User talk:Rowletman

Welcome!

Hello, Rowletman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Please see wp:images. You can search on Wikimedia Commons for images - commons:main page, or upload free-content. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Memories...Do Not Open. You can blank your talk page of these notices all you like. People can still see in the history that you have been warned. The fact that the album charted on a dance chart does not automatically make it "dance", and nor does that Rolling Stone review call the album dance. It calls The Chainsmokers a dance act. Ss 112 14:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112 You need to find articles that are not opinon based. Please do not use sources that are clearly scathing reviews on the album. Just because someone says it is a pop album, it does not make it a pop album. It debuted on the Dance charts, therefore it is a Dance album.

Reviews are opinion-based. That's the whole point. Calling something pop is not "scathing", nor is that review. Billboard's listing of an album on a dance chart does not make it a dance album. We need an experienced writer's opinion of the album. Your two links show nothing of that. You're going to be reported for edit warring. You need to stop right now. Ss 112 15:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Memories...Do Not Open shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ss 112 15:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Memories...Do Not Open shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"First sentence of the article"

Yes, the first sentence of the article you linked to says "No.1 dance album". The link on "dance album" points to the Dance/Electronic Albums chart, which it went to number one on. It's not describing the genre of the album. Stop edit warring and take it to the talk page. You've already broken WP:3RR and been reported. Ss 112 04:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112 Don't know why you are so hellbent on keeping it pop. The first sentence of that article is referring to the album as a whole. Again, you are not using good enough sources. Reviews are opinion based and do not reflect the album as a whole. If that Wikipedia page was an English paper you would recieve a low grade for lack of scholarly sources. The article I provided is not referring to the charts, it is calling it a "dance album" because it is a dance album. You are reporting me for no reason other than the fact that you do not agree with me.

No, I reported you for breaking WP:3RR. Are you familiar with that page? It's Wikipedia policy. Please click on the link provided. You should familiarise with policies if you continue to edit here. "So hellbent on keeping it pop"... because Pitchfork is currently the only review we have calling it a distinct genre. Oh yes, "Lack of scholarly sources" says the editor adding a Billboard source calling it a "no.1 dance album" and trying to pass that off as talking about the genre of the album. "Dance" is directly preceded by "no.1" and the wording "Dance album" even links to the Dance albums chart it went to number one on. This isn't an English paper, and your comparison is ridiculous. Also yes, thank you, we have established that reviews are opinion-based. That is the point of them. I'm not the only editor who disagrees with you. You were reverted by three other editors. Ss 112 17:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112 Well if you want Wikipedia to be a credible place maybe you shouldn't use reviews that have no weight on the genre of an album. It was released as a dance album, therefore it is a dance album. It would not chart on the dance charts if it was not a dance album. Just because someone says the album is pop does not make it pop. I do not really see how a review of an album is more of a credible source than an article saying "no. 1 dance album" and its chart history. Either way I am done with this argument. Clearly the album will not be the genre that it is, and Wikipedia will continue to mislead it's users.