# Talk:Mxmtoon

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 22 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Henreigh.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war on whether or to include the artist's real name or not. Her name is listed on the Audiotree reference, so either she doesn't mind, or Audiotree have knowingly (or unknowingly) flouted her wishes. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@HeyitsBen, 2601:647:4880:3770:398e:6f81:19ce:3049, Kind Tennis Fan, 2601:647:4880:3770:1df5:e362:a12b:4815,  and 2601:647:4880:3770:b01a:9401:4188:35d3: Audiotree reference is here, https://audiotree.tv/concerts-blog/mxmtoon. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello  Jonpatterns. I'm not involved in any edit war. I just restored some content to a previous stable version before there had been major disruption to references meaning the whole article was covered in cite errors. Prior to my edit, the references were in a complete mess due to content removal by IP editor(s). I don't have strong views either way whether her real name should be included or not. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jonpatterns: Yes, Audiotree may have flouted her wishes, as the artist tries to keep her full name private. However, the information is now out and accessible so there should be no reason why it shouldn't be used. A star (especially at her current stage of fame) can't go a whole career without people finding out their full name anyway. There will probably be many people (fans and even the artist's personnel) who will try and revert the full name edit... Do you think it would be necessary to put any type of page-protection on? heyitsben!! talk 08:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm undecided on whether the artist's full name should be included. I don't know if there is a consensus on this issue? At any rate a consensus should be sort on this talk page. Page protection may be needed. Maybe protect against unregistered editors, as the reverts seem to come from them - and they haven't joined this discussion yet. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mccull415, Modtoon,  and Jonpatterns: I've think that its best to keep the article in the state that it is now: without Maia's full name. heyitsben!! talk 06:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mccull415, Modtoon, HeyitsBen,  and Kind Tennis Fan: To move forward we need to state the arguments for and against including  real name Mxmtoon's, and how those arguments are backing by Wikipedia's policies. Also, are there any sources for the claim Mxmtoon doesn't want her real name in the public sphere? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) only states common usage name should be the article's name, not whether or not a real name should be included. Jonpatterns (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Question asked at Teahouse Wikipedia:Teahouse#Including_an_artist's_real_name_in_an_article_(when_it's_claimed_they_do_not_the_name_in_the_public_sphere). Jonpatterns (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
As there does not appear to be any evidence that she does want her name kept secret, and the sources are available it should remain - Anonymous people claimming she does not want it is not a reason to remove the information. Either way, per WP:BRD it should remain until consensus is reached otherwise.noq (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mccull415, Modtoon, HeyitsBen, Kind Tennis Fan,  and Jonpatterns: Hi there, this is Maia (mxmtoon's wiki account) stepping in. Audiotree as well as other sources did not pay mind to my PR firm's instruction as to not include my full legal name. It's been a repeated choice to not have my name available for public knowledge when possible, and is seen through a multitude of press articles stating such. I'm aware my name will be available online, but having it on a wikipedia page goes directly against my wishes as an artist as well as my entire team that I work with. I'm more than happy to involve my management or legal team to get this figured out, but I request that my last name not be on the wikipedia page for my artist project. The common named I would like to be referred to as is "Maia" and nothing beyond that. MaiaXMT (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
It is advised that you email info-en@wikimedia.org to resolve this problem. If upheld the past versions of the page with the full name will likely be removed too. I couldn't find any source to back up the statement "I would like to be referred to as is "Maia" and nothing beyond that", could you provide a link? Jonpatterns (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
MaiaXMT A tweet will also "suffice" (ahhah luv that song) heyitsben!! talk 08:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
No really. There is no right for the subject of an article to be able to censor material from Wikipedia on the basis that they don't want people to know it. The information is accurate and is sourced. It is basic biographical information and would be expected to be in any encyclopaedic article about the subject. noq (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jonpatterns and Noq: Here's an excerpt from an interview I did with NPR, "mxmtoon — who otherwise prefers to go by her first name, Maia — " and the SF Chronicle, "19-year-old internet phenom from Oakland, whose first name is Maia (and whose last name she prefers not to share)"  *I have since stricken a tweet from this as the two sources should provide enough evidence that I don't want my full name used. MaiaXMT (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@MaiaXMT: Thanks, did you email info-en@wikimedia.org ? I am not an administrator and I'm not 100% sure on what Wikipedia policy is on this matter. @Noq: What is the Wikipedia policy to back up this statement "There is no right for the subject of an article to be able to censor material from Wikipedia on the basis that they don't want people to know it." I don't think this is 100% correct, as Wikipedia wouldn't what to publish someone's address, or reveal the name of a police protected witness. We do not know the reason for the desire for the real name not to be disclosed. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
That policy would be WP:OWN. Guidance at WP:BLPPRIVACY. Basically, if the sources are BLP-good (no primary sources, for example), include it. If not, "err on the side of caution". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#RhythmOne, it would also be better to have a better source for date of birth, or remove it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
