Wikipedia

Talk:God Forgives, I Don't

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Made Men edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

NOT going to be on the album stop adding it as a confirmed track — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickyRozay (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 October 2011

MTV, which is certainly a reliable source says that it will be on the album. Things change, maybe this changed. If so, you will need a reliable source saying so. Otherwise, this will constantly end up back on the page. Here's what you'll want to add: "While it was reported that 'Made Men' was the first single from the album,<MTV ref goes here> it was later announced that the song would not appear on the album.<new reliable source goes here>" Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
That was MORE THAN ONE WHOLE YEAR ago. Its NOT going to be on the album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickyRozay (talk • contribs) 22:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. MTV verfiably states this sond will be on the album. Countering that is some random person on the internet saying this has changed (or wasn't true to begin with or passed the song's "sell by" date or... something). You saying it will not be on the album is, to Wikipedia, meaningless. If you have a reliable source saying it will not be on the album, cite it. If this information came to you in a dream or is something you magically just "know", we have no use for it here. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

‎

9 Piece (REMIX) edit

The REMIX with Lil Wayne is on the album, the ORIGINAL is with TI and is on the Ashes To Ashes mixtape. Stop confusing the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickyRozay (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 October 2011‎

Addition of unsourced guests and such edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Material added to this article that does not cite a reliable source has been repeatedly removed. An anonymous editor, apparently getting angry about this, continues to restore the material. As the editor is not signed in, ze is not seeing the warnings being added to the various IPs' talk pages. If this continues, we will have no choice but to block anonymous editors from the article. If anyone feels the material should stay without sources, please explain here (you'll need to explain why this article is somehow different than the rest of Wikipedia in this regard). Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Here's the most reliable source for the tracklist I could find besides the pre-order info on iTunes, and I don't know how anyone can argue with that http://www.vibe.com/article/5-reasons-you-need-hear-rick-ross-god-forgives-i-dont-album . Unless citations more reliable than this can be presented, people need to stop adding Eminem, Adele, Bun B or any other unconfirmed guests to the album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.22.249 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Album Leak edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rick Ross' album leaked today through Sharebest.com and Mediafire, should that be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.215.1.7 (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned references in God Forgives, I Don't edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of God Forgives, I Don't's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Caramanica":

Reference named "Jones":

  • From Hip hop music: Jones IV, James T (December 20, 1990). "MAINSTREAM RAP;Cutting-edge sound tops pop in a year of controversy;Video's child take beat to new streets". USA Today. Gannett Company. p. 1.A. Retrieved 2012-06-07.
  • From Nas: Jones, Joseph. Review: God's Son. PopMatters. Retrieved on 2009-10-28.
  • From Teflon Don (album): Jones, Steve. Review: Teflon Don. USA Today. Retrieved on 2010-07-20.
  • From Deeper Than Rap: Jones, Steve. Review: Deeper Than Rap. USA Today. Retrieved on 2009-12-04.

Reference named "Jeffries":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

POV changes edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

My recent contributions to this article were reverted by the article's main contributor, who dismissed them as disruptive at my talk page. The changes are pretty clearcut (diff) The reviews were not incorporated considering a neutral point of view and the notability of the reviewers, as instructed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_guide#Critical_reception. The lead statement seemed a bit convoluted, so I simplified it. The rest of the article gives so much undue weight to minor aspects of the events preceding the album and nonfree images, so the templated tag above the article seemed necessary. The main contributor's name sort of gives it away too. Other than his change to the singles template, his repeated removal without explaining, until now, shouldnt be accepted. Dan56 (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

