Talk:Grace VanderWaal

Accessdates

Accessdates are only useful and helpful when the link is accessed long after its publication date. If an article is published today, you don't need an accessdate unless you access it next year. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ssilvers, I'm going by the template instuctions: accessdates "should be used for links to news articles on commercial websites (these can change from time to time, even if they are also published in a physical medium)." You are the one who is edit-warring; I am the one who is following instructions. —ATS 🖖 Talk 19:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the templates are a crutch for editors to use as a checklist. They are not required by WP:CITE. But since you have insisted on the use of template cites in this article, I'm not going to waste my time fighting them. Nevertheless, don't be a robot: accessdates are only useful and helpful when the link is accessed long after its publication date. If the date you are citing the article is shortly after publication, accessdates have no purpose and are simply redundant. Also, your failure to come to the Talk page the first time you were requested to do so per WP:BRD and your reversion, again, of my removal of the redundancies was most certainly edit warring. Note: template instructions are not Wikipedia guidellines (even if you had correctly interpreted them). -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me be clear: you are attempting to enforce your personal opinion of a parameter's usefulness in a living encyclopedia—in which cited sources can change at any moment—in direct contravention of that parameter's stated purpose within the templates' instructions. This is not a content dispute and, therefore, not an edit war—at least, not on my part. My interpretation is correct; accessdates are recommended and are not redundant in the slightest, and if you don't restore them, I will. The end. —ATS 🖖 Talk 19:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

ATS is absolutely correct. Access dates are quite important. His explanation is spot on. John from Idegon (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Meantime, I apologize for my tone. Certain characterizations can get my dander up ... —ATS 🖖 Talk 22:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Birthplace

She was born in Lenexa, as the Kansas City Star already says, if you would read it more carefully (it states at the beginning of the article that she is a "Lenexa native"). Here is an additional source that confirms this fact: [1]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"Lenexa native Grace VanderWaal..." does not mean "born in Lenexa". The KC Star specifically says VanderWaal "was born in the Kansas City area ... to David and Tina VanderWaal, who lived in Lenexa." The Hollywood Life bio does not include a byline or anything else that demonstrates it's been properly vetted. Unless Ssilvers can produce something better, this must be reverted per BLP, OR and specificaly SYNTH. —ATS 🖖 Talk 22:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"Lenexa native" most certainly does mean that she was born in Lenexa. The city of Lenexa says so too: [2]. Also Hollywoodlife.com is a perfectly good and well-respected entertainment source with a well-respected editor, Bonnie Fuller. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That is not what the tweet says, Ssilvers. To use myself as an example, I was born in one Orange County, California, city, then taken home to the next city north by my parents. I am a "native" of the latter who was born in the former. Your edit violates SYNTH until and unless you can find a WP:RS (and a Hollywood Life bio is not, in this case—Fuller and her staff use bylines for news stories) that says "born in Lenexa" because it's required by our policies to overrule the KC Star piece. —ATS 🖖 Talk 22:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Meantime, a Google search for "grace vanderwaal" and "born in lenexa" turns up the same two results it did a few days ago: a separate KC Star story that links to Vanderwaal's, and the not-demonstrably-vetted HL bio. —ATS 🖖 Talk 22:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this subject somewhere about 4 years ago although I don't recall where. I contributed to it if you want to look through my contributions. Legal place of birth is rather useless information for an encyclopedia. I would not have a problem with listing the town she came home from the hospital to as her birthplace. I was born in Gary Indiana but the only time I ever slept there was the three days I was in the hospital at my birth. Unless I'm filling out a legal document that must match my birth certificate, I list the city I came home to as my birthplace. As soon as you link KC as her birthplace, she's gonna get put in a notable list for there. If I were to be notable I'd object highly to being added to the notable list for Gary. - John from Idegon (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, John. I would have no problem with removing altogether the birth_place = parameter from the IB, but we cannot (stating the obvious) violate the very cornerstone of an encyclopedia within the text. Also (again stating the obvious), as a living encyclopedia we can replace the now-most reliable data with anything more reliable if/when it occurs. —ATS 🖖 Talk 00:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Family dogs

Per policy and this essay, I've deleted this sentence. Please discuss here before considering restoration. —ATS 🖖 Talk 23:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Names of siblings

