Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Laser brain (talk | contribs) at 15:00, 18 January 2017 (→January 2017: follow up). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hibachi for Lunch

Is Hibachi for Lunch a mixtape or an EP?? JustDoItFettyg (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@JustDoItFettyg: It was first released as a mixtape, and it is considered by many outlets that it was a mixtape so I think it's a mixtape. It was just rereleased as an EP JayPe (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Starboy

If you want the Starboy article to be protected, you had to request for protection at the Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

:)

I really like what you have created bro, keep it up! BDMA Beats (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@BDMA Beats: Appreciate the love man. JayPe (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

6LACK

I was actually gonna undo my edit and say my bad but you made the edit before me. Sorry JustDoItFettyg (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@JustDoItFettyg: It's fine. BTW, Magnolia just mentioned us both on someone else's talk page, are you planning on responding? JayPe (talk) 2:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, after Lazer Brain's responses i will respond back. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@JustDoItFettyg: Right there with you on that. JayPe (talk) 2:54, 1 December, 2016 (UTC)

Yo I was thinking on creating that new J. Cole album "4 Your Eyez Only". Wanna help create the page? JustDoItFettyg (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@JustDoItFettyg: I'll gladly help out with the article, but I think we should wait a day or two to do it as it might be taken down for the lack of information it has (see discussion below). JayPe (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I know that is why i will add information to it. I already made it 4 Your Eyez Only you can help with it too. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hey, welcome back. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@JustDoItFettyg: I realized now that the points I made earlier were uncalled for (and I got pissed off just like this editor), and I should cite my edit's from now on like you said. Feels good to be back. JayPe (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Glad to have you back, just be careful with your edits and cite your sources. :) JustDoItFettyg (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Why WP:V is important

Welcome back Jaype. I know you might find it tedious to source edits, but let's have a look at your this edit. Here, I have absolutely no idea which one is correct - your version or the version prior to it. Now consider this scenario. You have put in a lot of hard work to add the content (but neglected to add sources). Another editor comes along and changes the name of the producers. Since none of you have provided any citations, I have no idea whose version to trust. I might as well remove all the unsourced data just so that readers do not get to read factually incorrect information. What does this achieve ultimately though? You put in so much time and effort to add the info - and it is removed because it is unsourced. However, if you had put in citations, I would have been able to quickly verify the content and restore the correct info. What I want you to understand is that WP:V is compulsory. Edits must be sourced. I don't want you to be blocked because you are a productive editor and do great content work otherwise. Why don't you just put in sources? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: I was in a rush when I made this edit here, so my bad for that. I found all of my information from here, and I will add the missing information at a later time. Since you are here though, I want to apologize for telling you to "get a life" a couple weeks back. You have been very kind to me since I've came back and I feel bad for what I said earlier. I will continue to cite my sources in my edits from now on. JayPe (talk) 3:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Misplaced Pages, as you did at GTTM: Goin Thru the Motions. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The reason the length of this block is so long is because you have evidently just ignored previous blocks. You have returned to the same editing pattern that led to those blocks. Please cite sources so we can verify your edits. I will be watching your edits upon your return, if you carry on not providing sources, you may find that the next block is indefinite.--5 albert square (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I want to continue to contribute to the encyclopedia. I understand that the reason I got blocked was for making edits that did not provide a source. I would also like to apologize to the people that I have made offensive comments too. I easily lose my temper when I get reverted for edits that I have spent countless hours on and get warned for everyday. I understand now that those people did not want to bring me down, but to help make this a reliable site for others to use. I was always going by truth, not by verifiability when I edit, and while a partial sum of my edits are considered unsourced, they were never intended to disrupt anybody. I feel that I have a lot to offer to the community (most notably to music articles), and all I ask is for another chance to show that I can make useful contributions to this field of work, while doing what is asked of me. I'll also promise to not start any more arguments or edit wars with other users as they have more experience than I do on Misplaced Pages. I know my actions previously would say otherwise, but I hope you reconsider this block because I am willing to change for the better. Thank you. JayPe (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• I am generally willing to consider unblocking an editor who accepts what he or she has done wrong, and seems to genuinely be willing to change. However, as I see it, there are a couple of problems with your unblock request.

