Talk:Here (Alicia Keys album)

1178:

reviews are also already described in prose in the article. I know some in the albums Wikiproject are very partial to AllMusic and including it without exception and without discrimination on ratings boxes. Apply NPOV correctly; WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT, taking into account the nature of overall reception. The record didn't receive a negative or mixed reception, therefore the optional ratings box should not give undue weight to negative (while mixed is already present) and misrepresent general reception. The box is not treated equally the same for every album regardless of its reception; a negatively received album should have a ratings box (if it has one) that reflects that; an album with a mixed reception should have a ratings box that reflects that; a positively received album should have an overview box that reflects that. Get it? Apply NPOV correctly. Replacing a notable source, such as The Independent – who's reception generally aligns with the overall reception, unlike AllMusic's – is

1536:) in the selection of ratings. Justifying disregarding overall reception/WP:DUE as "consistency across all music articles" is saying that it's fine to select the same source rating across albums with different receptions (negative, mixed, and positive) regardless of whether the ratings skew positive, mixed or negative (and also regardless of how the overview may or may not skew American). The box is a limited ratings overview box to include a WP:DUE selection of sources ratings that altogether best represent the overall reception; not to indiscriminately select the preferred source(s) by some editors regardless of the reception and WP:NPOV. I understand those who practice/prefer it would be against not practicing it. I've read previous discussions at wikiprojects over the preference for and indiscriminate use of AllMusic (or any particular source), and I know that some editors abide by such practice. See 1407:

rating , making it read with an undue negative slant, gives undue weight as per general reception - it is not then a representative overview of overall reception. Apply NPOV correctly; WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT, taking into account the nature of overall reception, not a preference for a particular source or outlier/minority rating, misrepresenting general reception. A negatively received album should have a ratings box that reflects that; an album with a mixed reception should have a box that reflects that; a positively received album should have an box that reflects that. On a record that received a generally positive reception (and that's with aggregator only including a small amount of reviews; there are several other notable sources which weren't included and are positive reviews; and several sources state album was acclaimed), replacing a positive/mixed rating for the negative rating

2315:

is no need for this RfC as there has been no discussion about the section and you went straight to it after not getting your way in the article". This is conspicuous, utter POV-driven, personal bias-seeking, policy-disregarding absurdity; if an IP removes a group of positive reviews or negative reviews they don't want from an article it is automatically rightfully reverted (& normally considered vandalism). A reception section that's no different than most, 3 paragraphs of brief summaries/excerpts of reviews from notable sources, could easily be copyedited if needed without removing notable reviews that are significantly part of and representative of overall reception.

2545:"representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." 2759:"reporting what actual journalists with the ability to understand nuanced information beyond a (man-made) algorithm is also verifiable." "Just what are the majority of independent reliable sources reporting (not calculating or aggregating) of the film's reception?" "But that there is information availablealong with a nuanced summary that an aggregate score such as Metacritic will never be capable of... that is a boon." "it's aggregate score should not be given any more weight as the authoritative word on the film's reception, when it is just a minor aspect of this topic" 1507:

to have the box there. AllMusic seems to be one of those standardized across numerous articles, while Slant is not (as they don't have a record for covering every album release). Not including AllMusic on the basis that their score is off average from everything else is a BS argument. This is also coming from the VG article space, one of the other few projects that use this type of review table, and we would never take off a standard review source out of the table just because they gave a different review from the others. --

1236:

AllMusic, and edit ratings box neutrally with due weight according to a record's general reception, not according to which sources are most popular or more "interesting". Ratings box are also governed by NPOV, like all other content in articles. Ratings box should present to readers the general reception a record received (negative, mixed, or positive) through selection of the notable reviews that best represent/reflect the nature of that reception. Readers can delve further into all the reviews in prose and citations.

2061:- Review excerpts aren't reiterating an exact view, and as noted in the section below, reception summaries are given (attributed to a secondary source) and reception content is presented so that readers read a summary of the views from all the notable sources, views on different aspects of the subject and views shared among reviewers. Readers need to see, whether a record received positive, mixed, or negative reception, the reception section present the viewpoints from all notable sources as per WP:DUE weight, 311: 290: 321: 1386:). Dan56 cites an essay that itself reminds to abide by NPOV. An overview ratings box is not a stronghold for any particular or favored source, it's an empty box meant to be filled with 10 notable reviews that altogether best reflect the overall reception and are also selected with consideration of presenting an worldwide overview, not U.S-centric. Trying to replace reviews ratings (positive and mixed) that represent overall reception with an outlier rating that 1992:- Paragraphs are meant to convey a topic, be distinguished by a similar thread of information, have a discernible identity. The current revision has two paragraphs that essentially say the same things: They simply deal with an assortment of positive critical viewpoints: there is no "controlling idea" or rather there are several of the same ideas in each paragraph. I would favor trimming the third paragraph as well; the 240: 2967:. I.e, the subject/her camp did not write/release an article for The Recording Academy about herself/the other artist also awarded , nor did she/her camp hire The Recording Academy write one of their articles about her/the other artist; The Recording Academy published an article (like it always does) on presenting an award to these artists, giving a summary of and commentary on the subjects' careers. 222: 3667: 1027:, the average (and you know simple arithmetic mean is not how those aggregators calculate their scores) is 76.6 - representative of overall reception, as enumerated by aggregator's very limited selection & particular formulas, but, far more importantly, is representative of overall reception from notable sources in and outside the US. The distribution of ratings in the box 191: 944:

the 10 listed a value out of 100, and average them out, you get: 50 + 67 + 83 + 80 + 80 + 80 + 80 + 65 + 70 + 91 = 746, divided by 10, for an average of 74.6, which is roughly the average of the two aggregate scores, 74 and 76. If Slant's score were included in the arithmetic, the average would bump up higher to 76.6, which is higher than either aggregate score.

981:", which is POLICY. All listed are notable, &, more importantly, maintain WP:NPOV/WP:DUE, considering the general reception & the general ratings box better represents worldwide overview over American focus. AllMusic is included in prose, like all others; no policy says AllMusic (or any one particular site) must be listed in an optional ratings box". 3561:" Emphasis mine. How can you say that there is nothing there about this? Did you get the opinion of other editors here? Did you take it to the appropriate projects? Did you discuss here? Where's the input from those editors? Or did you just stop after reading the first sentence there and say that it doesn't apply to you. Maybe you're just 1873:– Based on related articles which have achieved "Good Article" status, I see that the Critical reception sections are trimmed and concise. For that reason, I'm recommending that the reviews quoted should be limited to whatever is cited in the box and then some (rather than just quoting every outlet which has an ounce of credibility). -- 1227:, which is to present ratings that represent the overall reception of al album. On a record that received a generally positive reception (and that's with aggregator only including a small amount of reviews; there are several other notable sources which weren't included and are positive reviews), including an essentially negative review 2282:), skewing the presentation of reception to read less positive/more negative (along with trying to present a less +/more - slant on the ratings box that neutrally represents general international reception) despite the record receiving a generally positive reception/general acclaim per reliable sources; violating WP:Due/Weight, NOT 2991:

the subject's career, but regardless, it's immaterial whether a statement about the reception of an artist's work is given "in passing" by a reliable source's article on the artist (we're not talking about a reception statement made in an article about someone else) – it still verifies the statement.

