Talk:FBoy Island

"fboy" = "fuckboy"
A little Googling makes it very obvious that fboy is common slang for fuckboy, yet nothing in the article mentions it. Is this an "encyclopaedia" that favours "polite language" about fact and information? Is this because it's US-ian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.37.217 (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No. It’s probably just uncited and needs a reliable cite despite being completely obvious Dronebogus (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Tag
On 16:07, 1 February 2022‎ User:Joe Roe added the tag with the edit summary Added tag: Off-wiki evidence. Please do not remove before reviewing for notability, promotional tone, etc. However, it's been 1½ years. And Joe never added here on talk. I'm removing the template - if it hasn't had any effect so far, it never will. Feel free to reapply, but please bring more specific concerns next time. CapnZapp (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I was quite clear and specific in that edit summary? The undisclosed paid editing was based on off-wiki evidence I reviewed in my capacity as a functionary and (at the time) CheckUser. I can't add Connected contributor (paid) to this talk page because that would out the editor. The article needs to be reviewed for neutrality by an independent editor, and until that happens the tag should stay. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry but what is clear to you isn't to everybody else. "Off-wiki" evidence can just mean... nothing. Baseless accusations. You never said anything about FUNCT or CU. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I have looked over the article and can't find any egregious examples of promotional or ad-copy language. Since you might not consider me an independent editor (I found the article just the other day, but have made edits since) I won't actually edit the article. But in my opinion it isn't less neutral than many other articles covering similar topics, so I would just remove the tag if it were up to me. In fact, since I don't have access to your damning evidence I don't see a point of the tag (certainly not 18 months later). CapnZapp (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * If you haven't been paid and you've verified there are no problems of NPOV or source misrepresentation, please feel free to remove the tag. In the meantime, the tag serves to notify readers that there is a potential (or likelihood) that the article is less than neutral, and remind editors that a review is still needed. I'm sorry that my edit summary wasn't clear to you – obviously there's a degree of deliberate ambiguity where other editors' nonpublic personal information is concerned. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)