Talk:Jeffree Star

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edit request on 4 May 2012[edit]

Jeffree is a trans woman. The pronoun used to address her should be feminine (her/she) Lyric95 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Lyric95 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Wikipedia does follow an individual's stated gender pronoun preference (see Identity), but only if referenced and verifiable by a Reliable Source (RS) which quotes the individual. Social media outlets MySpace, Twitter, or YouTube are not sufficient. The references I checked said 'crossdresser', etc., but no sourced gender pronoun preference. Dru of Id (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The consensus among Jeffree's Facebook fans is that he should be referred to as "he", but they also use words normally used for females, like "beautiful" and "bitch" (usually meant affectionately). He might call himself "one of the girls", but I suspect that his gender identity is actually male. He has said that he's more interested in breaking the barrier between man and woman than being one or the other. Mcavic (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeffree Star has said in numerous interviews and appearances that he is explicitly *not* a trans woman, but rather identifies as a gay man (who occasionally sleeps with women).♥GlamRock♥ 18:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source stating this preference?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
19:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Or a source for the addition of Star having worked with Nicki Minaj? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Information from 2011 onward?[edit]

Currently, the article says nothing of Star's career after 2010 and his Beauty Killer album. Since he has released several singles, a music video, signed to a major label, and has plans of releasing a new extended play soon, shouldn't this information be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethjohnson95 (talkcontribs) 20:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Omit November 15, 1985 birth date[edit]

I think we should omit the November 15, 1985 birth date at this point. The first posting of the birth date was this on May 29, 2012 by Shivertimbers433, and the next edit was on June 2, 2012 by Jsteininger[1] who changed the year from 1985 to 1987. The first posting of the birth date doesn't appear to be supported by a reliable source and, as OlYeller noted,[2] there is no indication that the website linked is showing "the" Jeff Steininger of this article, just "a" Jeff Steininger. Shivertimbers433 then added a second reference,[3] which does't appear to support the listed born date. Two other editors looking at the reference thought that it supported the November 15, 1985 birth date, so I might be missing something. Jsteininger then added a link to Jeffree Star's twitter account that has Jeffree Star confirming November 15 as his birthday,[4] but that doesn't help. There's no dispute over the November 15 date, (but we don't have a Wikipedia reliable source for that either). The dispute is whether he was born in 1985 or 1987. This article says he was 22 years old on the date November 21, 2008. If he was born November 15, 1985, he would be 23? Of course, the article could have been written before November 15, 2008 and only published on November 21, 2008. He was 20 on the date May 22, 2007.[5] Two days later, was 21 on the date May 24, 2007.[6] Another article says he was 21 on the date November 2, 2007. He 23 on the date December 8, 2010.[7] He was 23 on the date December 9, 2010.[8] Not sure if this helps but another article says "Jeffree Star started off as a make-up artist at the age of 15." At around age 18, Star put a couple of videos online for fun.[9] I don't think we can confirm his birtdate from any of the above sources. Some of the info for case numbers 20235CM, CY298836, CM46498PEA, and 46563KH at is available. His birth date is 11/15/1985 per the court records, but WP:BLPPRIMARY say public records for date of birth are not viable as sources for articles. Since we have no Wikipedia reliable sources for the November 15th date or either 1985 or 1987 year, the issue is over contentious material, and a survey of the reliable sources above put his age as varying, seems best to omit date of birth from the article, including metadata and categories, at this point in time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest leaving the November 15 and remove the year. and maybe include a notation that a reliable source has to be presented. Insomesia (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


The article has been edited heavily by the subject of the article. He has added claims such as that videos of his have "gone viral" when there's no indication that this is the case. The editor has been asked several times to communicate with others but refuses and continues to edit the page regularly.

