User talk:STATicVapor

Template:Machine Gun Kelly

Hey, sorry I messed up the MGK info box. I'm alright with the template being deleted but can you add some of the stuff I added to it; regarding the mixtape section and the addition of "Alone" by Sleeping With Sirens to the Featured Singles section?ThaPhenom (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

My purpose for removing them was due to WP:NAVBOX, which means if the song/mixtape/album does not have a Wikipedia article that can be wikilinked then it should not be included in the template until then. I believe that Template:MGK needs to moved to reflect the correct name, and I will redirect it once the other template is deleted, if it has not been already. <unreleated> I listened to "Alone" and I do not know why but the song seemed kinda awkward to me, I liked the song on Black Flag with Kellin much better lol I do not know if you agree.</unrelated> STATic message me! 06:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the song from Black Flag as well, it seems less forced than "Alone" did. Sorry for being such a hassle the last few days, I'm kinda new to making edits on Wikipedia. "Alone" doesn't have it's own page yet, that's why I linked Feel instead, and the mixtapes were just put on so more people would be aware of them, Rage Pack isn't even mentioned on the page. Thanks for not being rude about all this.ThaPhenom (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah exactly what I was thinking, I felt like Kelly did not fit in the song at all. No hassle at all I can tell you were editing with good intentions from the beginning and you were not fully knowledgeable to all the relevant policies. Yeah that is kind of the point tho, if the song/mixtape it does not need to be included in the template as it is used to navigate between the articles related to Kelly and as far as I can tell "Alone" is not mentioned much on the Feel page anyways. What needs to be done is the template needs to link to his discography page so readers can find the information about the mixtapes there. I will go ahead and add that right now. STATic message me! 06:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for understanding. Would his other mixtapes be able to have pages made, since a majority of them have at least one professional review (as individual mixtapes) and interviews about them?ThaPhenom (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I mean WP:NALBUMS is pretty strict in that articles on mixtapes should not really exist unless covered by reliable sources outside of trivial coverage. I found [1] for Rage Pack, nothing for Lace Up, not much at all for 100 Words.... and [2] for EST 4 Life. I mean when it comes to mixtapes it is usually just the trivial announcement of its release and not many reviews them. STATic message me! 07:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Tomorrow I'll do my own research, make an article on sandbox, and then share the link with you so we can collaborate on the article like I did with Black Flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaPhenom (talk • contribs) 07:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok sounds good to me. And on the topic I believe Black Flag will become notable, we just need to wait till a couple reliable sources review it. STATic message me! 16:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey man, Black Flag (MGK Mixtape) was approved as a C Class article on the fourth of July and I was wondering if you would be willing to add it to the MGK page.ThaPhenom (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me! I will give it some cleanup for you, do not be offended if I remove the "free album, second album" stuff because it is a promotional technique, and his next album will not be referred to as his third album.. we both know that. What are you asking me to do though? STATic message me! 22:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe just link it within the black flag section of the article, and put it wherever else you think it should be added to. And can you please leave the "promotional" stuff about it being an album? I'll edit it out when it's revealed to be otherwise. ThaPhenom (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thats the thing, this is not the first time a mixtape has been called a album, but it all boils down to that mixtapes are free and albums are sold for retail. If a project is not made available for retail sale it is not a studio album. An example would be that Yelawolf called his last mixtape "Trunk Music Returns" a "free album" but on Wikipedia we do not consider it his second album. Also I do not remember the name of the page you originally created Black Flag at but that page needs to redirect to the current page I had it moved too Black Flag (mixtape). STATic message me! 22:52, 6 July

Okay thanks.

Yeah glad you understand now :) STATic message me! 03:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeezus

Only reason you won't find Gigwise on Metacritic or ADM is because they don't give any scores in their reviews; it'd be impossible for a review aggregator to use them. 2.127.89.190 (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not correct as newspapers such as Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe do not always give scores and they are still included in Metacritic. Please stop edit warring as I do not see what point you are trying to prove. STATic message me! 02:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