I have removed the names of Grace VanderWaal's siblings, per WP:BLPNAME, which states "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." The policy states that addition of these names is "subject to editorial discretion". It is important to protect the privacy of non-notable children. If an editor feels strongly that these names be included, this should be discussed. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Magnolia677: BLPNAME also states, "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." It is my assertion that these names can, if not should, be included due to the wide dissemination—and especially so in Olivia's case—of her siblings' names. —ATS 🖖 Talk 00:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@ATS: - You may have misunderstood that passage of policy. The "private individual" being referred to is the topic of the article, not the siblings of the topic of the article. Please read the next paragraph and this will be clear. Policy specifically addresses an intent to protect the privacy of non-notable children. Many editors, myself included, feel strongly about this. Wikimedia Commons also specifically addresses the privacy needs of non-notable children. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I had read it through, Magnolia677, and my argument was further based on the fact that the "names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject (emphasis mine)." Brother and sister are "significant family members", to my way of thinking—and, again, especially so given how VanderWaal has repeatedly referred to Olivia as her best friend. Meantime, I believe my read of the first paragraph, which included, "When deciding whether to include a name ... consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value (emphasis mine)" is true to the intent of the policy. —ATS 🖖 Talk 00:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't once mention "VanderWaal has repeatedly referred to Olivia as her best friend." Let's get the input of other editors about adding the names of children to this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Not the article, but just about everywhere else (). Meantime, I certainly don't mind additional input. —ATS 🖖 Talk 01:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As her parents' awareness of how gigantic a thing fame is increases, you'll see much less discussion of the sibs. In any case, what does a reader understand from "she has X siblings named a, b, c and d" that they don't understand from "she has X siblings?" If you don't know a non notable person, their name is inconsequential. And yes sources have used the kids names. That does not mean we have to. We have a far deeper penetration than any single source. Err on the side of privacy for all non notables. To not do so for minors is IMO irresponsible. John from Idegon (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Both siblings' names have been mentioned extensively in news articles, and both sibs have been shown on TV and involved in social media. No privacy is lost by our mention of their names in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this edit to remove two names by Magnolia677 is desirable. The issue has played out on many articles. For cases like Barack Obama, the notability is so extreme that the children (as well as Bo and Sunny!) become sufficiently notable to name (but no article). Readers learn nothing about the subject of this article by seeing the names of the siblings and standard procedure is to omit them as they play no part in the subject's notability. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External Links

I see that there has been a disagreement about external links in this article. It is customary to include an external link section with a limited number of helpful links. Per wp:el, "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." In this case, the links selected do appear to me to be minimal, meritable and particularly relevant to the article. The first link is to VanderWaal's official Youtube page. This is customary for a singer. The other four links are videos of some of VanderWaal's most important performances. The first two are from the official America's Got Talent Youtube channel and have been viewed a total of nearly fifty million times, so they are meritable. The third one is a cover of a song from VanderWaal's Youtube channel, which has the largest number of views of any video on her channel. The last one is a video taken by an audience member at VanderWaal's live performance at Planet Hollywood on October 28, 2016. The posting of such a video on Youtube would not violate copyright principles, as no copyrighted recording is being reproduced. Therefore, I believe that the links given are minimal in number, helpful to the reader, meritable, and relevant to the article. Somambulant1 (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Somambulant1. I am the user who added the links earlier today, and I believe they are links that many readers will find helpful and that they comply with WP:EL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AGT videos are from its official channel, and I did not check sufficiently; this was my error. That said, you correctly note per EL (and LAYOUT), that this should be minimal, meritable and relevant; I am of the strong belief that only her audition video applies and anything else piles on, violating EL. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

What constitutes "minimal" is subjective. I do not feel that two additional examples of VanderWaal's performances violate "minimal" and instead would contribute to the article. Somambulant1 (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that. I think the four videos would be about right to give readers a good overview of VanderWaal's singing and songwriting style. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Disagree completely. In a theoretical GAN, "Why is this here?" would have no answer. Meantime, the AGT audition and the PH video constitute the "two additional performances" noted by Somnambulant; literally everything else needed to aid the viewer is included—many with videos—in the provided refs and, therefore, anything additional does not aid the reader. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple parts of WP:EL here that have not been mentioned. We generally do not link to ssubpages of sites already linked. If the videos in question are already in her "official channel", there is no need to link them separately. On another point, are any of these links under a compatible license? If not, my read of EL says we cannot use them. Am I interpreting that correctly? John from Idegon (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any certainty within ELNO or ELNEVER; I would very much appreciate the input of someone more experienced than we appear to be and certainly than am I. That said, the subpages issue is what my explanation was missing, and thank you. (Edit: meantime, I'm with you: still not convinced we can link the other two anyway, per the licensing issue. Use within a citation would be fine, but as an EL is really suspect.) —ATS 🖖 talk 21:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I was paged via the external links talk page.

The Official YouTube channel is empty, at least when viewed from Canada, so it makes no sense to include at this point.

The two linked videos, unless already linked in a reference, appear fine as well. Not sure what other links were there, but it seems fine as of now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz: they were added to External links in addition to inline citations. Her main YouTube page is not "empty" from where I am, unless you meant "devoid of content". In any event, I've linked directly to the vids page instead. Thanks for chiming in. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

(Responding to the ELN request):

I can't think of similar articles. I see no reason to link individual videos from her channel when the channel is linked. Short-term, a few videos should be fine. Long-term, I expect she'll have an organized internet presence. --Ronz (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

If the links are used as references, ELNO is quite clear that we don't use them as external links. John from Idegon (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Folks, lighten up! This is a very reasonable article and I see no evidence of puffery or promotion. Ssilvers (who added the links?) is an excellent editor who writes great content. Put all this energy into cleaning up bad articles and abuse from SPAs. In due course (say 12 months), the situation can be revisited, and by that time there will probably be a working official page so the individual links can be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

