Talk:Thank Me Later

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thank Me Later article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thank Me Later has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 6, 2009	Articles for deletion	No consensus
December 24, 2009	Articles for deletion	Kept
November 11, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Thank Me Later. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Thank Me Later at the Reference desk.

Canada: Music Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.

Hip hop Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

K-os

K-os IS CONFIRMED on the album. "Faith" will be released as a itunes exclusive and possibly as a bonus track on the album. It won't be a regular track on the album. HOWEVER, there will be a track featuring K-os called "The Two" CONFIRMED BY K-OS HIMSELF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.99.178 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to add some ifo from the press showing. Its easily found on google and legitimate. At least add on about the Kings of leon feat. on Fireworks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vla.67 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Me Later: Listening Session confirmed tracks, features, and producers

Based off a write-up from attendee Ace Burpee who was at a Listening Party for "Thank Me Later". She confirmed that Kings of Leon is on "Fireworks", also that there will be a track with Dr. Dre, and Eminem. Also, that there is a track produced by Kanye West, and Timbaland. and Finally, a song called "Thank Me Now" is supposed to be the last track on the album.

http://www.realhiphopsince79.com/site/2010/03/12/thank-me-later-listening-session/ http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Universal-Previews-Drakes-Thank-Me-Later-Debut-He-Will-Be-Doing-A-Track-W-Dr-Dre-Eminem-1821464.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npaproductions (talk • contribs) 02:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Me (ft. Lil'Wayne)

http://rapradar.com/2010/04/06/drake-on-lil-wayne-collab-off-thank-me-later/ African Bambaataa is a lil' Wayne track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Busted1der (talk • contribs) 02:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Resistance

New Drake track named "The Resistance" <ref>http://defpenradio718.com/blog/video-drake-the-resistance-live-in-syracuse/</ref>

Find Your Love

Find Your Love is 3:29, not 3:51. Someone please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.22.28.24 (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Single

Third single is "Miss Me" http://www.rap-up.com/2010/05/19/drake-reveals-next-single-announces-dates-for-second-leg-of-tour/#more-47380

Single??

http://www.thesource.com/categories/140/Songs%20from%20%20Thank%20Me%20Later%20%20are%20popping%20up,%20check%20out%20Drake's%20newest%20track

saying that July is a single. This is a magazine, so I think it can be considered an official source. Anyone know if this is real or not? I've also found some other somewhat reliable sources saying it's a single...haven't seen him on twitter saying it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.37.123 (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Tyler.s.ryckman, 27 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The producers of "Over" should be Boi 1da & Nick Brongers, not Al Khaliq. That is an outdated alias.

Tyler.s.ryckman (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spitfire19 (Talk) 03:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shut It Down Length

Shut It Down CDQ leaked.It's 5:06 now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.140.133 (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The album leaked

The whole album leaked either last night (6/1) or today (6/2)

Article contains image from Drake's confirmed twitter acknowledging the leak. http://www.defsounds.com/articles/Drake_talks_thank_me_later_leak_were_good_over_here Proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atotaldumass (talk • contribs) 02:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should add this review. http://futuretunez.com/2010/06/12/drake-review/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.15.189 (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Rapaintdead, 13 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I want to add a review of this album from rapaintdead.com writtten by aaron caine. adress is http://rapaintdead.com/post/659008742/drake-thank-me-later

| rev3 = Rapaintdead | rev3Score = (B)<ref name="RAD">{{cite web |first=aaron |last=Caine |title=Review: ''Thank Me Later'' |url=http://rapaintdead.com/post/659008742/drake-thank-me-later |publisher=[[Aaron Caine]] |accessdate=3 June 2010}}</ref> | rev4 = Robert Christgau | rev4Score = (B)<ref name="RC">{{cite web |first=Robert |last=Christgau |title=Review: ''Dirt'' |url=http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=Alice+in+Chains |publisher=[[Robert Christgau]] |accessdate=31 January 2010}}</ref> | rev5 = Q | rev5Score = <ref name="Q">{{cite journal |last=Doe |first=Jane |title=Review: ''Dirt'' |journal=[[Q (magazine)|Q]] |issue=65 |year=2002 |month=February |page=120}}</ref> Rapaintdead (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a reliable source, blogs rarely are - see WP:SPS. If you disagree, ask on the reliable sources noticeboard. Chzz ► 22:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done

