Talk:Regulate (song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I think it's worth mentioning that the lyrics to Jens Lekman's "Sweet Summer Night on Hammer Hill" include: Oh, I still remember "Regulate" with Warren G. Could that have been back in the sweet summer of 1993? [Actually, it would've been 1994] (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Media Mention Cut[edit]

Since the section that was written up in Phoenix New Times has been edited out, it seems inappropriate to say that the article has been mentioned by a media organization.

Got rid of IT humour[edit]

I doubt it will stick, but I got rid of the "dude humor", mostly just to see how long it will last. I won't revert it back if someone re-edits it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondoolee (talkcontribs) 23:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It didn't last. It needs to be removed again and maybe locked. Just coz itz about rap, yo, don't mean it don't hafta be encyclopedic. Dawg. PurpleChez (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me you gutted the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

citation needed for the above POV claim —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How to cite?[edit]

Serious question here. The page says "The song also features... dialogue spoken from the 1988 film Young Guns.[citation needed]" How would you cite that? Does a web site or book need to say the same thing so it can be referenced here? If you listen to the song's intro and watch the part of Young Guns where Billy the Kid (Emilio Estevez) meets the rest of the crew, that's what you hear. BrianAshe (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the cite needed tag is pointless there; removing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


I'm somewhat confused in this article it says that Regulate... G Funk Era was on Death Row but on the Wikipedia entry for Warren G it says that "Death Row Records did not sign Warren G" even though "Warren G was a regular contributor to many Death Row albums." Someone please explain this for me. Lukereiser 05:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's clear this up. Regulate... G Funk Era wasn't on Death Row it was on Def Jam / Violator. The song "Regulate" was on the album but was also on the soundtrack for Above the Rim earlier (as I fixed its link in the infobox today). And that soundtrack was produced by Death Row, but Warren G appeared only on this one track (you know soundtrack=compilation) and his label status is indicated on the cover : "Warren G appears courtesy of Violator...". But still the OST album is on Death Row. Remember that notoriuous moment at the 1995 Source Awards, when Suge Knight went on stage to accept the award for the Soundtrack of the Year and insulted the Bad Boy management? Hihi, that was fun indeed... Lajbi Holla @ me 14:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright lets see if I understand this hah, Warren G was never on Death Row but Regulate was featured on a complilation that Death Row put out? If thats true why does it say under the Warren G wiki entry under labels "Death Row 1994–1996"? If that true than when it says ""Death Row Records did not sign Warren G" it is incorrect? Lukereiser 01:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it must be an obvious mistake. He got signed to Def Jam after the success of "Regulate". I was looking up if the 213 act was signed to Death Row, but nope. Lajbi Holla @ me 01:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take the liberty of erasing "Death Row 1994–1996" from the Warren G article to preserve continuity. Thanks for clearing this up. Lukereiser 01:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Whoever wrote the plot of the song, well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Very funny synopsis, it will get deleted so here is a permalink : [1] . LiamUK (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't let anyone remove it. It's amazing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
This is most excellent. Let it stand as is.Leveldeaded (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why the synopsis should change or be deleted given that it is a clear and faithful summary of the lyrical content of the song. The song is ridiculous, so any description of it will either be condescending or itself ridiculous. --Notquitethere (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's excessively and unnecessarily descriptive, and strays a long way into the unencyclopedic. It's funny, yes, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Proper! This is Wikipedia, not the Onion. Actually, I don't think the Onion would publish this garbage. If you want funny rap crap, start a blog...don't pollute Wikipedia with it. PurpleChez (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So the complaint about the article is that it was too thorough? That's what made the description "garbage?" That is absurd, PurpleChez and Catfish. The article seems funny because we aren't used to seeing erudite analyses of rap lyrics, but that doesn't make it illegitimate. The article was very accurate and informative about the narrative in the song, to the extent that even someone with no knowledge of urban slang could read the article and understand it. I agree that being funny isn't enough to qualify as encyclopedic, but surely being funny isn't enough to qualify as unencyclopedic either. In your crumudgenous crusade against anything that might bring a smile to someone's face you have weakened the article by removing valuable and accurate information about the topic. It's an article about a song. What could be more "encyclopedic" than a faithful, line-by-line description of story it tells? If it is too verbose and needs editing, then edit it. But completely removing the synopsis? Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

the last line of the first paragraph says, "from the 1998 film Young Guns." but it should read "from the 1988 film Young Guns." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it still possible to reinstate the synopsis of discussion? Warthog581 (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The answer is "Yes" - but with caveats. You're welcome to discuss the synopsis here, but only if you bring a new argument or unused reason for insertion. There's no point repeating the same arguments and comments that pepper the talk page. If you bring a successful argument to the table then the synopsis may be re-inserted - but not before. Ergo it is possible - but frankly unlikely. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Third verse[edit]

Has anyone noticed when this gets radio play now, they fade out before the third verse? My only guess is one of the last lines by Nate Dogg 'if you smoke like I smoke then you're high like every day', obviously referring to marijuana, and 'your ass is a buster'. The drug reference can be easily bleeped out, and even 'ass' seems to slip by, or that could be bleeped or replaced easily. Was this song always censored? or is this a new development? Cander0000 (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It likely depends on your radio station. Some stations I've listened to do the absolute minimum, by dropping the vocal track during the vowel sound in "fuck" and "shit" (and a few of George Carlin's forbidden words), doing it so quickly that you might not even notice the drop. Others replace every vaguely child inappropriate word with stupid sound effects that completely obscure it so you have no idea what was supposed to be there. One of the quasi-oldies (really light rock from 70s-90s) stations I've occasionally listened to insisted on playing Everlast's "What it's Like" but bleeping every other word (e.g. "killer", "whore", "drugs", "gun", ".45", "dead", etc.) such that you have no frickin' clue what it may or may not be like if you don't already know the song. Your station may have become more censorious lately, but I don't think there have been any regulatory changes to trigger it. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, I've heard that version of What It's Like and thought it was one of the silliest things. It's doesn't seemed to be explained by FCC regulations, real or feared, but a choice of the station? artist?... I see that What It's Like has a statement about the radio edits, I'll go ahead and add one here, too - hope I can find a source explaining it further.Cander0000 (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, FCC actions are initiated by viewer/listener complaints, so songs/television shows are usually censored to the tastes of the audience. While one station in a large city can get away with using more objectionable or profane words, another station, playing the same song, in a smaller market, would have to have a more censored version in order to avoid an FCC complaint as their audience may be less tolerant. --Kagurazaka1977 (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

young guns correction[edit]

young guns came out in 1988 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


The follow tag exists for just this situation:

Time to bring back the synopsis and put that across the top. Everybody wins.

This is one of the coolest/funniest things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It makes the whole project worth it. Thank you. Gnat (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I laughed and cried. Then I re-listened and re-read and I have to admit: what's written is very accurate. I think the current prose does an especially good job explaining what's going on with the weapons, as well as the transition into the more expository third verse. Kudos, very well done. J Crow (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This outrageous synopsis is exactly the kind of material we need more of for outreach. It does no harm, it's factual, it will appeal to the article's target audience, and the many oblique hyperlinks provide an entry point for people who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia. On these grounds, I would oppose efforts to make it more sensible, should they arise. --pmj (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
So we should throw encyclopedic standards out the window in the name of "outreach"? Pathetic. Why not just go through the article and replace every instance of "the" with "tha" or "da," and switch over to all plural z's. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site or a parody site.PurpleChez (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed the link from the phrase "East Side" from the wiki article on "East Los Angeles Region" to the correct "East Long Beach" Don't get it twisted busters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Containing no sources, the content fails WP:V / WP:OR and has been removed. It will be the responsibility of anyone who wishes to return such content to provide sufficient reliable sources that support the claims and analysis. Active Banana ( bananaphone 18:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