OK fair enough then, I didn't know that. Still, have a read of Wikipedia:MOSALBUM#Critical_reception. Gigwise fits the criteria. Also I'm not affilated with Gigwise in any way, please don't be so quick to jump to conclusions, they are a large site and commonly referenced on Wikipedia (they even have their own Wikipedia page). Also, why did you revert my changes to the last paragraph in the first section of the Yeezus article? What exactly were you unhappy with? I kept the "rave reviews" bit and used sources for my changes. 2.127.89.190 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not the first time you did not, and again I explained multiple times it was the third highest selling album of the year so public reaction was not mixed. When it all comes down to it projections are just that projections so it does not matter if it sold 200k less then someone thought it would. You also removed the fact it was the third highest debuting of the year, overlinked Def Jam and changed "on July 4" to "in July 4". It is not a quick jump when you constantly continue to add it without discussing and leave false edit summaries. STATic message me! 02:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You simply cannot gauge public reaction through record sales. Many of the people (a majority, even) purchasing the album first week would have not heard the album before buying it. Even though I think the method of using sales to describe public reaction is flawed, if we were to use them, relative sales would be more relevant than absolute sales (for obvious reasons). Plenty of reliable sources have stated that initial fan reaction to the album, in contrast to the initial critical reaction, was mixed. I am willing to defer on all the other edits I made, but I do not see why my sourced sentence on public reaction was removed. 2.127.89.190 (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well now it is protected again (thank God) so oh well. STATic message me! 14:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

X

Not really original research, if it was really releasing in 2 weeks then wheres the pre orders, track list or cover? The date was announced in April and i think its safe to say its not happening. Koala15 (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Kik

Sorry STATic, I'm a new Wikipedia user and I was just playing around. I did that because I did not think anybody would go on Kik Messenger. LOL. I am not gay, do not have a Kik account and made that up. Jakesthebest568 Jakesthebest568 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Young Money

Lourdes Rodriguez is apart of Young Money. She's working on a project with Reginae. It's on twitter if you need proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquelymadeee (talk • contribs) 02:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I added it back with a reliable source. Next time provide one so I do not think you are someone trying to add false information. STATic message me! 02:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you show me the italics...

...in this (my edit) please?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You are missing it, as it does not affect the template. The album infobox template automatically makes the TITLE of the article in italics as does the film infobox template. So by removing the little template there you made the TITLE of the article Untitled Nas Album instead of Untitled Nas Album like it was before. Look at this and this, if you cannot see the difference I do not know what else to tell you. STATic message me! 05:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Run the Jewels

In reply to what you said here the Run the Jewels is available for free download on the record labels website but you can order a physical album here and the album will be released to retail on July 30, as you can see here. So it wouldn't be correct to call it a mixtape since it wasn't released to DatPiff or Livemixtapes. Koala15 (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I would not have changed it if you provided one of the last two sources from the beginning. I assumed they were calling it a "free album" as a promotional technique some artists use for mixtapes nowadays after I saw it was on DatPiff. You might want to add it to the 2013 in hip hop music page. Which might need a little bit of fixing btw since for some reason some IPs decided to add mixtapes and not notable artists to the Released albums section, but I think I got them all. STATic message me! 03:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

J Cole "Crooked Smile" Sample

J.Cole's Manager "IB" discusses the sample being Jennifer Hudson's.

Link: http://jcolenation.com/board/index.php?/topic/1947-ib-ibrahim-hamad-breaks-down-born-sinner-track-by-track/

Now at least can we agree on it being an uncredited sample by her?

Go ahead and add it then. In the future though keep in mind forums are nowhere near to reliable sources. STATic message me! 07:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I'll change the source to the direct Interview from Vibe Magazine:

http://www.vibe.com/photo-gallery/tale-tape-dreamville-president-ibrahim-ib-hamad-breaks-down-j-coles-born-sinner/?page=1

Christian Music Zine

The criteria states exactly this: "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc." So, it has a writing staff with an editorial team in place, and it is independent of the artist they review. I am not going to stop using the site nor others' like it because the WP:ALBUM/REVSIT is outdated and not current, and it should not be sited to restrict because it is not a policy nor a guideline rather an essay. By the way, REVSIT is greatly discriminatory and biased towards Christian magazines even CCM Magazine, Christianity Today, HM, Worship Leader are not on it, so I do not trust REVSIT, when it comes to the Christian genre in the least. Also, is webzines like Jesus Freak Hideout, New Release Tuesday, Indie Vision Music on this list? Nope. Christian Music Zine is not a personal blog in the least!HotHat (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is outdated but it is not an essay in any way as you think it is for some reason, it is apart of WP: WikiProject Albums which governs all album articles. I just saw a bunch of non notable reviewers and I removed them. If you disagree with that one go ahead and readd it. It had actually slipped my mind that ABR was a Christian band as I do not follow their music that much or with Christian magazines. STATic message me! 03:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I reverted at least one of the reviews. Did you see non-notable reviewers, non-notable publications or something else? Are you using the term "notable" in Wikipedia terms or something else? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I meant publications that are not notable as album reviewers, and not found on WP:ALBUM/REVSITE or would seem to be included anytime soon. I am not that familiar with Christian magazines so if I was wrong I was subject to some being added back. STATic message me! 04:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the some of the publications do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and I'm not entirely sure that they would qualify as review sites either, which is why I only restored one. I'll see if anything is happening at the project page later.