2314:

edits are accomplished if he can find more than those opposing to agree with his POV/bias, whether or not acknowledging inherent and surrounding issues. As Walter Görlitz noted above and in discussion section below, there are multiple notable reviews & all should be addressed in prose, and "there

1851:

territory, and I'd say that a more concise revision would be just as effective in getting the album's overall critical consensus across to readers while simultaneously highlighting different points of praise/criticism). If not necessarily removed altogether certain reviews could certainly at least be

1415:

to it/a negative slant that does not reflect overall reception. One ought to present ratings box neutrally with due weight as per a record's general reception, not according to which sources are preferred, more popular or more "interesting". Ratings box should present to readers the general reception

1406:

overview of the generally positive reception – taking into account number of notable sources in & outside the US and the general reception (where the box doesn't skew too American, or too positive or mixed). Seeking to replace a source with positive/mixed rating for a preferred site with negative

1381:

thanks for giving input. First, several sources stated that the record was generally positively received/acclaimed, such as those recently cited beside the first sentence of the section. Masem, there's no WP basis for "a source normally included in the box"; some editors just favor the indiscriminate

1177:

All major reviews are noted. It is not swept under, it is not included in box as mixed reviews are already included and also including it/substituting one positive with AllMusic's negative is giving undue weight to a negative tilt that is not representative of overall reception. All the other notable

1035:

overview of international reception – taking into account number of notable sources in and out of the US and the general reception of the record, where it doesn't particularly skew too American or too positive, mixed or negative), and your need to replace one notable source for your preferred site to

943:

If we are to consider the averaged scores from either of the listed aggregate sites--AnyDecentMusic (a 74) or Metacritic (a 76, out of 100)--then the average with AllMusic's score in place of Slant's is no less an accurate reflection than with Slant. If you include AllMusic's score and assign each of

3503:

There is no assumption of bad faith. There is no discussion about this concept so you've one again misused the RfC process. That's twice on one article and within a week! There is no extended discussion here about the removal of the references that reached an impasse. That is clear and it's a misuse

2418:

It's completely against policy, and tons of GA and FA articles, have all or majority of available notable reviews summarized in prose (whether in two, three, four paragraphs). This article has some of all notable reviews available, and summarized concisely. 10 review ratings selected for any ratings

1638:

Consensus appears to be in favor of trimming the section as excessive. There is some pretty toxic behavior going on in this discussion, which, as a content matter, strikes me as a minor disagreement over what is a pretty small trimming of content. I'm not sure what's up with the bad blood here but I

1558:

be presented, regardless if the appear to throw off averages. As I understand it, AllMusic absolutely falls into this. To not include a source that is virtually included in every other contemporary music album is bias, hiding its rating under the rug. (If this were a scientific method, this would be

1393:

See my points above on your aggregator comment : ″Metacritic, ADM, any aggregator, are not arbitrators, especially when only 14 reviews were included by aggregator, and there are several other notable review sources available, in and outside the US, most of which are positive and would increase such

1348:

Coming from a noticeboard, if there is an outlier score from a source normally included in the box, that should be included rather than try to be swept under the rug. You have the aggregator ratings, (which I beleive All Music's lower score already hit) so the average is clearly there, so I can tell

1159:

The AllMusic review is a major review, so you cannot sweep it under because it has a lower score, a more negative take. And the AllMusic review is already described in prose in the article, so that should tell you something about how NPOV operates. The list of 10 reviews should all be major reviews,

1018:

and neutrally reflect/summarize the overall reception of notable sources worldwide – to substitute your preferred site which unbalances the ratings box to read more negatively than overall reception is, and does not make it a neutral, balanced overview of the general international reception which is

1601:

fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of

1527:

Yeah it's limited to 10. That's one point I'd referenced earlier - there is no policy or community-wide guideline saying there's a "standard" review source for a ratings/overview box, nor would there be (beyond a local agreement by some editors on a talk page/wikiproject talk) as that would violate

1506:

That's a bad argument. Assuming that the review box is limited to showing 10 reviews and there are more than 10 reviews, then by default those sources that are considered standard for reviews should be included first and foremost for consistency across all music articles - that's part of the reason

1090:

There's a thorough explanation from me; you can continue refusing to accept the implementation of policy over your interpretation of an ESSAY which for some reason you're trying to enforce for a site's rating, while tendentiously removing reviews from notable publications in prose. Need one suggest

2077:

and articles in a "finished" state are comprehensive. This is not remotely including all reviews from reliable sources on the record. Some review excerpts could definitely be trimmed, particularly in the last paragraph; however, Dan56's comment above on further removing any positive viewpoint that

1196:

If we advance your average/mean/mathematics reasoning further, there's no need any review scores, just the aggregate scores. I don't agree with that; I think the individual scores are interesting and useful. AllMusic's review is especially interesting and useful. Math alone doesn't tell the story.

2436:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. … Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight

2743:

The evaluative sentence/claim did not have a citation in place. Metacritic verifies Metacritic only: the amount of reviews it's selected, its own formula for its assigned scores, and its 5 standard evaluations of its range of scores. We also attribute Rotten Tomatoes' to Rotten Tomatoes only. We

2245:

several (and positive) reviews from notable sources ; after & while you're pushing to continue disregarding WP:NPOV and replace a mixed/positive review with a negative review in the ratings box despite the record having a generally positive reception, to give undue weight and negative slant,

2538:

policy being repeatedly violated and dismissed by these POV proposals and edits by Dan56, seeking to remove notable, significant content, particularly that is positive in nature (for an album that received an overall positive reception/"acclaim"), including replacing a positive/positive-leaning

1787:, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." 1022:

Metacritic, ADM, any aggregator, are generally not arbitrators - and you've read this from others editors in at least one discussion before, including one in which I'd recently participated - especially when only 14 reviews were included by aggregator, and there are several other notable review

2792:

is a controversial essay in the first place; but certainly arguing that a mere three citations is excessive is going too far. If you have an objection to any of those sources (including redundancy), raise it specifically rather than pointing to an essay. Additionally, Metacritic itself is a

1947:

I'm listening to Kill Your Mama, do a search of the album, the first result at top of the page is Knowledge (XXG), come here and find this. The un-Kruegerd critical reception contains perspectives that convey a deeper appreciation for the work that went into the album and the end result. It's

1349:

immediately from the box that AllMusic ranked the album far more negatively than the average, which I then expect to be a point of discussion in the reception section. That's the type of quick glance info a review box like that is meant to serve. Trying to cover up AllMusic's negative source

1235:

to it/a negative slant that does not reflect overall reception, particularly as mixed is already included in ratings box AND you're substituting a positive one for a negative, giving more of a negative perception than is real. One ought to put aside the love and indiscriminate preference for

1214:

You're misconscruing the point. It's not about numbers, and it's not about whether or not notable or "interesting" or the longest reviews are noted in critical reception sections. All notable reviews are in critical reception prose. AllMusic, like all others, whether "interesting" or not, is

1847:– Current section feels excessive at the expense of user readability, not to mention potentially detracting focus from other sections of the article (having a diverse scope of notable viewpoints is one thing, but at a certain point trying to cover a large amount of reviews can cross into 1004:

ratings box, an essay which itself reminds you to keep in mind said policy, then I suggest you reread policy, take into account previous discussions on limitations of aggregators, and not edit according to personal bias. "I don't like it" isn't a reason to disregard the policy of

2575:

685 words is not really that long and 15 sources does not equal a quote farm, and anyone who can't read 685 words probably has a reading comprehension difficulty and perhaps a reading disability on top of it — and Knowledge (XXG) does not exist as a special needs encyclopedia.

1610:

edits made and proposed by Dan56 on this talk's RfCs (including removing positive reviews from notable publications). For records that have received generally positive reception or acclaim per reliable sources, the ratings sample/overview box should - per quoted WP:NPOV/WP:DUE

1948:

well-sourced and comprehensible. The preponderance of the page layout is composed of listings that do not provide a collective introspection about the album. 685 words with 15 sources cut down to 447 with 8 sources ... what is the compulsion for wanting to offer readers

2992:

On the other hand, a review of an album commenting on its general reception MAY be a questionable source for the claim, as they are reviewing/proving their opinion on the album. If the Brooklyn Museum article is controversial to cite, then the other two do just fine.

3558:

Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an

3277:

You're ignoring their behavior towards me, the doggedness and intensity of it, so I don't care that you feel this way about my negligible offense; it's narcissistic for this person to take offense to this little slight after they've done what I described to you.

2095:

because reliable source reviews are of great importance to the notability of the article and give the expert critics assessment of the work which Knowledge (XXG) needs to include as it is of historical and cultural interest. No valid reason for trimming see

2152:

read in its current state--but did you make any comparison of the trimmed revision to the current one? Example: Slant is cited as saying it mixes "the political with the personal", "avoids formula and radio staples", and Keys' performance is "naked"; and

2423:

sample of reviews from many notable sources. Never is the optional ratings box the primary content of a critical reception section. It's merely a supplementary sample of ratings for a quick overview. Removing the reviews from notable sources against

2861:"If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill." 2877:..that link is irrelevant to the matter of citing evaluative statements to reliable secondary sources; and Metacritic/an algorithm/aggregator only verifies/cites Metacritic/algorithm/aggregator, it does not cite evaluative statements made on WP. 2238:(of course Dan56 ultimately forces others to comment on conduct) - typical of Dan56 to overreact to content disputes, engage in bad faith & accusations and outright misrepresentation of what he and others have done/said. What you did do was 1783:"representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace 3528:"It's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. 3426:

there is not too much prose in the reviews section as each review has one short sentence and connecting sentences that tie the reviews together and no, there not to many reviews. Yes, Dan56 should walk away from this article and drop the

3062:

The critical reception of an album is a key piece of information and the only way to get a real NPOV understanding of that is with a wide variety of sources (across time, medium, bias, etc.) This is a very fine section and well-sourced.