Album Review

I think you should include an album review from hiphopdx. They are a credible source reviewing over thousands of hip hop and r&b albumsCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).. Here is the link: http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/reviews/id.1454/drake-thank-me-later Sever246 (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry they have beef against HipHopDX so they wont let it there. STAT -Verse 22:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank me later just came out this morining it is now 1:52 52 minutes ago thank me later is now not an antipation but inspritation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thankmelaterornow (talk • contribs) 05:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Could someone add the review from pitchfork? I can't edit the page. link: http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/14367-thank-me-later/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver sehlstedt (talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Album Review

You can find this review at this link: http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/14367-thank-me-later/

Drake sings or raps the word "I" 410 times on his debut album. Even in the realm of hip-hop-- a style famous for its unswerving solipsism-- this is a feat. For comparison's sake, noted mirror watcher Kanye West managed to work only 220 "I"'s into the verses and hooks of his big break, The College Dropout. Illmatic; 210. Reasonable Doubt; 240. With Thank Me Later, Drake attempts to enter the pantheon of those rap game-busters by the sheer force of first person singular pronouns. All eyes are on him-- especially his own. But considering this mixed race, half-Jewish, all-Canadian "Degrassi: The Next Generation" alum looks and sounds unlike any major rap star before him, betting the house on nothing but himself turns out to be a wise gamble.

Drake is the guy you get drinks with who talks about himself for a few hours-- if you're lucky, he might ask you for advice on one or two things. But this is OK because Drake's stories are better than yours. Like the one about how Lil Wayne befriended and signed him at the height of Weezy's powers. Or how he got with Rihanna last year. Or that time he flashed from a Toronto has-been to a top-flight hit maker off the strength of a self-released mixtape. Of course, there's the classic about sipping a few too many glasses of Ace of Spades and asking Nicki Minaj to marry him. Sounds like a sweet existence.

But there's a problem. Even though he's a rich and handsome 23 year old spreading his music around the world in a five-star fashion, Drake really wants to be in the bottom bunk, hooking up with a girl next to the laundry basket at Totally Normal University, as he raps, "I wish I wasn't famous/ I wish I was still in school/ So I could have you in my dorm room/ I would put it on you crazy." Elsewhere, the irony is not lost on him, but he's not taking anything back: "I know that niggas would kill for this lifestyle/ I'm lookin' forward to the memories of right now."

Thank Me Later presents its star as a bottle-serviced hip-hop headcase tirelessly searching for love and good times while caught up in his own thoughts. "While all my closest friends out partyin'/ I'm just here makin' the music that they party to," he shrugs on "Light Up". Which all seems very Boy Who Cried Penthouse Suite except that Drake manages to make his plight tugging and relatable thanks to a potent mix of empathy, candidness, and grandeur. This is mood music inspired by rap and R&B in equal measure-- sensible for a guy who can match bars with Lil Wayne one second and then sing an effortlessly aching hook next to The-Dream the next. And, largely thanks to sonic co-conspirators Noah "40" Shebib and Boi-1da, Thank Me Later is held together by misty keyboards and dank drums that recall everyone from Sade to Boards of Canada to Massive Attack to the xx (who are thanked in the record's liner notes). And, much like those artists' music, it's understated-yet-undeniable emotion that drives this album more than anything else. The theme is mo' money, mo' heartbreak, and it's everywhere.

Simply, Drake is in love with his own lovelessness. But instead of lashing out against his would-be wifeys à la 808s and Heartbreak or falling into token misogyny, his relationship with women is more complicated. Whereas the unofficial mainstream hip-hop LP rulebook previously demanded a couple "ladies' night" tracks that were often pandering, insulting, or both, Drake lives for such softness. The brilliant and spare "Karaoke" finds him singing about a girl who can't deal with his newly jet-setting ways. "I was only trying to get ahead/ But the spotlight makes you nervous," he says, sounding more committed than a host of melisma-drunk heartthrobs. His relatively progressive and gentlemanly style is contagious, too; on the soon-to-be smash "Fancy", T.I. ditches the "superficial gold-digging bitches" he once praised on songs like "Whatever You Like", instead opting for a single lady with her own BMW and Jaguar in the garage. As if that wasn't enough, Mary J. Blige spiritually co-signs the sentiment by adding some subtle harmonies as the song draws to a close.

