User talk:Sertap

It is not written by the artist, it is written by a fan of Dissident Genro, most of the article is not even copied and pasted from the band's official biography, it was written by another source.

This page is relevant. Visual Kei is referenced on wikipedia and Dissident Genro is the world's first *Scottish* Visual Kei artists, which is something which should definitely be referenced on Wikipedia.

The band has it's own huge cult following around the world and should remain on wikipedia due to relevance to the ever expanding visual kei scene and as it's own cult entity.


 * Please sign all posts you make on my discussions page.

Your arguments simply do not stand up against Wikipedia policy. There are bands which are a hundred fold more popular than 'Dissident Genro' (or whatever it's called) but do not merit a Wikipedia entry, the 'huge cult following around the world' which you speak of appears to be a gross exaggeration.

The fact of the matter is that this band does not merit a wikipedia entry as the act is simply not of a notable nature enough. Also, the entry itself is utterly appalling and fails to meet many of wikipedia's many criteria. Every single claim that is written into a Wikipedia article must taken from a valid source, all of the sources used on this poorly written article are from his official websites, forum posts or youtube videos. That is simply not good enough, and makes the article read like an advertisement. Furthermore, there are numerous claims in the article which are not sourced and are unlikely to be correct. The article also seems to have been constructed by people who are new, or inexperienced, with Wikipedia.

I am merely following Wikipedia's guidelines, if you disagree with my criticisms then you are disagreeing with Wikipedia - and I think that pretty much settles the validity of your argument. --Sertap (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sertap,

"Or whatever he it's called" - not very professional or polite of you. Thought this was a debate, not a chance to berate a band you have no knowledge, apart from a Wikipedia article, about. If you are representative of Wikipedia and their rules then what an unprofessional, malicious site this is, if your attitude to this very simple debate is anything to go to by.

If you simply feel that the page does not concur with Wikipedia's rules i.e. the band is not big enough then that is really fair enough and there's nothing more that can be said. As for the way the article is written, well that's really what Wikipedia does - it allows fans to write articles on the band's behalves and unfortunately sometimes you get badly written, inaccurate articles.

I am not disagreeing with Wikipedia's rules, merely trying to understand them now through your flagging this article for deletion.

Again, if you feel that the band does not warrant an entry because DG is too small then that is fair enough. If the article is poorly written by Wikipedia's standards then that's Wikipedia's fault for allowing anyone to write on the behalf of a public body.

If the article must be taken down, so be it but the bitterness in, which your argument is written is really apalling. You're here to make users understand why this article has been deleted, NOT to berate something you know nothing about and insult the way it's written when what Wiki does is allow any old Tom, Dick or Harry to write things in the first place. -- Claire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.216.146 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing about my response was either intended to be an insult or personal jibe - I was merely given limited time away from my duties with which to respond to your message and did not want to cause any offense by incorrectly spelling the name of the artist whom in all honestly I know or care little about. There is nothing bitter about my argument and I find your response both bemusing and slightly argumentative. Please don't make this personal and please don't suggest that I did.

"As for the way the article is written, well that's really what Wikipedia does - it allows fans to write articles on the band's behalves and unfortunately sometimes you get badly written, inaccurate articles."

You should not use wikipedia to write an article on behalf of a band, it should not be bespoke - this seems to prove the concerns of another editor who believes the artist himself had a say in his own entry. Wikipedia is NOT a marketting tool, a social networking site or a means of promotion.

If an article is bespoke or created by the band that would create several issues which would damage the integrity of the article. The page reads like an advertisement, not an encylopedic entry - which is what Wikipedia is, an encylopedia. It contains information which is not relevant, information which appears to be innacurate and a lack of diverse and credible sources.

"I am not disagreeing with Wikipedia's rules, merely trying to understand them now through your flagging this article for deletion."

Technically you should have read them before you signed up or edited anything. Again, your concerns are endearing of your fandom but of little relevance to me.