How does this synopsis differ from other original content (e.g. the plot section of movie pages)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If this synopsis of a song doesn't meet wikipedia standards, then every movie plot section must be removed. So to clarify, wikipedia can't summerize a movie plot unless the movie has been written about in other reliable sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally found the Synopsis useful - yes it was very very detailed which made it kind of funny but it also made me understand what was going on which I had previously not (having missed the line about the gun being pulled on Warren). How about instead of deleting the whole Synopsis over and over someone should state that a short synopsis would actually be acceptable so that this article can be genuinely useful. This way it does not describe the song itself at all, only the meta information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:USEFUL. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that there are no third-party sources for such a synopsis, even if we thought one was needed (they are not customary for songs). Additionally, most of the folks who keep coming to this talk page don't want a synopsis, they want the funny one that they read about on the internet to be restored. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Here you go - one synopsis from a third party source that does not contain a circular reference to Wikipedia. Surely, that must satisfy any requirement for a third-party source to the "humourous" synopsis.-- (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you bothered to read both the "humourous" version of the wiki article, and the synopsis you linked to, you'd see that they're nigh on identical - the mellifluent has been lifted almost word for word from wikipedia, and as such fails the external links policy, thus negating your claim. a_man_alone (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not someone who normally edits wikipedia, and am probably doing this discussion thing incorrectly. When Nate Dogg died, I came here specifically looking for a detailed summary of Regulate. Today on facebook someone posted a mirror of the excellent summary that had been posted here, but was removed for, according to this discussion, the flimsiest of reasons. This page is useless without the summary, and useful with it. The purpose of any encyclopedia derives entirely from its utility. Thus, you are impelled to restore the summary. QED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems to have been removed because it is funny and certain individuals here seem to think that a humourous, yet completely accurate, synopsis has no place here. Surely there's a template somewhere that can be added to say that there still needs to be an official citation here (although we all know that it's accurate). Otherwise this great piece of satiric risks being lost due to philosophical, circular, argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why we can't have it. It is accurate (you don't need "sources" other than the song itself, it is pretty clear), and it is funny. I've never seen a better proof than the comments from certain people about the synopsis ("WE MAY AS WELL THROW ALL THE STANDARDS OUT THE WINDOW THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS YOU GUYS!!!!", etc.) of Cato the Elder's maxim: "Those who are serious in ridiculous matters will be ridiculous in serious matters." Wikipedia is serious, and it is great, and yes there are standards. But you know what, it also just is a website and this is just some article about an old rap song on that website, okay? So you can't have a little fun? Baxter42 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If this synopsis can exist: then so can the synopsis for Regulate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You ought to read this. a_man_alone (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

the 213 conjecture[edit]

The current synopsis proposes that the lyric of "if your ass is a buster, 213 will regulate" be interpreted as: Nate concludes his delineation of the night by issuing a threat to "busters," suggesting that he and Warren will further "regulate" any potential incidents in the future (presumably by engaging their antagonists with small arms fire). I believe Nate intends to make a much broader point about the culture of his 213 area code being unkind to "busters" generally rather than implying specific, direct retribution from Nate and Warren. Further, perhaps Nate intends that life in the 213 has the effect of making one less of a buster over time, much as a farm boy will become less of a "hayseed" via life in a big city. Certainly the concept of regulate also may be interpreted more broadly to encompass not only violence but also teaching, mentorship, or merely continued exposure to the "game". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

interesting, I had always assumed that 213 unequivocably referred to 213, the performing group that included Nate Dogg and Warren G. (of course the group was named after the area code, but being read that way would mean Nate was threatening direct 'regulation') It is definitely one of many lines that is open to interpretation by the listener, reflecting his or her background and experience.Cander0000 (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


Why does the synposis say the woman was "impressed by Nate's singing ability"? There's no mention of singing. She doesn't say "my car's broke down and you *sing* real nice" -- she says "my car's broke down and you *seem* real nice." I think this line in the synposis shouldn't mention anything about singing ability -- it should just say that the woman surmised that Nate was a friendly person. Naseem19 (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be pared down a lot more than that. A synopsis is a brief overview of a storyline, not a complete paraphrase. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The synopsis is pretty ridiculous, and should really be removed... but I'm not going to do that just now when so many people seem to be finding it entertaining. At the very least, it should be preserved somewhere - it's a shame we don't have WP:BJAODN any more. Robofish (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It's preserved in the page history, not to mention on hundreds of discussion forums, blogs, networking sites, etc. It's probably time to end this. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
For goodness' sake, what harm is it doing? It's entertaining, factually correct and makes the article worth reading. Haven't you got anthing better to do, Catfish Jim, than worry about one Wikipedia entry? Spotty Lizard 16:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotty Lizard (talkcontribs)
Perhaps you're right, but my gut instinct suggests not. Still, plenty of people seem to like it as it is... I've put in an RFC. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, just chill out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe pared down, but it's not like it's entirely vandalism. It's quite informative actually. That said, it's obvious that it's mostly for humor, but if you remove some of the obviously ironic language that I don't see why it can't be amusing. It's amusing because the content of the song is clearly meant to be conveyed through slang and rapping, not because the whole section is a joke. Tegrenath (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't touch it. I suspect that much of the objection to it is coming from the notion that it is humorous. Certainly, it is -- but it's also very informative and interesting! I've heard the song a thousand times but never really focused on the story being told. It's a classic, prototypical gangsta rap tale, and having a well-written (if ironically so) document of the story is actually rather informative. Now, yes, I am trying to find a way to defend something that was probably written with the intention of being funny... but, really, in addition to being rather funny it's also one of the most interesting, informative sections of any individual popular song article that I've ever read! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about paring down -- I just suggested correcting for accuracy. Since no one seems to object, I'm going to make the correction. But I won't touch anything else because this page is just altogether hilarious. Please let it be. Naseem19 (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has gone over to the 'tards. It was only a matter of time before hipsters, IT dudes, and frat boys were going to take over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondoolee (talkcontribs) 23:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Everybody above me who thinks the lyrics section should be pared down are obviously racist and don't want to let black men speak for themselves and tell their story. It's not YOURstory, it's HIStory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devon Vice (talkcontribs) 01:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I made several changes to the synopsis to pare it down, make it more accurate, and make it more of an actual synopsis, as opposed to just flowery aggrandizement (read: whitewashing) of the lyrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, recentism may make it hard to discern which songs are deserving or appropriate of detailed analysis or depth of coverage. Many songs, hip-hop, rap or otherwise, represent hallmarks of culture in the 20th and 21st century, much like now certian novels, plays, or stories are regarded as important to understanding past centuries. I'm not being grandiose..., perhaps this song is one of such, perhaps not, but it's a ripe candidate for being documented in depth because the narrative technique follows classic techniques and archetypes found in stories and tales as well as taking a position, through the viewpoints of its protagonists, on many factors of urbanization. If anything, this article should expand to balance the synopsis in depth of coverage in such areas a cultural impact, the influences that led to the song, and the working process of the songwriters. It will be challenging and will take time to find reliable sources for all that, but hey, new thought and coverage of Shakespeare emerges hundreds of years after his works.Cander0000 (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
But the section in question doesn't discuss those things. It doesn't discuss the narrative technique. It doesn't discuss the tradition it draws from. Etc. And if and when it does address those or other legitimate topics it must do so in a manner that is appropriate to an encyclopedia, not as some sort of parody joke that illustrates--but does not actually discuss--the concepts at hand. This is a joke, and Wikipedia is not a comedy site.PurpleChez (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to restore the synopsis section, as it was more detailed than the short paragraph with which it was replaced. That said, I support edits to clean up the section, especially where links pipe to loosely related articles. Gobonobo T C 00:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it did that when "citation needed" was required for EVERY SINGLE THING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


It is NOT self-defense for Nate to save Warren. There should not be a reference to the right of self-defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh yeah, it actually IS self defense by proxy. You would think that people that type out things like this would know the law, but they never are. They just THINK they know it. Idiots. (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The prevention of death or severe bodily harm to one's self or another person is by definition self-defense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsm710 (talkcontribs) 14:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a comedy site[edit]

