Talk:Frank Ferrer

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Guns N' Roses (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guns N' Roses, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Guns N' RosesWikipedia:WikiProject Guns N' RosesTemplate:WikiProject Guns N' RosesGuns N' Roses articles

Untitled

Frank needs a bigger drum set to be in GNR

Delete. Advertisement and non-noteworthy at best. Dr Chatterjee 22:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this article is a blatant advertisement, or at best, a thinly-veiled one. Notice that "Frank Ferrer" appears to be signed with a "Thunderchucker Records," and that this article's creator is named Thunderchucker. Seems like a small record label's trying to get its artists some quick 'n easy publicity... Dr Chatterjee 00:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent disruptive edits?

I edited this page recently when I read well cited and vetted news coverage about the subject in Business Insider^[1] and noticed that there were over three edits to his page by @Nynel on April 16th, which removed details which had been added a long time ago, and appeared, at minimum, to be disruptive edits. I saw no issues with the prior content and reverted the edits before adding in some essential details from the article itself, which were drafted to conform with wikipedia Biographies_of_living_persons biography standards: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, & No original research.

I saw that it was tagged for possible BLP issues, and welcomed an edit to those additions from @Ringerfan23 which better conformed to wikipedia standards (thank you!) and thought the matter was settled.

However I just got an alert that my edits been removed by @Nynel and marked as Wikipedia:Harassment. The other details I had added back in (not written by me) were also removed, which does not appear to constructively strengthen the article in any way.

Given that @Dr Chatterjee has questioned whether this wikipedia entry is simply an advertisement for the subject, I'm concerned the removal of my contributions is compromising the Neutral point of view of the article. I would welcome an explanation from @Nynel about why so much information is being removed and why my additions (with @Ringerfan23's edits) constitute harassment. I stand by my additions, believe they conform to a much higher standard of proof than the rest of the article, and come from an article that appears to be thoroughly fact checked.

In hindsight, I recognize it would have been productive to comment on @Nynel's talk page when I made my initial edits, explaining why I was adding the information back in, which might have helped prevent another revert. In the future I'll be sure to engage with other editors to keep things constructive.

I will refrain from reverting @Nynel's edits for the next 24 hours, in the interest of learning why they were made, and figuring out what will produce the best version of the article. It is not clear to me how well sourced the other details of this biography are, so it would make sense to me if they were removed because they are not adequately sourced. Wikicountable (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their edits can be safely reverted and ignored. Their edit history shows they have no interest in having any constructive edits.RF23 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again watching critical content being removed that threatens the neutrality of the article. Now by another new editor who has only made edits to this article and one for the subject's wife. Instead of reverting other changes I am simply adding back in the information that was erased in the most recent edit by @Digisyndicate1801. I have left a comment on @Digisyndicate1801's talk page noting that I've reverted disruptive edits and hope they can familiarize with wikipedia standards. As has already been discussed, the validity of this article requires maintaining a neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. I have not taken the time to review the newly added material from @Digisyndicate1801, but it should be looked at by other editors to ensure it meets these standards. --Wikicountable (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed more destructive edits and reverted back to @Ringerfan23's version 1154319948. Preserving neutrality, verifiability and no original research standard. Wikicountable (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)--[reply]

References

^ "An idyllic California town, a celebrity landlord, and a rental from hell". businessinsider.com.

[1] "An idyllic California town, a celebrity landlord, and a rental from hell". businessinsider.com.

[1]