Wikipedia requires users to contribute in a decent level of English, and offers a guide as to how articles should be written. If editors refuse to follow the guidelines then they only have themselves to blame when the articles they contribute towards are regarded as being low quality. It is NOT wikipedia's fault - it is that of editor who refuses to follow the guidelines.--Sertap (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

--

I am fully aware what Wikipedia is for, I use it for my work and do not need to be read the rules a million times over. I am merely standing-up for DG as this is a "discussion" page, not a court room.

The article was not created by the band or management, bands, actors, directors, artists etc have no control who writes these on Wikipedia, which is why it is now being "discussed".

"your concerns are endearing of your fandom but of little relevance to me."

A very cheeky remark on your behalf. I am a media professional and have been for many years young man so you should watch who you are trying to antagonize. It's easy for little people to take out their frustrations behind a computer screen. I'm quite sure Wikipedia's "discussion" pages are not intended to be used in such a manner by someone as ignorant, arrogant and foolish, acting on their behalf.

This "discussion" is over. As aforementioned, if the article is eventually deleted on Wikipedia's grounds then that is fair enough as I have more than enough respect for the rules. I do not welcome personal attacks, no matter how much you deny them and outright rudeness, there's enough of that in this world. No one intends any ill will, this is just a page that seems to have been written by a fan and I'm sure there are more than enough problems in the world than to be attacking and getting het-up over one tiny thing.

A complaint has been taken out against you Sertap via email and one on company headed paper to their office address and I hope Wikipedia get in touch with you very soon. If you are so angry at the way it is written, then please go find out the person who wrote it and bark at them instead.

Thannk -- Claire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.216.146 (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

--

I am not a fan of this band nor have heard of them before (just stating so that this "Sertap" fellow doesn't blast me), however i have to agree that this article needs to be tidied up. I am not sure if it merits a deletion but i can say for sure that the conduct of this user "Sertap" is appalling and it almost comes over as a vendetta against the artist even going as far as to copy and paste blog entries from the artist's MySpace (so i can only assume you have a MySpace account too if you have the power to do this and are monitoring the artist for some reason) and even going as far as insulting fans/supporters of the artist in question or assuming anyone who defends this artist is just a "fan" or reeling into some sort of "fandom" - Why are you prejudging Wiki users?

Hiding behind Wiki policy whilst being rude/ignorant won't save you from your lousy conduct and misrepresentation of Wikipedia and its rule systems. In my opinion this makes your case and argument invalid since it has a strong stint of bias rather than any sort of intellectual "discussion" to improve Wikipedia or follow any set of guidelines when you have made a clear intention and goal of deletion of this artist based on your lacklustre "evidence" and your defence stance of attacking other users who don't agree with you.

If you are a representative of Wikipedia, your conduct here should be reported since Wikipedia's admins should not have this sort of attitude nor should be berating any other people who discuss this article - Life simply doesn't work that way out in the big world, so please calm down or rethink before you post such argumentative/rude/insulting messages.

As for the article, a quick google search for me found this artist on several small magazine publications and radio interviews whom all have websites of some kind. Any article or information and specifically QUOTATIONS from the artist themself in this Wiki MUST be REFERENCED to any interviews this artist has supposedly done and more links should be given to these references rather than quotation of the supposed fact. I therefore think this article needs tidied, not deleted as its intention does not state an advertisement type front or that it was created by the artist and its team, there simply is no evidence of this - stick to the facts please! StandUp73 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)StandUp73


 * Dear Claire

Once more I find myself perplexed by the content of your message to me. I've stated on several occasions that nothing I have said was intended to be a personal insult towards you yet I find you continuing to harass my talk page (yes, that's right - this is my talk page). You continue to state how you agree with Wikipedia’s policies in regard to the claims against the article yet you still continue to write messages to me at length which berate my application of them. How can you make a comment like “if the article gets deleted via Wikipedia’s policies that’s okay” but continue to lambast me for applying them in the first place? It seems to be clear that you resent me for bringing these issues to attention – now that is what I call a personal attack. I did not construct these problems, they were already there, you just don’t seem to like the fact that I did. If I hadn’t, eventually someone else would have. You claim to be a media professional yet all I am seeing is an overprotective display of scorn regarding an artist who it appears you represent – which, might I add, seems to add weight to one of the issues brought against the article to begin with.