1. After previous blocks you apologised and said that you would not do the same things again, as for example here and here, but then went ahead and did the same things again. Why should we think that this time you will do anything different?
2. In your unblock request you apologise for being uncivil to other editors, and you say that you "promise to not start any more arguments or edit wars with other users". Those are a good step forward, but the reason for the block is persistently adding unsourced content, and you do not give any indication either that you understand that or that you will not do so again. Indeed, if anything you seem to try to downplay that: "a partial sum of my edits are considered unsourced" (my emphasis), and moreover you have a history of denying that you have added unsourced content when anyone who looks at your history can see that you have, as for example here and here. An editor who posts an unblock request which fails to address the reason for the block is unlikely to be unblocked, especially when there is a history of failing or refusing to accept the fact which went on to become the reason for the block.

• I suggest that you think about those points, and try to address them, if you are to have any chance of being unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

JayPe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, my name is JayPe. If you are reading this, I hope you hear what I have to say right now. I was blocked a few weeks ago for habitually adding unsourced content to my edits (mostly hip hop articles), and while you might see from my previous contributions in the past that I was refusing or denying those claims, I must admit that I was doing wrong for not only the community, but to myself. Looking back at the actions I made in order for me to get this block, I sincerely regret what I have done. In the past, I would lash out on other editors when they didn't agree with my edits in place, I should've realized that they have been doing this for several years and have more experience and knowledge than I currently do. If I do get unblocked, I will not continue the content I've been providing for the last couple of months, and follow the rules in place. I know I might've said this before, but I truly mean it as I've taken time off to think about what I have done, and hope to anyone that sees this that you can reconsider this block. I would also like to take a second here to apologize to Magnolia677, Lemongirl942, Laser brain, and any other editors who I've disrespected in the past, I should know better than to lash out on you guys when you have a good reason to come onto my talk page (and that is adding unsourced content which I admit I have done). I have contributed a lot to this encyclopedia, and I want to continue that while complying to the rules in place, and not make a whole argument about it. This might be the last time I make a request for an unblock, so if this doesn't get overturned, I will accept graciously and wait till March to prove my worth, but I hope it doesn't come to that. Thanks. JayPe (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I have unblocked JayPe given their assurances below, knowing that User:JamesBWatson has concurred and making the assumption that the blocking admin is OK with this. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at this will you. Thanks. @JamesBWatson: @5 albert square: @Black Kite: @EdJohnston: JayPe (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't review your block as I'm the blocking admin. However I can see that you have removed comments from your talk page about the previous unblock request which may need to be seen so I have linked to them. I'm talking about comments from other admins such as @Laser brain:--5 albert square (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• You have now acknowledged the problems with your editing, and expressed the intention of avoiding those problems in future. Of course, as I mentioned when I posted on this page before, there is no guarantee that you will stick to that, but the only way to find out is to give you a chance by unblocking you. I am therefore in favour of unblocking, in the hope that from now on you can be a constructive editor, but also on the understanding that continuation of the same problems will lead to being blocked again, very probably indefinitely this time. However, I will leave your unblock request to give 5 albert square and/or other administrators (including those you pinged) to indicate what they think of that suggestion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• User:JayPe, you *removed* previous admin comments about this block! Please give permission for me to restore the admin comments that you removed from your page here as stated by User:5 albert square. Without this I won't take any further steps to consider your unblock request. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I give you permission to do anything as long as it doesn't compromise my request. Thanks for responding. JayPe (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: As far as I can see, JayPe has now restored all the admin comments which had been removed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JayPe, I understand that you are now willing to follow the rules here, but I am not yet convinced that you know how to.