"Ssilvers (who added the links?) is an excellent editor who writes great content." So is Walter Görlitz. So is John from Idegon. So is Ronz. So am I. So are you. Somehow I was under the impression we were discussing content, not editors. Unless you see something I don't? —ATS 🖖 talk 01:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The point is that WP:EL is a guideline and it is not worth going to battle over a couple of youtube links under the circumstances that I outlined. Enforcing standard procedures is all well and good, but it should be done with judgement. If those wanting the links removed (why?) are correct, they will be removed eventually. Meanwhile, they are not damaging the project. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

... which is why there's a discussion, is it not? To reach consensus and avoid "going to battle"? You seem to be suggesting that someone else's judgment, at some unspecified point in the future, will be more valid than the participants of this discussion. How insulting! —ATS 🖖 talk 06:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The point is that WP:NOT is one of our pillars. And WP:EL is including many reasons why YouTube links are not the best. We have reasons not to include them here as well. We have an article that is extensively discussing the performances, so links to the performances themselves is questionable expanding on the text. Moreover, the subject of the page is Grace, not her performance on the show, making these links somewhat indirect. I think it is very right to have this discussion here, before adding the links, and see whether they really merit inclusion against policy ánd guideline. I am not so sure if they merit inclusion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the links added by Ssilvers are useful additions to the article and totally relevant to the content and therefore should remain. Jack1956 (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Good job finding the official website. That makes the YouTube channel redundant, so I've removed it. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

SOAP problems

I think the external link dispute is part a larger problem, NOT violations, mostly SOAP. (diffs to follow) --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• [3] This is simply verifying a key fact of the biography. If there is a source that demonstrates that indeed these songs are a key fact of her biography, then we should include it. Neither source demonstrates this though. The first was simply her YouTube channel, the second is a puff piece from before her AGT win. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I wonder if you did not throw out the baby with the SOAPwater, Ronz. That she uploads covers, in addition to originals, seems biographical and that fact, if otherwise unembellished, should stay, IMO. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't look for other sources, only at what was offered. Looks like we have some others to review below. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

VanderWaal sings cover versions of songs, in addition to her original songs, in live performances and has also uploaded many of them to her YouTube channel. It is hard to understand why we would omit this important fact from the article. Articles that mention various covers sung by WanderWaal include this, this (listing her "top 5" covers on YouTube, this, this (re: a live performance), this (also re: a live performance), this, this, this, this ("Imagine"), this ("All About that Bass"), this (same), just to name a few. Will someone else please restore the information with whichever ref(s) you think we should use to verify this information? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you please review your list, and either reduce it to sources that verify the proposed content in its entirety, or at least note the ones that do not so we can figure out why you might be listing them (eg fuse.tv) --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• [4] I disagree. Consistent with short EL section

Note that in both cases, the burden rests on the editors wishing to restore the material (WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and WP:ELBURDEN).

Given VanderWaal only very recent prominence, there's not much written about her, so it's easy to get carried away with the pr around her AGT appearance and win. BLP is an extremely strong policy that needs to be kept in mind at all times. And while EL is only a guideline, it's enforced extremely strongly because of how it relates to SOAP problems. --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Which songs she has covered is irrelevant, I agree, unless a purpose for their existence is inarguable. That said, I've restored the portion that I believe to be relevant and biographical, with the strongest source I've found therefor. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that, although certainly Hall of Fame magazine is no stronger than, say, Teen Vogue or the other news sources listed above. Indeed, Hall of Fame seems to rely, for this information, on the Design & Trend article that I cited! I think that Ronz misunderstands the purpose of the BLP rules: they are to protect living persons from libel, not to exclude important facts about their biographies or to prevent readers from accessing the most interesting information about them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@ATS: That works. Thanks!

I reviewed all the potential sources offered, and didn't find any that support something stronger or more detailed. She's a newly discovered musician, with a (rather disorganized) pr campaign behind her. Given her talent, I expect there will be much more to draw upon in the future.

misunderstands the purpose of the BLP rules You keep focusing on other editors. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Ssilvers: the D&T article is used by HoFMag only to cite the Instagram following; there's nothing within the D&T relative to cover versions of songs. I used HoF because I personally found it least impeachable.

Ronz: I will not speak to anyone's understanding of anything, but I would ask if you're applying SOAP correctly. My read of #4 shows it inapplicable, while #5—if applied against "she covered this song, and this song, and this song"—is iffy. Its purpose is to avoid self-promotion, and this certainly is not Miss VanderWaal promoting herself. Still, I believe "The channel also includes her cover versions ..." to be sufficiently expository.