Recently, Insomesia has attempted to remove the COI template without explanation and has refused, after several attempts, to use the talk page. Here's the place where Insomesia can explain why the article is OK and indicate if they've even read through it for issues instead of edit warring. OlYeller21Talktome 05:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, here, here, and here are the COIN discussions regarding this situation that Insomesia has been alerted to but ignored.
I understand wanting to remove COI tags from articles that don't need it but doing so without doing any actual research is just a waste of other's time. Insomesia, had you simply checked COIN like I suggested or even stated that you see no issue with the article, this could have been avoided. Instead, it looks like you've been blindly edit warring because you're afraid of a "mark of shame". OlYeller21Talktome 05:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at COIN, here. The tag clearly states that the article is being edited by someone with a conflict of interests and it "may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies". Unless someone can verify that it doesn't, the tag holds up. No one has. Furthermore, I'm not going to do it if it means to keep the articles good state will require checking the plethora of edits that the subject of the article makes to the article on a regular basis. I have no desire to be the enabling watchdog not do I have any desire to edit war with an editor who wishes to remove the template because they emotionally feel that it's a mark of shame. OlYeller21Talktome 05:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The tag is vague and unhelpful to pointing out what specific clean-up issues are being flagged. That's why you were asked several times to be specific if you weren't willing to address the problems more constructively. We should not have to guess what's on your mind. One of those discussions, by the way, pointed out that another user had a fan site about the subject, another discussion pointed out that still another user was claiming to represent him ... and another discussion was about removing date of birth which was poorly sourced and contentious. Now that several people have hacked through this can the tags be removed or do you have some other clean up issue? Insomesia (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Specifically, the subject has filled this article with YouTube links, "sourced" content to his own blog, scattered namedropping and peacock words throughout, etc. Until some further de-crappifying is done, and we establish that the subject will not come along and revert our cleanup, seems to me the tag needs to stay on. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with OrangeMike. If you read the tag, it indicates that problems may exist and until we can not only be sure that the article conforms to all WP policies and guidelines, but that the subject of the article won't continue to cause issues in the article, the tag should stay. OlYeller21Talktome 22:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You can make the same inane supposition about almost every article - they all could have problems, they all may have someone with a COI show up at some point. Shall we let fear of possibilities govern policies now? Insomesia (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Let me add, I have seen no evidence that the subject has been unreasonable about collaboration. He may simply not understand how biographies are crafted on wikipedia-en. It wouldn't be the first time a BLP subject has in good faith attempted to edit "their" article against policy and guideline. It is our job to assist them edit within policy -- not to make them feel unwelcome.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
22:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I do my best to work with people who are attempting edit an article with which they have a connection. Here, here, and here are where I tried to communicate with the editor. Hillcrest98 tried to communicate with the editor here. Uzma Gamal tried to communicate with them here. Shivertimbers433 attempted to here (although it was more of a warning than an attempt at communication). That's just on his talk page which he's never edited let alone responded on. Devin may have scared them off and in this edit summary, Steininger claims to have recieved hatemail from Devin. The editor has never used a talk page and seems to only communicate with others through edit summaries. Personally, I think others have been more than accommodating but I'd be willing to look past all transgressions if he'd just communicate with someone. OlYeller21Talktome 23:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I almost forgot, Jeffreesworld claimed to represent Steininger was indefinitely blocked for edit warring and blanking sourced content. Soon after the block, Jsteininger appeared, editing the same articles. It's clear that that one claims to be Steininger while the other claims to represent him. Just thought I'd mention that so people can get an idea as to how long the subject of the article and a representative of the article have been attempting to control the content of the article. OlYeller21Talktome 23:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Allegedly. You have zero evidence whatsoever that the subject has any knowledge or connection to this article at all. Unless one of these users demonstrates indisputable ties then we can only assume it's someone infatuated with the subject which would seem to fit into the subject's career spanning nearly a decade of social network activities with super fans supporting him. We cannot assume these accounts are in any way tied to the subject. Insomesia (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Zero evidence? You do realize that they claim to be the subject of this article and a representative of that same person, right? I assumed good faith and used WP:DUCK to take them at their word. Do you have any evidence that they are not who they claim to be? In case you're just not trusting me or haven't seen the diffs, here is where Jsteininger claims to be the subject of the article (he's done it multiple times). Here's where Jeffreesworld claims to represent the subject of the article.
