Talk:Sam Concepcion

Recent Edit as of 21:56, 10 June 2009
First off, this is not an edit war. This recent edit is to restore the lost information regarding Concepcion due to the bouts of vandalism made by certain users for this page. The vandalism issues on this article centered on defamation of character and deletion of significant information.

At 06:43, 7 June 2009, WolfMaster2002 (talk) edited this article by vandalizing and deleting significant information without stating concrete reasons as to why he made the edit. He only stated, "Removed question marks" and "Personal life: Inconsistency fixed in this section." His stated reasons were misleading and untrue with regard to his edit. This edit was then reverted by Dan D. Ric (talk) as he identified the edit as vandalism. There were some demoralizing words left on the article so I edited it and decided to organize the article as well by placing years on the Career section. This was again reverted by WolfMaster2002 (talk) with almost the same article as his previous edit, which as mentioned earlier, was already reverted by Dan D. Ric (talk) for obvious vandalism. WolfMaster2002 (talk) claimed that there was "too much peacock terms; this is not a blog" so in an attempt to satisfy his claim, I took the liberty to take out any peacock terms and NPOV items by only stating facts and events that held true for Concepcion (ratified with sources). Then again, on 23:19, 7 June 2009, that same user reverted the edits made by me to that same piece of information, and then stating, "This is not a blog. Please limit article to relevant information; Only add significant events; Resources should be related." His actions could be considered as EDIT WAR already for not only did he revert the edit made by me twice but also the edit of a more expert person on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, the same user wrote on my (talk) page that, "The revision that you claim to be outdated now is the most up to date in respect with the rules being followed." The issue here was that his most recent edit or reversion of the whole article if you will, is almost the same article as that was made by Wynchard_Bloom (talk) on 01:21, 20 November 2008, which could be found at here. As seen on this user’s talk page, Wynchard_Bloom was then found to be a sock puppet with a bunch of different accounts under his name. He was BANNED indefinitely. All of his edits were then reverted back to its original content by an admin, NrDg (talk) which could be found here. Since then, the article did not have any major problems until these recent vandals made to the page.

Due to these issues, I felt like I had to edit it back again because all I wanted was a decent page for Concepcion. But clearly, I did not want to be put in a position where I could be accused of having an edit war with another user so I let it be for a while. I sought the advice of Dan D. Ric (talk). He then said that I could edit the article as long as I followed the rules. So there, this is my most recent edit. The edit still is patterned with the original edit reverted by NrDg (talk) months before. The difference is I took out any peacock terms, NPOVs and conflicts of interests. The article is based on the facts regarding Concepcion that I believe is RELEVANT ONLY to the people who know the person and decide to use Wikipedia in an attempt to learn more about the person and his achievements as a known person in the Philippines. A user, such as WolfMaster2002 (talk), should not vandal and delete significant information regarding Concepcion when he admitted to deficient knowledge regarding the person, which could be found at Dan D. Ric’s talk page. He then said, “I tried to make it consistent with the other information as i am no expert on this person as well.” To add to that, he also stated that just like me, he is still new to editing here on Wikipedia as I quote, “I am still new andI only just figured out what the edit summary is there for”. With that, I believe that I have more knowledge and capacity to edit the article, of which I am hoping this same user would not revert all the recent edits made into an article way outdated and made by a sock puppet.

I do not want to assume, but since we are again having THE SAME issue with this page, perhaps he may be the same person who VANDALIZED Concepcion’s page some months ago as stressed in my explanation above. As you can see, he seems to be a NEWLY REGISTERED user who edited (a number of times) ONLY one article, that is, SAM CONCEPCION, which you can find it in his contribution page. He registered on 06:34, 7 June 2009, and his first edit was made on 06:52, 7 June 2009. He also claimed to be a recent changes patroller when all the edits he made was basically at Concepcion’s page ONLY. From that contribution’s page as well, you can see that he edited Robi Domingo’s article without regard for the alert on top of MULTIPLE ARTICLE ISSUES on neutrality and that of resembling of a fan site, which he claimed to be true for Concepcion’s page when he DELETED SIGNIFICANT information. That alone is already a CONFLICT OF INTEREST with regard to EDITING/DELETING/VANDALIZING Concepcion’s page.

To conclude this, hope the people who are responsible to making sure that people interested in knowing more information regarding Concepcion are given that right to a decent research page. We appreciate it! Thank you very much for your patience of this lengthy explanation and kind consideration.

Note: Wow, we actually have a stub that we are within the scope of WikiProject Biography. Now, I am more confident that his page adheres to Wikipedia's rules.

Sincerely, 98.207.162.197 (talk) - 22:09, 10 June 2009


 * Thank you so much for fixing this article. This means a lot for us who wants to know facts about Sam Concepcion.
 * To those person who just want to vandalize this page please look for other things to do. "If you don't have anything good to say please SHUT UP". THANKS SO MUCH...


 * Regards, epevenise24 (talk) 02:45  Jun 11, 2009 (UTC)

about the speedy deletion on the "Sam Concepcion" page
i'm sorry. i didn't realize that that article being questioned could be found at multiple sites. i only cited the one found in Sam Concepcion Article in clickythecity.com. if only i knew that that same article could also be found at Malaya, i would have cited it as well by placing a link in the article too...

sorry again for my mistake, it was my first time to upload a page. hope you could reconsider my copyright infringement case.. thank you! and have a good day! :)

Cleanup
Major POV bias/unacceptably formed prose here. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THESE TAGS UNTIL THE ISSUE IS SETTLED. (|-- UlT  i  MuS  ( U • T • C 22:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am now requesting a complete rewrite of this article. Almost everything reeks of NPOV violation, uncited claims of grandeur ("Sam has achieved alot at such a young age", he will surpass other child singers", etc.), and overall informal unencyclopaedic tone. (|-- UlT  i  MuS  ( U • T • C 23:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have taken out some of the more egregious POV statements (destined to become a star...) as well as some external links to fan forums, which aren't absolutely necessary. ... disco spinster talk  00:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As soon as I saw this article roll past on recent changes, I wanted to reach for the advert. Was glad to see it had previously drawn attention to itself and is moving towards improvement. &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 00:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited a lot of the article, removed the unnecessary POV bias sentences, deleted the sentences leading to informal unencyclopedic tone and improved the grammar of the article. Also removed the sentences that were poorly sourced or had no citations. Is there anything needed still to be done?Sammyluvlucas 04:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Separation
I separated his career and personal life that used to be under "Rise to Stardom", since it seemed it was written in POV and looked too long.Sammyluvlucas 04:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IMG 261434.jpg
Image:IMG 261434.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

copy violation
This is an explicit copy violation - the author states where he "lifted" (his word ) the content from. Wickethewok 00:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)