—ATS 🖖 talk 19:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

This is the D&T article I cited, and I think it is clear that the HoF magazine article's listing of the cover versions is based on it. I have no problem with HoF, but why would you think that it is a stronger ref than blue-linked magazines cited above, or a real newspaper like The Journal News. I am simply pointing out that there are plenty of WP:Reliable sources, including the one I cited (and the one that you previously had cited!) and there was no justification for the deletion of the information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I cited the one I thought best served the purpose—"cover versions", plural—and I was going off your list above and didn't see TJN. If someone chose a "better" one for that purpose, I certainly would have no argument. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of SOAP is that Wikipedia not become a venue for promotion. BLP clearly states that articles like this should not have overly promotional tone or content. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

YouTube channel

I think it is essential to include a link to VanderWaal's YouTube channel, since what interests people most about VanderWaal is her performances. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I would note that her new official site is, at the moment, nothing but links to her socials. True, it's one extra click, but you can't miss it. —ATS 🖖 talk 07:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I have reinserted the link which is not redundant because VanderWaal's performances to date are mostly included on her YouTube channel, not on her official website, and that her YouTube videos and the America's Got Talent videos are the most interesting links about VanderWaal Jack1956 (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Her official site links to it, so it doesn't belong per the discussion above, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and WP:ELNO#1. Again, this need to emphasize her videos is SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that WP:ELBURDEN, mentioned above, applies here. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The External link to the YouTube channel is extremely helpful to any reader interested in this article, and therefore its insertion meets the requirements of WP:EL and WP:ELBURDEN. Somambulant1 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything promotional about this article or the inclusion of the link. The most important FACTs about VanderWaal, so far, are that she won AGT and that her YouTube videos are very popular. It would be misleading to fail to include the link in her article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the link to Grace's YouTube channel should stay. Most visitors to her page here will want a direct link to her own videos. UWS Guy (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can someone actually address the guidelines and policies directly? At this point, it's not clear if anyone has even read any of them.

ELMINOFFICIAL has an example almost exactly like this situation: More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation.

As I've pointed out, VanderWaal's web presence is disorganized. If her YouTube site linked to her main site, then it might be better short term. Last I checked, it didn't, and only her main site links to all the others. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that the inclusion of an external link to Grace's YouTube channel is a rare example addressed by WP:IAR "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I am restoring the page to the previous edit and I respectfully ask the editor who has reverted three times to please stop edit warring. Somambulant1 (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you've not provided a reason, just an assertion. I respectfully ask that you revert yourself per ELBURDEN, and make a case for inclusion. Given the quote above from ELMINOFFICIAL that describes this specific situation well, it would be a very good idea to identify how it might not apply in this case. --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I've limited my involvement for the past couple of days so that I may weigh the arguments and apply them to my own thinking. I agree with Somambulant1 that this is an IAR issue: does its presence help the reader? I believe it does. That said, one man's opinion:

• Official site – obvious yes
• YouTube channel – yes (YouTubers, in particular, may escape ELMINOFFICIAL with their visual depictions of artistic pursuits, as opposed to blog entries and tweets)
• AGT audition – good to have, but doesn't add anything
• "12 Stars" performance – adds nothing and may be an NFCC issue anyway; should go

—ATS 🖖 talk 19:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Invoking IAR without explaining how isn't helpful. The only "help" is removing a single click, which is directly addressed by ELMINOFFICIAL. Is there some other type of "help"?

I believe the direct link helps the reader given that her channel and videos are mentioned. It serves as a "further reading" of sorts.

So you are proposing just the official site and her YouTube channel? --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The AGT audition, with 43 million views, which embodies the performance that launched VanderWaal's career, is essential to the article. I would agree to compromise on removing the 12 Stars performance (even though I think it is a very good example of VanderWaal's post-AGT career so far and is definitely not an NFCC issue), leaving in (1) the YouTube channel, (2) the website and (3) the AGT audition. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The audition vid is not unhelpful, but it's not essential, either. Trying to approach this from a potential GAN, and given that this is licensed content despite being freely available, the question must be posed: does it offer the reader something they cannot get via the prose alone? My belief—and, again, one man's opinion—is that it does not. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I should mention that I would have no argument with the compromise. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I have brought dozens of articles to FA and GA over the past 10+ years on Wikipedia, have read and commented at numerous other FACs and GANs, and I have created several hundreds of articles. This restrictive view of ELs is, in my view, not consistent with the spirit of those rules and is not the way they are viewed by the best editors on Wikipedia, including those who work on WP:Featured Articles. I am pinging User:Ian Rose, who knows as much about WP:FA as anyone. Ian, can you comment here, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I would invite John and Jo-Jo Eumerus as well. I, among others I'm sure, would be happy to get the necessary clarity. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I have brought dozens of articles Seems like you are taking this all very personally, while not addressing the concerns here. If there's any wider consensus for any of your assertions here, you aren't offering any.

I did look through GA singer articles, and couldn't find a single one with a YouTube link in the External links section. If there are any at all, they're exceptional if not in need of removal. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Contesting a video link with WP:NFCC#1 seems rather flimsy; text is seldom a substitute for video content especially when you want to avoid excessive detail. Now, assuming that the videos are complying with third-party copyrights, what kind of material would the videos contribute? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't think offhand of what guidelines support this, but I hope we can agree that samples of an artists work should be included in their articles, if not available in related articles. Wikipedia tends not to include sound or video content directly, so there is a real need for external links in this case. Anyone disagree? --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The energy going into this is ridiculous. WP:EL is a guideline and this is an article on an undeveloped new artist so the normal procedures of removing puffery do not apply. Save the standard arguments for SPAs who are abusing Wikipedia, but this article does not need it. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it best to follow our policies and guidelines, especially in a BLP where we are required to do so. --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have tremendous respect for every editor who volunteers his/her time to make this encyclopedia better, and you are one of them, Johnuniq—but this argument is preposterous on numerous levels.

