User talk:Nathan86

Hello Nathan86, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

Before you start doing a lot of editing, you might want to take the Tutorial. It gives a lot of basic info you'll want to get you oriented on Wikipedia, and comes highly recommended.

Here're some handy links:

• Help:Contents is the list of all of the information you need to use Wikipedia. Wikipedia's Help desk is the best place to ask questions to which you can't find the answers. Also, a lot more good information is at Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, which is often more up-to-date (as Meta is where information that pertains to all of the different Wikimedia projects, such as editing help, is stored and modified). Meta's Help section is located at m:Help:Contents, and more information about it can be found at Wikipedia:Meta and m:Meta:About.
• Wikipedia:How to edit a page gives editing help. Whenever you're editing a page, there'll be a link to it below the editing box and to the right of the "Save page" and "Preview" buttons, for easier access.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style gives formatting information.
• Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but you don't need to read it all at once. Our five most important tenets are listed under Wikipedia:Five pillars, and there's an easier-to-read version of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines at Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset. Our privacy policy is at Wikipedia:Privacy policy.
• Wikipedia:Show preview explains how to double-check your edits before saving, an important feature. This allows you to see how edits you have made will look once you save the page and give you an opportunity to correct mistakes before submitting your changes.

Remember to sign your name on talk pages by typing " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp (which is generally preferred). The software will automatically convert this upon saving the page.

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. I'll answer if I'm here. If you like, you can ask here, on your own talk page (for your own easier reference), but please let me know by posting a note on my talk page saying that you've replied.

Take care, and good wiki-ing, Snoutwood (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the editor who changed the list to a paragraph. Encycledias do not usually have bulleted lists of songs or albums, except perhaps if there was a short list of the "most influential" albums according to an influential music reviewer or music historian. Encyclopedias use written paragraphs of text. There are other problems with the bullet list, too. It makes it too easy for people to add their favorite band or song, even if the song only hit number 391 on the US charts, or didn't even chart. Having text also has advantages. It encourages other editors to "flesh out" the content with other facts. Bulleted lists are not interesting to read. Thanks for your comment.Nazamo (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, another problem with the bulleted list, is that the list is just made up from posts by editors. That is fine for an Internet chat page called "New Jack Swing fans favorite songs", but WIkipedia is an encyclopedia. Since to my knowledge, there isn't an official list of the most important NJS songs (in Brittanica or the Rolling Stone encyclopedia), wikipedia editors like us have to make the list of songs. You can't invent new theories or ideas on WIkipedia (it's called Original Research). So we have to try and justify the inclusion of each song, using at least 2 criteria: 1) showing that the song is a NJS song 2) showing that the song is notable. For number 1), I am trying to show links to important NJS people such as Riley. For number 2), I am using top 10 status.Nazamo (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, The reason I argue against using a list is that the list is not a "real list." What do I mean by a "real list"? Let's say that Billboard magazine named one song each year (from 1989 to 1993) as "the top NJS song", then having a bulleted list of these songs would be fine, because Billboard's editors chose them.

But if Wikipedia editors are choosing songs and putting them in a list, we have to justify the inclusion of every song. As I said above, we have to justify that the song is a NJS song (and not a dance or straight R&B song), and that it is important. Importance, I admit is not JUST about charting...if a song only charted #104, but it was used in the soundtrack of a film that was important to NJS, then it could be included.

As well, lists of bullets don't inform readers. Think of a reader who is just learning about NJS... A list of artists and song titles won't mean anything to them. So having paragraphs allows you to add in information about the role of the different artists, their links, who the producer is, etc.

Encyclopedias generally use paragraphs, not lists.Nazamo (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again...just to show I didn't just make up the idea that paragraphs are preferred over lists in WIkipedia, here is an official "tag" you can post on an article:

To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup because it is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this section to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. This section has been tagged since November 2007.Nazamo (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Phrase (rapper). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Precious Roy (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nathan86. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The source you sited was unreliable. --Efe (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are not reliable per WP:RS. --Efe (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but neither of the three is reliable. --Efe (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out that this one is not really reliable. --Efe (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fan sites are not acceptable. --Efe (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Fat's statements were true, that site is not reliable so please stop adding them back. Ive fixed that song-writing credits issue to suit everyone's taste. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because its a fan site. --Efe (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether its an archived interview from the president of the United States, WikiPedia requires that it should be covered by a reliable site. That "stealing" thing is only your opinion. --Efe (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, play nice. Unfortunately, Nathan86, Efe is supported in his edits by multiple Wikipedia policies, not the least of which is WP:BLP. You could claim that Beyonce is the love child of Pope Benedict XVI, but that would still only be your opinion that you would not be able to back up sufficiently to meet WP:BLP. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Love and War (album), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Love and War (album), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love and War (album). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may agree that the recent contentious editing of sales figures and sources on the Mariah Carey discography article and related pages have time consuming and counter productive. I have opened new discussion item on the talk page, where hopefully some of the issues can be worked out. Your opinions are requested. Please join the discussion here. Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - In case you were not aware of them, Wikipedia has several guidelines for date formats defined in MOS:DATE. Specifically, "Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes" and "Do not insert of between a month and a year (April 2000, not April of 2000)". Thanks. -- Tcncv (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]