Wikipedia is not a comedy site. If you think this "synopsis" is hilarious, than copy and paste it into your blog. But it is garbage as far as an encyclopedia is concerned and it doesn't belong here, no matter how funny you think it is. The fact that it's about a rap song doesn't mean that "anything goes" and that this is somehow appropriate. Nothing about Wikipedia is to be played for humor. The idea that said humor is somehow appropriate because it's "outreach" and will introduce a new demographic to wikipedia or because it's factual as well as's all BS. By this logic, the articles on Shakespeare's plays should be written in iambic pentameter, and the haiku articles should be order to "appeal to the target audience." An article about a rap song should be written to provide useful information to someone who knows nothing about the topic, not to make rap fans laugh. It's not even a synopsis (Merriam-Webster, "a condensed statement or outline"), as it is probably a good bit longer than the song itself. Cut and paste this mess into your blog and give yourselves mad props because you were too edgy for Wikipedia, but this has no place here. PurpleChez (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have the following tag. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

That tag is not for articles in the actual reference portion of Wikipedia, but rather for a handful of essays in the non-article portion of the project, which convey useful information about Wikipedia procedures, history, etc., in a humorous manner. It is not for articles themselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

- The synopsis was informative AND amusing, the two categories are not mutually exclusive. It displayed the best aspects of wikipedia user contribution and its a real shame it has been deleted. Wikipedia is created by humans not robots, but alas, some admins wish to remove any traces of the former with the furious vitriol only a true pedant could know. (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC) James C.

- I would contest that the "synopsis" (I admit it was mis-represented) was in fact informative. Though there should be more effort put in to provide citations and background information that is assumed to be common knowledge, I do not believe it completely invalidates the content. I contest that this content was well in line with the WikiProject Songs. It may be hard for robots such as PurpleChez to understand, but songs are often not concrete in meaning. There are various ways for an audience to interpret a song and information such as that provided in the "synopsis" were helpful to understanding references made in the lyrics of the song. If Wikipedia is going to improve their coverage of the art that is music, you must allow for interpretations like these (and encourage them). It is important to initiate that dialog to create a balanced and accurate reference to this song. A song article with a generally accepted meaning is far more useful than a simple article with basic release information and a link to the artist. (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You may "contest" pretty much all you want on the talk page. But until you provide reliable third party sources to support claims, the content will unceremoniously removed from the article. Active Banana ( bananaphone 18:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly why I DID NOT change the content. I was merely using the DISCUSSION section as a place to DISCUSS why I felt the content should be allowed. Thanks for trying to talk down to me though. (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

- "But until you provide reliable third party sources to support claims...." ' In the claims made by the synopsis, the source IS the song! I don't know what you expect users to contribute; every claim made in the synopsis derives from the song's lyrics.

"Nothing about Wikipedia is to be played for humor." - What a truly misinformed statement. Harold Bloom, Empson, Keats.. critics much greater than yourself and I routinely use humour as a means of elucidating meaning from primary sources. And this is the point a lot of people seem to be missing - 'Regulate' is a song, a work of ART which contains elements of humour and self-referential parody within its content. For an encyclopedia not to recognise this in its entry does the song disservice and stunts the reader. Form with regards to art does not have to be limited to straight exposition. (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC) James C\
What bull. Keats didn't write encyclopedia least not that I know. Humor can indeed be used to make very serious points. Swift was a master of that. But it's still not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Also, the fact that Regulate is a work of "art" that incorporates humor does not mean that an encyclopedia article about it should be funny. Articles about other comic works of art are not necessarily in themselves funny. 18:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

- Also, this is a plot heavy song. So congratulations on deleting an informative synopsis that showed the importance of narrative within the rap genre. Why not delete the synopsis to 'Inception' as well, that also isn't sourced and you seem to be on a mission. (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC) James C

Where's the funny part of the synopsis? As far as I can see it's an exemplary piece of formal writing that serves as a completely accurate synopsis. The fact that people find it funny is irrelevant. There's a few here that need to pull their heads out of their own arses.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Whoever made this wikipedia page for this song...[edit]

You are a God among men. May the WikiGods bless you. -E 06:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

- Thank you cander0000. Reason has prevailed and a great wikipedia article has been restored!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, the vandalism has been reverted once again. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Its unfortunate that you find an informative article on a song subject to be vandalism when its absolutely and clearly not vandalism. It seems as if the moderator (?) watching this page seems to be more angered about the fact that someone got away with writing a witty and informative synopsis of a song (that can be viewed as "funny" due to its topic) that falls withing the guidelines of wiki's how to edit a page, and neutrality rules. Whether the topic/song/subject is "serious" enough to warrant a thorough description/synopsis is subjective. The work done on this page, however; is totally objective.
I can think of several songs on wiki ( with synopses like this, and they aren't being deleted. I'm not here to do a lot of arguing or thinly veiled insults about what what wiki is and isn't, and whos/whats stupid and whos not, womp womp womp. But at the end of the day, this is/was a well written, informative synopsis of a song that at least deserves a chance to stand before you start deleting it.
as a general newbie to wikipedia, and someone who is eager to learn about what IS and is NOT allowed, it will be interesting to watch this unfold.

-E 10:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And yet Cander has seen it worthwhile to restore it again. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

stop complaining about Cander restoring it. give us a real, valid reason why it shouldnt exist. how about that.

-E 08:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empress Ericka (talkcontribs)

How about the fact that it's absolute nonsense? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
point out whats "nonsense." and keep in mind, nonsense is subjective. if youre talking about the synopsis of the song, its entirely factual and descriptive of what happens in both the video AND song. there are TONS of songs on wiki with the EXACT kind of synopsis on them right now. so why arent you angry about those.
when you point out something actually being WRONG with this article, neutral POV, the information provided, something being incorrect or something that actually breaks the guidelines that im actually reading through, let me know. (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
"that it's absolute nonsense" != "fact". Sorry, had to call that one out. Cander0000 (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

An example as to why everyone thinks hardcore Wikipedia editors are a joke[edit]

Thanks for removing any usefulness that can be derived from this site. I'd much rather know the UK chart position than what the song actually entailed. I hope you losers with no life DIAF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So I'd say there's a place for both, right? Wikipedia is not a mass collection of data points, so there would probably be better sources if one was specifically researching UK chart positions. But discussing the topic of this article, chart positions add context, the synopsis and critical analysis add context. This article is what some articles on hip hop songs should become, albeit recognizing that many songs' (in many genres) lyrics don't obviously lend themselves to the sheer volume and depth of analysis here. Cander0000 (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Right. This is trash that should not be in any article. Cander, stop, please. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain why you insist on treating this page as your private little domain to show everyone how intelligent or how serious you are. But this was an informative article that used to medium of humor to convey how silly Rap can be at times, while simultaniously giving a surprisingly good overview of what the plot is actually about. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by being extremely childish and removing something that in essence is what Wikipedia is all about. Which (and I reitterate as you seem to have forgotten somewhere along the long road down to being a overused stereotype of an administrator) is to share correct information in an open and accepting environment. Everything said in this article (be it humorous or not) was factual and correct. Having racked my brain about this I can't come up with a reason for you to delete this article other than you having no sense of humor at all. Or feeling threatend by the user who puts this on here for being funny, clever and not a complete douche.

in conclusion....please restore the article and unclench your's okay to laugh at something informative once in a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a reference work, not The Onion. If you want to be hilarious, write for a humor publication; don't clutter up an encyclopedia with your "humor". --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Again, "Humor" is subjective. This is becoming lame and bias. Stop taking lame potshots at people and provide a real reason to take down the article, because everything youve listed thus far is bullshit.
Please do better,
-E 16:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empress Ericka (talkcontribs)