• The energy going into this is ridiculous.

True only if it is monopolizing that energy. Without supporting evidence, this is a leap in logic.

• WP:EL is a guideline

... based on WP:NOT and years of discussion and consensus.

• this is an article on an undeveloped new artist

... which does not mean we stop working together to make the best article we can.

• so the normal procedures of removing puffery do not apply

They always apply.

• Save the standard arguments ... this article does not need it

They all need it, or we fail the encyclopedia.

—ATS 🖖 talk 22:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

That is so impressive! However, I would suggest reading about guidelines and deciding if they must be followed, or whether occasional exceptions apply. Plonking cookie-cutter responses on talk pages is an indication of an inability to engage with issues and understand that going in hard is not always helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but you literally could not be more wrong. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinged by Sslivers. I'm not sure why there's still an argument here. A compromise seems to have been proposed to lose the 12 Stars video, which I tend to agree with given its amateurish quality, and keep the official site, the YouTube Channel and the AGT, all of which seem fine to me. I suggest just do it, and move on to other things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the suggestion by Ian Rose. Somambulant1 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

As am I. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

As am I. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

REPEATLINK, citation format - Concerns about AGF, especially in edit summaries

ATS, you accused me in an edit summary just now of failing to assume good faith. I think you *are* editing in good faith, but that you are stubborn and a mediocre editor. You have violated the letter and spirit of WP:OWN. I have done nearly all the research for this article. Nearly every footnote is to an article that I found and added. You have merely reformatted the article to suit your taste and insisted that the text and ref formatting must be done your way. That is classic WP:OWNership. I believe that you apply the rules mechanically, rather than in a way that helps readers and editors. You cherry pick language from rules and then apply it absolutely. For example, WP:REPEATLINK says that generally it is not helpful to repeat links, but that footnotes are among the things that *may* be linked (in addition to a link in the text) "if helpful for readers". It doesn't say that one *ought to* link them in the footnotes over and over again. In this case, you have linked Billboard magazine repeatedly in the footnotes, but it is distracting and unhelpful after the first time. Why is that so? WP:OLINK explains that "an excessive number of links" makes it "difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly." That is, if you look at a footnote where you have linked to the magazine, that link is not the important link in the footnote: the important link is to the source itself, so linking to the WP article about the publisher is distracting and not helpful. Similarly, as I noted before, you clutter up the footnotes with redundant dates, justifying this by reference, mechanically, to a template discussion! Obviously, you don't want to learn anything from me, but the best place to learn about balanced and nuanced editing is at FAC, where the best editors work on the highest quality articles. According to your user page, you have never been responsible for improving an article to the WP:Featured Article level. I strongly suggest that you read some FACs, and see how people deal with the letter *and spirit* of the guidelines there in order to write superior articles. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

How about we all WP:FOC?

As for the links, I am not clear on the value repeating them. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"I think you *are* editing in good faith, but that you are stubborn and a mediocre editor." Says it all, I think.

Your entire argument builds upon one thing, Ssilvers: that {{cite}}—the standard, and used almost exclusively in our best articles—is somehow inferior to manually replicating it. That I have no featured articles—yet—is a phony comparison you've manufactured specifically to debase my contributions. Or inflate your own. Or both. I reject this in toto, and correctly so.

Ronz has pointed out above that we should all focus on content. This is, is precisely, and is only, what I am doing. Simply put, if you leave a mess on an article on my watchlist, I am compelled to clean it up—and that is the limit of what you so stubbornly call OWNership.

—ATS 🖖 talk 19:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no rule that a particular template must or must not be used, and lots of good articles use one style, while others do it differently. Please speak to the substance of an issue and use matter-of-fact edit summaries that avoid inflaming issues. Johnuniq (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please speak to the substance of an issue and use matter-of-fact edit summaries that avoid inflaming issues. I assume you intend to rebuke more than one editor. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please drop the emoticons. If the intention is to reduce tension, it would be better to not comment at all. Johnuniq (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That it's delivered somewhat tongue-in-cheek does not affect the legitimacy of the sentiment. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to focus on content if you will avoid snarky edit summaries. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Negation: "If you use snarky edit summaries, I will violate Wikipedia policy."

Since I'm too mediocre to give a flying fuck, my explicit focus after this will be on content because I know my place in its creation. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

MSG halftime performance

ATS, you have deleted the cite that gives the date of the performance, November 6. Sometimes you need more than one source to verify all the necessary facts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ELs again

She's getting her online presence in order, I see no reason for any exceptions to EL, let alone rationale for adding more. I've removed the new one. Please follow WP:ELBURDEN in the meantime. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking it over closely, the only thing that stands out for me is that her official website is still just a placeholder that links to all her social media sites. If we deem her personal YouTube channel, or one of her other official sites as a better location to find out what she says about herself, I think that single exception would meet the intent of ELOFFICIAL, though it still contradicts WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You do not have consensus. You are edit warring about trivia. Leave it alone and something constructive to do. There is no deadline and if the link was ok yesterday, there is no mandate that it must be removed today. Johnuniq (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