Meanwhile, Drake's fellow Young Money upstart Nicki Minaj adds to the gender ambiguities, out-manning her host on the diabolical "Up All Night", and the album's steamiest pairing has him teaming with The-Dream for the uber-slow jam "Shut It Down". That song ends with Drake shamelessly trying to get in a new acquaintance's pants-- "take those fuckin' heels off, it's worth it, girl," he suggests. He's no angel. But even when this Romeo starts tossing dollar bills at a strip club on "Miss Me", his ogling is somehow lonely and level: "I don't judge her but I could never love her/ 'Cause to her I'm just a rapper and soon she'll have met another."

As much as rap is built on artful navel-gazing, it's also founded in struggle. And just as Drake's dramatically exposed selfishness is unique to hip-hop, so are his adversities. He grew up in an affluent Toronto suburb and was graced with everything but a functional pair of parents, who split when he was three. Like Kanye West before him, Drake vies for superstardom while embracing his non-drug-dealing, non-violent, non-dire history-- one that connects with most rap fans in a completely reasonable way. And, suddenly, all that "I" turns into a lot of "we."

— Ryan Dombal, June 15, 2010

Davey S. Kush--76.125.67.15 (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

certifications

ok obviously since it sold 447,000 copies in the first week then itll go gold in the US very soon..keep checkin every week on differint websites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.151.146 (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit

{{editsemiprotected}} in the infobox, add single number 4: "Fancy" with a August 3, 2010 release date.Source

Done Red Flag on the Right Side 01:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Lytes, 28 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change the information regarding a studio mentioned in the article the line reads " Gee Jam Studios in Portland" should be read as "Gee Jam Studios in Portland, Jamaica" distinguishing from another location.

Lytes (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Tandra "dj Lytes" Jhagroo - Mix engineer, assistant mix enineer[reply]

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Week Sales

Drake's album sold 462,989. Why does it say 447,000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.144.87 (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

grammy award nominations

i cant believe it hasn't been mentioned that drake has recieved 4 grammy award nominations this year !, including Best New Artist and Best Rap Album —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.211.31 (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

true that, it is ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.211.31 (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Ian Streeter, 14 November 2011

Pop is not an influenced genre on this album.

Not done Look at the sources. This is not Ian Streeter-peda. What you say does not go around here. Candy o32 18:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit semi protected

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The singles section seems to be out of date.....please update...first of all, it says: "Miss Me", the album's third single was initially released as a promo single on June 1, 2010, before going to radio. The single has currently peaked at number 15 in the United States and the Anthony Mandler-directed video has been filmed.

It was not released as a promo single....it was directly released as the third single, being sent to radio on June 1, 2010. source: http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=06/01/2010&Format=5

Also, the music video for it was released in August 2010

So, it should look like this:

"Miss Me", the album's third single was officially sent to Urban radio on June 1, 2010.<ref>http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=06/01/2010&Format=5</ref><ref name="Drake's Leaked 'Fireworks' Addresses Rihanna Relationship"/> The single has peaked at number 15 in the United States and the Anthony Mandler-directed video was released in August 2010.<ref name="Drake's Leaked 'Fireworks' Addresses Rihanna Relationship">{{cite news|url=http://www.billboard.com/charts?tag=nav#/song/drake-featuring-lil-wayne/miss-me/20027500|title=Drake's Leaked 'Fireworks' Addresses Rihanna Relationship|work=[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|publisher=[[Prometheus Global Media]]|last=Concepcion|first=Mariel|date=2010-05-28|accessdate=2010-05-28}}</ref>

Problem number 2, it says that: "Fancy is the rumored next single as Drake, Swizz Beatz and T.I. have shot a music video for the song".....

How is it "rumored" if it has already been released?.....it's not rumored, it was released as the fourth official single, so remove the "rumored" part.

Also, the music video for Fancy was never released, add that part....