1894:

2125:

was my revision of a condensed version. As you can see, there are far less quotations used without pertinence, and it appears less like a list or repository of quotations that repeat the same points of praise but in different verbiage.

2970:

Those three sources cited that I've found comprise: 1) A article from The Recording Academy on the artist's career (where this album is noted to have received acclaim), reporting they're presenting the artist a career award; 2)

2752:

by cited reliable secondary sources, who (not an algorithm) have written a summary of overall reception. Also see previous discussions on this at wikiprojects including WT:ALBUM and WT:FILM; and see recent top discussion at

1143:

WP:NPOV, and is undue weight, which is the point here. Also, this is under Dispute Resolution at WP:DRN so wait till discussion/dispute resolution is over or goes to the next step before editing the matter being discussed.

2553:"Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Knowledge (XXG) community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional" 2838:). Metacritic's ratings are not being synthesized into a novel interpretation; the designation of "generally favorable reviews" is a second-source commentary on the review scores (collectively), and is not controversial. 153: 2879:

Knowledge (XXG) articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary

2744:

don't make evaluative statements from their process/algorithms, we merely report that Metacritic calculated this from its selection/algorithm, and Rotten Tomatoes calculated that. We include those aggregators as

991:

Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Knowledge (XXG) community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is

2157:

is cited as saying "political, social, and emotional honesty"; these were both removed in favor of keeping other critics who had already made these points: Robert Christgau ("simultaneously raw and political"),

1013:

over to wanting an optional ratings box to read a particular way that doesn't serve neutrality and balance. You are focused on arguing over which source is "more notable" – which is neither here nor there as

3590:

as conflict resolution tools is absurdly aggressive. Feel free to comment on the topic here but further comments on Dan56 or other editors is likely to result in a block to prevent further disruption. --

2250:. Moreover, reception content should be presented so that readers see a summary of different views and comments on different aspects of the subject as well as views that are also shared among reviewers. 2510: 912:

here: ("ESSAY notes "keeping a neutral point of view"), ("All listed are notable"), ("worldwide overview over American focus"), ("no policy says AllMusic (or any one particular site) must be listed")

2170:

was removed ("rawest and best album of her career", evoking the edge that made her debut "so memorable",) because Christgau had found it to be "Keys' best record since her debut Songs in A Minor").

2069:, which is "non-negotiable", and "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus". Aside from the proposal to remove positive reviews violating WP's PAG (and note, 2660:). The following sentence, mentioning Metacritic's aggregate score for this album, had a citation in place, to Metacritic, which itself says the album received "generally favorable reviews" ( 1023:

sources available, in and outside the US, most of which are positive and would increase the scores if/when included, though again aggregate scores don't arbitrate. If you want numbers, with

2495: 3227:" a few times offensive or hostile, compared to leveraging accusations of an unspecified "bias" and "tendentious editing" twenty-odd times in neurotic, rambled walls of personal attacks? ( 338:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 3556:"Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. 3604:

Aggressive? Yes, I am making my point that you're disruptive in an aggressive way so you get the point. Absurd? Not in any way. The only absurdity here is your approach to this article.

1528:

policy. Every overview box (when used) for every album should read differently, according to the album's overall reception, as the general reception should be taking into consideration (

373: 2432:

NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

2246:

clashes with overall worldwide reception. Your edits here do not suggest any neutrality from you. You've absolutely no grounds to remove notable content especially in order to fit your

3701:

be used to verify the opening sentence. But I did not read the AXS source carefully before adding it; it refers to Alicia Keys' previous album receiving "mostly positive reviews", not

1398:, the average (and you know simple arithmetic mean is not how those aggregators calculate scores) is 76.6 - representative of overall reception. The distribution of ratings in the box 940:. In fact, Slant appears to be the least popular publication among those listed in the ratings box. Considering notability of the review source, AllMusic warrants inclusion over Slant. 3771: 3164: 2951: 2926: 2650: 363: 2044:. The reviews have common ideas that don't need to be repeated. One can come away from this article with the same impression about the reception of the album even if shortened. 147: 2357:

editing from Dan56, removing citations for general reception sentence, and reverting trimming of summary/quotes as agreed on by several editors in talk discussion/Dan56's Rfc.

771: 3530:

Lapadite77 has demonstrated an inability to discuss the content with me without resorting immediately to bias- and bad-faith accusations. Outside opinions were necessary, as

813: 522: 3776: 3412:"Ban" and "band" and both correct spellings of words. Dan. Are you so completely ig7norant that you don't know the difference between the two concepts? And for the record, 2504: 339: 1793:

edits made and proposed by Dan56 on this talk's RfCs. Condensing would be shortening any unnecessarily long quotes, not removing positive reviews in violation of WP:NPOV.

845: 841: 827: 3102:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you commented on the wrong RfC as your comment appears to be about the proposal to remove reviews from reliable sources in prose.

1182:

neutral editing. So do reflect on "how NPOV operates". Policy directly supports giving a representative overview of overall international reception, not the contrary.

44: 3766: 334: 295: 2826:, I did not merely cite that essay; my other objection described below is that all three citations were to press releases, which are of questionable reliable ( 79: 605: 407: 2914: 2827: 2437:

means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

1390:

POV actually; it's giving undue weight to a negative slant (and U.S source, as you replaced a British one) that doesn't reflect general worldwide reception.

472: 1119: 2557:"This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." 2434:

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

2457:

Dan56, you're an involved editor, specifically one who's been actively trying to dismiss the policy-based arguments put forward against your POV - so

1559:

meddling with standardized results to get the desired one) The prose needs to address that AllMusic gave a lower rating and why it did, obviously. --

2984: 2306:

WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

1606:

Replacing positive/positive-leaning rating with a negative outlier is violating the aforementioned policy, and POV editing, as part of a series of

586: 450: 85: 3346:", I figured you were talking about an IP. I was surprised to see you meant a registered editor, and found the phrase to be passive aggressive. 2472:, of course. An uninvolved editor/admin can do so if they think replies shouldn't be made directly below the post they're meant for in an RfC. 2218:

as there has been no discussion about the section and you went straight to it after not getting your way in the article. Don't ping me again.

3761: 814:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170115170446/https://play.google.com/store/music/album/Alicia_Keys_HERE_Deluxe?id=Buyaoig6r363jr23gwpskupy6ki

30: 256: 1554:

I disagree with this. If there are X sources that routinely rate every album out there, and X is less than 10, then those sources should

1036:

read how you want it gives undue weight/unbalances the overview - it is not then a neutral, representative overview of overall reception.

914:. Nothing was said or suggested by me or my change, in regards to any of these confusing statements you made in your edit summary. Some ( 168: 99: 2775: 823:

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

738: 624: 2925:) that mention "critical acclaim" in passing with no elaboration; for those who are not well read on identifying reliable sources: 2797:

source for its ratings - having secondary sources is desirable. This shows why blindly adhering to a poorly-considered essay like

1748:- I think the present Critical reception section is over-long and too riddled with quotations, and I prefer the condensed version. 1294:

on this topic, there's no reason to remove AllMusic off the template just because the website give a negative review on the album.

817: 135: 104: 20: 728: 2070: 74: 3756: 956:). If you revert it again, even after I have given this thorough explanation of a relatively minor change, I will open an RfC. 910:, you have no ground for reverting my replacement of Slant Magazine's score with AllMusic. I have no idea what you're on about 565: 251:, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the 1691:

had? Please relegate lengthy comments to the discussion section, rather than bloating the votes section, which happens often.

431: 252: 247: 227: 202: 2697:- The reference to Metacritic directly supports the first two sentences--"generally positive reviews" + aggregate score. Per 2461:

made directly in response to a specific comment because they inconvenience your POV/NPOV policy-violating proposals and your

1789:

Removing the positive reviews is strictly violating the aforementioned policy, and strictly POV editing, part of a series of

1139:

The album's reception isn't negative or mixed, it's generally positive, hence the inclusion of AllMusic's negative review is

2975:

article on the artist performing at a concert/festival for this album along with other artists performing (just like any of

2798: 2789: 65: 2636:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1678:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

924:"When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view." 3653:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2601:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2121:, who claimed I was editing "tendentiously" (pfft) and violating Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on neutrality (glob knows how). 2065:. There's no ground to remove notable content - Dan56's proposal to remove positive reviews; it strictly violates WP:NPOV 1935: 1643:

are treated as personal attacks. If you think someone has a POV or a COI, it needs to be substantiated with evidence, and

753: 888: 326: 129: 2918: 2831: 1848: 3697:

I added yesterday should be removed. I was attempting to appease another editor's insistence that a source other than

3141: 3081: 1913: 1835: 1459: 1416:

a record received through selection of the notable reviews that best represent/reflect the nature of that reception."