VanderWaal has apparently begun posting performances to her new VEVO channel, as well as her original YouTube channel. This might confuse people who are are trying to find her performances. Perhaps, over time, she will choose just one for her performances, and then we can link to just one of them. In the meantime, to help our readers find them easily, we should link to both. Note, also, that there are a very small number of very helpful ELs on this article, so your continued resistance to helpful links is unwarranted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And we've already discussed this, and consensus is against adding more. We made a compromise that goes against general consensus to leave the YouTube site as the single exception. If you want to start over, let's start with one per general consensus. If you want to build on past consensus, acknowledge what's already been said to work in that direction, acknowledge that you'd like to change consensus, and try not dismiss everything that doesn't support your personal position on the matter. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I completely reject your premise. This is a new and important link. The only editor who wants to delete it is you. Tagging the article, when other editors disagree with you is unconstructive and provocative, but you already knew that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I support the addition of the VEVO channel link. This is where videos from the new album will be posted, thereby making the link helpful to readers. Somambulant1 (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Consensus has been rejected, and editors appear uninterested in following any policies or guidelines that do not support their preferred version. Will editors agree to follow our behavioral policies and guidelines for resolving this type of dispute? --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please find something useful to do other than busybody here. The problems that might exist in this article do not need your attention. That's how Wikipedia works. If the situation is as catastrophic as you appear to think, someone will fix it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The only person rejecting consensus is you, Ronz. Your behavior here has been disruptive, and your editing is unconstructive. There is no current dispute to resolve, so please stop trying to stir up trouble. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

So no response about the content? No response about the relevant policies and guidelines? No recognition of past consensus and how we got there? Then there's no consensus beyond personal opinions.

I believe we had consensus to create an exception from EL for the initial YouTube channel per Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#YouTube_channel. I even found some weak rationale to support it [5].

Here web presence is evolving. Her main website is now a promotion for her album, retaining all the links to her social media sites. Her initial, "personal", YouTube channel continues to act more as her main website than any other. The YouTube Vevo channel has all of one video not on her personal channel.

I don't see any reason to change from our last point of consensus. No one is arguing that the one unique video on the Vevo channel is important. She's clearly favoring her personal channel, so the Vevo channel should be removed per Perhaps, over time, she will choose just one for her performances, and then we can link to just one of them. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, it is *far* too early to reach any conclusion about this. We will not be able to determine this for many months. Again, please stop trying to stir up trouble here. You really seem hysterical about this article, with your multiple pointless edits today and last week. Really, it would be much better for Wikipedia and everyone here if you unwatched this article and never came back. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

We can always change the external links in the future if something changes. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The statements that the "YouTube Vevo channel has all of one video not on her personal channel" and "one unique video on the Vevo channel" are not accurate. As of now, there are three VEVO videos, with a combined view count of 8 million, and none of the three is on her personal Youtube channel. Also, the statement that "she's clearly favoring her personal channel" is not accurate. In the past month, the same number of videos have been posted on each channel. I continue to support having here the links to both channels. Somambulant1 (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the content.

I've been looking at all the sections of each YouTube channel, and from that perspective I believe my observations are correct:

The YouTube VEVO channel has a total of three videos: "Grace VanderWaal - I Don't Know My Name (Lyric)", "Grace VanderWaal - Perfectly Imperfect", and "Grace Vanderwaal - Clay (Live from The Tonight Show (Starring Jimmy Fallon))"

The main YouTube channel has 30 videos in the video subsection, the first of which is a 25 second video promoting the "Grace VanderWaal - I Don't Know My Name (Lyric)" video. It has comments in the discussion subsection. It has two lists in the playlists section (one with the first two videos from the VEVO channel). In the home subsection the same two videos are listed again.

That's why I said the VEVO channel has only one unique video.

The 32 videos, the playlists, and the discussion all show that the main YouTube channel is overwhelming favored. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact that links and playlists posted on the personal channel direct viewers to the VEVO channel does not support your conclusion that the personal channel is overwhelming favored. If anything, it indicates the opposite. Videos uploaded to the personal channel, with the exception of the most recent one which promotes the VEVO channel, were posted prior to the launch of the VEVO channel, and the fact remains that the three videos uploaded to the VEVO channel (now with more than 8.5 million views) have not been uploaded to the personal channel. Somambulant1 (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Update: As of December 2, four additional videos, songs from the newly-released recording, have been uploaded to the VEVO channel, for a total of seven VEVO videos. None of these has been uploaded to the personal channel. A short preview video for the song "Clay" has been uploaded to the personal channel, directing viewers to watch the full video on the VEVO channel. Somambulant1 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The videos are directly accessible from the main YouTube site. Which sites they are directly uploaded to is completely irrelevant, which is why I didn't mention it. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Quickly glancing at the website updates: I see five new videos on her main YouTube site, three on her Vevo site, two unique to her main. That's 34 unique to her main, one on her Vevo. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ronz: "Quickly glancing at the website updates: I see five new videos on her main YouTube site, three on her Vevo site, two unique to her main." In an effort to understand your logic and your method of counting, I request that you please provide a list, by video name and upload date, the videos that you consider to be "new videos" on each of the two channels. Somambulant1 (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that the two most recent videos on the main channel are short teasers for the full-length videos on the VEVO channel. The VEVO channel has six new, unique videos. Note that the music videos on the VEVO channel are from the new EP recording, while the music videos on her main channel are live performances. The songs on the EP have been re-orchestrated, so they are absolutely unique and different from the ones on the main site. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If editors want to follow my previous example and create a list of differences, maybe finding a clearer way of doing so, I think it would be very helpful.