“. I am a media professional and have been for many years young man so you should watch who you are trying to antagonize”

Now that’s what I call a threat. I’m not entirely sure what you think you can do against a Wikipedia user as a media professional, but I think that any administrator who reads this should definitely take note of that little jibe. I am in no way trying to antagonize you and have not from the onset – I have merely fielded responses to your derisive retorts of my application of Wikipedia guidelines. This is the United States of America, freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and the internet is a beautiful proponent of said ideology, but I am not prepared to have you threaten me on account of your own frustrations over my valid criticisms of the legitimacy of this articles claim to a place on Wikipedia.

I’d also appreciate it if you didn’t refer to me as ‘young man’, I’m female – thank you very much.

I am also highly amused that you claim to have reported me to Wikipedia for acting incorrectly, when all I have done is apply their policies and sit through tirades of your personal attacks. Let’s see what happens, all I know is that I won’t be losing any sleep over it.


 * Dear Standup73

Yes, I agree that there are numerous issues with the article – but I think that while some of the assumptions made may be incorrect there is evidence, which appears to be far more than circumstantial to prove otherwise – but that’s for Wikipedia’s administrators to ultimately decide. However I am still well within my rights and duties as a user of Wikipedia to provide evidence which appears to question the integrity of the article, and while you may dislike me doing so I feel that there is nothing to prove that some of the things I have brought to the table are not correct outright.

You asked me to stick to the facts, and that’s what I want to do – that’s what Wikipedia is for – which is exactly the reason why I brought the blog post to the table as evidence, whether or not this is the truth remains to be seen, but while it would be wrong to say “this is definitely the truth” at this point in time it is also equally incorrect to state that this isn’t the case in light of the evidence. --Sertap (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The attack was made when you hid behind Wikipedia's rules and threw across veiled insults. I too am a defender of freedom of speech but not a fan of those who berate others. Freedom of speech should encourage friendly discussion, not name calling (RE: "fandom"). Your arguements may have been valid but all was lost when you decided to communicate in such a defensive manner. One would think you have your own alterior motives against this one band.

Your continued cheek and ignorance and utterly deplorable attitude in "defending" Wikipedia's rules is laughable and highly contentious. It's dangerous to communicate in the way you have, you don't know who you are speaking to and I doubt you would say these things in such a manner in person. But alas, this is the problem with the world of the internet, it allows people to attack rather than discuss things in a civilised manner.

This is not the way anyone should "discuss" on Wikipedia. If you prefer to insult and bully your opinions onto others, then please seek the appropriate fan forum to rouse some sort of reaction.

As aforementioned, a complaint has gone out about you today, both by email and on my companies' headed paper. I have used Wikipedia for years throughout my career and have never come across as foolish a user as yourself and it is quite sad.

Best of luck in your endeavors, with my complaint, the case is now closed and I shall not be "discussing" this again. I respect your opinions but not your contempt. Your attitude is indicative of everything that is wrong in the way in which many people communicate with each other in today's society, masked under the guise of "freedom of speech". A sad indictment and one in, which your fore Fathers would not have intended.

I hope you learn to communicate, especially on behalf of such a reputable organisation as Wikipedia, much better and more amiable in future. -- Claire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.44.41 (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Your arguements may have been valid but all was lost when you decided to communicate in such a defensive manner. One would think you have your own alterior motives against this one band."

Surely, would the same not apply to your conduct? If my arguments are valid why have you been harrassing me continually? One would think that YOU have alterior motives in protection of this one band, being such a bitter opponent of my, in your own words, valid criticisms, and even taking things so far to write a letter on behalf of your company to Wikipedia to spite me? Now tell me - why would you act on behalf of your company in defense of this band if you weren't an official party or had a vested interest? I'm not assuming anything, but I would very much like to see how this pans out when Wikipedia administrators become involved.