@Noq: Hi, if you would look at the only note about mxmtoon on the page, I am going to quote " She uses the pseudonym Maia and has never personally disclosed her full name for privacy reasons." is it an issue to respect that? Mccull415 (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
From WP:OWN, "person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say."  There does not appear to be a dispute about the facts. As to concern about naming her if shw was in witness protection, that is a straw man argument. We have a source, it appears accurate. It is easily googleable so concerns about outing someone do not apply.  That they don't want it known is not material. noq (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, "easily googleable" is not enough. IMO, none of the name-refs in this version [1] are obvious winners, but not necessarily awful either. Based on those refs, is the birthname WP:DUE to include? WP:CONSENSUS will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Most of WP:OWN relates to editors acting like they own the content of the page. WP:COI is more relevant and relates to "... being promotional and omitting negative information." not issues of privacy. The question whether a persons name can be consider private or confidential information under certain circumstances, and if so what circumstances. In this case is further complicated by not knowing if it is just a case Maia's personal privacy preference or if there are other, perhaps more serious reasons, why she doesn't want this information disclosed. On the other hand there could be a COI in that the only reason she doesn't want her real name on the article is because she wants to avoid being associated with other family members. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
According to WP:BLPNAME, I believe the correct course of action is to omit mxmtoon's name, as they have shown and continue to provide evidence of concealing their legal name. In this section, it says "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. " If the name has been intentionally concealed.... it is often preferred to omit it, especially if no context is lost. As mxmtoon has tried to solely use 'mxmtoon' and 'maia' as identifiers, it is irrelevant to include her name. One of the sources used in support of providing her name is the ACE repertory, which one's legal name is required to be used in regard to song and artist information. Mccull415 (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier, I don't have strong views about whether her full name should be used or not. But if a consensus emerges that it shouldn't be disclosed in this article, then I think a brief mention of her desire for privacy should be given in the lead, with a form of words such as:
Maia (born July 9, 2000) known professionally as mxmtoon[a] (she chooses not to disclose her full name) is an American singer-songwriter and social media personality from Oakland, California.
This would then explain to readers of the article that it's her desire that she only wants to be known as Maia and mxmtoon. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Kind Tennis Fan: I wholeheartedly agree with that proposition. Best, Mccull415 (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Not good text to have in the WP:LEAD. The footnote ([a]) as currently written is ok, perhaps also add WP:INVISIBLE text like "Current consensus per link to discussion is to not include full name." If that becomes consensus. I think the WP:BLPNAME argument above is reasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Doggy54321: we have reached a consensus about this about a year ago. I would appreciate you respect the decision. Mccull415 (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mccull415: respect what? I see no consensus. In fact, Kind Tennis Fan, in the second last message here before you and I posted, said But if a consensus emerges..., implying there was no consensus at that time. One other person responded, and then the conversation went radio silent. So I don’t see what consensus you’re referring to. As well, Maia has demonstrated ownership of the article multiple times now (someone allegedly sent her a screenshot of an edit surrounding the Among Us/being the first to get killed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez situation) and she responded saying "keep it in"), and that bit is no longer there as it was not notable enough. What I’m trying to say is that she can’t keep demonstrating WP:OWN behaviour, it’s frustrating. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
And what I am saying is - she has put her name (Redacted) out there. She has put it all out there, otherwise she wouldn't even have an article. She doesn't get to pick and choose what data goes public anywhere other than her own twitter feed. Wikipedia is not part of the Hollywood Media Complex. We don't only include things that are approved by the press agent, we include it all. Her name, (Redacted), is one of those things. 2601:983:827F:6B20:0:0:0:3353 (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC) redacted name which lacks any reliable secondary sources Nil Einne (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I concur. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mccull415 and Doggy54321: Hi there, this is Maia. While I understand your reasoning behind including my full name, I ask that you also try to understand that I keep my last name off of the internet for a reason and have multiple sources/interviews that explain that exact reasoning or keep to the sentiment of only being referred to as "Maia." My last name's presence in various places across the internet have been used without my consent to do so. While I'm aware that information is online, it makes me deeply uncomfortable that it has been used in the first place. I ask that the Wikipedia article for mxmtoon stay with the consensus that was reached previously that "Maia" be the only information accessible for the reason that my own life and career have continuously stressed the importance of keeping a level of privacy in regards to my name.MaiaXMT (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@MaiaXMT: Hey. I’m sure seeing an article about yourself may be daunting, and I know you want to make it as perfect as possible. Unfortunately, we have a policy that states that no one owns Wikipedia content. Even if someone has an article on them, they do not own that article. We also have a policy that states that if you have a conflict of interest (COI) with an article subject (you know/are/work with/associate with the subject), that you shouldn’t edit the article. So far, you’re following that one perfectly. Making talk page comments is the way to go.
