User talk:Nerdsmurf08

Hi, to elaborate on why your edits to Khleo Thomas are not up to Wikipedia's standards, please review the following:


 * Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View
 * Specifically, the bullet points under the Explanation of the neutral point of view section. Articles should be written without bias, but with proportional emphasis on notable or relevant points. Paragraphs 3-8 of your revision's intro section strongly emphasize small side projects of the article subject - inherently implying promotion - and contain excessive puffery and weasel wording:
 * From behind the scenes to being front and center, Khleo has been able to build a strong following and connection with his fans, who support his lifestyle brand, Slick Living. Slick Living promotes personal growth, positivity, hard work, dedication and more importantly being aware - all traits Khleo represents and lives by. Slick Living became a household brand that later expanded to Goddess Living Amongst Men (GLAM), dedicated to empowering women.
 * In this example, puffery is prevalent throughout: from behind the scenes is flowery, enticing narrative. Slick living promotes [good qualities], all traits that Khleo represents and lives by is a horribly biased statement; who can say that any person lives by those qualities? We cannot write an objective article about a subject while saying that they represent and "live by" admirable qualities. A subject article claiming that they have positive qualities - in the context of promoting a brand, no less - is about the worst metric of objectivity I can think of. Became a household brand is purely promotional. These statements are not of encyclopedic quality.


 * Puffery and weasel wording
 * Elaborated on in the above.


 * Wikipedia: Reliable Sources
 * In terms of your sources for the article, as a quick example, simply linking to Khleo's Youtube page is absolutely not a sufficient attribution for a statement such as:
 * Today with over 10.8 billion impressions on Instagram and 8.1 million views on YouTube, Khleo's focus is to take his love for gaming, music and lifestyle on screen with his own show.
 * In addition to, again, excessive puffery and flowery narrative, the supposed "source" does nothing to address this statement. Does he list his Instagram views on Youtube? Does his Youtube page itself - not even a specific video, just the page - indicate that his "focus is to take his love for gaming, music, and lifestyle on screen with his own show"? If there is a specific video where he says that exactly, maybe it could be argued that this would be a relevant addition to this article, were it correctly sourced - but the statement would need objective wording, would be short and non-promotional, and would not be in the article introduction. A paragraph at the end of his "Career" subsection could say something like:
 * In YEAR, Khleo expressed interest in starting a show centered around gaming, music, and lifestyle.
 * ^That's a very quick and clumsy interpretation, but can you see how it's objective while your writing is not? The verbiage, disproportionate emphasis, and bias included in your edits turn this article from an informational, encyclopedic page to a puff piece. It's okay to want to flesh the article out, but it can't be done in this way. If edits can't adhere to a proportional NPOV, then they shouldn't be implemented.

184.167.220.107 (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you explaining all of this to me. I thought I did a good job but I can see that it's a very subjective piece instead of reading like an encyclopedic entry. I'll definitely fix it so that it reads in a very neutral tone. Once again, thank you! Nerdsmurf08 (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I just wanted to say that I took a look at your recent additions and they are much improved and are in line with acceptable standards. Good work! Your contributions have definitely improved the quality of the article. 184.167.220.107 (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)