686737640. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 18:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the tag can be removed. The roll-back would re-introduce many controversial issues already discussed above. I think the current template with the sources is perhaps the best to work from as it went through AfD twice. Karst (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree to remove POV tag there are seven reviews 6 are positive and one negative about flailing arms and such. I suggest we need more views about this. Perhaps someone should open an RFC to gain some other editors views. Zpeopleheart (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with there being an imbalance between positive and negative opinions in an article given that nothing is being intentionally omitted. Maybe there just aren't that many negative reviews of her music. clpo13_(talk) 23:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There aren't really any negative reviews or I would have added them. Removing positive reviews to counteract the minimal negativities is just wrong. In addition to all of this, you keep making this statement on the wrong article too. She isn't music. She's a person. There are no reviews of her music on this page. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 01:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• There is no obligation to add negative reviews if none can be found. There is consensus here (everyone except Zp and W17) that the POV tag should be removed, just as there were 2 snow keeps for the 2 afds. POV would apply if there were some well-documented controversy and only one side was mentioned. Oculi (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Closed edit request. Page is no longer protected and tag has been removed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruption

• Hi @WordSeventeen, SanctuaryX, and Zpeopleheart: - I protected this article and related articles due to a set of circumstances involving the three of you. Sooner or later, the protection will wear off. The point of the protection is to allow the three of you to work out your differences in a civil, collegial atmosphere - or to at least try to. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about best practices/guidelines/policies.

Once the protection wears off, please be aware that continued disruptive behavior is likely to result in blocks or other sanctions, and that you won't like whatever ends up happening if any sort of sanction is required. Please try to reach consensus on this talk page before making any major changes (let alone redirects) to any of the articles. Specifically, it would be wonderful if you could:

• Follow WP:No personal attacks, and follow WP:Civility to the best of your ability.
• Do not editwar, and keep in mind that three reverts is not an entitlement - in a situation like this, you can be blocked for editwarring even if you didn't breach WP:3rr
• Please use processes like Wikipedia:Requested moves and WP:AFD as appropriate.
• WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, and similar noticeboards will likely be of significant use to you, especially in gathering third party opinions.
• Please note that taking the above advice is an awfully good idea for you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

RFC

Should the sentence with one reference about AllieX being Soprano or not be included or not included zt this time. The earlier consensus was to exclude the referring to the artist as soprano. WordSeventeen (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)