Now, I understand that you want your privacy to be protected. But, you are over the age of 18, and therefore, consent isn’t a factor. As well, we have provided sources above that state your real name, such as the ASCAP database and Audiotree, which are publicly available. If you want your name to continue being private, I suggest contacting them as well.
As a first step, you need to prove that it’s really you. I suggest posting on social media and then including a link here. Then, I suggest contacting the oversight team. If you provide proof that it’s really you, they can hide all the revisions that include your real name, so that they can’t be viewed publicly, which they currently can (case in point: [2] [3] [4]). They can also remove the content from the current version of the article. I hope you consider doing this. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Doggy54321: I understand my place when it comes to this Wikipedia article. It is not a page I own or edit, but as the person the article is about and with Wikipedia trying to be a place with reputable information given to its users, I see it important that relevant information regarding my name (ie. the exclusion of my last name and consistent desire to be referred to only by first name) be prioritized for the sake of accuracy. When it comes to your need to verify my identity, I do not feel it's necessary to post on social media, if you have concerns with the validity of who I am you can email my management mxmtoon@foundationsmgmt.com where my managers can give you reassurance that it's actually me. I've already reached out to each of these sources, asking repeatedly for my name to be taken down already and have been dealing with this issue across many places repeatedly since 2017 when I was a minor and my full name was still used without my consent.
As previously stated as well in an earlier discussion, in accordance to WP:BLPNAME, omitting my full name on the mxmtoon Wiki seems to be the best course of action. As I've have shown, and can continue to provide evidence of, I prefer to conceal my legal name. In this section, it says "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. " If the name has been intentionally concealed... it is preferable to leave it out entirely, especially if the context is not needed. As I (mxmtoon) have tried to solely used 'Maia' and "mxmtoon" as identifiers, it is irrelevant to include my name.MaiaXMT (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
How can you say it is irrelevant to include your name when your moniker MXMToon is based on your initials. It only makes sense that we want to know what MXMT stands for. Besides, no one cares about your privacy. If I go to your Twitter and see what you had for dinner tonight, you are oversharing. 2601:983:827F:6B20:0:0:0:3353 (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Per the policy at WP:BLPNAME, we do to some extent care about their privacy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 Sorry everyone, but I'm afraid I've felt it necessary to block the above account. While I don't personally doubt their identity, we don't actually know that this is indeed the article subject, and we have an obligation to prevent people being impersonated here. There is an entirely off-wiki process for confirming such things and they have been advised to use that. Please be patient, this can take some time. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of the identity of MaiaXMT, we need decent secondary sources if we want to include the name per WP:BLPPRIVACY especially as it's clear from secondary sources that the subject prefers the full name is not widely published. So far, all I've seen in terms of secondary sources audiotree, which doesn't seem to even have the name anymore that I can see and even if they do, is hardly the quality secondary source we expect when there is this sort of dispute. Primary sources like ASCAP records, let alone sheet music are out for sourcing something like a birth name, just like they always are per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, fine, we can exclude the ASCAP website even though it is a searchable database available to the public. But sheet music for a musician - if this was a book by an author, how would it be different? She is clearly putting up her name in print for profit in bulk to the general public. Not just one 'book' (I only posted one), but her entire catalog of 'books'. Each song (a 3-8 page short story) in her catalog has her full name printed on it, and she agreed to this when she signed up to have her music printed, reproduced, and sold to the general public in bulk.
