User talk:68.229.185.47

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Skillz has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Metagraph comment 01:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete legitimate talk page comments.

Furthermore, whatever site you quoted (i cant remember) violated WP:RS, as well as being a spamlinked site. Metagraph comment 01:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are a record of all conversations. Please, just leave it alone for now. Feel free to blank the page after we are done discussing. Who uses this IP? Metagraph comment 01:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Take this to your discussion page. You are a registered editor, I am not. 68.229.185.47 (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I will, after this comment. Spamlink means that someone adds non-notable and non-reliable primary sources to articles in order to promote a website. This is not allowed as per WP:EL. Please, stop adding links to articles with the site 'rapreviews' in them, as this is considered vandalism. Is this an IP address of an owner/employee or affiliate of the site? Metagraph comment 01:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny definition of vandalism, to remove reviews from a resource that's been around longer that Wikipedia. I assure you the site has both notability and credibility. Unless the policy is applied uniformly across the board and reviews from sites like HipHopDX and Okayplayer are removed, I see nothing wrong with it. I'd actually consider it vandalism to rub out the smaller website operators and leave only the large financially bankrolled corporate hucksters who know nothing about hip-hop music and culture. 68.229.185.47 (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

PS - if you doubt the veracity of my statements check any WHOIS lookup. The site you refer to as "spamlinked" was registered in 1999 and Wikipedia was registered in 2001. 68.229.185.47 (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Then feel free to delete those when you see them. Editors are encouraged to find and remove vandalism! Also, please answer my question on why you are so concerned about there being a record of discussion here? What you percieve vandalism to be doesn't reflect the consensus of the community. Vandalim rules are applied as fairly as possible, however it is not always detected due to the huge amount of it, and the small amount of editors dedicated to removing it. I found the pages you refer to using a program called huggle, which searches the recent changes page for questionable edits. Also, please try not to attack sites! You obviously have a conflict of intrest here, if your reviews are notable they will be added by someone else, away from the company. Also, age of a site has no impact on how notable it is. Thank you, and i do not mean to offend. Metagraph comment 01:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We obviously disagree on what we consider to be vandalism though. I personally believe hip-hop albums should have hip-hop reviews from hip-hop authors. You wouldn't expect a country music expert to be considered an authority on Metallica or the average Garth Brooks fan to be an expert on Public Enemy. Sites like Okayplayer and HipHopDX represent expert opinion from people in the field, and their hip-hop news and reviews is from an informed perspective the writers of generalized rock magazines like Rolling Stone do not have. 68.229.185.47 (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a matter of opinion, good sir. Metagraph comment 01:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Far from it. It's well known fact. If you look at any so-called "notable" resource that lists the 100 greatest hip-hop albums of all time, you will find the very same albums that Rolling Stone has only given 2 or 3 out of ***** to (such as classic albums from A Tribe Called Quest). They may be experts on a great many things but they are not experts on hip-hop music and culture. Even a magazine like The Source (whose editors have "vandalized" their own magazine to give Benzino good reviews) has more expertise and authority on hip-hop. 68.229.185.47 (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear you are able to refute this statement, so I suggest we close this discussion and blank the page. Wikipedia should consider seeking expert opinion, as mainstream authors, newspapers and magazines routinely overlook what's really going on in hip-hop. If the only experts were Rolling Stone and Wikipedia, Soulja Boy would be deemed more important than Chuck D. 68.229.185.47 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is a statement of discussion. I did not forfit the discussion, i just went offline. You should not under any circumstances blank this page of legitimate discussions, it is permanent record of your actions and discussions on the site, and should not need to be deleted. Give me one good reason why you should have this page deleted. Warnings may be blanked provided they are accessable from the history (which deleting this page would also remove, therefore deletion is out of the question), but general talk page comments cannot be. Wikipedia relies on good faith editors like me and yourself to improve the encyclopedia, and only uses experts to clarify and check for accuracy on top importance or highly controversial issues, and even then the expert must present himself. Anyone can class themselves as an expert on hip-hop and rap, and merely stating that you believe the Rolling Stones give unjust reviews isn't enough. Rolling Stone is deemed an appropriate media for review because they are a large, private company who is largely respected. They are generally trusted, definately notable, and their ratings are highly respected. Just because you do not agree is something for you to bring up on your own site, not here. Wikipedia is a powerful project, and adding every single review website to each individual artist would clutter up the articles to an extent where they would be unreadable. Simply having a view is not enough, but being mentioned in third party relevant reliable sources could deem you notable and reliable. It has been said before and it will be said again, anyone can start up a website claiming to be an expert. It does not make you one, and that is why not every single rating website can be added. Thank you, Metagraph comment 05:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, it appears that HipHopDX is a professional hip hop review magazine, not a simple website. Please refrain from re-adding your site until it can be deemed notable. Try creating an article on it. If no one has a problem for a few days, then ill allow the links back on. Metagraph comment 05:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So is the site in question. All of the writers who work for the site are paid for their contributions. All of the applicants to write are screened to make sure they are knowledgeable about the topic matter and have experience writing. The owner of the site is himself a hip-hop author who has been writing about the music and culture for 15 years. The site itself has been around for almost a decade and has amassed a vast collection of hip-hop reviews ranging from artists too obscure for a Wikipedia page to the most mainstream of rap stars. There is absolutely no doubt that the site is respected by the hip-hop community, widely read, and interviews the big names in hip-hop from Twista to Lil Kim to Obie Trice and more. If you would actually visit the site we are debating about you wouldn't have any doubt it is a trusted and authoritative hip-hop resource. Don't take my word for it - look at the site, ask around, see how it is viewed outside the narrow confines of the Wikipedian environment. 68.229.185.47 (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)