Please explain how you would fix the sourcing problem at Too High to Riot that was presented (above) by User:Lemongirl942 at User talk:JayPe#Why WP:V is important. Though you acknowledged her point, you never went back to the article to add references. I'd like to be sure that adding references is something you know enough to do, when you have to. When I go through your contributions (back to 1 December) I do not see examples of you *ever* adding references to articles. If you reply can you please explain exactly what you would add as a reference? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Concerning this edit here. I would add this, this, and this to the article. I realized now that I put misleading information to the article, so accepting my request will allow me to fix my mistakes, and won't make new ones. Like James said earlier, there's no way to prove to you that I'm willing to change by just saying it but rather to give me one last chance to show you with my actions. I hope you take this into consideration. JayPe (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out some web pages that you would offer as sources. Please take a few minutes to show how you would format those for inclusion in the article. You would use the 'ref' syntax, bare URLs, citation templates or what exactly? And where in the article would you add them? Have you read any of the Misplaced Pages advice pages about creating reference citations? If so, which ones? EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: To be honest, I haven't read any pages about citations, I learned how to add citations by just looking at how other editors add references throughout my time here (like JustDoItFettyg and others). As for the placement of these sources, say for instance I would want to add the source for "Matches", I would add this source under the writer(s) column where I would format it like: (ref)"BMI Search". BMI. Retrieved January 7, 2017.(/ref). Don't be upset about me not reading the advice pages, I just never knew which ones were the most helpful out of the others to read. But that is how I would add those sources. (If you can't read the rest of my response, please let me know) JayPe (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I replaced '<' with '(' and so forth in your above example so it would format properly on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks for fixing my response, I hope this shows you that I will comply and add references to my edits. I also hope this will change your mind on unblocking me. Thanks. JayPe (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are unblocked, will you take on the job of adding the references to Too High to Riot before doing anything else? And will you ask User:Lemongirl942 if the work is done correctly before moving on? EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Of course I will. Not only because you ask me to, but because I've made errors to that article a while back and would want to fix the mistakes made (as well as adding the references). Lemongirl has also been someone who has helped me along the way with her warnings and advice on my editing habits so I feel you have the right idea in me asking her for her opinion. So yes, I will get on to that. JayPe (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

An opinion on referencing

In view of the comments above about adding referencing, I will offer you some suggestions. These are just my personal opinions, and there are many other editors and administrators who would disagree, so it's up to you whether you follow my suggestions or not.

1. When I first came to Misplaced Pages, I found the whole subject of referencing confusing and intimidating. The guideline Misplaced Pages:Citing sources is far too complex for most people to follow when they are beginning. In fact my personal opinion is that, like most Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines it is just too complex, never mind about "for most people to follow when they are beginning".
2. At some time fairly early in my Misplaced Pages career I discovered Help:Referencing for beginners, and thought that would be a much better. Well, it is somewhat better, but still too complex for a beginner, despite the title. Here is how the page started out: Yes, a genuine basic introduction for beginners. I'm not saying it was perfect, but it was simple enough for a beginner to understand. Unfortunately, as happens with almost all Misplaced Pages advice and help pages, guidelines and policies, there then came along a succession of editors who each thought of some other little bit of information that they thought should be included, and so bit by bit what started as a simple introduction for beginners to avoid having to cope with the complexities of the full guideline slowly became too complex itself.
3. What is suitable as a reference and what isn't is something that is learnt largely by experience. Various pages such as WP:RS are there to help, but take them as guidelines to give a general idea of what is suitable: don't make the mistake that some editors make of treating them as holy writ to be thoroughly learnt and followed to the letter.
4. As far as formatting references is concerned, my advice is to start by using so-called "bare references": i.e. just put the URL for a web page, or information such as the title and author for a published work, between <ref> and </ref> tags. No matter how many people deride such practice and treat editors who use such "bare references" as though they are some kind of inferior beings, that provides what is necessary. Yes, fancier formatting can be helpful, but it isn't essential, and when you are learning about referencing it is better to just use what is necessary, rather than spending a lot of time learning the finer points of reference formatting, so that you can put the time and effort you save into doing more important things than fancy formatting. Over the course of time, when you have more experience of referencing, if you like you can learn more about the finer points of referencing, but to begin with don't. There are many editors who would disagree strongly with that advice, and some who might be horrified at an administrator giving such advice. However, that is my opinion, and, as I said above, it's totally up to you whether you follow it or not.
5. If you want more detail, I suggest a good place to start is the early version of Help:Referencing for beginners that I linked to above, but here is the link again:. You may choose to read more complete guides,or parts of them, later, if you like.