There is no way someone can claim privacy. 2601:983:827F:6B20:64CC:163C:85B1:2D1F (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Someone is selling sheet music. Who this is, I have no idea since AFAICT no one has provided secondary sources showing any connection to the subject of this article. It would indeed be no different for books. If there was this famous author we have an article on called Robert Galbraith who goes only by their pseudonym, and someone had once written books on a school for wizards and witches under the name J K Rowling and we have no article on them as no one had ever heard of them or their books, it would be inappropriate to link these two without a secondary source having established the connection. Feel free to replace Robert Galbraith with JKR or SbI and J K Rowling with Joanne Rowling or Siti binti Ismail if aspects of this comparison confuse you. P.S. Take a read of WP:OR before you try to link the sheet music to the subject of this article by the content of the sheet music. Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
BTW, to make sure I'm not missing something, I had a quick look. The only thing close to a reliable source I could find mentioning mxmtoon and sheet music is this [5] but it's clearly not in reference to the subject selling sheet music. Even their official website doesn't seem to mention any sheet musics. Editors are free to personally question the wisdom of including their real name in sheet music which is linked to them or even of choosing a pseudonym derived from the initials of their real name if they wish their real name to remain private, but it's irrelevant to us as editors as long as there's no secondary source connection. The subject seems to be known/notable for their performances of songs, not for any sheet music they may sell of those songs. It's perfectly possible as the subject gets more and more well known, several secondary sources will emerge which don't respect the wishes of the subject. If that happens, then sure we will eventually include the name regardless of the wishes of subject. That doesn't seem to have happened yet, since editors are dredging up ASCAP records and sheet music, rather than showing us these secondary sources. (And the one secondary sources that may have existed, audiotree, AFAICT seems to have changed which I assume is why no one is using it any more.) To be clear, the fact the subject apparently does not wish their real name to be so publicly linked to their pseudonym is reason to care more about making sure we exclude it. However it's mostly irrelevant to the actual exclusion since the sources presented thus far do not justify inclusion even if we had no idea how the subject personally felt. Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Editors may want to check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290#ASCAP as a source for artist names and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive301#Dir En Grey members' real names which specifically deal with ASCAP records. I found that while looking for this Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive316#Slate Star Codex, which concerned a largely off-Wikipedia controversy which also made it here relating to a subject's full name (or at least their family name, I'm not certain if it's their full name). Note there are several linked previous discussions but frankly the talk page Talk:Slate Star Codex is still full of them. It's very messy, but AFAICT, the outcome of all that discussion was the exclusion of the name enforced by edit filters until very recently when the subject started a new blog explicitly listing their full name.  See [6] or these individual edits [7] [8] and Talk:Slate Star Codex/Archives/2022/October#Astral Codex Ten + [9]. Note that also dealt with how to handle a citation to a work of theirs which was published under their full name which isn't something we have to deal with here, since as I said, no one has demonstrated any relevant connection between the sheet music and this article. That the decision seems to have been to only include the initial for their family name for the citation. As I understand it, there were other works published under full name, but they weren't used as citations so were largely irrelevant to the article. So yeah, that's how we dealt with an author. While looking for that, besides the ASCAP thing I also found Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive318#Zara Kay article. (There was other stuff, mostly relating to adult film actors which as I mentioned below, are where these issues came up most recently. In one case a transgender subject, where there are additional considerations so I won't link to it.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
While re-reading the discussion I linked above, I was reminded that Slate Star Codex is an article on the blog rather than the author of the blog. However, the above discussion is still a very useful reference for this case IMO. It illustrates we do not include a full name when it is not covered in reliable secondary sources and the subject themselves does not use it in most or all of the material of relevance to our article. Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Here's the problem: 

By redacting (Redacted) from the talk page, you are confirming it to be correct. Otherwise, privacy of the name wouldn't be the issue.
By redacting (Redacted) from the talk page, you are essentially blocking future editors from being able see the data in question which denies them the chance to find "legitimate" resources that can be used for the article.
By redacting (Redacted) from the talk page, you are allowing a COI to take ownership of the talk page.