Why would we assume they're lying? Even if they're overzealous super fans, are we really going to spend time splitting hairs here and move between the designation of COI and POV issues when ultimately, the article obviously needs attention either way? Who are we protecting? An editor that has absolutely no interest interacting with other editors who are trying to assist them?
At any rate, I don't see your arguments gaining traction. Perhaps we can move on and improve the article? OlYeller21Talktome 02:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, zero evidence except that some anonymous person claims to have an association. That amounts to us having zero evidence that they are. Hacking away at the article has already taken place and yet you have failed to demonstrate that this is meant as a badge of shame rather than the cleanup tag that it is. We don't leave it in place, we do whatever clean up and remove it. Since you are showing extraordinary ownership issues and I have been unable to read your mind up to this point, perhaps you can be clear when - assuming deletion is not the goal - will the article be free of these shame badges? Insomesia (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Alright. I refuse to participate in the conspiracy theories and it appears that everyone else feels the same way. If you want to actually improve the article, I'll be here for discussion. OlYeller21Talktome 14:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Then perhaps you can get back to the core of the issue? When will you remove the COI tags? Or are they a semi-permanent fixture? I already been improving the article so there's no reason to infer I haven't. Insomesia (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
We can remove the tag when we agree here that the COI editor's affect on the article has been addressed. You've been improving the article? You made one edit.
As I thought, WP:Ownership. Why should I do anything right now when the three of you are tag-teaming to remove - so far - two-thirds of the article. You seem to be operating from a standard that exists only in your minds. It's really disgusting to watch. Insomesia (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • After reviewing the edits i have removed the COI tags - both of them - as the accused editor's contributions have all been effectively obliterated. What remains are cleanup issues that they had nothing to do with so continuing to imply that the subject is involved in shaping the article is false. Clean up can of course take place but we should not be advertising that the subject is somehow to blame for what is currently there. Insomesia (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    In no way have all of the concerns been addressed. Insomesia, it seems clear now that you're goal here is not to improve the article. You continually edit war to remove the tag but have made one single edit to try and improve the article and frankly, it looks like you just blanked sourced content. I have no faith that your intent is to do what's best for Wikipedia in this case as it seems that your main and only goal is to remove improvement templates. What exactly is your point here? All I've heard you say, ever, is that you don't like the COI tag, all while requiring others to do work that you yourself are not willing to do. If this continues and you continue to ignore the opinions of others and remove the templates before clean up has finished and consensus has been reached that the article is in good shape, I'll be forced to request a topic ban. This has gone on long enough. Help with actually improving the article and the encyclopedia or I'll do what I need to do to keep you from hindering that process. OlYeller21Talktome 21:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    False again. I asked you for specific clean-up items and you didn't both with anything until you filed a (what seems to me) trumped up COIN report, now the three of you are simply removing content and refs regardless if they actually improve anything or not. No wonder other editors feel unwelcome here. At least with my voice you can't pretend there is consensus. It's more a case of 3 vs 1 all while maintaining the accused COI-er, whose edits have all been obliterated, is somehow responsible for all other editors' actions on the article. Clearly you are overly passionate, and not in a good way that serves this article. Threatening me with a topic ban seems to fall in line with the heavy-handed tactics I've witnessed so far. Why would I want to work in this toxic atmosphere? I'll wait until your pogrom is done and hope i can keep the article from being deleted, but maybe just stubbing it down to a few sentences is the goal? Insomesia (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    Insomesia, I'm going to copy the response I left you on my talk page:
    Insomesia, I think we can both agree that you have the intention of protecting LBGT related articles. Is it possible that your wish to protect a group is clouding your judgement? Your accusations hurt me, honestly. To accuse me of attacking someone in such a way is hurtful and baseless. If your goal was to hurt me and reduce my desire to edit Wikipedia, you've succeeded.