Thanks again, and I hope it doesn't seem like you're being ganged-up on. As the Monty Python sketch states "nobody expects the Spanish inquisition", and I certainly don't mean to throw one! Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it is all good, glad you agree! STATic message me! 05:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have started the discussion, so lets talk if you want.HotHat (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

RE:

Thank i taught since it doesn't matter to put the internet champion i go stay their and thank o and when i make my favorite wrestlers to WWE TNA ROH u can be the first to message me or message me on my talk or user talk page so when i make it i go make sure u the first one to review or tell me about it Thanks! STATic Verseatide Dyorkerman (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi STATic Verseatide. I know you've been around here quite a while, but I'm not sure if you're aware of Wikipedia's guideline regarding canvassing...? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It was an attempt to notify the voters at the Deadmau5 debate due to it being the same issue. So I would rather achieve consensus then only have a few people see the debate. I did not tell anyone how to vote, just to provide their two cents but I was not surprised they were in agreeance. STATic message me! 18:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you're really making me spell this out to you, STATic Verseatide. But here goes: Your behaviour is not in keeping with the community's expectations regarding inviting others to a dispute resolution process. If we consider the table at the bottom of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, your messages are problematic in at least two, possibly three of the realms (scale, message, audience, and transparency).

• Scale: Notifying 13 users is somewhere in between appropriate and inappropriate, as it is bordering on mass posting.
• Message: Your message is not neutral where it invites the user to comment "to overturn another horrible move based on a name no reliable sources refer to the subject as". There's just no way to read that as a neutral invitation.
• Audience: You invited everyone from the Deadmau5 discussion that supported the similar position you are holding with respect to Tech Nine, and you invited no one who held the opposing opinion. So it was a fully partisan audience you invited. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I was inviting anyone is, because as far as I can tell there is no template to put on the article page to notify anyone passing by it that a RM discussion is currently on going. It is a name the subject is not known as, so it is a horrible name just like Deadmaus. I did not just invite supporters, I also invited people that showed concern in the Tech Nine name in the past and another supporter of the move also indicated that the Deadmau5 RM participants should be notified. Maybe my message was not as neutral as possible, but it would be best to WP:AGF, I am not trying to push my vote or side just want to achieve proper consensus. It would be worse if I was the nominator but I am just a supporter of a better encyclopedia. If I would have not invited anyone it would have just been the MOS warriors pushing their bureaucratic barrage across the Wikipedia again. Do not make it out like I sent it to every single supporter of the other move, which I did not and other editors not involved in Deadmaus/5 also voiced their support for Tech N9ne. If it makes you feel better I did not know about Canvassing prior to this discussion, and I also planned to post it at the WP: WikiProject Hip hop but it is not very active. STATic message me! 22:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh I don't doubt at all your intentions are to improve the encyclopedia. I was assuming good faith right from the start. People often have the best of intentions but still run afoul of guidelines about dispute resolution processes here. The thing is, I can't quite reconcile your comments "I am not trying to push my vote" with your multiple messages inviting people to comment "to overturn another horrible move". (And your dismissal of certain editors as "the MOS warriors pushing their bureaucratic barrage across the Wikipedia" actually makes this worse, not better.) Can we find a way forward here? Would you be willing to post neutral messages on the talk pages of editors who had the opposite position at Deadmau5/s as your own? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think if you were more familiar with the artist you would understand my passion about the discussion as many were with the Deadmau5 move, which I barely even had discussion in. I would but the only opposers outside of two random IPs have already commented at Talk: Tech Nine so there would be no point. Also keep in mind I only invited some supporters among one or two uninvolved editors. STATic message me! 22:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Passion is fine; sometimes in discussions heated passion can give the impression (intended or not) that one does not respect the opinions of other editors opposing one's own.

You have notified 13 editors who support your own position on Deadmau5 and would be expected to support your same position on Tech Nine. This is a problem; you are pulling in a biased sample, or at least it has that appearance. I see that in the discussion at Talk:Deadmau5/Archive 1#Requested move 1 there are still quite a few editors who hold an opinion different than yours who could be invited. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that I am opening a discussion at WP:ANI but I emphasize this is not with any intent to punish or embarrass you. I take you at your word that you had not previously seen WP:CANVASS, and I do believe you are attempting to improve the encyclopedia. But I need guidance from other people about how to handle a discussion (Talk:Tech Nine#Requested move 2) when this kind of canvassing has occurred. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