Misplaced Pages was originally intended to be simple and straightforward, so that anyone could easily start editing. The later development of large numbers of long policies and guidelines that try to cover every detail is, in my opinion, the worst change that has happened to Misplaced Pages over the years. Keep it simple. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I'll take it to consideration. Thanks for the help. JayPe (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

One more suggestion

I see that a lot of your edits are tagged as mobile edits. I don't know what kind of device you are making those edits from, but occasionally I edit from an Android phone. I find that, while the mobile version of Misplaced Pages is more convenient for reading Misplaced Pages articles on my phone, for editing it is easier to switch to the desktop version, which you can do by clicking the "desktop" link at the bottom of the page. You may or may not find it easier too. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I edit with my phone because often times I wouldn't be at home or the edits are minor enough to not use desktop (but I find it difficult to edit on mobile using desktop mode). Normally I use my laptop when providing refs that need a computer, or to create a page. It's just my preference overall. JayPe (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. I just thought I would let you know in case you didn't know that editing in desktop mode was available on a mobile device, but if you do know and have decided you prefer mobile mode, that's up to you. Really, no way of editing from a phone is convenient, in my opinion, which is why I rarely do it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop adding unsourced content / edit warring over unsourced content

With this edit I removed unsourced content you added to Lil Uzi Vert vs. the World. There was no source in the article supporting that "WondaGurl" was a producer. You reverted my edit here, did not add a source, and left the edit summary "Are you for real now?"

WP:CAT states: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Simply, just because someone added that WondaGurl produced the album, doesn't mean she actually produced the album. These music article are filled with unsourced, untrue junk, and when you edit war to add unsourced content it does not improve the article.

Just because you may have some personal knowledge about something doesn't mean you can randomly add it to a Misplaced Pages article.

I would implore you to familiarize yourself with the following:

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#References - "Take care in identifying reliable sources that are added to articles."
• Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations - "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."
• Misplaced Pages:No original research - "Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research."

Laser brain and 5 albert square were clear with you about adding sources to your edits, and I have left multiple cautions for you in the past several days. I also don't appreciate being accused of trolling when I revert unsourced edits that appear in my watchlist. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: First of all, I didn't add anything with this edit, I moved it to a different section. Second, since all the producers were unsourced (prior to my addition source), it would've made more sense to remove the categories for Metro Boomin and Don Cannon, but instead you chose to only remove WondaGurl's category (which doesn't make sense at all). If you think that these articles are untrue or unsourced, why don't you make an effort to add to the article, rather than removing everything with them. I might have personal knowledge on things you might not know, but I have not used that towards my judgement in my edits. You constantly leave these long messages to me and JustDoItFettyg about trifling stuff when our edits have been done in good faith. You abuse your power as a rollback and discourage other editors, while you make a 2,000 word complaint to others when they do something you might not agree with (though I feel you will do the same thing after you see this response). I might also add that you're not going to address my complaints here, but instead write the same redundant responses that you seem to make often. I'm not trying to hurt what you are trying to do, but doing so in a annoying matter (to not only myself but JustDoItFettyg and others), discourages others in an unhelpful way. I hope this gets the point across to you. P.S. Even though I feel you don't deserve it, I found my source for the "Only Way Is Up" edit here. JayPe (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

@Laser brain: Sorry to bother you on this wonderful day, but I've seen that I've been blocked from editing. Biased opinions aside, I just need more clarification on this block since it seems unjustified for you to do. Thanks JayPe (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been observing your editing since you were unblocked, and I have seen quite a bit more of the same behavior. Not only do you continue to introduce unsourced content, but you actual edit war to keep it in when challenged. It's unacceptable and it demonstrates that you are incapable of following the rules here. The block really ought to be indefinite, but maybe you'll come back with a different attitude. --Laser brain (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

And I'm going to make your block indefinite because I now see that you were socking to evade your last block. --Laser brain (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)