Hello ADHP2024. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Ben Rector, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:ADHP2024. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=ADHP2024|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. See [1].Ravensfire (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240815034300","author":"Ravensfire","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ravensfire-20240815034300-August_2024","replies":[]}}-->
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Ben Rector, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Using deceptive and misleading edit-summaries, removing well sourced information and not trying to get consensus when you've been reverted (on both of your accounts) multiple times by multiple editors is disruptive and NOT helpful. You need to read WP:PAID, make the required disclosures, and follow WP:BRD which is the preferred editing process on Wikipedia.Ravensfire (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240815034500","author":"Ravensfire","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ravensfire-20240815034500-August_2024","replies":[]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Panini!-20240820222600","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-By_all_means,_if_there_is_something_factually_wrong_with_the_Ben_Rector_article-20240820222600","replies":["c-Panini!-20240820222600-By_all_means,_if_there_is_something_factually_wrong_with_the_Ben_Rector_article"],"text":"By all means, if there is something factually wrong with the Ben Rector article please let me know and I'll fix it","linkableTitle":"By all means, if there is something factually wrong with the Ben Rector article please let me know and I'll fix it"}-->
By all means, if there is something factually wrong with the Ben Rector article please let me know and I'll fix it
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Panini!-20240820222600","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-By_all_means,_if_there_is_something_factually_wrong_with_the_Ben_Rector_article-20240820222600","replies":["c-Panini!-20240820222600-By_all_means,_if_there_is_something_factually_wrong_with_the_Ben_Rector_article"],"text":"By all means, if there is something factually wrong with the Ben Rector article please let me know and I'll fix it","linkableTitle":"By all means, if there is something factually wrong with the Ben Rector article please let me know and I'll fix it"}-->
Now, this main article is far from done, as details are still too sparse and disconnected to my liking. However, it looks a LOT better than before I started working on it. So to see that your are actively removing the majority of the information I worked hard to add is pretty disheartening, especially considering the slight possibility that you are who you claim (that whole WP:PAID thing is required, you know).
You have cited a couple reasons for the removals in your edit summaries. One was irrelevancy, which is just not true. Citing personal details about someone, especially in context outside of their career, is the norm for any WP:BLP article. You stated on a talk page that "No other singer songwriter has a page like that", but that's most likely the case to you because no specific article is given special attention like I am. Look at John Mayer and Taylor Swift; very famous individuals who have very detailed information regarding their personal life because this info should be here from a wiki standpoint. You are probably just looking at articles that haven't gotten good coverage yet. Plus, I don't see the fault in including "so much storytelling and narrative" as you say, especially in the context of his religious beliefs and family. That's literally Ben's schtick. Look at The Joy of Music: "Daughter" is explicitly about his own daughter, while "Supernatural", "Thank You", and "Joy" are about his religion. "Old Friends" is so narratively specific, that the amount of personal details associated with the song were enough to meet the notability guidelines for an article split.
You also cite inaccuracy, and that's the one I want to focus on. While I know a lot of this is true, since the majority of my sources in there currently are from interviews (meaning, Ben himself is the source), I know I'm not impervious to inaccuracy. For example, if I remember correctly I'm pretty sure this interview and this podcast give contradicting accounts of when he married and moved to Nashville. I strive for accuracy, as does Wikipedia, so let's talk this through! Please let me know what exactly (and I mean exactly) needs fixing for accuracy sake, with proper sourcing, and I can help amend this issue if it exists. I will be showing up when the doors open to that concert, in the hopes of meeting the guy, and I would like to not be reprimanded for screwing up his biography. Panini!•🥪22:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240820222600","author":"Panini!","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Panini!-20240820222600-By_all_means,_if_there_is_something_factually_wrong_with_the_Ben_Rector_article","replies":[]}}-->