1299: 704: 3609: 3570: 3509: 3437: 3382: 2223: 1736: 2987:

news article reporting on the artist being honored by the museum. The article published by The Recording Academy is

2286:

representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views.

523:"Rising Star Gabi Wilson Talks 'A Classic Holiday' LP, Alicia Keys, Celebrating the Holidays, Her Debut Album, More" 125: 3673: 109: 971:"You have no ground for reverting my replacement of Slant Magazine's score with AllMusic" - clearly stated in my 2664: 2389: 1473: 1313: 844:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3351: 3310: 3267: 3209: 2642: 2582: 2520: 2110: 1958: 1931: 1684: 797: 417: 24: 2502:

and saw that the RfC had not been posted in its talk page — so I went ahead and did so in both wiki projects:

2354: 2311: 2239: 1790: 1607: 208: 175: 3595: 3145: 3085: 2073:), there's no basis to deprive readers of notable reviews. Knowledge (XXG) is not a paper encyclopedia, and 2000:

to be dealing with criticism rather than praise. For more information on developing paragraphs, please read

1917: 928:

Both are American publications, but AllMusic is the more popular publication by a wide margin, according to

879: 805: 657: 482: 2763: 2491: 2299: 1640: 1537: 1383: 1100: 996: 3605: 3581: 3566: 3505: 3473: 3433: 3378: 2219: 2143: 1831: 1732: 1455: 1372: 1295: 801: 3519: 3451: 3413: 2922: 2878: 2835: 2329: 2114: 2097: 1540:; WP:NPOV policy applies to everything in an article, not just prose, and that includes the ratings box. 1430: 55: 3736: 1202: 1165: 863:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

851: 3531: 2210:

to read the content. It's clear that the content is sparse and the reviews are all addressed. There is

804:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 70: 3107: 3019: 2997: 2886: 2771: 2748:

information for readers. WP giving an evaluative statement – favorable, negative, mixed, acclaimed –

2564: 2477: 2445: 2405: 2374: 2320: 2255: 2083: 2032: 1814: 1798: 1753: 1620: 1545: 1493: 1421: 1329: 1241: 1187: 1149: 1127: 1108: 545: 477: 468: 3587: 3562: 3192: 2860: 2794: 2698: 1394:

scores if/when included, though again aggregator scores don't arbitrate. If you want numbers , with

190: 141: 3347: 3305: 3262: 3204: 2806: 2577: 2515: 1953: 1861: 1731:

With a dozen referenced reviews, each should be addressed. It seems as though that's what we have.

776: 412: 161: 2499: 2385: 1533: 3591: 1879: 985:

If you have "no idea what I'm on about" citing policy that you should know overrides any essay –

3714: 3706: 3619: 3543: 3498: 3483: 3428: 3399: 3329: 3279: 3238: 3043: 2930: 2893: 2863: 2839: 2719: 2702: 2675: 2548: 2333: 2280:

NME, Slant Magazine, The Guardian, Rolling Stone, PopMatters, The Observer, Consequence of Sound

2189: 2171: 2127: 2022: 2005: 1972: 1715: 1692: 1434: 1287: 1253: 986: 957: 848:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

818:

https://play.google.com/store/music/album/Alicia_Keys_HERE_Deluxe?id=Buyaoig6r363jr23gwpskupy6ki

3424:

discussion. This is the second abuse of the RfC process you've initiated. So to reiterate: No,

2801:

is a bad idea - you need to consider the individual citations in the context of the article. --

1091:

as well to not continue to reverting/replacing/removing NPOV policy-abiding content, leave the

864: 2723: 2469: 2361:, you're one of the ones who agreed on some ce/trimming of overlong summary/quotes. See Dan56 2184:

To your point about dealing with each review individually, how can this even be possible when

1980: 672: 310: 289: 51: 2535: 2465: 2431: 2305: 2293: 2285: 2269: 1774: 1765:- "Trimming" per Dan56 is removing several positive reviews from notable publications, as he 1590: 1529: 1096: 1078: 1074: 1006: 978: 953: 3729: 1291: 1211: 1198: 1174: 1161: 1136: 451:"Alicia Keys New Album Planned for Early 2015: 'No One' Singer Working on Conceptual Effort" 3452:

RfCs are alternatives to initial attempts at discussion; nothing about "only to be created

2892:

Cool. Thank you for taking the time and energy to repeat yourself. Alas, I am unconvinced.

2540: 2462: 2247: 2078:

critics express in conjunction with reservations also violates what WP:NPOV policy states.

1778: 1648: 1594: 1469: 1403: 1316:

is inappropriate in content disputes. TheAmazingPeanuts (and others, including Cwmhiraeth)

1309: 1092: 1032: 1010: 871: 3718: 3710: 3623: 3547: 3487: 3403: 3333: 3293: 3283: 3242: 3137: 3118: 3103: 3077: 3047: 3015: 2993: 2934: 2897: 2882: 2867: 2843: 2767: 2754: 2706: 2679: 2619: 2560: 2498:

section and it does not impose a set length and number of sources allowed. I also checked

2473: 2441: 2401: 2370: 2337: 2316: 2251: 2193: 2185: 2175: 2131: 2118: 2079: 2026: 2009: 1996:

quotation is particularly needless in reiterating a positive viewpoint when the paragraph

1909: 1827: 1810: 1794: 1749: 1719: 1696: 1661: 1616: 1567: 1541: 1515: 1489: 1449: 1438: 1417: 1361: 1325: 1257: 1237: 1183: 1145: 1123: 1104: 961: 905: 689: 502: 497: 2649:

was met with generally positive reviews from critics", was given three citations--all to

2074: 1652: 3195:

exhibited towards another Knowledge (XXG) editor by referring to him/her repeatedly as "

1785:

fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources

1639:

will remind everyone that personal commentary is prohibited in content discussions, and

2821: 2802: 2358: 2049: 1857: 1077:. Removing notable reviews you don't want, incredible. Need one remind you not to edit 929: 830:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2749: 2268:

Crucial clarification: Some should understand what is actually being proposed against

2063:"in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" 1382:

inclusion of a source (AllMusic here) - not based on any WP policy or guideline (see:

870:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

837: 606:"Alicia Keys on New Album: "It's More About What We're Going Through as Human Beings"" 3750: 3301: 2415: 1874: 648: 3741: 3722: 3698: 3627: 3613: 3599: 3574: 3551: 3524:

You're misrepresenting the guideline to portray me negatively because I've irked you

3513: 3491: 3441: 3407: 3386: 3355: 3337: 3315: 3287: 3272: 3246: 3214: 3150: 3111: 3090: 3051: 3041:/international-music-icons-alicia-keys-and-swizz-beatz-be-honored-recording-academy™ 3023: 3001: 2938: 2901: 2871: 2847: 2810: 2779: 2735: 2710: 2683: 2661: 2624: 2587: 2568: 2525: 2481: 2449: 2409: 2378: 2341: 2324: 2259: 2227: 2197: 2179: 2135: 2087: 2053: 2036: 2013: 1984: 1963: 1939: 1922: 1886: 1865: 1839: 1818: 1757: 1740: 1723: 1700: 1666: 1624: 1571: 1549: 1519: 1497: 1463: 1442: 1425: 1365: 1333: 1303: 1261: 1245: 1206: 1191: 1169: 1153: 1131: 1112: 965: 893: 473:"Alicia Keys on Her Upcoming Album: 'It's the Best Music I've Ever Done In My Life'" 3535: 3447: 2983:, etc, would report), and writer notes that the album was met with acclaim; and 3) 2001: 1976: 1615:- reflect & represent that with the selection of ratings from notable sources. 1602:

or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

937: 2701:, this one citation is enough, and more for an individual sentence is "overkill." 3527: 3036: 2188:

compulsively reverts and admonishes even the slightest revision to this section?

3328:

to focus on; not one mention by you of their ridiculous and aggressive attacks.