If you ask me, Dan is one annoying guy. I think Artistdirect is a more credible review than NME. That review was sourced a long time ago and for some reason Dan keeps taking it away to put a review that bashes the album. As far as "The rest of the article gives so much undue weight to minor aspects of the events preceding the album" statement, isn't the point of Wikipedia to educate and be as thorough as possible? Would you rather this article just say: "Ross announced the album in January 2011. It was originally slated to come out on December 13, 2011 and then got pushed back to July 31, 2012. Production is by (blah blah blah) and guest features are (blah blah blah)" then have the tracklisting and then "The album sold 220K first week and was certified gold 6 weeks later". No, you'd rather have a well written complete article giving all facts about it. And as far as the non free images go, I used them under fair use. In fact, I'm getting attacked by this stupid Dan guy for writing a great article. And when I wrote "the album is certified gold", he reverted it saying "no its not" only to write the same sentence THE NEXT DAY. he said something about "A tweet from the artist isn't a credible source". If something THE ARTIST HIMSELF says about his OWN ALBUM isn't a credible source, then nothing is. Case closed. I don't care about Dan's changes which help the article, I'm dismissing his changes which bash the album. And I still don't see how this is written from a fan's POV. Its not likeI I wrote "God Forgives I Don't is the greatest rap album of all time, and released on July 31 2012". Everything I wrote is sourced and written like any other normal Wiki article. What the hell is Dan's deal anyway? RickyRozay (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I explained everything perfectly at your talk page. Your ignorance is pretty annoying; Artistdirect doesnt belong in the same sentence as NME, one of the most prolific music magazines ever printed. No major (or any other for that matter) publication gave this album a maximum rating, so your not being objective. The point of the ratings template is to show a represenation of how critics received the album, and a maximum rating misrepresents this album's reception. You continuing to remove even the prose about the NME review is showing your true colors. You're not being reasonable, and since you brought it up, your article is poorly written, with grammatical issues and puffery (e.g. "I will deliver" needs to be highlighted with a quotebox?) Dan56 (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Your edit summary is misinformed; there is no "both sides" argument here. Your revision of the ratings template does not accurately reflect the reception. You can't give undue weight to a minority opinion, here being Artistdirect's five-star score. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_guide#Album_ratings_template, considering the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view, your revision doesnt make sense, other than you want to gloss over anything remoteley negative about the album. Dan56 (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please don't attack other users because you can get blocked for that. "Dan keeps taking it away to put a review that bashes the album" or "I'm dismissing his changes which bash the album" sounds like it's coming from a fan's point of view. An album article should also include negative reviews. About the table, MOS:ALBUM says "When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source". NME is more notable and reliable than Artistdirect. Oz talk 23:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

First off, if I'm coming as annoying or ignorant, its cuz Dan is 10x more annoying. Also, calling someone annoying is a personal attack now? "maximum rating misrepresents this album's reception" All the positive reviews of the album pretty much gave it 4 out 5 stars, so if someone else goes the extra mile and gives it a 5, that means its a misrepresentation? One person can't give it a better review than the others? so if everyone rates an album 5 out 5, but one person gives it a 4, that 4 is a misrepresentation? It shows variety, which I think should be shown. ""I'm dismissing his changes which bash the album" sounds like it's coming from a fan's point of view" -> the article is supposed to be objective right? therefore his bashful edits should be considered disruptive. How is my article "poorly written with grammatical errors"? please fix them if you see any cuz I don't. And idk what you're talking about "poorly written", someone who has no prior knowledge on this album can be completely brought up to speed by reading it. Pretty much all details given to the public about this album are in this article. I also like how you completely gloss over me calling you out on reverting my edits about the album's certification cuz you know you're 1000% WRONG about it. If you're trying to make the point that I'm a Ross fan, DUH its obvious. But I wrote the article objectively. Dan, do you just have something against Ross? I'm tired of seeing all the Kanye & Jay-Z album pages being amazingly written, and all the Ross album pages being stubs, so now when I write a tremendous article, it gets bashed for being written from a fan's POV? You should be thanking me for my contributions to this article otherwise it'd just be another stub. Now you're just bashing my article because you're mad I called you annoying. Maybe I'm being bias with the reviews, but the article itself is well written. Dan's just mad cuz I called him out. RickyRozay (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Anyone reading "Rozay"'s comments can just look over to his talk page (which he "gloss"ed over) and see who should be "called out". If my explanation about RIAA.com and reliable sources at your talk page wasnt enough, then I cant help you. And yes, if the majority of reviewers would give an album a maximum rating, then the majority of reviews in the ratings template would be a maximum rating. There are over dozens of reviews for this album, and less than a 1/10 of them gave it a maximum rating; do the math, and it doesnt make sense to give one maximum ratings out of 20 to 30 others a place in a template reserved for 10. If a logical argument doesnt work for you, then there's a mathematical one. And regarding your recent change, Consequence of Sound happens to be a more notable review sources. Not only is it accepted by Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic?, it is cosigned by Time (magazine). Artistdirect seems to be a low-rent Allmusic, and from my experience editing articles, I only see their reviews pop up when there is either a shortage of reviews for a low-profile release or a five-star rating (wonder why). I was considering using The A.V. Club, but as a concession, I added COS' four-star rating. Dan56 (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Since this is a content dispute, dont consider making any more changes to the subject of this discussion. Per WP:Consensus, other editors' comments seem necessary at this point, so I've contacted members and contributors to WP:ALBUMS to comment. Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Outside opinion edit