Wow, I can't believe some of the dweebs who edit this site. Do you really have nothing better to do than go around saying, "DERP! Original research, need citations. DERP! This isn't The Onion. DERP DERP! I must protect the integrity of the article describing the song "Regulate" because I have nothing else to do. DERP!" I echo the first poster's message of "DIAF" and assume you're probably just jealous that Warren G and Nate Dogg actually get laid in the song, something that is so far out of the realm of possibility for people like you that it's not even funny. Don't you guys have a LARPing tournament to attend? BTW Cander0000 is the man for adding a humorous while also FACTUALLY ACCURATE AND USEFUL addition to this site. I'm going to re-add it. Hopefully none of you site vandals will delete it this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

i think another component of the issue that's being danced around is that some find it 'humorous' is being used as benchmark for inclusion/exclusion. I may have brought up earlier the song's reflection of social issues, but when it comes down to it, Regulate doesn't address deep and somber social issues, or at least, doesn't address them in a deep and somber way. The tone is braggadocio and probably glorifying of crime rather than discussing the widespread impact and unfortunate consequences. One might find it humorous that a group of women have an auto accident because they are paying attention to the protagonist (Nate, in the verse in which the incident is found) rather than the road. It's an exaggeration, probably meant to bolster his reputation at the expense of the women. Even an objective description in the synopsis fails to squish all humor out of the situation, and it's arguably one of the most integral parts of making this a story rather than random rhymes, bookending the struggle and climax of the robbery incident (as the women are found in the position after the incident) An expectation that the synopsis and analysis be dry, somber, and free of any risk of being found humorous is a unsupported standard itself. Songs that 'do' address social/human issues in a very thoughtful, somber way, you should expect an analysis to be equally somber and thoughtful. Cander0000 (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Other articles' synopsises?[edit]

When I restored the synopsis previously, it was on the grounds that it is actually a detailed synopsis similar to those found on a lot of movie, book, and song wikipedia articles. I don't think this one has to be found humorous, even if that was the intent. Maybe it is humorous just because it's a rap song, but then that may just be a prejudice some people have towards a detailed account of a rap song. I understand its removal as far as the original research claim, but then I'd expect those removing the synopsis to then be busy removing all the existing synoposises on every movie, book, etc. article with no references, of which there are many and which have been there long before this one appeared. Crateescape101 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Editors can't be everywhere at once, if they were doing this to another article, you'd simply have another editor there saying "well why aren't you tackling some other article first?" --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

True, I understand that. It does seem like this article was picked on unfairly because it had gotten attention for being humorous (which is pretty subjective - I didn't find it funny, but I thought the information was accurate and followed the plot of the song to the letter). Is it common practice to remove synopsises of movies, books, etc. with no references? Can the actual song not be the reference? Otherwise the only way you could legitimately have a synopsis of, say, a movie would be to reference secondary sources that provide synopsises themselves. Crateescape101 (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No. It's clearly intended as humor, and it violates the no original research policy, as it's an interpretation, not a simple summary as some articles have. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
If you think "it's an interpretation, not a simple summary" (though obviously that is not the consensus) you are welcome to do your best to become an expert in the song and rephrase the summary, and make other constructive changes. Simply deleting entire sections is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No, you're wrong! I identified articles for the movies "Pulp Fiction", "Dial M for Murder", and "Easy Rider" as having TOTALLY ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have deleted the plot sections for those movies, and expected that the editors active in this discussion will ensure they stay deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, its not clearly intended as humor. Again, humor is subjective to its reader. It can be SEEN as humorous because of its frank discussion on the songs topics, but for someone who has never heard the song/seen the video, its a perfect layout of what happens. Its clear that this is a normal synopsis for any kind of song on wikipedia, and its obviously a decision based on a prejudice towards Hip Hop that affects the editing here, not wiki rules or common sense.
How does this violate your no original research policy when the video itself (if you would watch it first before editing) goes through EVERYTHING that was listed in the synopsis, but in visual format. It researches itself, lol. This is how we can tell your being bias. Its clear you've never even SEEN the video, let alone heard the song.
As stated before, synopsis are written all the time without your no original research being violated. Now all of a sudden you have a problem.
The way the editors are acting right now is really disappointing, and atypical to how people react to Hip Hop muisc in general. You keep providing inaccurate and frankly, lame reasons to take down something that does absolutely no harm to wikipedia, clearly based on a bias and seemingly blatant disregard of/towards hip hop music. Seriously. Re-evaulate your position and try again, or come up with a better reason to take the article down, because you're really making yourself look bad right now.
Oh, and as for you deflecting what Im saying about other articles having the same synopsis and you coming up with whatever excuses for not removing those... I didnt want your excuses. What I want is for you to explain WHY its okay to have THIS EXACT TYPE of synopsis written for country songs, pop songs (that arent even worthy of synopsis), and even jazz/blues songs, but when it comes to hip hop... all of a sudden, something is "Humorous?" Please excuse my french, but FOHWTBS.
I didnt point out editors out for not pulling those articles as some kinda shot to your editing skills. No. I pointed it out to show how bias and prejudice youre being towards this one article.
Do Better, Please.

-E 16:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empress Ericka (talkcontribs)

When the description starts "On a cool" - tell me just how you can "see" cool temperature just by looking at the video? The WP:OR starts there and continues through the repeatedly inappropriately returned description. Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Ummm, on a "cool clear night" is a reference to temperature usually, nights in Los Angeles/Long Beach are usually cool in clear, due to us sitting near the beach (I live here). And in the video, I think they actually show you a thermostat with the temperature. The video is very, VERY visually descriptive about what happens in the song, just like the synopsis. So whats your point. You still have a whole 3 minutes and an entire synopsis of a song you need to explain why you feel violates your policy. Please WATCH THE VIDEO FIRST, then tell me if that thing doesnt research itself for you. lol. -E 22:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
when you start providing third party reliable sources for analysis of the video, appropriate content can be returned. Active Banana ( bananaphone 22:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Since when did you need "reliable third party sources" for a synopsis of ANYTHING. We have to go get Roger Ebert for clearance on any movie synopsis ever written on wiki? Also; if thats how you want to play it, I could count myself, the people who have seen the video and the people watching you overedit this page can be counted as reliable third party sources. What do you want, for Theoretical Jesus to come down and write this shit himself for verification? PLEASE clarify exactly what kind of "Third Party Resource" you want, and at this point, I'm happy to go get the shit for you.
With Love; forgive my swearing, -E 23:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, nobody has provided any examples of unchallenged appearances of this kind of pompous pseudo-serious synopses in any other article. Blind assertions of this sort are not taken very seriously. (Nor are assertions that we are dissing HipHop or this song, when we have incredibly extensive coverage of even the most obscure artists if they have provided any evidence of notability beyond a MySpace/Facebook page.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)--Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You need to 1. Calm Down. Like I said in a previous statement, thinly veiled anger and potshots are not the business; you will be called out on it. Edit with your brain and not your emotions. 2. Stop with that pseudo-serious crap. Again. Theres pseudo-serious crap all over wikipedia that really doesnt need all that description, or even an article for that matter, and yet it does. Now if you want to play games and have me start listing up articles, id be HAPPY to do that, but I dont want you running to other pages in all your judge-tacular anger and start deleting well written synopsis of OTHER songs. Plus I got a set number of artists I need to get to editing myself (work). But if thats the game you wanna play, so be it. 3. For Christ sake, IF YOUD WATCH THE VIDEO, YOUD SEE THAT NOTHING THAT WAS TYPED IS A BLIND ASSERTION. If you actually READ THE LYRICS, youd also know that nothing is a blind assertion of ANYTHING... the video PAINSTAKINGLY goes into HEAVIER detail about whats happening than the SONG and that synopsis does. So again... whats your point. It researches itself and goes into the same detail you're complain about IN THE ACTUAL VIDEO. But instead of using slang and hip hop talk, the person who wrote this article (who im sure youve unfairly banned or suspended at this point) chose to do the same description in proper english and in an bootleg MLA format. 4. At this point, I'm not going to even bother asking you if you and the other editor have even SEEN the video; its powerfully obvious you havent.
5. You are being bias, whether you know it or not. The funny thing about being bias on a topic is that you usually dont know youre BEING bias until someone points it out, and you CHOOSE to listen. Im not impressed with your extensive collection of obscure artists and their music collections... thats what wikipedia is for. To gather knowledge, right? And if youre so into collecting info on obscure music artists and their works, I'm trying to see the problem with someone contributing the same type of info here... but its a problem because it addresses a topic or music you clearly know nothing about.
I'm sorry. And no offense to all involved, as wikipedia is usually a staple of information that I love and all the editors I have interacted with been great to me (teaching me everything I need to know as I go), but right now, I'm calling total editor bullshit on this page; and if there is some kinda hierarchy as to who chooses what stays, we need to go to that next step at this point. Youre not even giving it a chance. And you keep throwing invalid wikirules to keep pulling it down. Its not working. Its mentioned in a media article and you guys are STILL MAD. Please think with an open mind, remember that this topic and how you feel about its synopsis is SUBJECTIVE, and as always....
Continue to Do Better,
-E 22:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
p.s. I could totally understand and applaud what you were saying if this was like... some recent lil wayne single or Trio's "da da da..." but this, in all forthrightness and honestly, is a classic hip hop song and staple in west coast hip hop music... and it is MORE than deserving of such a description, which is why it was done. If youd watch/listen to it and give a chance.-E 23:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading through this page I see several very well written and eloquent reasons for restoring this article. And although this may just be my personal opinion, I have yet to see any good reasons against restoring this article asides from references to rules that are very open to interpretation. But at the end of the day this article embodies why wikipedia is doomed to eventually fail in it's current format. This is a direct qoutation from the wikipedia article on wikipedia:

Becoming a Wikipedia insider involves non-trivial costs; the contributor is expected to build a user page, learn Wikipedia-specific technological codes, submit to an arcane dispute resolution process, and learn a "baffling culture rich with in-jokes and insider references." Non-logged-in users are in some sense second-class citizens on Wikipedia,[127] as "participants are accredited by members of the wiki community, who have a vested interest in preserving the quality of the work product, on the basis of their ongoing participation

This article is a prime example of it. Regardless of how many arguements we may come up with for restoring this article it will never be restored as a few editors have convinced themselves they are right in deleting this article's synopsis and it has gone beyond a discussion about this article into a thinly veiled unspoken discussion around the interpretation of wiki rules and the power of editors. The phrase second class citizens comes to mind as qouted above. I've very dissapointed in wikipedia and it's editors for A) Removing this article's synopsis and B) Letting their own personal feelings and desire to exercise their power and their unwillingness to admit wrong doing overshadow the main goal of wikipedia to share knowledge based on user submitted content. That being said I also realise it's useless to argue with these people as it will not matter how many examples or similar articles you qoute. It's gone from a discussion about subject matter into something personal. So we might as well give up and not bother. Which is sad. Very very sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how many arguements we may come up with for restoring this article until you come up with actual arguments that meet the community consensus for article content, (reliable third party sources that support analysis and commentary) the inappropriate content will continue to be removed. Stop banging your head and start finding legitimate sources. Active Banana ( bananaphone 14:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Seconded. No amount of wikilawyering and pretending to not be in on the joke is going to change the fact that this is blatant original research and clearly intended as a joke. I've already blocked one user for re-adding it after being given a final warning and will continue to do so. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • gasp* 2 editors who agree with each other. I'm extremely surprised...shocked....yes in fact I'm stunned. Tell me this. Who can you go to to take a complaint to the next level? As in who's the guy who you cultists report to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

- WOULD AN EDITOR PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You say "But until you provide reliable third party sources to support claims, the content will unceremoniously removed from the article". Now explain why you haven't deleted the synopsis to 'Inception'. That also has no citations. Apply your standards consistently across articles, no wonder people here are regarding your deletions as snobbish, discriminatory and unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about Inception (film)? That's been tagged for improvement already. Meanwhile, you've already been directed to the article acknowledging that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but that the existence of crap is no excuse for adding more crap. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

- Thanks for updating 'Inception' (however, I note that modification was only made after my commentary!) But surely the existence of 'crap' requires you, as a responsible editor, to delete it, as you did with this article?

I notice you kept Inception's synopsis and added your disclaimer yet removed this synopsis completely. Is it because you know your edits would look foolish if applied to the 'Inception' article? You are applying double standards. If you are going to remove one synopsis completely, do so with the other. Or are you scared of causing controversy with a far more popular article? (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Theres over 3 million articles and we are aware that there are a lot of them that are crap. But just cause no one has yet found and taken it upon themselves to clean up some other piece of crap does not justify returning crap to another article where it has been identified and cleaned up. Please be WP:BOLD and start helping clean up any other crap articles that you find. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
A plot synopsis for a film is standard content; not so for a song. If somebody was to write an actual synopsis of the song, sourced to some reliable source(s), it would not be automatically deleted. Instead, people keep trying to put in the joke "synopsis" with the original research and the mock-scholarly tone. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's try again. I disagree with what you're saying. Regardless of the jokey tone and the amusement it provides I still believe this article has informative value and should be restored. You clearly do not want to. Fine that's your opinion. I disagree with this. Who can I take this to so we can get a final yes/no on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you try Uncyclopedia, where humorous content is encouraged. This is not the wiki for it. Period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You're not answering my question. If I disagree with you on this page who can I turn to? There's someone or some adress I can complain to. So let's try again. Who is the person I can escalate your behavior and this situation to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You could try a RfC as a starting point? There's not really anyone to 'escalate' to, per se. Ultimately, any decision on the appropriateness of content will come down to what the community consensus is. Currently, long-standing consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not the place for jokes, that overly long and detailed plot summaries are not beneficial and that all content requires proper sources. --Korruski (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 29 September 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

Requesting that previous synopsis of song is reinstated. I've referred multiple friends to this post. It was very funny and also informative. Please don't take away the charm that made this so page so special. (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd thought it may seem, this is an encyclopedia. Being 'charming', 'funny' or 'special' is not only outside of Wikipedia's remit, but is actually damaging to its primary purpose of providing accurate, well-researched, properly-sourced content. This article was undeniably very funny, and I suggest you reinstate it on a blog, or a more appropriate website. Believe me, the internet is already full of places to put amusing content. --Korruski (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia is not a humor site. You may be looking for Uncylopedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Request delisted. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 00:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored, but we have a nascent proposal here to back door elimination of content based on a few parties finding it 'funny'. Disagree that a subjective view held by a few is rationale for content. Thought through to its logical conclusion, one could simply navigate to article one found 'offensive' and simply declare them 'funny'. Should this mean the content is removed?Cander0000 (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You appear either to have not read or to have misunderstood the arguments people have made for removing the content. Noone that I am aware of has said it should be removed because it's funny, but that it should be taken out because it is against a number of WP policies and guidelines, including one on the length/detail of plot summaries, and ones on the notability of article content. People, including me, have linked to these policies a number of times and yet are ignored. Interestingly, it is actually the people who want this content in who are making the argument "it should go in because it's funny". That is as weak an argument as saying "It should come out because it's funny". --Korruski (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Those are cogent points, I appreciate your raising the level of discussion. I disagree that 'because its funny' has not been cited as a reason to remove the synopsis. Those terms, and/or similar terms intended to persuade editors and viewers to see the content of this article a frivolity have been invoked, including phrases such as "fact that it's absolute nonsense" and "don't clutter up an encyclopedia with your 'humor'", "clearly intended as humor". Suffice to say, these statements do nothing to advance an argument and generally are as equally unsupported by standing wikipedia policies as some of these breathless rebuttals claim the article is against them. I've favored quotes from registered users to show these are not the drive-by comments that might not give a true picture of consensus. If it can be disregarded as a case for removal whether or not one finds it 'humorous', that leaves issues such as Original Research, length of the plot summary and notability. Hopefully the synopsis can be worked on to better meet those standards.Cander0000 (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You keep sayin its Not A Humor Site... There was no humor in it.[edit]