3124: 3099: 3064: 2614: 2365:

trimming. As noted above and in this discussion page, Dan56 actually seeks to

1896: 1656: 1560: 1524: 1508: 1376: 1354: 933: 836:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 316: 239: 221: 2663:). I reverted the addition of the three citations, regarding it as a case of 2045: 949: 923: 653: 550: 507: 3522:(which you cited) about a requirement of a discussion reaching an impasse. 3228: 587:"Pharrell Talks New Alicia Keys Album: 'It Supersedes Anything That's Out'" 733: 2021:

Summoned by a bot. I think the section can be shorted without causing

643: 566:"Alicia Keys Asks the Big Questions on New Song, 'We Are Here': Listen" 540: 2547:

As I'd noted above, essays and local consensus don't override policy:

1599:"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace 2275:

remove several positive/positive-leaning reviews from notable sources

714: 570: 3296:) feels about it and that's not what's relevant. What's relevant is 1081:. Of course, the unreasonable removable of notable content has been 3468:

assumptions of bad faith editing in too-long-to-read blocks of text

2369:

the several positive reviews he had removed before being reverted.

3257:

created and referring to the editor you are disagreeing with as "

3035:- The Grammy.com url has the phrase "press release" in it --: --> 3661: 1826:- I think the critical reception section should be trimmed as 709: 432:"Pharrell and Alicia Keys Talk 'The Voice,' and Her New Album" 184: 15: 3014:

does not verify the statement or any statement on reception.

1655:(the latter of which is applicable due to this being a BLP). 3377:

Time for a topic band for Dan56 to anything music related?

1484:, they tend to canvass each other. Funny, Dan56 posted the 3460:

I made a "reasonable attempt" at discussion before any RfC

808:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

255:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the 1773:& further copyediting done) – in direct violation of 3480:

communicate in a more civil manner and assume good faith

3463: 2148:, I would not blame you if you didn't--it is an utterly 1856:

review is summarized in almost 80 words, for instance).

1476:

is inappropriate in content disputes. TheAmazingPeanuts

625:"Emeli Sande and Alicia Keys Heading Back to The Studio" 3694: 3539: 3231: 3185: 3172: 3011: 3007: 2913:- The sources Lapadite77 added are all press releases ( 2672: 2658: 2458: 2397: 2393: 2362: 2351: 2274: 2122: 1806: 1770: 1766: 1688: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1399: 1321: 1317: 1082: 1042: 1028: 972: 911: 2927:"a press release is clearly not an independent source" 2534:

True, though even if it did, the blanket issue is the

2206:

read the current state of the content, it's that it's

1631:

RfC: Should the critical reception section be trimmed?

160: 3699:

Metacritic (which says "generally favorable reviews")

2559:

NPOV policy violation is the inherent primary issue.

2573:

My opinion given above (in Votes) remains the same.

3398:to install a spell-check plugin for their browser? 2071:

preferences that violate WP policy aren't supported

2025:weight to a certain viewpoint regarding the album. 1160:and they should be as wide a sampling as possible. 948:

In sum, my revision meets the relevant guidelines (

840:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 174: 348:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject R&B and Soul Music 3261:" is dismissive of, and belittles, said editor. 644:"Les Confidences d'Alicia Keys, Princesse R'N'B" 541:"BBC Radio Manchester - The People, Laura White" 408:"Alicia Keys Fronts Givenchy's Newest Fragrance" 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 3446:There is a difference in the two concepts; see 2166:("politically active music"). Another example: 2113:, which in my opinion is a bloated, unreadable 1099:is on you to seek consensus for your POV on an 3772:Low-importance R&B and Soul Music articles 2539:rating with a negative outlier. While WP:NPOV/ 2470:also respond directly below RfC comments/votes 2428:, which states among other things applicable: 826:This message was posted before February 2018. 498:"Alicia Keys' New Album Slated For Early 2015" 3251:Yes. It is hostile. Because it's an RfC that 1073:, does not speak to you having/employing any 8: 3482:if he wants to continue discussing me here. 2963:hired by or affiliated with the organization 2298:. No POV-seeking or policy-violating RfC or 3777:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music articles 3658:Protected edit request on 15 September 2018 1043:removing reviews from notable sources like 351:Template:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music 2952:A press release is usually written either 2761: 796:I have just modified one external link on 754:"Alicia Keys Flawless for Grazia Magazine" 284: 216: 3300:behavior in your own RfC. But, fine ... 2757:, where RfC creator Dan56 himself said: 2310:Dan56 thinks policy-violating POV & 772:"Alicia Keys' Son Is Her Number One Fan" 705:"Alicia Keys Talks Pregnancy, New Music" 3767:C-Class R&B and Soul Music articles 3618:That comment wasn't made by me, silly. 2606:RfC: Should these citations be removed? 922:The ratings template guideline states: 729:"Clean Bandit Working with Alicia Keys" 398: 286: 218: 188: 2950:- Press releases not accepted on WP : 2758: 2296:policy to remove those notable reviews 685: 681: 670: 7: 3450:and any other dictionary reference. 2632:The following discussion is closed. 1971:- The section is in danger of being 1687:be trimmed, specifically in the way 1674:The following discussion is closed. 332:This article is within the scope of 245:This article is within the scope of 3418:a discussion has come to an impasse 2100:regards 15:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC) 1589:All in all, in direct violation of 1480:by RfC creator Dan56, and going by 1324:, they tend to canvass each other. 1320:by RfC creator Dan56, and going by 899:Replacing Slant with AllMusic score 207:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 1801:) 01:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC). 936:in the U.S. while Slant is ranked 335:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music 265:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Albums 14: 3713:) 13:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC) 3199:" should be sufficient reason to 800:. Please take a moment to review 642:Laffin, Chirstelle (2014-11-28). 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 3665: 3649:The discussion above is closed. 2954:by the business or organization 2597:The discussion above is closed. 2468:. Especially as you, like many, 950:MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template 703:Muhammad, Latifah (2014-09-17). 521:Carson, Dominique (2015-12-23). 319: 309: 288: 238: 220: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 2919:Singapore concert press release 2832:Singapore concert press release 2667:, before they were restored by 2419:box is arbitrary, and merely a 979:keeping a neutral point of view 368:This article has been rated as 354:R&B and Soul Music articles 3742:15:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC) 3723:13:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC) 3628:13:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC) 3614:17:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC) 3600:16:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC) 3575:15:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC) 3552:15:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC) 3514:15:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC) 3492:15:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC) 3442:14:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC) 3408:13:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC) 3387:05:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC) 3356:12:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC) 3342:When I saw the references to " 3338:13:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC) 3316:10:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC) 3292:I don't know how said person ( 3288:13:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC) 3273:07:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC) 3247:13:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC) 3215:08:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC) 3151:04:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC) 3112:04:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC) 3091:03:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC) 3052:12:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC) 3024:04:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC) 3002:04:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC) 2939:21:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 2902:20:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 2872:00:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 2848:02:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC) 2811:01:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC) 2780:20:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 2736:13:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 2711:00:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 2684:00:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 2643:the critical reception section 2588:10:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC) 2569:03:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC) 2526:05:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC) 2482:03:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC) 2450:23:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 2410:20:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 2379:10:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 2342:09:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 2325:07:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 2260:01:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 2228:15:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 2198:15:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 2180:15:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 2136:09:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 2054:13:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC) 2037:06:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC) 2014:04:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC) 1985:22:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC) 1964:07:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC) 1940:05:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC) 1923:04:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC) 1887:00:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC) 1866:06:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 1840:00:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 1819:10:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 1758:18:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1741:14:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1724:09:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1701:09:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1625:03:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC) 1572:00:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 1550:23:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 1520:13:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 1498:00:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 1464:05:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 1443:09:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 1426:09:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC) 1366:14:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1334:00:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC) 1304:01:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1262:09:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1246:06:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1207:05:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1192:05:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1170:05:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1154:05:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1132:04:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 1113:04:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 966:09:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC) 564:Newman, Melinda (2014-09-09). 449:Menyes, Carolyn (2014-06-25). 406:Naughton, Julie (2014-06-20). 1: 3180:before they were restored by 2923:Brooklyn Museum press release 2836:Brooklyn Museum press release 2162:("eschewing commerciality"), 496:Thompson, Sean (2014-06-25). 342:and see a list of open tasks. 327:R&B and Soul Music portal 42:Put new text under old text. 3538:can attest. So cool it with 3414:RfCs are only to be created 3201:dismiss this RfC immediately 2625:01:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC) 2466:in your favor to decide RfCs 1805:prose was made more concise 1667:01:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC) 894:21:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC) 549:. 2015-12-13. Archived from 3762:WikiProject Albums articles 3688:to reactivate your request. 3676:has been answered. Set the 3586:Brandishing topic bans and 2674:). Should they be removed? 2111:this section of the article 2088:07:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC) 1685:this section of the article 1641:unsubstantiated accusations 268:Template:WikiProject Albums 3793: 2109:I made an attempt to trim 1217:already described in prose 1118:Dispute resolution thread 857:(last update: 5 June 2024) 793:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 752:DJ JusMusic (2015-06-07). 623:DJ JusMusic (2014-03-28). 604:DJ JusMusic (2014-06-26). 