We no longer talking about which site the videos are being hosted, but where they are accessible from, correct? --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Civility -- attacks in Edit summaries.

ATS, I was just trying to be polite. I thought you had begun to try to put our disputes behind you, but you continue to attack me in the edit summaries. I think that the article would be better off if you did not do so. Ssilvers (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I will consider politeness if and only if you admit your actions as outlined in my previous edit summary were wrong and reductive, and apologize for them. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I apologize if I hurt your feelings, and I will try to be polite and kind to you in the future, whether or not you extend the same courtesy to me. I believe that you are editing in good faith, even though I disagree with some of your actions and statements in connection with this article. Your edit summary unfortunately misunderstands my comments above. I guess we'll have to disagree on some things, but that should not stop us from editing together effectively on this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You did not "hurt [my] feelings", you belittled my abilities and contributions. Nevertheless, I accept, and I will offer in return the same courtesy offered me. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Citation format

Since I have done the bulk of the research for this article, I think we should use manual citation formatting, which I prefer for its simplicity and flexibility, instead of the cite templates that ATS prefers. I am happy to do the conversions. What do others think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

If—and only if—the consensus is to switch back, I will honor it. If consensus is to let stand future additions, I will honor it. However, to revert without consensus is actionable under WP:EW. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I have re-read CITEVAR and I no longer object to any restoration of manual formatting. That said, also per CITEVAR, I must make known my objection to any omission of "Retrieved [date]" as this is a useful tool in our site-wide effort to prevent link rot. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

If the retrieval date is the same as, or near in time to, the publication date, how do you think stating it could prevent link rot? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It allows the reader/editor to confirm last access at a glance, because some changes over time are certain. The "wait, this hasn't been checked since ..." response helps you, me, and other editors maintain accuracy and, therefore, prevent link rot. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The document could not have been checked *before* the publication date, so if the access date is the same as, or not long after the publication date, then the additional date would not appear to add any further information useful to help editors prevent link rot. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're missing the purpose by living in the present, which a living encyclopedia cannot do. Someone accessing the article, say, a year from now who sees publishing dates but no access dates has no idea how much time has passed since those references were checked for maintenance, never mind accuracy. Say a year from today I see that a source was published on 13 October 2016 and retrieved on 22 November 2017. I can see at a glance that the source is all but certainly valid. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that if there is a *recent* access date that is much later than the publication date, it can be helpful. But that does not address my objection. The only reason the redundant dates bother me is because they bloat the ref and makes the ref list slower going, and they also beg the question of why the editors would do such a thing as to add an access date identical to, or shortly after the publication date. So I think it degrades the quality of the article. I would certainly have no objection to anyone adding an access date when checking one of these refs next year. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The only reason the redundant dates bother me is because they bloat the ref and makes the ref list slower going: it's been argued that the templates do that; this would be valid only in a very large article with hundreds of sources, otherwise "slower going" is negligible if existent.

they also beg the question of why the editors would do such a thing as to add an access date identical to, or shortly after the publication date: because a notice of the last date of access is a notice of the last date of access, regardless of when. Certainly, its presence may seem redundant if, say, it's seen only days after a source is published, but time passes quickly. I've seen sources die literally within a few days after I'd last checked them—which is particularly frustrating when attempting to promote an article, never mind in general furtherance of the encyclopedia.

This is an exceptionally useful tool that requires but a few words. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

That does not explain how it's useful. If something was published on October 1, 2016, and the accessdate is October 5, 2016, and you look at the ref on November 2, 2017, then the accessdate, only four days after publication, does not give you any more information than the publication date. The publication date is, in such a case, your "notice of the last date of access". The access date does not add anything unless some time has passed so that the access date is significantly more recent than the publication date. [ADD: Note that WP:PLRT, which you cited above, identifies access dates as optional]. Well, we are repeating ourselves, and I doubt that I have persuaded you. You certainly have not persuaded me, so unless other editors weigh in, we'll have to accept that there is no consensus on the matter. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So it would seem. Be mindful, then, that I will add access dates as I deem necessary. (Edit re "optionally": "If the link goes bad, this added information can help a future Wikipedian, either editor or reader, locate a new source for the original text, either online or a print copy.") —ATS 🖖 talk 00:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You are misreading WP:PLRT. The "added information" that can help locate a new source means the following: "...avoid bare URLs by recording as much of the exact title, author, publisher and date of the source as possible. Optionally, also add the accessdate." Of course, the title, author, publisher and publication date are the most essential information that might "help a future Wikipedian ... locate a new source." An accessdate should only be added optionally where it might help locate a new source, and obviously that would never happen when it is the same date as the publication date. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe I am misreading anything, though my explanation is inadequate upon reread; still, that's really irrelevant at this point. When I believe it's useful—and same-as-publication-date access tells an editor that it's been that long since it's been checked, and maybe it's time to check it again, even if it's only been a few days, which has always been my point—I will add it. The end. —ATS 🖖 talk 04:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Marching band; Rolling Stone interview

Grace has said in a recent Rolling Stone interview that the marching band is the *high school's* marching band (not middle school). I don't know how that worked, but she was very clear about it. The interview video is embedded in today's Rolling Stone article at 8:15. She also notes in that interview that her sister Olivia did the artwork for her album cover. How should we cite the embedded video? Also, should we mention Meghan Trainor in the musical influences list? She has mentioned her before. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Having two Youtube sites is nothing worth noting

I cannot imaging how having two Youtube sites is nothing worth noting in an encyclopedia article about anyone. Please provide independent sources if you feel otherwise.