"It's dangerous to communicate in the way you have, you don't know who you are speaking to and I doubt you would say these things in such a manner in person"

Again with the threats. You renounce my behaviour as being awful and pepper it with slurs of your own in the same breath, slurs which might I add are far higher in magnitude than anything you are accusing me of. If you are a media proffesional, as you claim to be, then your behaviour is quite alarming.

Would you be willing to disclose the name and contact details of the company you work for? As you have decided to make this an official matter under their name I believe it's only fair that you bring it into this debate. I would also like to file a complaint against you with your company if possible - because I am finding your behavouir to be both appalling and highly unprofessional.

--Sertap (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

--

Yet again Sertap it seems you jump the gun at other Wiki users here. You should take a page from "Freedom of Speech" and get in check what Wikipedia is:

Wikipedia - Dictionary/Library like info tool. Rule system - Factual evidence related to and or referenced by relevant copyright holders.

Ok, your argument;

A: Artist isn't big enough therefore not relevant

B: Information was mislead/misrepresented in Wiki rules by the band and their team and therefore is advertising

Right, answers:

A: Agreed that the artist is quite small however has been published in accordance to several publications, radio interviews and seems to have a larger standing than most of the bands in the genre (Which is "Scottish Kei" according to the artist), which to be honest he sounds to be the sole-artist apart of, however these publications and organisations have shown interest it seems and have granted him publication to talk about this "new genre" and therefore is relevant in the context of relevance of an article on Wikipedia.

B: There is simply no evidence of this. The only evidence in this context is that quotes are poorly referenced to Artist's myspace and not to legitimate articles (which i had to source out for other users it seems since no one else will). We have an EDIT feature on Wikipedia which you should therefore use, but no, instead you chose to choose a deletion policy, hmm.

Which brings us to our current state of affairs;

1: I personally do not tolerate PERSONAL attacks on other people giving freedom of speech. Never in my time have i seen anyone in Wikipedia do this in such a deplorable way as you have Sertap.

2: If any NEUTRAL third party (which we SHOULD all be here like myself) looks at this discussion, they will naturally read your arguments and come to the conclusion that you're basing your arguments on little or no evidence, didn't give the article a chance to improve and filed for a deletion and went on to insult other Wiki users - Naturally the only course of action is to assume you have an personal problem with this artist or the person's creating the article therefore have created a vendetta and sabotage like effort to the person's or artist's article.

For example, you have even made it a personal problem (Claire) with this other user shouting harassment when there has been none. Really i could turn the tables and say you are harassing the person/persons involved in making this article and the Wiki users who are trying to see both sides of the story here.

I am an strong advocate of free speech and have met many people like you before in my life. You have no logic and are hiding behind some rules you have conveniently found (which may i just add we ALL have access too by the way). You have ignored being neutral in this matter and have instead taken an bias attack/aggression stance upon Wiki users and the artist's article and person's involved and will not see any other logic other than your own views in this - Personally i have made my case and forwarded my choice to keep this article so i no longer have to contribute to this and will no longer reply to your looped logic.

Lastly i am with this other user (Claire) and filing a complaint against you personally - If you ARE a Wikipedia team member then from what i know from experience, Wikipedia does not tolerate such unprofessional conduct as you have shown here. StandUp73 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)StandUp73

How can you claim to be neutral or reproach my conduct when you support a user who has posted numerous times on my talk page threatening me personally? Complete objectivity is impossible and your last comment doesn't even come close. If you want to steady the debate and remove all of the adhominum content addressing me like that is certainly not the way to do it. I'm not asking you to conduct yourself with a badge of friendship showing, but an aggressive message like that makes you guilty of that which you are accusing me of. --Sertap (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and just to make clear. I am not a 'wikipedia team member' and never said anything otherwise. Just to clear that up, I'm not sure where you got that from. File your complaints away. --Sertap (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)