    I'm not going to cite policy or threaten to go tell on you but is this really the way to get what you want? Is it more likely that you're right or five other editors are right (well established editors). Is this really the best way to get what you want? OlYeller21Talktome 22:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
@Insomesia: Thanks for the casual acknowledgement of my existence ("now the three of you are simply removing content and refs regardless if they actually improve anything or not"). I have not been removing anything without regard, on the contrary if you actually study the changes I have made, you will see I have been removing some references which do not conform to WP:IRS, I have adjusted sentences so that they actually reflect what the cited source says, and I have just restored some content about a notable achievement, with a new reference. I advise you Insomesia to be more circumspect before rushing to judgement, and I agree with OlYeller21 that your judgement seems to be clouded. This is not an issue about LGBT, it's about sources and COI. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, my true disappointment is that in a rush to "clean" we are dismissing why some of this content was added in the first place. Perhaps it no longer serves any purpose but to wholesale remove entire swaths of music history from a music artist seems obscene. I very much appreciate conscientious editing but do still think that some obliviousness to non-normative gender issues may also be a factor. I hope someday this can be a great article and I'm disappointed in these turn of events. I do stand by my concerns that we are labeling this a COI issue when it seems obvious the majority of content was not added by the subject or their agents. And we have no actual proof their is a COI. Insomesia (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
As regards the removal of content, it all depends on whether the music history is notable; there was certainly too much inconsequential detail previously, which doesn't serve anyone's purposes, not least the readers. I am of the view that maybe Little green rosetta used rather broad brush strokes of removal, which is why I reinserted the text about the LP release; there may be other bits of information which qualify for reinsertion. As regards your statement that you think "some obliviousness to non-normative gender issues may also be a factor", you will have to clarify exactly what you mean. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Star was in the vanguard of transgressive gender-benders parlaying internet fame into a lucrative modeling and music career. Their image is striking and ground-breaking. This point is pretty much lost in the article and nowadays artists like Lady Gaga and Nikki Minaj make this high concept personal art expression almost commonplace. But when he started Star was revolutionary in this regard. They heightened gender-bending into an art form and career. Insomesia (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
But how is any of that "a factor" in the recent editing, which has been primarily about clean-up? This article is like any other in that its content should be determined by sources. If a reliable secondary source refers to Star in the way you describe, the information can be included in the article; if no RS can be found, the subject matter isn't sufficiently notable. We can't dictate what the sources should be covering. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
When you go from 35k to 9k bytes in less than 24 hours you are guaranteed to lose the story. Youtube as a reference, for instance, sounds bad but when it is an interview with the subject suddenly the relevance is more obvious. We are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and deleting content simply because the source we have isn't the best one available. We are using a sledgehammer when a scissors might be more appropriate. Another issue possibly lost on other editos here is that this subject is a double reliable source minority in that they exist primarily on the Internet and those sources are scorned, and they are in the LGBT sphere and those sources are also scorned. The double whammy ensures that Wikipedia editors present only the most conservative and condemnational aspects of this BLP. This is common for LGBT subjects. Insomesia (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The problem might be not that the sources in the article are not the best available, but that they're the only ones available; I have tried googling "jeffree star" combined with many other words (such as "transgressive", "crossdressing", "analysis", "guardian" (a respected UK printed source)), but each time the result of the search (or at least the first page or two) is a list of unreliable and/or user-generated sources. It seems possible that Jeffree Star has not made much impact outside his own part of the internet, because if he had, better sources would exist. If that's the case, so be it - it's not for Wikipedia editors to try and redress the balance. Sources such as Youtube videos, even if comprising an interview with the article subject, can only be used to verify minor facts, or to support statements such as "[Article subject] has claimed that....", because otherwise Wikipedia could be including all sorts of claims which people make about themselves. This is particularly apposite in this instance because Jeffree Star's notoriety rests to a significant degree on his own platforming of himself and particularly his appearance, rather than his having achieved notable success in a particular field of work. Contrast the case of Star with that of Pete Burns or Boy George or even Marilyn, who are all similarly 'transgressive' in their own ways, yet have had significant coverage in reliable sources because they have achieved mainstream success within a particular field. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

