The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. jjanhone (talk · contribs) has been paid by Taura Stinson on their behalf. [1]

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Record Production This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Production; a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's documentation of Record Production articles. Questions or comments related to record production and related articles are welcome at the project's talk page. Anyone interested may join the project: add your name to the list of project members!Record ProductionWikipedia:WikiProject Record ProductionTemplate:WikiProject Record ProductionRecord Production articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Women in Music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A paid editor made contributions to this article, and has disclosed that fact on this page, therefore the paid contributions template is a matter of fact and does not require discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the policy "if you place the Paid tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." As a paid editor I'm not allowed to remove the tag myself, but if any volunteer editor thinks that the neutral point of view of the article is ok, they are free to remove the tag as told in the Template:Paid contributions instructions: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."Jjanhone (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging the previous editors of this article to see if they have something to say about the neutral point of view of the article. So hello Nauriya, RFD, Kicking222, All Hallow's Wraith, Facevalue1, David Gerard, Rosiestep, Derek R Bullamore. Do you see problems here? Thanks for your comments! Jjanhone (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol, it still reads like a press release, and the paid tag is an excellent explanation for the reader - David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seriously asking: what makes it "like a press release"? Is the summary too long and containing too many names or what's the matter? Jjanhone (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a bit excessive and seems to repeat the article's body as prose. Perhaps shorten it and add wikilinks so the examples look more notable/relevant. Caius G. (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Is it better now Caius G.? Jjanhone (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any issues with this article that can justify the warning added at the beginning of the article? If yes, can you give an example please?Jjanhone (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (summoned by the bot) I don't see any need to keep the tag – the article is a little sparse on biographical information, but it doesn't read as promotional. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice to hear Mx. Granger! Any change you could then remove the tag?Jjanhone (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an invalid RfC. The statement, whilst brief, is not neutral; and there is no evidence that the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE have been exhausted. The tag concerned was added in March 2021 by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs); have you asked them directly why it was added and if it is still justified? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for my mistake in RfC process, I asked for more comments as the discussion on this page has not proceed in months. Redrose64 , I do hae asked BMK (not pinging as been asked not to do so) to explain why the tag was added.Jjanhone (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Jjanhone admits to being a paid editor, therefore the warning is justified. Paid editors cannot, by definition, be neutral about the article they contribute to. As Redrose64 points out, this is not a valid RfC, therefore I have altered the subject of this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging the previous editors of this article: RFD, Kicking222, All Hallow's Wraith, Facevalue1, David Gerard, Rosiestep, Derek R Bullamore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 03:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes: the issue that it's literally a paid spam article, and warning readers about this is absolutely the correct thing to do - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Beyond My Ken and David Gerard: In your view, what needs to happen before the maintenance tag is removed from the article? Or do you think it should remain permanently? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As long as there are contributions from a paid contributor in the article, the reader needs to be informed so they can understand that the information they added to the article may not be trustworthy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think there is sitewide consensus for that standard. Template:Paid contributions/doc says the template is for articles with disclosed paid contributions "that require cleanup". Once that cleanup is finished, the tag should be removed. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]