In all civility you have to be kidding me? There is not need for a big old drama filled discussion. If you want me to apologize I will, and in hindsight I should have not done it, but it was just an attempt to notify members of the community that would not have previously seen the discussion. Should I have chosen my words better? Yes, but do not drag my name through the mud and make me go through that process -.- I was not even around for the origional move discussion, and it was not even on the talk page anymore so I had not seen it. STATic message me! 01:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

("In all civility"—I like that!) No, no, I'm not trying to pressure you to apologize. I really went out of my way to word my opening comments in the discussion to avoid any impression that I am trying to drag your name through the mud. The intention with the canvassing guideline is to ensure that when there is a dispute that a fair sample of the community shows up to offer their perspectives on the dispute, and my intention here is only to resolve my concern that it is a biased sample that is showing up at this particular move request. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not true however, I invited them to vote and they could have voted however they want. Only about six I think even commented on it so it is not that big of a deal. I did not even nominate it for the move. STATic message me! 02:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly they could vote however they want; the issue is that they were very likely to hold a similar position on Tech Nine as they did on Deadmau5. And six is more than enough to sway a consensus. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

All it takes in common sense, or should we use a name for the article the subject has never been referred as? Since you know that make sense.. If it is the right policy backed name then it is not swaying consensus. More voters would still be in support even if I did not notify the others. STATic message me! 02:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Big Sean's album

Switch Up is not a single, google it. It was a promotional non-commercial song put out just for his fans, hence why it never charted on the hot 100. So i'm not sure why you changed my edit when it was correct.

He announced that he released it as the second single off the album, and it did chart hence the reason it has a Wikipedia page. The song was sent to retail so yes it was a single and he has not even said Beware is the second single, it was called the third. You have not provided any reliable source for your change. STATic message me! 19:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No it did not chart on the hot 100, it charted on the irrelevant hip hop rap songs chart an i'm not sure why you think i'm making this up, leave my edit. He tweeted that Switch Up is not a single off the album. Proof: https://twitter.com/BigSean/status/320652626431709184

Just because a song did not chart on the Hot 100 does not make it a single, and I would seriously refute your proclaimed irrelevance of the chart. Was it released to iTunes for retail sale? Yes? Then it is a single, many reliable sources call it the second single off the album and "Beware" the third. See the article for Promotional single, they are released for free. Thank you for providing a source but he can call it whatever he wants, see the article for single. STATic message me! 00:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because a song is released on itunes doesn't mean it's a single...have you heard of promotional singles? It's 90% of the time when a single flops (see Love This Life by T.I. (hence does not chart well on the hot 100...(aka only chart that matters realistically). Also, a majority of people barely know anything about the album so of course they call it the 3rd single. The artist himself tweeted that the song is not an official single so i don't know why you insist on being bitter about this.

I already fixed it so I am not sure what you are complaining about. I gave you the link to what a promotional single is, you are just making up a definition for it. Just because you think a song flopped does not make it a promotional single. See the link, what does it say? "Switch Up" (featuring Common) - Single. STATic message me! 06:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Last time i'm gonna bother replying to this denial. Every single song that comes out before an album is released is labeled as a "single" by iTunes...they're not gonna put "promotional single" in front of the songs name. My source was literally straight from the artist himself so refuting it is just childish.

You are the one acting childish and making up definitions of words to try to push your opinion. Again, the article has already been changed to reflect this so stop complaining. STATic message me! 06:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Good evening. Till I Die also flopped, but that doesn't mean that the song is not the third single of Fortune. Switch Up is the same; it was released as the second official single, deal with it. Greets --188.109.161.47 (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Dyokerman

Thanks for spotting Dyorkerman's obvious gimmick infringement on my user page.

I have a sneaking suspicion this guy may be WWEJobber under a sock puppet name, and if it is, he shouldn't be here because he's been banned for mulitple Wiki sins.

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not think so I mean if you remember WWEJobber had much better spelling and grammar so I would not suspect him. Maybe he's just a young wrestling fan that does not know much about Wikipedia. But it is kind of surprising to me that he has not created a sockpuppet to mess with the project again. STATic message me! 17:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he straight up copied my user page just raises red flags. And Jobber didn't always use perfect spelling/grammar. He also has used a sock puppet before (Nomelck). Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree, but something's just fishy here. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Hey,