And much if the sourcing isn't even secondary sourcing. Interviews are nice, but the ones we have here don't appear to be serious in nature. Eg fact checking. Not to say the article is devoid of any RS, nor is the subject non notable. His ability to gain a social media following kind of makes him a pioneer.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
02:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Insomesia (I know, big surprise), the wholesale deletion of the majority of the article has been a very poor job at telling the story of this BLP, and seems more a vendetta against Insomesia by Little Green Rosetta whole is a serial reverter and holds POV grudges against LGBT subjects, they were the second fiddle to Belchfire who has been (again) blocked for edit warring. I simply don't trust Little Green Rosetta to accurately reflect anything when it comes to LGBT subjects and this is just the latest example. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead refs[edit]

Could someone remove the double reference in the lead? Also, some of those links probably need to go. Ticket sales sites are reliable for selling tickets, not biographical data. Nor should they be considered reliable for actual sales data, as they have their own COI at stake.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
16:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think a lot of those were there originally to establish notability. I guess that's not surprising with it having been in AfD or DRV 9 times. I think the whole article relies far too heavily on primary sources but the lead does seem to have far more references than it needs and sometimes, the reference doesn't support the claim it's used for. They may still be valuable but we'll have to take the time to check each one. OlYeller21Talktome 18:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

I'm going to take a break for a while but wanted to give others an idea as to what I'm doing. When I started, the most glaring problem I saw was that, while almost every claim in the article had a reference, the references used were often dead, primary sources, poor sources for information, or simply didn't support the claim they were meant to. I've been attempting to go through and clean up all the references in the article so that when they're all cleaned up, one can easily go through and read each claim and either verify it on their own or check the reference to see that it verifies the information it's intended to verify. As I mentioned before, there are still lots of primary sources to verify information and I think finding secondary sources may be an issue as most of Star's sales are driven by him and his MySpace page as opposed to media coverage. If that's the case, we can address each contentious claim that only has a primary reference. OlYeller21Talktome 19:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The Career section needs cleaning up as well. The article reads as a timeline, not a biography of the salient points of Starr's career. There is much promotional fluff that needs to be removed or toned downed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
21:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree; there is a great deal of non-notable detail masquerading as significant achievement. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that as well. I won't been editing the article for another few hours, it at all tonight. Feel free to pare down the career section if you have time. OlYeller21Talktome 21:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I took a stab, but it needs a lot more work. Perhaps we need just two graphs.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
21:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Partially loading ref[edit]

A ref used in the lead doesn't fully load on my screen, so I can't check if it supports the text. The ref is: Bolter, Helen (2007-11-29). "Let's Talk About C*NT! - Jeffree Star". Gigwise. Retrieved 28 February 2013. Can anyone load it successfully and see if it's a valid ref? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I checked it (and put it there). You're looking at a Wayback Machine link. The article existed, can be verified, and I verified it. You have to mess with flash to not have a menu come up and block the screen which is what's making it look like it's not loading. OlYeller21Talktome 22:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! (Apologies for the delay - time available for editing tends to be a bit brief much of the time). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Insomesia seems distraught about the tags. I've gone through all of the sources and things look ok to me. Can someone confirm this so that we may remove the tags?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
22:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There's still a little fine sifting to do (for example in the lead, neither of the 2 refs given supports the assertion that he's a fashion designer, not as far as I can see anyway), but I have no objection to those 2 tags (the COI and autobiog ones) coming down - the work required on the article is now within "normal" range. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The article has been gutted so Little Green Rosetta's gutting can certainly be seen as completing any COI issues to rest. I agree that this process has been disgusting, shame on anyone who has stood aside while the machetes have flown, I hope this haunts you till the end of time! Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
That's certainly not constructive. Not to mention, you haven't done anything to help here so you would be included in the "stood aside while the machetes have flown" group. OlYeller21Talktome 15:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The whole trial is out of order![edit]

Please excuse the quote. I couldn't think of a better way to title this section.

I'd like to start off by saying that I support anyone who lives the way they want to live. I emotionally, morally, and financially support the LBGT community and have little patience for people who wish to condemn pothers who don't share their beliefs. Does that make me some sort of saint or something, f@#k no. At the very least, I would hope that it would suggest that I'm not a member of some cabal that wishes to eradicate sinners from WP (even typing that makes me sick). My response is based solely on what I believe is best for this encyclopedia and nothing else. Anyone who suggests otherwise would have a hard time proving their case.

I won't lie and say that I've read every response that editors have left here, damning other editors who are, as far as I can tell, attempting to improve or protect the article. That being said, it's easy for me to see that Insomesia and Cluetrainwoowoo have made all but one edit to this article that could even be considered constructive. Both of you have been quick to damn others and to call the actions of other "disgusting" while everyone else "stood aside while the machetes have flown".

Clue, you literally haven't made a single edit to this article. Not a single edit. You have done literally nothing to improve this article. Not a single thing. I hope your talk page edits have made you feel better about the situation because they haven't achieved anything else that might resemble improving this encyclopedia.

Insomesia, while you've attempted to be what some might consider the "other side" of the argument, you've literally made one single edit to this page that hasn't been exclusively to remove COI tags. One edit. One single edit. In that edit, from what I can tell, all that you did is remove sourced content, then came here to condemn others of being biased and blanking sourced content. You say, "I very much appreciate conscientious editing but do still think that some obliviousness to non-normative gender issues may also be a factor." and I appreciate that. Saying such shouldn't come lightly and I would hope that you would at least provide a diff as evidence of your accusation. To date, you haven't. Not a single time. Maybe you've done this because I threatened to nominate you for a topic ban. That wasn't constructive for me to do. I apologize. I shouldn't have done that. If it makes you feel any better, I admire that Steininger looked in the face of people who thought that the way he felt was wrong and basically said, eff them, I'm going to be the person I want to be. That's incredible to me.