Again, it might have been humorous to you, but thats because its clear that you have no understanding of Hip Hop Music. Humor is subjective, you still have yet to give a valid reason why this article shouldnt stay. Original Research and Third party research do not fit; if you do not provide a real reason as to why this article can't stay, its time to take it to your wiki higher ups. Its become clear that you guys have no ideal what youre talking about and have started to take this personally; this cannot be settle with the mods that we have as is. -E 17:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empress Ericka (talkcontribs)

It was clearly intended to be humorous, and many of the commentators seeking to keep it have said as much. However, even if we assume it was a good faith attempt at a genuine plot summary, I would point out once again that overly long and detailed plot summaries are also against guidelines. There are no 'wiki higher ups' but I have already explained how you can make a request for comment, if you think that would help. --Korruski (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont see anyone "taking this personally". I do see people who keep repeating "but i wanna do it this way" even though "this way" is contradicted by multiple wikipedia policies. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
So Empress Ericka, you're saying again that you don't find it humorous. Funny, you said pretty much the opposite on your blog post about it (I believe the word "hilarious" was used), where you crowed about how great and funny it was, and declared that you would come to this talk page to preserve it. Classy. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hah! Ohnoitsjamie is my new hero. I have never seen so much disingenuousness gathered together in one place as one can now find here, with all of these folks insisting that the "synopsis" wasn't funny. PurpleChez (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

wow...great way of staying neutral there mr editor. You don't think the reason this got drawn into such a huge and long drawn out discussion is because of your attitude and the ridiculous replies back qouting articles a newbie such as most people on this page (including myself) wouldn't have read? So far the only reasonable response from any editor I've seen back is from Korruski who's managed to stay polite and neutral while actual explaining wikipedia protocol rather then linking articles. Speaking of's about you link the "Don't bite" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Re " rather then linking articles." Thats what hyperlinks are for - no need to repeat ad nauseum on every talk page what is already available elsewhere. Active Banana (bananaphone 14:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A neutral voice[edit]

Whilst appreciating that the article with the brilliantly funny synopsis included might not meet the requisite editorial standards, I'd like to offer this thought - that the article may very well attract users who don't normally visit Wikipedia, maybe a portion of the internet population that really needs to be encouraged away from the shallower pools of the internet and into the deeper waters that this outstanding project charts. Maybe there are more important things than inclusion criteria? Mrcakey (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Fancrufty pages of all sorts "may very well attract users who don't normally visit Wikipedia", however, we are not here to provide fancrufty / John Stewart pages to attract more customers. We are here to provide an encyclopedia. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
"Fancruft" is my new favorite word. It's also a handy term that hits home. I for instance am a huge Simpsons fan and love indulging in Simpsonsiana. Still, I wonder sometimes if the 100s (1000s?) of articles on the Simpsons (and Star Wars and anime and other pop culture stuff) couldn't be consolidated, at least a little. PurpleChez (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Administrator's Notice Board"[edit]

Apparently this is so popular it's been discussed on a "Administrator's Notice Board" Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#Regulate_.28song.29. Just over the last week some new, coherent arguments showing up with some supportable issues with the synopsis and some ways it can be improved. Hopefully this can continue.Cander0000 (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That discussion has long since closed, which is why it's been archived. Don't misrepresent. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
understood. I should clarify my previous comment in this section that the new, coherent arguments were on this talk page. At the time discussion was taking "Administrators Notice Board", the level of discourse... was ...not as edified? Just wanted to put it out there so any interested editor can decide what level, or if, to give it any credence. Cander0000 (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
And you're blocked again. It's been made quite clear on this page you would be blocked for a longer period for the same thing. Feel free to challenge it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
...And I'm not sure that the word "popular" is accurate either... a_man_alone (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
No there were not any coherrent arguements to not follow our policy of having no original research or allow non-reliable sources. Please do not misrepresent discussions. Active Banana (bananaphone 16:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Where is the original research involved in an exposition of a song's lyrics? By that rationale any summary, indeed anything that is not a direct quote from a source is original research. Citing policy breaches simply because you don't like the way it's been written rather than what's been written is disingenuous, at best.
Wnjr (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
From the synopsis in question, the WP:OR starts with the first words of the first phrase: "On a cool, clear night (typical to Southern California)" you cannot tell temperature from a video nor determine what temperature is "typical to Southern California". What is disingenuous at best is that anyone is attempting to convince anyone that the summary in question is anything other than a joke.Active Banana (bananaphone 22:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
A suggestion; ignore any further frivolous wikilawyering on this topic from users pretending to not be in on the joke, per WP:DEADHORSE. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored[edit]

Just because something is humorous, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be here. The synopsis was an accurate summary of the story told in the song. It was funny because it was based on a rap song. Wikipedia should not remove accurate things that happen to be funny, regardless of intent. (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a matter of censorship; it is a matter of encyclopedic style, of sourced edits, and of not indulging "humorists" in their little pranks. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Please don't start this again. The argument has been done to death, and there is clear consensus against this sort of content. Removing it has nothing to do with censorship, but the following guidelines may help to explain some of the reasons why this content will continue to be reverted:
  • WP:PLOTSUMNOT - overly long and detailed plot summaries are against guidelines
  • WP:RS - content must be sourced to a reliable, independent source (not simply the song lyrics themselves)
  • WP:PLOT - 'Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is usually appropriate as part of this coverage'. A concise plot summary, not a sprawling, faux-serious line-by-line breakdown of every event in a song.
Finally, please remember that being 'accurate' alone is not the only criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I hope this helps.--KorruskiTalk 17:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI posting[edit]

Hoped we were done with this nonsense; hopefully this ANI posting will get some more eyes here and allow us to walk away from the deceased equus for good. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a different issue. It is incorrect to paint it as the same thing. Rooot (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The root (no pun intended) cause is the same thing though - giving undue weight and importance to the ridiculous summary. a_man_alone (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Isn't the very fact that there are still people willing to discuss this an indication this is not a deceased equus? Not to mention calling it a ridiculous summary is the very thing that's been keeping this discussion alive. It's clear there are 2 points of view on this. The "removers" (for lack of a better word) who are adamant this shouldn't be here but only really give links to articles that are subjective and open to interpetation and the "adders" (again..lack of better word) who keep claiming it's not humorous when we can all agree that it is. This still doesn't make it any less true. I don't think this is such an open/shut case as you guys are trying to claim it is. Mind you that being said...just like the editor fellows above me I'm 100% convinced my opinion is right so it's not a case that'll ever be solved I'm assuming (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC) can'tcomeupwithagoodname
It's more of a Zombie Donkey. It's dead, but people keep bringing it back again. Zombie Donkey. Heh heh heh. I just made myself laugh. a_man_alone (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hihihihihi....damnit...I giggelled. (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC) can'tcomeupwithagoodname
WP:ITSFUNNY isn't a valid edit reason. Corvus cornixtalk 20:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
No one has provided that reason for including a reference to multiple, verifiable, third-party sources about a notable event. There was absolutely nothing funny about the edit that I proposed and this ANI has nothing to do with adding any text whatsoever from the "synopsis." Stay on topic here. Rooot (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I've only seen one reference that could meet WP:Reliable sources criteria. A single blog post from one news site doesn't meet notability criteria, and violates WP:UNDUE. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
We've been over this. Just because I only cited one source doesn't mean that there is only one source out there. This is really basic stuff. If you want, I can re-add it with a citation to every source I find. This sets a bad precedent and will create an extremely unwieldy references section, but since you have it in your mind that we all of a sudden need to cite every possible source on a subject, I guess that's what will have to happen. Rooot (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, I need to ask since when do we care that there is only one single source on anything? There are single source citations all over Wikipedia - probably on every single article. Or are you just making up policy because it suits your non-neutral point of view? Rooot (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is it difficult to list those other sources here so they can be discussed? OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
It isn't and I never said that it was. Instead of attacking me and posting bullshit ANIs, you should have acted civilly and asked for this in the first place. Rooot (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You've been warned twice on your talk page for attacks and civility issues. You won't be warned again. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing uncivil about what I have said to you. You have been consistently on the attack for no reason. Back off. Rooot (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Some sources referencing the "synopsis"[edit]

This is not an exhaustive list, but it should aid in the discussion of whether to include. Feel free to add anything you find to this list.