And, on a more personal level, if you had the authority to actually redact (Redacted), the edit history would be blocked as well. At this point, anyone can come along and review old edits to see the information. 2601:983:827F:6B20:E85B:348C:6C40:F6F2 (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Here is the problem with this. The information in question was found using illegitimate sources, therefore, they cannot be published here. It does not matter if the info is true or not, it has to be properly sourced. As for the COI, I feel that is nullified as this is an issue of WP:BLPNAME. The personal issue you have with the edit history can be fixed through proper channels, as someone said on this talk page prior. Mccull415 (talk)
Thanks for confirming we should not be including the real name in the article. If people need to know the name to actually find sources that use it, then clearly it's terrible poorly published and does not belong in the article. I'm glad we have come to an agreement. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
BTW, I could have asked for revision deletions. I did not do so, since I do not feel it is necessary under BLP. If I was admin, I would have done the same, since my opinion would likely have remained the same. It's perfectly normal to redact stuff from the live page without bothering with revisions deletions. I was tempted to ask for you to be blocked when I saw you post it in the edit summary, but I won't do so unless you try that shit again. Since you've already agreed the real name is terrible poorly publicised, I'm not sure why you bothered to post. I would have thought once you started to write your message you would have realised you've defeated your own argument. This is not some minor details which we can include if we find some sources. This is a private detail BLP specifically says we should not include if it's not very well sourced so as I said, the argument it needs to be on the talk page to help people find sources is self-defeating. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, Mccull315,  and 2601:983:827F:6B20:0:0:0:3353: It’s clear that we are in a bit of an edit war/content dispute about whether to include Maia's real name or not. I made a request at WP:RFPP to have the page fully protected, and it has been until February 9. In the 11 days until the page is automatically unprotected, I’d like us to come to a consensus. If the edit warring continues past Feb 9, I will be resorting to RFPP again, and possibly WP:AN3 if necessary. I expect all of you to not edit war, even when the page is unprotected. Even if we have not come to a consensus, it’s important that we don’t disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Anyways, I’d like everyone to share their thoughts below, and we can discuss this over the next week and a half. Other editors are also welcome. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 03:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any need to share my thoughts here. I've already said all that needs to be said above. Find secondary sources, or there's no point discussing the inclusion of the name. Nil Einne (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: I understand that, but to build consensus, I don’t think you bowing out is a good idea. If we’re trying to work together, I see no reason why you can’t just participate for the sake of consensus. There’s a pretty damn good reason to discuss the inclusion of the name, as the page just got fully protected for almost two weeks for that exact reason. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 03:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Please read what I said again. I never said anything about bowing out. I said there is nothing further to discuss. You cannot override WP:BLP by WP:local consensus, and so until and unless you are able to find acceptable sources there is indeed nothing to discuss. If an editor is able to explain how the use of primary sources like ASCAP records does not clearly violate BLP, then sure I will respond. But so far, no one has managed to. I find it incredibly unlikely since this sort of crap is the stuff we have to deal with all the time, where people think their shitty primary sources are enough when BLP policy clearly says they are not. Most commonly this arises with adult film actors, but whatever the subject matter, the same principle applies. Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
BTW, based on the sources presented thus far, I consider this qualifies for the BLP exemption for 3RR so I make no guarantees I will not fight hard to keep the name out as long as people continue to rely on such shitty sources. Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
As of now, I agree with Nil Einne's points. I feel that their points about the sources being in violation of BLP (correct me if I misunderstood that). Mccull415 (talk)
(edit conflict) Pinging Mccull415 as I spelt the username wrong in my original. As well, 2601:983:827F:6B20:0:0:0:3353 has been notified on talk, as you can’t ping IPs. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 03:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
There's no edit war. Someone added the data, someone said 'check the talk page'. Someone added the data, someone said 'add a source'. Someone added the data with a source, someone said 'different/more sources required'.
That isn't an edit war, that is 'process'. 2601:983:827F:6B20:E85B:348C:6C40:F6F2 (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
No, this was an edit war. I had a part in it, as I removed the name several times. After I removed it, someone re added it. Mccull415 (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I think policy supports continuing to exclude the name. The ASCAP link falls under the category of "public records that include personal details", which WP:BLPPRIMARY explicitly bans. Generally, Wikipedia follows reliable secondary sources in how it covers subjects; if the reliable secondary sources don't see it fit to use the subject's full name, then neither should we. Vahurzpu (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
So, then, why can't ASCAP (primary) be used to validate MusicNotes (secondary) where she is selling copies of her works. Why can't the trademark office (primary) be used to validate her own youtube videos (secondary) where she credited herself as video producer and/or songwriter. 2601:983:827F:6B20:E85B:348C:6C40:F6F2 (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Neither MusicNotes nor YouTube video captions are secondary sources. A secondary source has "an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis"; just copying information from one database into another database isn't doing any of that. Vahurzpu (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
In addition, I'd note that combining two sources to reach a conclusion that isn't in either source is a clear example of original research, something that is forbidden in all articles on the English Wikipedia, regardless of whether living people are involved. (As I indicated in one of my earlier replies) Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


### Protection downgraded, lengthened
This is not a content dispute. This is a WP:BLP matter. I have revdeleted any mention (I think) of the full name. It is not to be added without a reliable source confirming its factual veracity. That's not complicated. Otherwise, carry on. El_C 14:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The link that is supposed to take the reader to the patch notes page that says that "prom dress" was added to the sims 4 doesn't work, but there is an internet archive version of it here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191213005248/https://www.ea.com/games/the-sims/the-sims-4/news/patch-121219
I'm very new to Wikipedia so I just wanted to put this here so people could get this right and update it without me messing it up. Lacatron (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The lede should at least explain why no surname is given. 78.154.14.90 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)