PaleCloudedWhite and PaleCloudedWhite, I've seen both of you make several edits that have removed a large amount of content. Is the removal justified? Possibly. Perhaps when you remove large amounts of content, you can leave a note on the talk page with a diff that explains why you did what you did. Other editors haven't felt that your edit summaries are satisfactory. Also, there's not much left of the article now. Perhaps you can spend some time adding content with reliable sources. I feel that this would be a great way to show that you don't harbor some sort of bias towards the subject.

This may seem like a harsh response and maybe it is but I can't help but think that the both of you (Insomedia and Cluetrainwoowoo) are quick to condemn others when you basically have contributed nothing to this article. Are the other editors who are removing content correct? I'm not sure, but what I can be sure of is that you've been asked to point out what they shouldn't have removed and you haven't done so. Instead, you point your finger and declare shenanigans while doing nothing to constructively correct the situation.

I would never pretend to believe that there aren't people on WP who will do whatever it takes to wipe LBGT related articles from WP but is it possible that you're judging others without attempting to understand their feelings? If you wish to help, please be constructive and cite pertinent policies and guidelines. We're not here to be the punching bags that you very well may deserve. M oving forward, if any of you feel that something has been added or removed unjustly, providing a diff and an argument is the most constructive way to proceed. I would never pretend that I'm always right and if you feel that this comment has been unjust, please let me know on my talk page but I'm not sure that such a discussion would be appropriate to have here. My hope is that we can move on to make a great article and what kills me is that I truly believe that everyone here feels the same way. We just need to get on the same page. OlYeller21Talktome 23:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of Mr. Star until this article came up on the COIN. I bare no malice towards him, nor the way he lives his life. My only interest in this article is that it is bereft of cruft. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
23:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I second this. Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Devin (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
My record with regard to the LGBT community (to which I don't happen to belong), both in Wikimedia projects and in my personal life here in my home town, is beyond challenge. My concern for that community's rights has nothing to do with my determination to uphold our standards for all articles on all species of subjects, without fear or favor. I have tried to do so here. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I resent being told that I have made "several edits that have removed a large amount of content" and that "Other editors haven't felt that your edit summaries are satisfactory... Perhaps you can spend some time adding content with reliable sources" when all of my edits have been quite careful and small, have been accompanied by detailed edit summaries, and of all the recent contributions to the article, only mine have added any significant new content. I have made 10 edits to the article. The first was here, followed by this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and finally, this. Please have a look at those edits, and note that not only have I left detailed edit summaries of my careful and minor edits, I have also added content that's accompanied by secondary refs, which I had to trawl through page after page of google to find. Note that I also didn't take part in the edit warring over tags. My "reward" for what I believed to be quietly constructive editing, is first to be accused by Insomesia that I'm part of a "tag team" that's hacking away at the article, then have Cluetrainwoowoo indirectly accuse me of shameful behaviour, and now the latest accusations (and why name me twice, OlYeller21?). FWIW, I am actually a member of the so-called LGBT "community", as well as the so-called Wikipedia "community", but events at this article reveal both of those constructions to be somewhat fallacious. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I suspect that I am the editor being referred to as cutting wide swafts from this article, not PCW. FWIW Insomesia has just been indeffed as a sockpuppet of a community banned editor. I hope PCW realizes this section wasn't aimed at singling him out (because it was probably intended for me) and sticks around. I fully expect to see a new sock from the stork, but the only thing we can do is get back to editing.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
12:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
LGR and PCW, I really just haven't been through your edits. I only looked at the cumulative byte difference. I didn't mean to imply that you were just blanking content. My intent was to show that others feel that you are and while they haven't explained why, perhaps we can meet half way? Again, I apologize. OlYeller21Talktome 17:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I took no offense at your comment. I'm perfectly fine with restoring content if it is done in a responsible manner (read following policy). I think all editors here can agree the previous state of the article was a shamble full of SPS and name dropping. Lets move forward the best we can.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
17:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not as upset about things as my comment above might seem - I was more irked than anything, partially at OlYeller for being a tad slapdash at directing comment, and partially at Insomesia and Cluetrain for (in my view) adopting a victim role and viewing anyone who isn't waving a rainbow flag as antagonists. I'm not ready to give up on Wikipedia just yet. As regards this particular article, I don't know whether it can be expanded and improved a very great deal as it's such an RS wasteland - on one collaboration of Star's, I went as far as page 10 of a google search result, trying in vain to find a secondary source. Gave up after that. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, PCW, I apologize. My intent was to attempt to represent the views of both sides. I haven't seen you do anything that would constitute some sort of malpractice but at the same time, I haven't checked every single edit. This should imply that you've done something wrong or at the very least, I didn't mean to imply that. I simply wanted to attempt to bridge both sides of this argument. While less that 24 hours have passed, Clue and Insomesia have yet to respond. If they do not respond and make an argument as to why they feel it is OK to accuse others of rather heinous intents, I feel that it will not only be clear that their feelings have overcome their views regarding unbiased editing, but it will forever taint their views regarding subjects related to the LBGT community. As I pointed out in my first post in this section, they have done almost nothing when it comes to improving Wikipedia but have only vaguely condemned the actions of others while presenting zero evidence.
Clue and Insomesia, this is your chance to show that editors participating here have some sort of bias, with evidence. If you do not respond and do not show evidence of your accusations, I will have no other option than to assume that your condemnations of others are not only unfounded, but prejudice in their own right. OlYeller21Talktome 22:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Please, if you feel that others are attacking the LBGT community, this is the chance to prove that claim with something other than claims that are not accompanied by evidence. OlYeller21Talktome 22:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Insomesia will not be responding -- at least not with that account. He just got indeffed for being a sock of a community banned editor. I suspect we won't hear from Clue anytime soon as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
22:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That explains a lot. the intent of this section was to spur a discussion that would either bring both sides to the same conclusion or show that those who are willing to condemn others have no grounds. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't expect the latter to be the case.
If I offended any of you, again, I apologize. While it may not seem this way, this incident has been one of the more trying incidents in my several years of editing. I wasn't about to leave this situation with two editors questioning the intent of other editors the way that Insomesia was.
I'll be keeping this article on my watchlist but I really have no interest in being involved discussions here unless I'm really needed. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you. I only ever intended to do what I felt was best for Wikipedia. OlYeller21Talktome 00:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Oldyeller21, you were not the problem, you just instigated everything and tainted the entire issue as COI-problems. LGR is the one who hatcheted away while you and Pale were trying to look at what should be there. The approach was still flawed looking to delete rather than tell Star's story but I think you all were over zealous when that wasn't called for. And for my lack of jumping into the melee? Why would anyone? Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Uhmm what happened to this wiki?[edit]