I will add to it later when I have time, but will begin with the original reference:

There are countless regular blog posts talking about how "cool" "funny" or whatever. I'm not going to list them here unless someone feels they will help in the conversation. A Google search for "regulate synopsis" or "regulate 'warren g' synopsis" will yield a few hundred. Relatedly, there are many forum posts on the topic but I doubt they would qualify as technical "sources" for our purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooot (talkcontribs) 22:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Blog posts (pretty much everything listed above) do not meet WP:Reliable sources the vast majority of the time. One of those sites listed above, in fact, was connected to a user who argued here that she didn't think there was anything funny about, while crowing about how funny it was on her blog, which is why I found it difficult to assume good faith in many of the arguments posted here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know anything about what has gone on in the past here. It certainly was funny, anyone trying to deny that is lying. Nevertheless, I am not suggesting we add the "synopsis" back at all, but rather simply add a quick reference to the fact that the "synopsis" was a cultural event related to this song. I don't know why you can't seem to understand the difference between the two. Rooot (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I think there's a big difference between a 'cultural event' and a 'vaguely funny subversion of Wikipedia which gets picked up by a number of blogs'. The first would generate coverage in reliable sources such as major national newspapers, the second is simply a flash-in-the-pan bit of entertainment which, due to the nature of the internet, leaves a slew of unreliable sources behind it long after it should have sunk back below the surface.--KorruskiTalk 09:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I usually take your side of this debate on Wikipedia articles and it always comes out that editors would rather err on the side of inclusion (and that is for whole articles). All we are talking about here is one single line referencing the fact that this event made news. There are multiple, verifiable sources that we can use as citations. I really don't see what the problem is here besides the fact that apparently a bunch of people came in here a few months ago and wasted a bunch of everyone's time arguing the merits of the "synopsis" itself. Let me make this clear one more time: I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE "SYNOPSIS" and I'm not trying to argue at all that we should include even a fragment of it. All I am saying is that we need to include a reference that the "synopsis" (I don't even like calling it that) was made about this song. I think Wikipedia policy is on my side on this issue and have yet to see any real argument against it besides that you all don't like the sources. Let me tell you something: the first source that I used was the Phoenix New Times, a well-established publication with significant circulation. Sure, it isn't the New York Times, but this isn't a huge event either. That's why I'm not suggesting we make a whole damn article, but rather a simple, one-line reference. That's all. I just don't understand all the animosity towards this proposal. Rooot (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, my gut reaction was, and still is, that this gives undue weight to a bit of frivolity. Actually, my very first reaction was that this was trying to make a point by bypassing prior consensus, however I do believe now that that was not your intention. Anyway, I take your points and I agree this may not be a black-and-white case, but I am still not convinced that any of the sources cited are sufficiently reliable, and that includes the Phoenix New Times. I would be interested to hear the views of other, previously uninvolved, editors on both the issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:RELIABILITY.--KorruskiTalk 10:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
An unsourced original research posting put on Wikipedia which gets removed due to lack of sourcing and being made up, gets mentioned by non-reliable sources elsewhere, and somehow that means that they're notable and reliable sources? Corvus cornixtalk 23:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Does Mike Shinoda count as a reliable source? (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
No, because it's recursive - he's referring back to the originally removed synopsis. It's also a blog, so is sailing close to the fail wind straight away. a_man_alone (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

New Regulate Remix released, proposed update to page.[edit]

I propose the current Wikipedia entry for Regulate (song) be updated with a newly released remix, including nods to all collaborators: Warren G, Nate Dogg, and Michael McDonald - I Keep Forgettin' to Regulate Donrb (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Donrb

No evidence that DJ EkSel is notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


Glad to see that someone seems to have taken control of this article and made it once again an encyclopedia article rather than an in-joke among rap fans. Hadn't checked in in a long time...funny to see how many of the posts in favor of the joke article were unsigned.... PurpleChez (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize PurpleChez was your real name (sarcasm). I don't agree with your repeated implication that signing a post with a fake name takes more "stones" than signing a post with a real IP address. That just seems like an ad hominem attempt to discredit people who have made some very valid points. You continue to disparage the old version as a "joke article" even though it contained no inaccuracies and was extremely informative, whereas the current version is full of inaccuracies, unsourced claims, and contains none of the detailed explanations of cultural references that made the older synopsis so useful. It is odd that you stopped by after all this time just to gleefully crow about the gutting of the article. The article may seem more "serious" now because it is more boring, but it is by no means better, more useful, or more accurate as an encyclopedia entry. Therefore, your gloating is about getting over on the "rap fans" you despise for their "rap crap," and in no way reflects some kind of genuine pride in improving wikipedia as a tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Another unsigned comment. Surprise. PurpleChez (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are you so obsessed with people signing their comments? not all of us have an account. Does that make their opinion any less valid? You're acting like a jerk to a lot off people by belittling them for not signing their comment. Regardless of whether they are or are not right your behavior is down right rude and in fact more than a bit childish. (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
No more childish than bringing a 16 month old conversation back to life with your observations. If you have nothing to seriously contribute to the discussion, don't bother at all. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
So you're replying to him and not to me? Frankly it's none of your business whether he contributes to the discussion, you don't have any ownership over Wikipedia, and his point is perfectly valid. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Who are you? You'll have to remind me when I was ever obliged to reply to you, as I don't remember - sorry. And you are utterly wrong that it's none of my business to comment, for the very same reasons you espouse - nobody owns Wikipedia, but we are all tasked with improving the encyclopedia, and I don't see how the above comment does that, hence my suggestion that they either do so constructively - which many IP editors do - or keeps their perceived persecution to themselves. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm somebody who raised a similar objection to PurpleChez's hectoring tone just a couple of weeks ago, just below this very comment - see here - Talk:Regulate_(song)#Incredible_pedantry_here.... 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, right, I see. Frankly it's none of your business whether I contribute to the discussion, you don't have any ownership over Wikipedia. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Great, well done engaging with the issue there. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so now you think "Frankly..." is an inappropriate response to a post? Perhaps you should head over to the doublethink page and contribute there - you seem to be well acquainted with the topic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Still semi-protected?[edit]

I assume this article was protected after the death of Nate G. Some time has passed and I believe semi-protection is only supposed to be indefinate in the case of ongoing vandalism, which I don't believe is happening here. Can it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article was semi'd due to continual vandalism over the synopsis, as a look through the page history will show. Given that Nate G's death was in fact used a prompt to restore the long synopsis again, there's no reason to assume that the vandalism won't re-occur if protection is lifted. a_man_alone (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
You are not alone in that opinion. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
You most certainly are not. I have no doubt that the moment this article is unprotected folks will be tripping over each other (virtually, of course) to restore the completely inappropriate clown-world synopsis. If these folks are so hell-bent on seeing that garbage online once again why don't they all post it to their blogs or make a facebook page for it? It doesn't belong here.PurpleChez (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems less like vandalism and more like an editorial dispute about the content of the page, I don't think the latter should be handled by semi-protection.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really. When proposed content is against general policies and guidelines, and against specific consensus, then continuing to add it is not simply an 'editorial dispute'.--KorruskiTalk 13:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Korruski!!!! I couldn't agree more. And, once again, I've got to chuckle at how many of the folks who want to go back to the joke version don't have the grapes to actually log in and sign their posts. PurpleChez (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

More clean up needed[edit]

This article: Toilet_paper_orientation suffers from the same lack of observation of seriousness. All you good editors are needed there... (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

Incredible pedantry here....[edit]

I stopped by this article after listening to Regulate for the first time. I thought "Wow, this article is more bland than most Wiki song articles that I have come across; I wonder what is on the discussion page?" Wow.... what a bunch of worthless bickering.