374:project's importance scale 3223:Is italicizing the word " 2117:, but this was undone by 367: 304: 233: 215: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 3651:Please do not modify it. 2961:by a business or person 2634:Please do not modify it. 2599:Please do not modify it. 1676:Please do not modify it. 798:Here (Alicia Keys album) 418:Penske Media Corporation 25:Here (Alicia Keys album) 3420:. It's not designed to 3037:https://www.grammy.com/ 2613:No consensus for this. 2459:stop moving my comments 2396:(editor Holiday56) and 2272:policy: Dan56 seeks to 2160:The Wall Street Journal 1852:made more concise (the 1016:all are notable sources 789:External links modified 483:Prometheus Global Media 3757:C-Class Album articles 3526:. The guideline says: 3123:You are not! Thanks. ― 1219:. The issue is giving 345:R&B and Soul Music 296:R&B and Soul Music 197:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 3464:responded immediately 3462:with Lapadite77, who 3320:What matters is what 2463:need for a vote count 1007:neutral point of view 932:: AllMusic is ranked 201:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 100:Neutral point of view 3695:This citation to AXS 3504:of the RfC process. 2915:Grammy press release 2828:Grammy press release 2799:WP:Citation overkill 2790:WP:Citation overkill 2750:needs to be verified 2400:(editor Harfarhs). 2216:no need for this RfC 2155:Consequence of Sound 1854:Consequence of Sound 1069:Consequence of Sound 1019:summarized in prose. 930:Alexa's traffic rank 838:regular verification 546:BBC Radio Manchester 469:The Associated Press 105:No original research 3518:There's nothing at 2956:it is written about 1932:Carl Tristan Orense 1689:my (undone) attempt 1647:reported at either 1000:) – an essay on an 828:After February 2018 777:The Washington Post 585:Njai (2014-03-05). 2635: 2496:Critical reception 2494:guideline for the 2302:overrides policy. 1677: 1409:in the ratings box 1229:in the ratings box 882:InternetArchiveBot 833:InternetArchiveBot 680:Unknown parameter 413:Women's Wear Daily 248:WikiProject Albums 203:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 3692: 3691: 2782: 2766:comment added by 2665:citation overkill 2633: 1832:TheAmazingPeanuts 1781:, which states : 1675: 1597:, which states : 1456:TheAmazingPeanuts 1373:TheAmazingPeanuts 1296:TheAmazingPeanuts 1252:Triggered, much? 1101:essay over policy 858: 388: 387: 384: 383: 380: 379: 283: 282: 279: 278: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 3784: 3739: 3734: 3683: 3679: 3669: 3668: 3662: 3585: 3529: 3502: 3477: 3313: 3308: 3270: 3265: 3212: 3207: 3149: 3132: 3122: 3089: 3072: 3042: 2825: 2733: 2728: 2622: 2617: 2585: 2580: 2523: 2518: 2212:no need to prune 2202:It's not that I 2147: 1961: 1956: 1921: 1904: 1884: 1877: 1664: 1659: 1564: 1512: 1453: 1380: 1358: 909: 892: 883: 856: 855: 834: 782: 781: 768: 762: 761: 749: 743: 742: 725: 719: 718: 700: 694: 693: 687: 683: 678: 676: 668: 666: 665: 656:. Archived from 639: 633: 632: 620: 614: 613: 601: 595: 594: 582: 576: 575: 561: 555: 554: 537: 531: 530: 518: 512: 511: 493: 487: 486: 465: 459: 458: 446: 440: 439: 428: 422: 421: 403: 356: 355: 352: 349: 346: 329: 324: 323: 322: 313: 306: 305: 300: 292: 285: 273: 272: 269: 266: 263: 242: 235: 234: 224: 217: 200: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 3792: 3791: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3747: 3746: 3737: 3730: 3681: 3677: 3666: 3660: 3655: 3654: 3579: 3496: 3471: 3311: 3306: 3294:User:Lapadite77 3268: 3263: 3210: 3205: 3135: 3126: 3116: 3093: 3075: 3066: 2985:Brooklyn Museum 2858: 2819: 2729: 2724: 2691: 2645:the sentence, " 2638: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2620: 2615: 2608: 2603: 2602: 2583: 2578: 2521: 2516: 2390:WP:Votestacking 2300:local consensus 2164:Financial Times 2141: 2107: 1959: 1954: 1907: 1898: 1880: 1875: 1849:overly detailed 1708: 1680: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1662: 1657: 1633: 1562: 1510: 1474:WP:Votestacking 1447: 1370: 1356: 1314:WP:Votestacking 903: 901: 886: 881: 849: 842:have permission 832: 806:this simple FaQ 791: 786: 785: 770: 769: 765: 751: 750: 746: 727: 726: 722: 702: 701: 697: 679: 669: 663: 661: 641: 640: 636: 622: 621: 617: 603: 602: 598: 584: 583: 579: 563: 562: 558: 539: 538: 534: 520: 519: 515: 495: 494: 490: 467: 466: 462: 448: 447: 443: 430: 429: 425: 405: 404: 400: 393: 353: 350: 347: 344: 343: 325: 320: 318: 298: 270: 267: 264: 261: 260: 198: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 3790: 3788: 3780: 3779: 3774: 3769: 3764: 3759: 3749: 3748: 3745: 3744: 3690: 3689: 3670: 3659: 3656: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3606:Walter Görlitz 3582:Walter Görlitz 3567:Walter Görlitz 3506:Walter Görlitz 3474:Walter Görlitz 3434:Walter Görlitz 3389: 3379:Walter Görlitz 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3348:Argento Surfer 3307:Pyxis Solitary 3264:Pyxis Solitary 3218: 3217: 3206:Pyxis Solitary 3190: 3177: 3165:press releases 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3060:Definitely not 3057: 3055: 3054: 3039:press-releases 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3004: 2968: 2942: 2941: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2857: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2783: 2755:Talk:Ocean's_8 2738: 2722:'s rationale. 2713: 2690: 2687: 2651:press releases 2639: 2630: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2607: 2604: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2579:Pyxis Solitary 2574: 2529: 2528: 2517:Pyxis Solitary 2490:I checked the 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2413: 2412: 2355:WP:TENDENTIOUS 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2263: 2262: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2220:Walter Görlitz 2144:Walter Görlitz 2106: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2090: 2056: 2039: 2016: 1987: 1966: 1955:Pyxis Solitary 1942: 1925: 1892:Definitely not 1889: 1868: 1842: 1821: 1791:WP:tendentious 1760: 1743: 1733:Walter Görlitz 1726: 1707: 1704: 1681: 1672: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1632: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1608:WP:tendentious 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1396:Slant Magazine 1391: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1116: 1115: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1049:Slant Magazine 1037: 1025:Slant Magazine 1020: 977:"ESSAY notes " 946: 945: 941: 926: 900: 897: 876: 875: 868: 821: 820: 812:Added archive 790: 787: 784: 783: 763: 744: 720: 695: 634: 615: 596: 577: 556: 553:on 2015-12-15. 532: 513: 488: 471:(2014-09-04). 460: 441: 423: 397: 396: 392: 389: 386: 385: 382: 381: 378: 377: 370:Low-importance 366: 360: 359: 357: 340:the discussion 331: 330: 314: 302: 301: 299:Low‑importance 293: 281: 280: 277: 276: 274: 271:Album articles 243: 231: 230: 225: 213: 212: 206: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3789: 3778: 3775: 3773: 3770: 3768: 3765: 3763: 3760: 3758: 3755: 3754: 3752: 3743: 3740: 3735: 3733: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3687: 3684:parameter to 3675: 3671: 3664: 3663: 3657: 3652: 3629: 3625: 3621: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3597: 3593: 3592:Spike Wilbury 3589: 3583: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3500: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3475: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3455: 3449: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3430: 3423: 3419: 3417: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3390: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3373: 3372: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3324:editors have 3323: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3314: 3309: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3271: 3266: 3260: 3256: 3255: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3229: 3226: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3216: 3213: 3208: 3202: 3198: 3194: 3188: 3186: 3183: 3175: 3173: 3170: 3166: 3160: 3159: 3152: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3134: 3130: 3120: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3092: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3074: 3070: 3061: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3040: 3034: 3031: 3030: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2981:Rolling Stone 2978: 2974: 2969: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2958: 2957: 2949: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2909: 2908: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2890: 2888: 2884: 2881: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2862: 2855: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2823: 2817: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2791: 2787: 2784: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2760: 2756: 2751: 2747: 2746:supplementary 2742: 2739: 2737: 2734: 2732: 2727: 2721: 2717: 2714: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2693: 2692: 2688: 2686: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2659: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2637: 2626: 2623: 2618: 2605: 2600: 2589: 2586: 2581: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2537: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2527: 2524: 2519: 2513: 2512: 2507: 2506: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2492:WP:ALBUMSTYLE 2489: 2488: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2440: 2438: 2435: 2427: 2422: 2417: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2353: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2313: 2309: 2307: 2301: 2297: 2295: 2289: 2287: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2271: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2244: 2241: 2240:tendentiously 2237: 2236: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2214:and there is 2213: 2209: 2208:not necessary 2205: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2156: 2151: 2145: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2104: 2099: 2094: 2091: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2057: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2040: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2029: 2024: 2020: 2017: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1988: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1967: 1965: 1962: 1957: 1951: 1946: 1943: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1926: 1924: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1906: 1902: 1893: 1890: 1888: 1885: 1883: 1878: 1872: 1869: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1850: 1846: 1843: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1830:pointed out. 1829: 1825: 1822: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1786: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1761: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1744: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1727: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1710: 1709: 1705: 1703: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1679: 1668: 1665: 1660: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1609: 1605: 1603: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1585: 1584: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1557: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1538:WP:CONLIMITED 1535: 1531: 1526: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1505: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1482:that revision 1479: 1478:was canvassed 1475: 1471: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1451: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1414: 1410: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1392: 1389: 1385: 1384:WP:CONLIMITED 1378: 1374: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1352: 1347: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1322:that revision 1319: 1318:was canvassed 1315: 1311: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1286:I agree with 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1223:to it in the 1222: 1218: 1213: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1176: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1089: 1084: 1080: 1079:tendentiously 1076: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1057:Rolling Stone 1054: 1050: 1046: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1021: 1017: 1012: 1008: 1003: 999: 998: 997:WP:CONLIMITED 994:" (see also: 993: 988: 984: 983: 982: 980: 974: 970: 969: 968: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 942: 939: 935: 931: 927: 925: 921: 920: 919: 917: 913: 907: 898: 896: 895: 890: 885: 884: 873: 869: 866: 862: 861: 860: 853: 847: 843: 839: 835: 829: 824: 819: 815: 811: 810: 809: 807: 803: 799: 794: 788: 780:. 