Allow me to offer an outside opinion, from someone who doesn't know anything about Rick Ross, this album, and doesn't listen to rap or hip hop. An average person, who has done a great deal of editing here over the years: Much of this is unreadable. There is entirely too many quotes, way too many. It is extremely long and detailed with more minutia that it needs. The purpose of any article isn't to provide every possible detail we can dig up and source, it is to convey information. Not every piece of information, just the important bits that can be sourced, with the hopes of providing an entertaining, concise and accurate representation of the important facts regarding the subject matter. Literally half of this needs to be trimmed out.

It's great that you have so many quotes available, but it needs to have the redundant information removed and simply provide an overview each aspect, not a blow for blow description. The amount of trivial detail makes it a chore to read to the average person, yet provides very little real information other than to promote the artist, which is the definition of "puffery": Talk much, say little, only promote. It is written too much from an insider perspective rather than the viewpoint of an objective observer, so the tone is not encyclopedic. Perhaps as a magazine article where endorsement is the norm, it would be fine. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so we have to present a more neutral perspective when presenting the information. As it is now, the article has a great many problems with tone, neutrality, flow and readability due to excessive and trivial content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Mr. Brown has said in much greater detail what I had been thinking. Wikipedia is not a personal blog. Thus it must be concise and objective (encyclopedic). The artist himself probably does not even recall some of these small details.—99.186.119.110 (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Fine do as you wish I'm done helping y'all out - but btw this def was not released on Mercury Records, it was released on Def Jam & MMG. RickyRozay (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
BTW, all edits and edit summaries are available at the article's history subpage, like this one explaining your comment. Didnt you create the "release history" section anyway? Dan56 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Dennis Brown says, "There is entirely too many quotes, way too many. It is extremely long and detailed with more minutia that it needs."
But take a look at The Slim Shady LP, ...Baby One More Time, ...Baby One More Time (song), I Am... Sasha Fierce and Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) articles. The first three are WP:GA (good articles), the fourth is being considered as a GA, the last one is WP:FA (a featured article), and all of them have "entirely too many quotes, way too many" and are "extremely long and detailed"...if we go by Dennis Brown's standards. Dennis Brown did state "with more minutia that it needs" in that second line, though, so maybe he was just saying that it's extremely long and detailed regarding minutiae. But my point is that detailed articles are usually what make it to GA or FA level. That said, Infinite (Eminem album) is an example of a small article being GA. But then again, there's not much to add about it anyway. 46.165.208.13 (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Are we really still discussing this? I think Mr. Brown made all the issues of the article very clear, as a casual reader I can't discern any valuable information out of the flattery and promotion and I think the article needs some extensive restructuring and rewriting. 129.81.211.155 (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on God Forgives, I Don't. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on God Forgives, I Don't. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:God_Forgives,_I_Don%27t&oldid=1207449068"