And finally, it says that: "It will be released in the United Kingdom on October 11, 2010 as a double-A-side single with his previous single "Best I Ever Had". That's not true, remove that part, it was never released in the UK....i checked iTunes UK and Amazon UK, and Fancy has not been released there.

So, overall, it should look like this:

"Over" was released as the album's first single on March 8, 2010 through digital distribution.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.amazon.com/Over-Explicit/dp/B003BA7E82|title=Amazon.com:Over -Explicit: Drake: MP3 Downloads|publisher=[[Amazon.com]]|accessdate=2010-05-04}}</ref> The song received positive reviews, which commended the lyrics among other content. It was a success stateside and in Canada, reaching the top twenty on the main charts and one and two on the Rap and R&B/Hip-Hop charts respectively.<ref name="OVERBILL">{{cite web|url=http://www.billboard.com/news/rihanna-rules-hot-100-with-rude-boy-track-1004076296.story#/song/drake/over/18132468|title=Over - Billboard.com|work=[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|publisher=[[Prometheus Global Media]]|accessdate=2010-05-04}}</ref> It also was successful internationally appearing on the UK Singles Chart, UK R&B Chart, and German Black Chart.<ref name="OverAcharts">{{cite web|url=http://acharts.us/song/53992|title=Drake - Over - Music Charts|publisher=Acharts.us|accessdate=2010-05-04}}</ref><ref name="German">{{cite web|url=http://www.mtv.de/charts/black|title=MTV Deutsche Black Charts|work=''[[MTV News|MTV Germany]]''|publisher=[[Viacom]]|accessdate=2010-05-16}} {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref> The Anthony Mandler-helmed clip features Drake reminiscing over an experience, and the struggle between his old life and the new one.<ref name="MTVV">{{cite web|url=http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1635867/20100412/drake.jhtml|title=Drake's 'Over' Video Shows Struggle Between 'My Past Life And This New Life'|date=2010-04-12|accessdate=2010-04-19|first=Shaheem|last=Reid|work=[[MTV]]|publisher=[[Viacom]]}}</ref> "Find Your Love" was released as the album's second single on May 5, 2010.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/find-your-love-single/id370913840|title=Find Your Love - Single by Drake|work=[[iTunes]]|publisher=[[Apple Inc.]]|accessdate=2010-05-06}}</ref> Initially, the song sparked comparisons between the work and 808s and Heartbreak by Kanye West, who produced the song and several others on the album.<ref name="RS"/> The song became Drake's best charting effort since "Best I Ever Had" appearing in the top five on the Billboard Hot 100, and the top ten in Canada. In addition to appearing on the Rap and R&B charts, it charted on the Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs), and also on several international charts.<ref name="FYLBILL">{{cite web|url=http://www.billboard.com/#/song/drake/find-your-love/19177904|title=Find Your Love - Billboard.com|accessdate=2010-06-24|work=[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|publisher=[[Prometheus Global Media]]}}</ref> The accompanying video, also directed by Anthony Mandler was shot in Jamaica and chronicles Drake's relationship with a gang-affiliated woman.<ref name="BILLBOARDAN">{{cite web|url=http://www.billboard.com/#/column/viralvideos/drake-faces-death-in-find-your-love-video-1004089959.story?tag=hpfeed|title=Drake Faces Death in 'Find Your Love' Video|first=Monica|last=Herrera|date=2010-05-11|accessdate=2010-05-16|work=[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|publisher=[[Prometheus Global Media]]}}</ref> "Miss Me", the album's third single was officially sent to Urban radio on June 1, 2010.<ref>http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=06/01/2010&Format=5</ref><ref name="Drake's Leaked 'Fireworks' Addresses Rihanna Relationship"/> The single has peaked at number 15 in the United States and the Anthony Mandler-directed video was released in August 2010.<ref name="Drake's Leaked 'Fireworks' Addresses Rihanna Relationship">{{cite news|url=http://www.billboard.com/charts?tag=nav#/song/drake-featuring-lil-wayne/miss-me/20027500|title=Drake's Leaked 'Fireworks' Addresses Rihanna Relationship|work=[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|publisher=[[Prometheus Global Media]]|last=Concepcion|first=Mariel|date=2010-05-28|accessdate=2010-05-28}}</ref> "Fancy" was released as the fourth single as Drake, Swizz Beatz and T.I. have shot a music video for the song.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.trapmuzik.com/news/ti-with-his-kids-drakes-fancy-video-shoot/ |title=T.I. With His Kids @ Drake's "Fancy" Video Shoot - Blog Detail |publisher=TrapMuzik.com |date=2010-07-16 |accessdate=2011-03-02}}</ref> The single was given its official release to urban radio on August 3, 2010.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://gfa.radioandrecords.com/publishGFA/GFANextPage.asp?sDate=08/03/2010&Format=5 |title=®R&R :: Going For Adds™ :: Urban |publisher=Gfa.radioandrecords.com |date=2010-08-03 |accessdate=2011-03-02}}</ref>. It peaked at number 25 on the Billboard Hot 100.<ref>http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/drake/chart-history/855020</ref>. The video for "Fancy" was never released.<ref>http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1648619/drake-hes-debating-fancy-video-reshoot.jhtml</ref>