ALOT of stuff got deleted i see! what the hell why? btw he's also worked with Cash Cash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jeffree Star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Lack of recent events.[edit]

I feel like there are quite a few events that have happened in Jeffree's life such as his cosmetics line adding Products, that are barely mentioned, that is significant in his life. This page and Jeffree's brand could improve and grow greatly with his more recent achievements and life events post June, 2015. Thanks! Jennasey Brechler (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Should a section be added on Star's feuds dealing with makeup company and Kat Von D?[edit]

Recently, Star has gotten into several feuds with make-up guru Kat Von D and also a customer regarding impurities in his makeup products. This information is important and adds to the article because it shows how his fans and reporters watch his private life mainly through his social media accounts. Twitter is one of the places where he is most active and has been gaining the most publicity in the past year, besides Youtube. Because Wiki does not allow for direct citation from his Twitter page, several articles written by reliable and verifiable reporters at certified gossip magazines such as People, TeenVogue, and 17 Magazine were used to make the edit. The feuds are notable because they are apart of who Jeffree Star is. They represent his character and personality. Also, they gained a lot of attention by fans and gossip columnists and were written about multiple times by a variety of reporters. Wiki looks for information that is reliable and notable, and wants sources that are verifiable. I have provided all of that within my citation. I also revised my edits twice to undo any bias I had towards either side of the feuds I wrote about, but it could probably still use some revising. I do not believe the section needs to be removed altogether, because Star has been in several more less notable feuds, some of which are current. Though they are not being recognized in the current moment by media and magazines, it is highly likely that this section could grow over the next couple of years with many more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lay fay17 (talkcontribs) 08:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The advice given at WP:BRD is that after your addition has been reverted, you should discuss the matter on the article talkpage to reach consensus. You should not just make a statement and then revert again to your preferred version. Please restore the original text, as per WP:BRD. You do not have consensus for your addition. "Certified gossip magazines" are not reliable sources, and the fact that you describe them as such illustrates that this information is just gossip. This is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for describing incidents auch as how one customer complained about someone's product. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)