Just wondering, how did you get the message to pop up on your talk page as people leave a message? -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The edit notice? To be honest I put it there over a year ago and I forgot how. I think you create it at User:MisterShiney/Editnotice and I am not sure if it will pop up automatically or you have to do something. STATic message me! 20:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks :) -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Editnotice might also help. STATic message me! 20:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Done it...I think lol. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it is there now, glad you grasped how to do it since I completely forgot lol. STATic message me! 20:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Niteshift36 (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Seriously, I agree that whole thing went way too far, way too fast. I've seen your edits elsewhere and at AfD and we are usually in agreement. I apologize for my part in how out of hand that got. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I mean come on dude you sent me like the same message a year ago, there is no need for these little squabbles and WikiDrama. I am not some fanboy trying to add unverified content, I am just trying to expand the encyclopedia. Next time we have a disagreement, lets limit it to 1R and just do our best to discuss out the issue, especially as small and minor as this was. The "gay" comments were just ridiculous and uncalled for, I do not know how you think that was gonna get the discussion anywhere. But yeah I apologize too and lets not let this happen again. STATic message me! 20:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• And you couldn't just go "ok, cool, let's do this....." without rehashing the "gay" comments, as if they were somehow so much worse than "retarded monkey" or "I assume the closest thing you've gotten to getting some is with your hand underneath your batman bedsheet"? Man, I try to make peace and you want to keep poking at it. Whatever. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh nooo do not take it that way man, I admit I was in the wrong too. Do not take what I said as trying to rehash anything, lets just be at peace. STATic message me! 21:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Tech N9ne

I just replied to the talk page, thanks for bringing it to my attention, I think me personally have his name AUTOGRAPHED TATTOOED on my arm, makes proof enough for it to be moved over, but just in case, i brought up a few points. 2BARQUACK.COM (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Taylor Gang

I run web for Taylor Gang Ent. it's not Taylor Gang Records

If the correct path is to create a page for taylor gang ent and redirect taylor gang records to ent I will.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunkele (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I need reliable third party sources that call it "Taylor Gang Ent." I just searched for some and did not find any. There are references in the article that call it Taylor Gang Records. STATic message me! 23:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Spring Breakers genre

Hey there. You tell me "There are many many sources that call it that, but thanks for your opioion." but on the Talk page of the film's article you say "A wide variety, if not the majority of these sources do not cite the movie as a comedy at all". Contradicting. Your own research backs my edits, so would you please revert them back? It's very much questionable that the film is a comedy, however it is not questioned at all that's a drama. Presence of humor alone is not a enough to define a comedy as such and that's why most reliable sources (i.e: IMDB) call it a drama. Cataloging it as a comedy will make people come across this movie when looking into, reading about or referencing comedies, and this would be a mistake. Thank you. — Santiago Mendez 06:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkian (talk • contribs)

See the whole conversation and the sources provided by both sides in that discussion. IMDB consists of user generated content, so it is very far from a reliable source. AllMovie among other sources call it a comedy, which it clearly is in part. Your WP:OR that the movie is not a comedy is not going to cut it. STATic message me! 10:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear to me at all that's a comedy, just as it's not a thriller or a suspense movie, even though it has elements of both. But don't take my word for it, here is the film file from one of the movie's production companies: http://annapurnapics.com/main/springbreakers.html#synopsis designating it a drama. Does it get any more official than that? The other sources are either critics or movie sites, this is the people who made and financed the film. If anything, the article should at least first call it a drama, and then either in parenthesis or a comment, let know that certain cited sources also call it a comedy. Yet not include it in the comedy category. — Santiago Mendez 16:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkian (talk • contribs)

Sorry, we go off of what critics and other reliable sources call the movie, not what the production company wants to designate it as. In the lead it can say it is a "drama and comedy film.." but that really does not make a difference. STATic message me! 16:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate why critics and other sources are more reliable than this? I'd like to think it's not just your opinion. — Santiago Mendez 17:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkian (talk • contribs)

It is not very hard to understand, we at Wikipedia use reliable third party sources not self published sources or sources that come directly from the subject/its associates, especially when it comes to genres. My opinion does not matter, that is why I am not giving it. See the discussion here if you wish to continue this discussion. STATic message me! 17:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

??????

Get out of here with that minor edits crap Static. It was a minor edit and you know it. MsScorpioMoon (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Only we can have a dispute without getting caught :) MsScorpioMoon (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vince Staples, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Compton, Lynwood and Long Beach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Joey Bada$$

Hey Static,

Thought I gave reason when I made the edit but it's possible it didn't go through. His last name isn't Scott. It's Virginie. This was misreported in a few places and has now "stuck." Let me know if you'd like me to restore the edit or if you would prefer to. Thanks!

How do you know? What is your source that the information is incorrect? Billboard reports that as his last name, which is referenced in the article. They would not post a false name. STATic message me! 01:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have got another started New Publications.

Ghostface Killah

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 114.164.124.85 (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)