Not done – No reliable references. --J (t) 03:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thank Me Later/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bruce Campbell (talk · contribs) 00:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer right here. Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there really isn't anything blatantly wrong with the article I'm just gonna be specific and nitpick. Lord knows how long GA reviews take otherwise.

Kanye West is wikinlinked to much. Twice in the lead alone, twice in the background section, and again in the composition section. Same thing goes for Lil Wayne, Kid Cudi, Jay-Z, etc.

Overlink with the singles aswell... "Find Your Love" twice, "Best I Ever Had" twice, etc. Done too with Man on the Moon and 808s & Heartbreak. The Nathan Rabin quote in the composition section, "synthesizers that create a melancholy, fragile mood redolent of 808s & Heartbreak" - album name isn't italicized.

"and musically distinct from So Far Gone" - the EP or the mixtape or both?

The first Rolling Stone reference has an inconsistent retrieval date. As does the Metacritic one

Two dead links. Neither support really anything crucial though so not a big deal.

Punch line is a dab link.

That's all I could find that could be faulted. Should take, like, 2 minutes to fix. Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dan56 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Record label

@DrizzyDrizz:, I reverted your recent edit because there's no mention of Thank Me Later in the source you cited nor in its accompanying pdf, a legal document of some on-going law suit. Even if it did mention the album and it being released by the label you are saying it was, it is a primary source; you need to cite a third-party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and one which explicitly states that record label released the album. Keep in mind, there are several third-party sources in the article that verify other labels having released the album, including what's written and verified in #Release and promotion. Dan56 (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added Billboard as a source, it can't get much more reliable than that. Thanks for your concerns. DrizzyDrizz (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent disruptive editing by PsychopathicAssassin

PsychopathicAssassin is offering no rationale for his unconstructive changes to the article. Question to those who chime in: Yay or nay his revision? Dan56 (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Nay - per below. Dan56 (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nay - the article was just perfectly fine as before. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nay - The contribution did not significantly improve the page. Also, for those that were brought to this RfC via a bot or the RfC page, this I believe is the edit in question. Meatsgains (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