2015-06-09. 779: 778: 773: 767: 764: 759: 755: 748: 745: 741:. 2015-05-22. 740: 736: 735: 730: 724: 721: 716: 712: 711: 706: 699: 696: 691: 674: 660:on 2014-11-28 659: 655: 652:(in French). 651: 650: 649:Madame Figaro 645: 638: 635: 630: 626: 619: 616: 611: 607: 600: 597: 592: 588: 581: 578: 573: 572: 567: 560: 557: 552: 548: 547: 542: 536: 533: 528: 524: 517: 514: 509: 505: 504: 499: 492: 489: 484: 480: 479: 474: 470: 464: 461: 456: 452: 445: 442: 438:. 2014-10-10. 437: 433: 427: 424: 419: 415: 414: 409: 402: 399: 395: 391:for expansion 390: 375: 371: 365: 362: 361: 358: 341: 337: 336: 328: 317: 315: 312: 308: 307: 303: 297: 294: 291: 287: 275: 258: 254: 250: 249: 244: 241: 237: 236: 232: 229: 226: 223: 219: 214: 210: 204: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 3731: 3702: 3693: 3685: 3674:edit request 3650: 3557: 3532:Dlohcierekim 3523: 3520:WP:RFCBEFORE 3479: 3467: 3459: 3453: 3425: 3421: 3415: 3395: 3391: 3374: 3343: 3325: 3321: 3297: 3258: 3253: 3252: 3234: 3224: 3200: 3196: 3191:I think the 3181: 3179: 3168: 3162: 3128: 3068: 3059: 3056: 3038: 3032: 2988: 2980: 2976: 2973:TODAY Online 2972: 2962: 2960: 2955: 2953: 2947: 2910: 2859: 2815: 2785: 2762:— Preceding 2745: 2740: 2730: 2725: 2715: 2694: 2668: 2654: 2646: 2640: 2631: 2598: 2556: 2552: 2544: 2509: 2503: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2420: 2414: 2366: 2350: 2330:WP:BECONCISE 2303: 2291: 2283: 2279: 2273: 2242: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2154: 2149: 2108: 2098:WP:Not paper 2092: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2041: 2027: 2018: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1968: 1949: 1944: 1927: 1900: 1891: 1881: 1870: 1853: 1844: 1823: 1802: 1784: 1782: 1762: 1745: 1728: 1711: 1682: 1673: 1644: 1612: 1600: 1598: 1586: 1555: 1488:TL;DR link. 1431:WP:BECONCISE 1413:undue weight 1412: 1408: 1395: 1387: 1350: 1233:undue weight 1232: 1228: 1224: 1221:undue weight 1220: 1216: 1179: 1140: 1135: 1117: 1068: 1065:The Observer 1064: 1060: 1056: 1053:The Guardian 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1024: 1015: 1001: 995: 990: 976: 973:edit summary 947: 915: 902: 880: 877: 852:source check 831: 825: 822: 795: 792: 775: 766: 757: 747: 732: 723: 708: 698: 688:suggested) ( 686:|url-status= 662:. Retrieved 658:the original 647: 637: 628: 618: 609: 599: 590: 580: 569: 559: 551:the original 544: 535: 526: 516: 501: 491: 476: 463: 454: 444: 435: 426: 411: 401: 394: 369: 333: 253:project page 246: 209:WikiProjects 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 3732:Laser brain 3728:Removed. -- 3540:the threats 3237:talk page) 2856:!Discussion 2768:Lapadite77 2555:. WP:NPOV: 2426:NPOV policy 2392:from Dan56 2312:tendentious 1769:(which was 1292:Binksternet 1225:ratings box 1212:Binksternet 1199:Binksternet 1175:Binksternet 1162:Binksternet 1137:Binksternet 1011:due balance 758:Singersroom 629:Singersroom 610:Singersroom 591:Singersroom 527:Singersroom 455:Music Times 148:free images 31:not a forum 3751:Categories 3678:|answered= 3588:WP:NOTHERE 3563:WP:NOTHERE 3119:Lapadite77 2795:WP:PRIMARY 2699:WP:REPCITE 2500:WP:R&B 2386:canvassing 2186:Lapadite77 2168:PopMatters 2150:impossible 2119:Lapadite77 2115:quote farm 2105:Discussion 2028:Comatmebro 2002:this guide 1828:Cwmhiraeth 1771:reinstated 1750:Cwmhiraeth 1470:canvassing 1450:Lapadite77 1411:is giving 1310:canvassing 1231:is giving 1093:status quo 1083:reinstated 1075:neutrality 1061:PopMatters 918:) points: 906:Lapadite77 889:Report bug 664:2016-01-01 257:discussion 3456:..." here 3394:Time for 3193:hostility 2977:Billboard 2822:Aquillion 2803:Aquillion 2363:reverting 2359:Holiday56 1994:Pitchfork 1858:Holiday56 1534:WP:WEIGHT 1468:To note, 1308:To note, 872:this tool 865:this tool 739:TV3 Group 684:ignored ( 682:|deadurl= 654:Le Figaro 508:SpinMedia 478:Billboard 436:ThisIsRnB 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 3429:WP:STICK 3302:carry on 3125:Justin ( 3104:Lapadite 3065:Justin ( 3016:Lapadite 2994:Lapadite 2883:Lapadite 2776:contribs 2764:unsigned 2561:Lapadite 2549:WP:ESSAY 2543:states: 2474:Lapadite 2442:Lapadite 2416:Bobtinin 2402:Lapadite 2371:Lapadite 2317:Lapadite 2292:against 2252:Lapadite 2080:Lapadite 2023:WP:UNDUE 1973:WP:TL;DR 1897:Justin ( 1876:Bobtinin 1811:Lapadite 1795:Lapadite 1767:did here 1645:formally 1617:Lapadite 1542:Lapadite 1490:Lapadite 1418:Lapadite 1404:weighted 1400:reflects 1326:Lapadite 1238:Lapadite 1184:Lapadite 1146:Lapadite 1124:Lapadite 1105:Lapadite 1095:and the 1033:balanced 1029:reflects 1002:optional 992:optional 987:WP:ESSAY 878:Cheers.— 673:cite web 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 3536:Iazyges 3478:should 3422:replace 3396:someone 3392:Comment 3344:someone 3259:someone 3225:someone 3197:someone 3182:someone 3169:someone 3163:all to 3033:Comment 2948:Comment 2911:Comment 2880:source. 2816:Comment 2726:Striker 2669:someone 2655:someone 2536:WP:NPOV 2294:WP:NPOV 2270:WP:NPOV 2059:Comment 1998:appears 1990:Comment 1977:Jschnur 1775:WP:NPOV 1683:Should 1591:WP:NPOV 1530:WP:NPOV 1454:TL;DR. 1353:POV. -- 954:WP:NPOV 916:obvious 802:my edit 372:on the 199:C-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 3738:(talk) 3326:chosen 3010:Dan56 3008:source 2689:!Votes 2616:Swarm 2541:WP:DUE 2367:remove 2290:It is 2278:(e.g, 2243:remove 2067:policy 1882:(talk) 1779:WP:DUE 1658:Swarm 1649:WP:ANI 1613:policy 1595:WP:DUE 1556:always 1039:Also, 938:17,903 715:Viacom 571:HitFix 262:Albums 228:Albums 205:scale. 126:Google 3715:Dan56 3707:Dan56 3682:|ans= 3672:This 3620:Dan56 3544:Dan56 3499:Dan56 3484:Dan56 3466:with 3454:after 3416:after 3400:Dan56 3330:Dan56 3322:other 3280:Dan56 3239:Dan56 3167:--by 3100:Koavf 3044:Dan56 3012:added 2989:about 2959:, or 2931:Dan56 2894:Dan56 2864:Dan56 2840:Dan56 2731:force 2720:Dan56 2703:Dan56 2676:Dan56 2653:--by 2621:talk 2511:there 2384:More 2334:Dan56 2204:can't 2190:Dan56 2172:Dan56 2128:Dan56 2075:WP:FA 2006:Dan56 1803:Note: 1716:Dan56 1706:Votes 1693:Dan56 1663:talk 1653:WP:AE 1525:Masem 1435:Dan56 1377:Masem 1288:Dan56 1254:Dan56 958:Dan56 934:1,424 734:Xposé 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 3719:talk 3711:talk 3703:Here 3624:talk 3610:talk 3596:talk 3571:talk 3559:RfC. 3548:talk 3534:and 3510:talk 3488:talk 3448:this 3438:talk 3404:talk 3383:talk 3352:talk 3334:talk 3298:your 3284:talk 3243:talk 3235:this 3108:talk 3048:talk 3020:talk 3006:The 2998:talk 2935:talk 2898:talk 2887:talk 2868:talk 2844:talk 2807:talk 2772:talk 2718:per 2707:talk 2680:talk 2647:Here 2565:talk 2508:and 2505:here 2478:talk 2446:talk 2421:tiny 2406:talk 2398:here 2394:here 2375:talk 2352:More 2338:talk 2321:talk 2256:talk 2224:talk 2194:talk 2176:talk 2132:talk 2123:Here 2084:talk 2050:talk 2046:ARR8 2033:talk 2010:talk 1981:talk 1950:less 1936:talk 1862:talk 1836:talk 1815:talk 1807:here 1799:talk 1754:talk 1737:talk 1720:talk 1697:talk 1621:talk 1563:asem 1546:talk 1511:asem 1494:talk 1486:same 1460:talk 1439:talk 1422:talk 1375:and 1357:asem 1330:talk 1300:talk 1290:and 1258:talk 1242:talk 1203:talk 1188:talk 1166:talk 1150:talk 1128:talk 1120:here 1109:talk 1097:onus 1041:you 1009:and 962:talk 690:help 503:Vibe 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 3680:or 3312:yak 3269:yak 3254:you 3211:yak 3189:." 3176:." 2788:. 2716:Yes 2695:Yes 2641:In 2584:yak 2522:yak 2248:POV 2042:Yes 2019:Yes 1969:Yes 1960:yak 1945:No. 1928:Yes 1871:Yes 1845:Yes 1824:Yes 1746:Yes 1712:Yes 1651:or 1180:not 1141:not 1045:NME 989:: " 975:: 846:RfC 816:to 710:BET 364:Low 176:TWL 3753:: 3721:) 3705:. 3686:no 3626:) 3612:) 3598:) 3573:) 3565:. 3550:) 3542:. 3512:) 3490:) 3470:. 3458:. 3440:) 3432:. 3406:) 3385:) 3375:No 3354:) 3336:) 3304:. 3286:) 3245:) 3233:, 3230:, 3203:. 3131:vf 3127:ko 3110:) 3071:vf 3067:ko 3050:) 3022:) 3000:) 2979:, 2937:) 2929:. 2921:, 2917:, 2900:) 2889:) 2870:) 2846:) 2834:, 2830:, 2818:- 2809:) 2786:No 2778:) 2774:• 2741:No 2709:) 2682:) 2567:) 2551:: 2514:. 2480:) 2448:) 2408:) 2377:) 2340:) 2332:. 2323:) 2258:) 2226:) 2196:) 2178:) 2134:) 2093:No 2086:) 2052:) 2035:) 2012:) 2004:. 1983:) 1975:. 1952:? 1938:) 1930:- 1903:vf 1899:ko 1864:) 1838:) 1817:) 1809:. 1763:No 1756:) 1739:) 1729:No 1722:) 1714:- 1699:) 1623:) 1587:No 1570:) 1548:) 1518:) 1496:) 1462:) 1441:) 1433:. 1424:) 1402:a 1388:is 1364:) 1351:is 1332:) 1302:) 1260:) 1244:) 1205:) 1190:) 1168:) 1152:) 1130:) 1122:. 1111:) 1103:. 1067:, 1063:, 1059:, 1055:, 1051:, 1047:, 1031:a 964:) 952:, 859:. 854:}} 850:{{ 774:. 756:. 737:. 731:. 713:. 707:. 677:: 675:}} 671:{{ 646:. 627:. 608:. 589:. 568:. 543:. 525:. 506:. 500:. 481:. 475:. 453:. 434:. 416:. 410:. 156:) 54:; 3717:( 3709:( 3622:( 3608:( 3594:( 3584:: 3580:@ 3569:( 3546:( 3508:( 3501:: 3497:@ 3486:( 3476:: 3472:@ 3436:( 3402:( 3381:( 3350:( 3332:( 3282:( 3241:( 3187:) 3184:( 3178:" 3174:) 3171:( 3161:" 3148:☯ 3146:M 3144:☺ 3142:C 3140:☮ 3138:T 3136:❤ 3133:) 3129:a 3121:: 3117:@ 3106:( 3088:☯ 3086:M 3084:☺ 3082:C 3080:☮ 3078:T 3076:❤ 3073:) 3069:a 3063:― 3058:* 3046:( 3018:( 2996:( 2933:( 2896:( 2885:( 2866:( 2842:( 2824:: 2820:@ 2805:( 2770:( 2705:( 2678:( 2671:( 2657:( 2563:( 2476:( 2444:( 2439:" 2430:" 2404:( 2388:/ 2373:( 2336:( 2319:( 2308:" 2304:" 2288:" 2284:" 2254:( 2222:( 2192:( 2174:( 2146:: 2142:@ 2130:( 2082:( 2048:( 2031:( 2008:( 1979:( 1934:( 1920:☯ 1918:M 1916:☺ 1914:C 1912:☮ 1910:T 1908:❤ 1905:) 1901:a 1895:― 1860:( 1834:( 1813:( 1797:( 1777:/ 1752:( 1735:( 1718:( 1695:( 1619:( 1604:" 1593:/ 1568:t 1566:( 1561:M 1544:( 1532:/ 1516:t 1514:( 1509:M 1492:( 1472:/ 1458:( 1452:: 1448:@ 1437:( 1420:( 1379:: 1371:@ 1362:t 1360:( 1355:M 1328:( 1312:/ 1298:( 1256:( 1240:( 1201:( 1186:( 1164:( 1148:( 1126:( 1107:( 1085:. 960:( 908:: 904:@ 891:) 887:( 874:. 867:. 760:. 717:. 692:) 667:. 631:. 612:. 593:. 574:. 529:. 510:. 485:. 457:. 420:. 376:. 259:. 211:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index