Just to be sure, I went back and read the synopsis via a previous revision. It actually makes the Wiki entry worth reading. The synopsis is objective; the content being summarized is humorous.

The moderators of this page propose a precedent that is simply not sustainable. Should all objective summaries of humorous content be banned? Imagine the lasting damage to Wikipedia's credibility if someone giggles upon reading an objective account of Dave Chappelle's most popular comedy routines.

If you think the synopsis is too long, then we should attempt to reach agreement on an acceptable abridged version. Any arguments regarding relative humor of the synopsis are subjective, based largely on emotion (therefore inherently illogical), and have no place here. Accordingly, any moderator who substitutes facts and logical reasoning with feelings and emotions has no place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again...a supporter of the joke article who didn't have the stones to sign his comment. There is no "agreement" to be reached...the old synopsis was NOT objective, it was INTENDED to be humorous, it was original research, it was overly long, and it didn't belong here. The fact that the content being summarized is humorous does not mean that the summary should in itself be humorous any more so than a summary of a Shakespearean sonnet should rhyme. Blazing Saddles is one of the funniest films ever made but its plot summary is straight-forward. The "synopsis" wasn't dropped (only) because it was too was dropped because it was inappropriate for numerous reasons, violated numerous wikipedia policies, and was repeatedly determined by editors to be entirely un-encyclopedic. If you want to see it online again, put it in your blog, and all the kids in the dorm can have a great big laugh and pat themselves on the back for being too edgy for Wikipedia. I'll close by doing what few of these children have the guts to do...sign my post.... PurpleChez (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing he didn't sign in because he hasn't signed up and made the commitment to editing Wikipedia that you have. And now he won't because you've hectored, patronised and made a series of unfounded assumptions about him and demonstrated what smug, humourless posessive dicks Wikipedia editors can be to people who don't agree with them. Please show me the policy prohibiting "humourous intent", please explain to me why this "original research" is any more egregious than any other unsourced summary (yes, I know "other stuff exists" is no excuse, but seriously, you need to spend this much time and energy to squash this bug?), please explain to me how the tone was "un-encyclopedic" when the whole idea was that it was an ultra-encyclopedic take. Tell me how it was "inappropriate" - are you saying that Wikipedia is censored now? And those other "numerous reasons" - what were those, exactly? It's pretty telling that he (the alleged edgy fratboy) made a serious of relevant points and a call for compromise and you (the committed editor with "guts") have failed to answer any of them and fallen back on ad-hominem insults. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The music video director is Cameron Casey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coonsie33 (talkcontribs) 22:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is now a disaster[edit]

Explain the section titled "Single." Is anyone else completely baffled by the contents? Also, the "Synopsis" section incorrectly identifies the "hook" of the song. I guess this is what happens when a great, extremely informative article is destroyed by some jerks who thought it wasn't boring enough. It's now useless and riddled with inaccuracies. Congrats, happy with how you improved the encyclopedic validity? smh — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"destroyed by some jerks who thought it wasn't boring enough" - thanks, this gets to the nub of things. Shocking to see respected admins throwing their toys out of the pram about it being "unsourced" (when sourcing is only an issue for things that may not be true, and nobody was questionsing any of the facts) a "parody" (which it clearly wasn't) or "unencyclopedic" (when the whole point was that it was ultra-encyclopedic in tone). The only genuine reason I can see for it being changed was that other people were having fun on wikipedia and not on their terms. Disgraceful tribalism and a sad indictment of the way Wikipedia has become dominated by a small group of humourless control-freaks. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Valid point about the "single" section - I've changed that to "Track Listing" - I hope you understand it now. As for the inaccuracies, the claim it's the hook is supported by two reliable sources. If you can provide more or better sources to say otherwise, please do so. Appreciate your IP status won't allow you to make the changes yourself, but once you've got your sources, feel free to comment here (as you have done,) and somebody will be delighted to update the page to less boring status for you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Track listing of what? This is an article about a "song." Songs do not have track listings. Similarly, the "Personnel" section refers to the "song label." Songs don't have labels. Furthermore, nothing in the "Personnel" section is supported by sources. As for the term "hook," that is generally used for the CHORUS of a song -- see the wiki article on hook (music). One of the sources given is Not only is that not a "reliable source," it doesn't identify the mentioned passage as the hook anyway. The other source is a Spin article that identifies that passage as "the hook" but since that is an unconventional use of the term it is misleading and doesn't add anything of value to the wiki article. I suggest we revert this article back to the way it was a few years ago when it had a thorough, detailed synopsis full of interesting information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added information to the track listing to address that question.
Meanwhile, you bring up valid points about "the hook", but they're not really relevant. It's absolutely appropriate to comment on the analysis of a professional music journalist, so the only question is how to phrase the sentence. The article says: one critic describes this moment as "the hook" of the song. This statement makes it clear that it's a single person's analysis, and "the hook" is put in quotation marks. Of course, if you have a better phrasing, please suggest it. Melchoir (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

How in the world a not particularly noteworthy reviewer's mundane misuse of a word in a review of the song is important to the article is beyond me. Talk about "not relevant"! What was the impact of the reviewer using the word "hook?" What is the significance? It's a pointless and misleading inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

YouTube link[edit]

Is the YouTube link dead? It will not load up for me.-- (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The link seems fine to me. It has an unskippable 30-second ad, so maybe if you block the ad, the video appears to be broken? Melchoir (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is maybe because Im using a iPad? I clink on the link and it says cannot load movie. I can see everything else on YouTube though. I will try tomorrow using my PC.-- (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Works fine for me. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nate Dogg not in the video?[edit]

According to this article, Nate Dogg does not appear in the video due to a conflict between Def Jam and Suge Knight. A book that you can't read directly of the internet is cited. But if you've ever watched the video, CLEARLY you will see Nate Dogg in it. Please fix this. (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Your belief that you see Nate Dogg in the video does not constitute a published reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes, well done here. A new person tries to correct a fact and you basically tell him to fuck off. Try either (a) having a little patience or (b) not replying. The balance of proof here is not on, a "fact" in the article goes against basic common sense and the source is offline and unverifiable. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I think the cited book is at my local library, will have to take a look. Cannolis (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Cannolis. My feeling here is that there may be two videos, as the one described sounds nothing like the one I'm familiar with (and which is linked in the article) 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Not done "CLEARLY you will see Nate Dogg in it" is a PoV or OR, not a reliable source - what if they used a look-alike? - Arjayay (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
"what if they used a look-alike?" is a PoV or OR, not a reliable source, also balance of probablilities is against you. Now inaccuracies are fossilized because admins are sarcastic and arrogant, and new users are scared off before they can learn how to research citations. So well done there Arjayay. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 June 2013[edit]

sign of the times by bob james has a piano solo which is also sampled in this (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --ElHef (Meep?) 16:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017[edit]

I think it's worth mentioning that the song is a rare instance of a pop song without a chorus (often called a vocal hook in hip hop) as mentioned in the Rolling Stone oral history of the track linked below. I also think it's interesting that the rerecorded clean version is what was released on the album (not to be confused with the odd editing choices made for the video) and that the original version contained a lot of profanity but nobody seems to have that version. Also mentioned in article. I would like to add both of these points of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torncurtain (talkcontribs)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)