In the meantime, please respect BLP's requirement, "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I have rewritten the bit. Ronz, every respect, I fail to see why you insist on removing the blurb as opposed to, say, being bold and rewriting it yourself. If someone kept doing this to something you'd written, you'd consider it disruptive, would you not? —ATS 🖖 talk 19:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

If someone kept doing this to something you'd written No. I don't own the content, and have no personal stake in it. I try to follow our policies and guidelines, and expect others to do the same while working cooperatively with other editors. BLP requires such content be removed. I didn't follow BLP at first, and tagged the content rather than removing it. After the problems were not addressed, I decided to simply follow BLP as is required.

I do not consider following BLP or our other policies and guidelines as being disruptive.

rewriting it yourself See WP:CHOICE. I don't think the content belongs. Neither do you judging by the rewrite, where you removed the most contentious part of it. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the content belongs. Neither do you judging by the rewrite, where you removed the most contentious part of it. My point precisely—what was stopping you from the same action? The nuke-it-all, baby-with-the-bathwater approach was more evocative of IDONTLIKEIT than of BLP/OR. There is literally no reason what is there now should not be there; in fact, per LEAD, I would argue that some such summary must be there. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC

WP:CHOICE says, "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians".

BLP requires removal. Sorry you don't like it. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

1. FOC includes debate on merits of content.
2. CHOICE does not mean "I don't have to fix this when the 'undo' button is so much easier."
3. You need to go re-read WP:BLP. Desperately. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

FOC, CHOICE, and BLP are all very clear. I've no idea what you might think supports interpretations that justify your comments here.

I don't have to fix this when the 'undo' button is so much easier. I've no idea who you think you're quoting. BLP says exactly how to address BLP problems. There's nothing to "fix".

You repeatedly tell me what I need to do, and your rationale as far as you've explained yourself involves ignoring FOC, CHOICE, and BLP. At this point, I don't see how this is anything beyond harassment. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to leave you alone—if you'll stop pretending IDONTLIKE it is supported by FOC, CHOICE and BLP. End of conversation. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you are considering to stop harassing me. Please just do so without conditions. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Vevo link

The Vevo link that was excluded as an external link (Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#ELs_again), has been repeatedly inserted in the article body. This appears to be nothing other than blatant spam, an external link repeatedly being added for the purpose of promoting it's content. It's not a source for anything, so WP:REFSPAM seems to describe it accurately other than it's just this one article. Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing everything, and you are wrong again. Your edits show that you don't know anything about this subject, including your confusion about the name of the EP, vs. the names of the songs. The official VEVO link is the correct and efficient choice to show, with *one* ref, that all of these lyrics videos for each of the songs exist. It is asserting nothing more than their existence, and it is not promotional in the least. It appears that either you don't understand what promotional means, or perhaps you are not a native English speaker, and are confused by Wikipedia's guidelines. Ronz, your edits on this article since the beginning of your editing here have been unconstructive and are just a massive waste of other editors' time. For example, in this case, because of your objections to the Vevo link, an editor spent time to find and add individual references for each of the five lyrics videos. Another editor disagreed with that approach and converted them into the hidden comment that we currently have under the VEVO ref, and which you unconstructively have made a mess of more than once, and caused the other editors of the article to spend more time agreeing on. If you would stop interfering, having that long hidden comment would not be necessary at all, and we could simply rely on the perfectly acceptable and very efficient VEVO ref. Your edits simply make it more difficult for everyone to work on this article and focus on content as we continue to expand it to follow this subject's fast-moving career. Instead, we spend all this time arguing with you about your misunderstanding of the guidelines and your repeated unconstructive edits. Your edits, taken together, constitute vandalism. For the good of the Wikipedia project, I again ask you to unwatch this article and stop editing here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

With regards to including a VEVO reference or link, I am unable to understand why there are continued repeated objections (and edits) by Ronz. Looking at a sampling of articles about pop musicians, I see that in many cases there is a reference or link to VEVO. Why has it been necessary to expend so much energy on this issue, with this article? One editor seems insistent on repeatedly making it an issue. It isn't helpful. It has consumed time that could have been spent on worthwhile matters. The explanation provided above by Ssilvers is clear and direct, and I am in agreement. Somambulant1 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Full agreement. Voluntarily or otherwise, the disruption must stop. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no way to engage with someone like Ronz. Just revert per consensus at talk, and reply to comments with a brief "as previously discussed". Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)