You've offered no reason for removing references verifying the genres listed in the infobox, for replacing commas with h-list (Template:Infobox album#Genre/cite_note-lists-1 says commas may be used to separate lists of two or three items), and for vandalizing other parts of the article (undoing improvements to the prose, copy-pasting a paragraph from the body in place of the lead). This is not how Wikipedia works. Your bold edit was reverted days ago, and you should know at this point (following numerous warnings in the past I see at your talk page) that the appropriate course of action is to direct your efforts toward discussing the issue at the talk page, not restoring your disruptive edits to the article and edit warring. Dan56 (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan56: The reasoning behind altering the template for the album was that it follows Wikipedia protocol, as evidenced by Thriller (a featured article-certified article, might I add, which displays the best Wikpiedia has to offer). The vandalism showcased was handled and appropriated with proper conduct, enhancing the edits by the maintaining of correct information. And by a quick visit to your talk page, it seems that removal of content is an area you seem to be a master in. Please find that my edits are not vandalism, nor are they damaging to the article in question, where yours falls on the contrary. PsychopathicAssassin (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you pathologically pompous or just messing with me? You literally responded to none of the guidelines I cited and linked as a courtesy to you. Please look at xx (album) ("a featured article-certified article, might I add, which displays the best Wikipedia has to offer"), and respond back when you've learned how to communicate with others like a human being rather than an arrogantly programmed robot. Dan56 (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could ask you the same question you began with, yet I have the issues communicating like an "arrogantly programmed robot". The guidelines also provide the acceptance of the {{hlist| format, or it would not exist to begin with. In regards to xx, I had ventured to see an article that had not been linked to either one of us in any way, in order to showcase no form of bias. As you had provided significant and/or are affiliated with the article in any major shape or form, I hoped that, by providing Thriller, was able to gain some sort of consensus. Please reevaluate the "damages" my edits are providing, Dan, before lashing out. Dan56 (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited Thriller significantly. See its page history. I have also provided the relevant guideline (Template:Infobox album#Genre/cite_note-lists-1), which you haven't acknowledged AT ALL. I also know that one article's condition is never a basis for changes to another article. @PsychopathicAssassin:. Dan56 (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no mention of you at all on Thriller, and spouting various guidelines in hopes to back your point do not work, as they are totally irrelevant to the argument you are providing. @Dan56:. PsychopathicAssassin (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I literally named two guidelines ("Various"?). I'm detecting a lack of competence on your part and am inviting other editors--who've actually contributed to this article--to further prevent this edit war. @TheAmazingPeanuts:, @Koala15:, @Materialscientist:, @Cornerstonepicker:. Dan56 (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the owners of this article are being a bit bullyish. PsychopathicAssassin's intentions were clearly noble and his edits were not detrimental to the article's status quo when looked at globally. Yes, people go crazy when feathers are ruffled; time to take a breather and approach things calmly and constructively. PsychopathicAssassin needs to take a few steps back and listen to other editors; the rest of you need to accept other people will edit articles the same way you do - reverting just because you don't like those edits is not the way to go. All of you need to accept that sometimes it's just better to let go and see articles flourish without quarrelling over every single minor detail. Pertaining to the specific edits in question: I see how the lede seems to be very poorly written, presenting subjective analysis as fact (as often happens in music-related content). This needs to be addressed, and I believe PsychopathicAssassin was trying to move in this direction. The content in-article needs to be tackled conjunctively. As for the infobox edits, they appear to be minor and addressing a penchant for certain infobox mannerisms. Anyway, let this be interpreted as a means of encouragement towards constructive and collabirative editing from all parts involved. We're all tired of meaningless discussion. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FoCuSandLeArN: I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you, Sir... I am forever grateful. PsychopathicAssassin (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any effort at improving the lead in this revision @FoCuSandLeArN:, @PsychopathicAssassin:. It's essentially the same paragraph verbatim, just repeating citations in the lead. Furthermore, that's not the focus of the editor's aim; it was replacing commas with h-lists in the infobox ([1]), which they have yet to justify doing. Dan56 (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: I received a request from LegoBot to comment on this discussion, and have no connection with either of the editors who are in disagreement. The edits PsychopathicAssassin made appear in good faith, and in my opinion, improved the article, in particular the longer edits made on Aug 23 and 24 that were reverted by Dan56. I agree with FoCuS that no one editor "owns" the page, and that quarrelling does not lead to an improved encyclopedia article. Netherzone (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I might vote “yay” for PsychopathicAssassin’s edits, because they appear to be done in good faith, and supported. They’re certainly not vandalism, and to call them “disruptive” in the heading of this talk page section seems inappropriately non-neutral. PsychopathicAssassin has a right to edit. However, I won’t vote because Dan56’s request for comment doesn’t specify which revision, and the brawling discussion indicates that, contrary to the phrasing of the RfC, Dan56 wants several revisions considered, which are still not specified in the RfC. The RfC seems to be framed in a manner that is not neutral, and it is too casually expressed. The discussion seems to be a dispute about content, and the editor making the request weakens the request by the over-the-top ‘’ad hominem’’ remarks used to oppose an editor who has a different opinion. The editors should confine themselves to the issues. Biderbeck (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My issue The Harvard Crimson

I notice that The Harvard Crimson is use as a source, is student publications are considered unreliable sources? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]