Edge Rewrite
Jump to content

Talk:Tul8te

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 6 hours ago by LuniZunie in topic Privacy claims by label

Privacy claims by label

[edit]

Hello,LuniZunie, AntiDionysius, StartOkayStop, JeffSpaceman. I believe we are all aware of some editing disputes that took place on this page earlier today. I am currently busy but we need to reach consensus on keeping the anonymity of TUL8TE as the artist's label is attempting to keep TUL8TE anonymous. CharterDaGoob ✦ yer local goober ✦ yap? 16:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@ToBeFree: seen your ping.
I do believe the source can be considered reliable, but taking a deeper look I don't think we have enough sources to show this complies with WP:BLPPRIVACY, which is something I did not believe was true when I was checking on the surface level yesterday. LuniZunie(talk) 16:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Could you link the source again please?
Thanks CharterDaGoob ✦ yer local goober ✦ yap? 16:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, I cannot. It would go against the reason for the removal. LuniZunie(talk) 16:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
oh right true CharterDaGoob ✦ yer local goober ✦ yap? 16:41, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
So what I'm understanding is, if we find multiple reputable sources that state the same name, it would comply with WP:BLPPRIVACY? But until then just keep it as TUL8TE. CharterDaGoob ✦ yer local goober ✦ yap? 16:42, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes.
Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. LuniZunie(talk) 16:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with the interpretation of BLP and that there aren't enough reliable sources to back up having the name included. Tarekmendelek (talk · contribs) should be made aware of WP:COI and that he should not edit the article anymore, or edit any connected articles; his behavior has been fine so far, and I think we've been able to reach a consensus, but I don't want this to pick up again and spiral out of control. StartOkayStop (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yea, this seems like a good resolution.
So until we find more reliable sources stating his name, his name shouldn't be listed. CharterDaGoob ✦ yer local goober ✦ yap? 18:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Fixer88 This concerns you too as you added the text which was not in the Italian article. LuniZunie(talk) 18:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey guys! I Hope you're doing amazing. Someone went ahead and put the name again, recently the president of the music syndicate in Egypt unlawfully and without anyone's approval on TUL8TE team revealed his name on live television, it blew over and no one asked about it again but the whole point of TUL8TE remaining anonymous is for people to focus on the art and music itself, there's no point in knowing who he actually is and he wants that to remain private. Can we please remove the official name that's there and just keep TUL8TE? This is affecting how it looks on YouTube and now ANYONE can know, which does not align with the artist or label strategy, I appreciate your help in locking the edit feature on his name specifically, as it is NOT something the artist himself wants to reveal for now, if it's something to be done in the future, it would come from artist / team / label, not anyone else. I appreciate your understanding. Thank you! @AntiDionysius @CharterTheGoob @LuniZunie @StartOkayStop Tarekmendelek (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Tarekmendelek  Done per WP:BLPNAME. Also pinged editor who added it to inform them. LuniZunie(talk) 04:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is not a publicity agency though. I understand the artist’s concerns, but removing the information entirely simply out of preoccupation with his image is not really something we should be doing as an encyclopedia. We can include that only in the body if you think it’s inappropriate to cite it in the lead, but I disagree with removing everything. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
per WP:BLPNAME:
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. LuniZunie(talk) 05:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you SO much! Really appreciate it, because the name was never revealed by a verified source which would be him, his mgmt, or his label and hence it makes no sense for it to be displayed on an encyclopedia, which I'm glad you agree.
Can I please ask to remove the redirecting statement once you open the article? Again, really appreciate it as this has caused some troubles.
Thanks again and let me know if I can help with anything! Tarekmendelek (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The redirect exists though. I created it when I didn’t think It would be a problem. Again, what has happened has happened, so we may include the information further down and just say unverified sources claimed to know his real identity. Because it’s a real incident that has occurred. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, unfortunately I don't think this meets revdel criteria. If someone went that far out of their way to check through the page history, they could find it online just as easy. LuniZunie(talk) 17:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply