Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:47, 7 May 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hip-hop Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Miami High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Integrate his non-Music Life

I felt a little betrayed and confused (a little), when I finished this article, had this puzzle constructed in my head, and then saw the Other section, which has crucially important info in it but has been somehow relegated to second-tier simply because it wasn't about Puffy's brief music career. This article is not about his music career--anything noteworthy in his life should be in it. (And frankly, his songs that don't hit the top 40 merely dilute the article, too.) His clothing label is one of the more noteworthy things he's done in the last 5 years, so to relegate it to a miscellaneous Other section doesn't make sense. Right now he's praised in the abstract for his work in the mid-90s, and then the last 10 years are all about crime and punishment, while in actuality, he got famous in the last 10 years after being a pop-star in the mid 90s. It's like taking an article on Madonna and putting everything past 1990s Vogue as an epilogue. -User:mrcolj 71.37.94.102 13:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The date of birth is wrong! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdLVWMxMes8 P Diddy is 55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaellabahn1 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Chappelles Show

Someone wrote:

In Chappelle's Show, there is a Making The Band 2 skit with Chappelle as Combs, a lazy, childish, flamboyantly gay, cookie loving, milk obsessed, hilarious producer. Combs is trying to get the members to do their freestyles but they failed because of arguments in the studio. (Which did happen in the real show but the skit shows it hysterically)

This is a very poor section, and I removed it. The skit is not notable enough to Diddy's career to bear mentioning in his article. Furthermore, it is clearly NPOV and obviously unnecessary. I added a note to allude to it, but no critique of the show. L.A.F.

Let's take off the phrase "well known." The Chapelle Show is a hit in certain demographics, but isn't big enough to have anything considered "well-known." 71.37.94.102 13:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC) "Certain demographics"... old timey racism from 2005, classic.124.168.48.233 (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Move request

This guy's changed his stage name so often (Puff Daddy, P. Diddy, and as of two days ago, Diddy) that moving the article to his birth name seems like the only sensible course of action. Bear in mind he's no Bono or Madonna—his birth name has become quite broadly known. This has been especially true in recent years, as the popularity of his Sean John label, his various political activities, and of course all this stage name switching has led to most press coverage referring to him specifically as Combs. -The Tom 05:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. "Diddy" is certainly not the most commonly known name. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:53, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Against. "Diddy" is his name as an artist, and that's his choice...not ours. If that's what he wants to be called professionally, then that's how he should be listed. BigGuy219 19 August 2005
• Support. Every news story about him invariably uses some nickname (which varies) plus his legal name, which has not. CDThieme 05:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Use his real name, as his nicknames do vary quite a bit. – AxSkov (☏) 07:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Diddy is definately not the most common name. Agree with most other comments above. Jonathunder 17:48, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Please clean up the references in the article itself and the remaining double redirects (I have changed the most important ones). Dragons flight 15:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

70.60.93.151

Naming Names should be cleaned up. Combs should be called by his given last name. All informal nicknames or performance names such as "Puffy", "P. Diddy", and "Puff Daddy" should be replaced with "Combs" where possible.

That would be quite repetitive. Combs could be used in the first instance in each paragraph, and then the artist name of the time. --Erri4a - ] 22:36, 25 Sepember 2006 (UTC)

Finances

I've heard that Sean Combs has done very well for himself, especially with his clothing line. Does anyone have info on his financials? Vicarious 16:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

bad boys of comedy

there should be some mention of his attempt to be def comedy jam--Jaysscholar 19:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Come with me

The other day I heard a different song with the same tune as Come with me, and was told it was pretty old. Any info on it? Hackwrench 15:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It's Kashmir, by Led Zeppelin. Eixo 15:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

In the section titled : Other work.

This should be a quote of someone who is influential or simply be removed. This is NPOV " he is also one of the most despised. Some have argued that he is perhaps the worst thing that has ever happened to hip hop. " I will rephrase. Thanks.

--- This whole piece is NPOV. If you just arrived from mars, you would have no chance whatever to understand what makes mr Combs important. The first sentence gives it all away ("CEO" ? Please; get another claim to fame). I am no "hater" of this man, but if this biography was written about a company, it would not have stood for long. So if we grant the man a ceo/entrepenour status, perhaps wikipedia shoudl treat him like one in its writeup? Or maybe we should tell people that this is a popular music singer from the west coast rap tradition who is popular on mtv? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.198.156 (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

P Diddy

Combs was soon acquitted of all charges relating to the shooting incident, followed almost immediately by a break-up with Lopez. With the media circus over, Combs changed his stage name to "P. Diddy".

Didn't he change his name well before then? I believe Jennifer Lopez and he changed their names simultaniously to J Lo and P Diddy? In the meantime I'll citation it. 211.30.80.121 23:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

J Lo is just a nickname. :)166.82.187.246 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Lox publishing dispute

Perhaps the Controversy section should include something about The Lox's dispute over publishing rights with Combs, which was recently settled, see .

Hmm

Not too sure Diddy is a "gay musician". Vandalism?Extenebris 11:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

lol, i think so.. how can anyone who's been with lopez be gay..

Publicity!!!!!!????????????? gav 19th august 2006

PE 2000 remix

could anyone tell me if the neptunes remix of PE 2000 was on the PE 2000 single? (can be heard here.) 23:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Second Child

Why doesn't this article state that he and his model girlfriend are pregent with their second baby? Lil Flip246 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing his name again

Well, in the UK at least. violet/riga (t) 15:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the article could cite anything known about how he chose these names. Wasn't the "puff" a reference to (pick one) smoking crack or the report of a gun, which is why he abandoned it after the big incident? --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say in the article we should refer to him as "Combs" rather than Diddy, since: 1) there is no one of his nicknames that is predominant across his entire career; and 2) it sounds more encyclopedic in tone. --Delirium 02:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

Someone with the right software could get a free picture of Combs from Rocketboom's 2006 Time 100 at http://www.rocketboom.com/vlog/archives/2006/05/rb_06_may_09.html --Erri4a - ] 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Current image can't possibly be right. Maybe it's one from his youth but he still looks too different.

Grammys

The wiki indicates that he won 9 grammys, but shows only 3 specific wins. Grammy wins are important enough to be listed in completion in a biography.

"Controversy"

I don't think it makes sense to mention his minor conflict with 50 Cent, seeing as how there is nothing pertaining to the whole Bad Boy/Death Row situation, or the dispute he had with Jadakiss, Styles, etc. I realize the media was hungry for a "beef" and tried to make it seem like it was more than what it really was (which forced 50/Puff to downplay it everytime it was brought up), but still... :\

2006 CMA's Awards

P. Diddy had a controversial reaction, when he lost a Country Music Award to Carrie Underwood. He swore many times, threw a glass of water to an operator, then a glass vase very close to him, then he finished with "and gimme the f***ing award, you country ****** *******" or something like that. This video feature has been uploaded to YouTube. It must be there at the Controversy section, because I think it made strong reactions. 86.101.211.226 16:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Glass eye"

How is his having a glass eye controversial? Ghilz 03:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont ever remember P. Diddy being crucified in the "Hate Me Now" video. I only remember Nas being crucified near the end. Although im fairly sure Diddy wasnt, someone check up on this. BishopTutu 07:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

For some reason...

For some reason, whenever I come to this page, it's vandalized in SOME way. I'm going to put it on watch. If any more vandalism occurs, I'll see to it that the page gets locked. DrowningInRoyalty

Heh, I thought to myself how hilarious it would be to write an entire section on his "Proactiv Solutions" commercial. Something like "P. Diddy is a big supporter of Proactiv Solutions acne medication, and quote 'Didn't want no bumps on my face. I'm going to be straight up with you. You know what I mean?' and additionally likes it because it enables him to 'preserve my sexy, you know what I'm saying?'" Just a thought. I guess that would be vandalism though.

Even though this is kinda off topic can someone help the new list of best-selling remix albums worldwide with its structure.

Kim Porter?

Why is Kim Porter redirected to this page? Is this not the same Kim Porter from "Wicked Wicked Games" on My Network TV? Brian25j 17:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's his wifes name.

Create Disambiguation?

As most Sun readers in the UK will know, as well as fans of Scottish football team Gretna FC, Puff Daddy is also the nom de plume of billionaire Brooks Mileson.

Should a disambiguation page not therefore be created... so that when people type in Puff Daddy they can either choose between Sean Combs or Brooks Mileson? Tris2000 17:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it true he is of somali origin? i have heard this rumour many times march 7 2007

Hell no he isn't. He is what he looks like: African American. 74.12.222.149 (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL, and on what continent do you think Somalia is then, Mr 74.12.222.149??  ;-) Tris2000 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Manchester United

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD INDICATE ABOUT P DIDDY'S SUPPORT FOR MAN UTD.

HE HAS CONNECTIONS WITH WAYNE ROONEY N RIO FERDINAND.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.20.234 (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Details about reason behind name change to P.Diddy?

I vaguely remember that during a larger live event a few years ago, the woman who was responsible for the booking mentioned that she had met Puff Daddy recetly, and that he would change his name to P. Diddy "because Notorious B.I.G. called him by that". Well, that's what I remember. I thought the P. Diddy name didn't sound very serious (even less than Puff Daddy :-)), and I could make out about no rational reasoning for such a name change (although tone and wording of the woman's remark indicated that it was serious). Okay, it actually happend some time later. However, I have not found any definite information about the reason behind his name change and if the claims concerning Notorious B.I.G. are true - only what I might classify as second hand rumors (and this includes my own statements and experiences). It also appears that he used the name P. Diddy earlier in works in which he participated (not sure about that, though). This article obviously tells little about this. Anyone here with some more definite information? --Klaws 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Diddy And His Songs

I listen to diddy's songs all the time actually i think hes the bomb!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.208.0.230 (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

umm

no mention of his early career and his break with B.I.G.? 134.69.166.125 10:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Silly Nicknames

If I missed it, my apologies - but couldn't find any explanation as to why a seemingly intelligent grown man would give himself such a silly, childish nickname - not once, but twice!

You haven't listened to his intelligent grasp of the geopolitics behind the high price of fuel for his jet. In that one he sounds like a retarded 13 year old. --71.102.254.48 (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of vandalism

I just spent 15 minutes cleaning up vandalism and requested temporary page protection. Most of it is traced back to 71.232.243.229 hopefully this is all. :) Yamaka122 ...☑ 20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just cleaned up a bit more, namely "N. Diddy", "Notorious N.I.G.", and variations of the n-word. --Patik 02:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hip-Hop Wealth

This article says that Sean Combs is both the second-wealthiest (top of the page) and wealthiest (first paragraph under Controversy) person in the hip-hop business...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.15.82 (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WTF

In various places throught the article it says N. Diddy instead of P. Diddy and its fukin pissin me off —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.194.79 (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know why it says P. all over the article, it should say N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.238.85 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Racoon dogs?

Erm, apparently his jackets featured very real "raccoon dog" fur?

Problem is, there is no such species of dog that is a raccoon dog (as this article states). Besides, that doesn't make any sense to talk about a species of dog. Talking about a certain "breed of dog" makes sense but doesn't apply here. Imagine talking to someone about a specific species of human... jeez....

The news sites/original poster probably almost definitely meant that the coats featured fur which is commonly referred to as "raccoon dog" and is a fairly common animal in Asia / Japan. It is neither a raccoon or a dog (but it is a canine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.97.30 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

New nickname?

This article says he denies changing his nickname to Sean John. If so, why has everything been changed to Sean John?68.166.37.220 (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Article quality and content

Recent edits, especially placing reference-needed tags, will show that concerns have been raised over this article with respect to the policy on biographies of living persons. Interested editors would be well behooved to address the style of this article, and also to provide references for many, many statements. There is a limited timeframe to address these concerns, maybe two weeks at the most. Following that, large portions of this article are at risk of summary deletion. Articles on living persons need high-quality citations, which in this case should be easy to find for those who are interested in maintaining the article. Thanks in advance for your help! Franamax (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Christian Album

i read somewhere that diddy released a gospel album. is this true and if so should it not be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.131.8 (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It never materialized, as I recall. Gimmetrow 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up

umm, someone apparently vandelized the page. im gonna try and delete the more obvious stuff (like sexual relations with 50 cent) but could someone please go over again and make sure nothing subtle was changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.57.1 (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Blog

Please do not start a revert war, the blog is legit, factual, and vital in this individual. It is obviously important enough to be on his website. Lajolla2009 (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should we report on what some celebrity says on his blog? Is it central to his notability? Have reliable sources reported extensively on his blogs? And finally, when you restore disputed texts, do not revert every other change made to the article. Gimmetrow 06:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for image protection first of all. The reliable sources are obvious as seen in his video, it is Diddy, Sean Combs talking. He also advertises about the blog site in the video. The section is a vital update to his life. Lajolla2009 (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No. It's almost entirely irrelevant to what he is known for. Has CNN or BBC reported on Combs' blogging? And please explain why you reverted everything else in the process? Gimmetrow 06:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No. CNN and BBC are not the only reliable resources. His blogging is factual, official, and he wants it to be known. The other reverts are accidents as you can see that I didn't revert to your newest changes. Lajolla2009 (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here. First, are Combs' video blogs about politics of any significance? That would be demonstrated by some reliable source like CNN or BBC mentioning Combs' video blogs, say because they actually contributed to political debate or something. Second, if his political views are notable or should otherwise be reported in an encyclopedia, does the paragraph accurately reflect what is said in the video blog? I would say, no: it's misleading and sensationalizes the content. Gimmetrow 07:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The politics blog is just an example of his collection of blogs. That's significant. The sentence did summed up what he wants to say in the blog, note that the other sentences set up for the example as given in his latest commentary blog. Feel free to add everything you believe is said in the blog, if you listen carefully the last sentence was explicitly stated in segments. Lajolla2009 (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed "resolved" tag. I still don't find this of any significance. Certainly not enough for a separate section. If he's endorsed some candidates, then just say that in the Personal life section. I also think the blog section still misrepresents what the vlog says, but since I don't think the section should be there at all I'm not overly inclined to "fix" it. Gimmetrow 13:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The blog is another section that is different from the personal life section. It deserves its own section, I agree with Lajolla2009 Dreamweaver123 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The vlog as vlog doesn't seem significant. If his political views are significant, they'll be referenced in other media (BBC, CNN, etc). A separate section? Unless his political views are routinely reported in major media, a separate section would seem likely to give it undue weight. Gimmetrow 22:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There are furthermore WP:Biography of living persons issues with the text as written that you are edit-warring over. Restoring that exact text rather than discussing it first is, in my opinion, a blockable offense. Gimmetrow 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Views

I think there should be a section on his political views. He posted a video of himself on YouTube where he says some pretty vulgar things about Sarah Palin. ] has a link to that video. Apparently, he doesn't like Alaska because there aren't any "crackheads" up there; I'm not joking, he actually said that. It's pretty offensive to Alaskans, not to mention women.

I'm not going to add that to the article just yet, but I think it's worth talking about, since there isn't anything on there about his political views at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.155.1 (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

He's also "scared" of her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70wGnx_lZio 199.214.26.82 (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Pls fix 'Personal Life' section

1) Pls put the info in order. Chance was born in July 2007 so she should be listed followed by the twins.

QUOTE: Combs has never married but is the biological father of five children and one through adoption.
2)Pls fix. Puffy didnt adopt Quincy Brown. He has 5 kids: Justin, Christian,Chance,& twins Dlila,Jessie.
Quincy is Al B Sure's son. He lived with Puffy when his Mom dated him but his Dad is Al B Sure. My proof is in the child support Kim sued 4 she didnt sue 4 Q, just Christian & the twins. My source is the public NY court papers. Kim presumably gets support for Quincy from Al.
Thx. 70.108.110.251 (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Adoption was changed to "association" because the he has not adopted Quincy. However, I don't think that "through association" is clear at all. I changed to the text to "the informal step-father." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeatheadMathlete (talk • contribs) 02:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Diss song

In no part of the page there is not any kind of information that talk about the spanish song Pi-di-di-di written by Calle 13 dissing him, and the another persons/groups for which he has been dissed along his career —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.76.226.138 (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because it is most likely not notable. The list would be too lengthy if we were to add every diss song about Diddy. Feudonym (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

is this a fan club page or an encyclopedia??

i think this page should get the

This article contains promotional content. Please help improve it by removing promotional language and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic text written from a neutral point of view. (March 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

treatment. please.

Criticism

There isn't really a criticism section, is there? No one's said anything bad about him worth knowing? No accusations? No one saying he tried to murder hip-hop? Am I the only one who thinks that? And I don't mean diss songs or beef, I mean things said in interviews or reviews, anything like that. 208.81.93.189 (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism is integrated through the article. Gimmetrow 13:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation style

What is the preferred citation format being used on this page? I would like to avoid violating Misplaced Pages:CITE#Citation_templates_and_tools. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I find manual citations easier to maintain. Since I do most of the maintenance on the article, I prefer no cite templates. Gimmetrow 00:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So other than no citation templates do you have any preference? Plastikspork (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A third opinion has been requested upon this page and another, Kimora Lee Simmons. I'd like to point out that the latter page involved three eds, so a 30 is inappropriate. I'd also point out that citations on any page should always follow the format already set up on that page, even if this means that automation is impossible. It's really up to the editor to ascertain the format in use before adding citations (and up to previous editors to be civil and not "own the page"). Other than that, the issue here is hard to fathom. Please contact me on my talk page if this comment is insufficient. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but it's not clear what citation format is currently being used other than no citation templates. Some citations put the date before the title, some put the date after the title. Some include a period delimiting fields, some omit the period. Some are using bare urls. Reference 25 appears to be broken. I would love to help clean up the references on this page, but I am afraid any work that I do would be immediately reverted. I am awaiting a clarification on what edits I am allowed to make to this page. I am assuming that I am allowed to make edits which conform to the citation style, but the precise citation style is currently not clear. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ref 25 was damaged in this edit. Citation style should be pretty clear, but this article is subject to constant vandalism anyway. Dates go after author; if there is no author, then cite starts with title and date goes after that. Gimmetrow 05:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Plastikspork hello! My MO would simply be to make a copy of the topmost reference citation and modify it. Who can blame you then? Happy edits, sorry to hear about the vandalism, hope you all liked my text edit. Redheylin (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My hope is to get to the heart of the issue with the citations. So far we have established that there should be no citation templates and the rules for location of dates. It appears as though the rules used by the citation template are desired, just not the use of the template in its unsubstituted form. I have a script that fixes punctuation and formatting inconsistencies in citations by first converting them to a citation template. I could easily have it substitute the template instead if I could figure out if that is the desired effect. I did this with the first citation and my change was only partially reverted by the owner of this article so I feel I am getting closer to a solution. Plastikspork (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There it is - "owner". Go ahead and run your script wherever you want, but the particular issue here is closely related to an old Arb case and is expressed in a long-standing guideline at WP:CITE. Why do you care about the "citations"? I've told you I find it easier to maintain the article without using templates. Nobody else seems to worry about nasty things in an article about a subject with more than enough financial resources to sue Misplaced Pages into the abyss. So, Plastik, are you going to maintain this article and deal with vandalism daily for the next few years? Gimmetrow 03:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, if owner was the wrong word. I am just trying to figure out how I can help with the formatting of the references. It appears that the format is basically what is produced by the citation template in its substituted form, with the exception of the phrase "Retrieved on" being replaced with "Accessed". Yes, I do plan to help watch this page for vandalism. The more the better. Plastikspork (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Here it says; Each article should use the same method throughout—if an article already has some citations, an editor should adopt the method already in use or seek consensus before changing it.... Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. That's it really. Not only the format but the method should be agreed first. Redheylin (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Diddy as 007?

They talked about this on the radio. No way that should fly I dont care how much money some one has that dosnt give them the right to distroy a saga. Diddy as James Bond is like Stevie Wounder as Hitler It dosnt make any scence. It needs to be a white british guy like alway or the series will be destroyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.211.31 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Ha, Stevie Wounder... George Lazenby was Australian, by the way, not that this is anything to crow about.124.168.48.233 (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There should be a controversy section

There are many claims that P Diddy stole songs from others. Perhaps someone could at least acknowledge these as controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.105.158 (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

p diddy

i heard he married and has 2 kids is that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.100.91 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs adding: His role in Get Him to the Greek

Under Sean Combs, he played Sergio Roma in the film Get Him to the Greek. His character, presumably based loosely on his own life, sends Aaron (Jonah Hill) to pick up and take rockstar Aldous Snow to the Greek. 152.7.25.188 (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Filmography

perhaps there should be a filmography section added what with the growing number of films and tv shows Diddy is starring in? examples I can think of are Get Him to the Greek, the sequel to Carlito's Way and certain CSI episodes. A more comprehensive list can be found on imdb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.206.91 (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of some unheard of person with his name

Whats relevance of some unheard of person using Diddy name ??? With a questionable source Billybruns (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The relevance is that a lawsuit by that person affected the stage name of the subject of this article. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok so removed the 2nd mention doesnt need to be there twice. Billybruns (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the rest of the article. A summary repeats information, so yes, pertinent details do get repeated in the lead and the article. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Swag

P Diddy changed his performance name to Swag sometime this year.75.246.193.105 (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)166.82.187.246 (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

2000

Didn.t he start in 2000. And didn't he make his own record company? It's on the front of Love Hip-Hop CD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.187.246 (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What's this?

Diddy Sued for $1 Trillion, and Blamed for 9/11? Should this be added? --тнєѕαℓχ - tคlк - ¢σηтяιвυтισηѕ 04:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Looks frivolous. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Image lead

I'm tired of image changes. The lead image for this article has been File:Sean Combs 2.jpg (or File:Sean Combs.jpg). An IP seems to want to use File:Sean Combs 2011.jpg . First, 'up to date' is not an argument - there is no preference for more recent over less recent images per se. The original lead image reflects the subject at a more significant period, I think, although I'm not going to say that's strong in this case. Primarily, I do not find the IP's "proposed" image an improvement. It doesn't show more of the face, and doesn't illustrate the subject any better, in my opinion, and the poor contrast makes it worse. I would say it's better than File:Diddy Dirty Money.jpg, used later in the article, so I'm OK with replacing that image with the "proposed" one, while keeping the original lead image. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/2007-10-24-1368831046_x.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking

There's some hideous overlinking in this article. It isn't as big a deal as a copyvio but my attempt to take it out was reverted by a date warrior. Would anyone else like to have a go? --John (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You claim "there's some hideous overlinking". This is the only edit that User:John has made recently. That edit has a lot of parts, but I only see one link removed: New York City, New York. So one link is "hideous overlinking"? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. New York City, New York redirects to New York City as there is no need to disambiguate, but why would this article need to link to the NYC article let alone a ponderous redirect to it? This is the problem with making blind reverts, it damages articles. --John (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Date format change proposal

The format of the dates in the references used in this article should be altered to be in a format of "May 4, 2012" (as per this edit).

• Dates in the format of "May 4, 2012" are unambiguous and are easier for readers to quickly comprehend than are dates in the "2012-05-04" format.
• The {{Cite web}} template (which the references should, and will one day soon, be using) recommends using the "May 4, 2012" format.
• The dates already in the main article text are in the format "May 4, 2012" so without the proposed change, more than one date format is used in the article. This proposal will increase consistency in the article.
• From WP:CITEVAR: "when adding citations, to try to follow the system and style already in use in the article". This can be interpreted to apply to date formats—which means that it would have been better to use the familiar (and existing) format of "May 4, 2012".
• WP:CITEVAR states that YYYY-MM-DD format "may be used", but doesn't insist on it.
• WP:RETAIN is not of primary importance here because its intention is to provide consistent formatting within the main article text (e.g. so that a combination of mdy and dmy formatting doesn't develop).
• However if WP:RETAIN is to be considered, please note that the article used "May 4, 2012" formatting for referencing prior to the use of the "2012-05-04" format (as demonstrated by the article in this state).
• In my experience (and I add/format a lot of URL references using {{Cite web}}) the format of "May 4, 2012" (or "4 May 2012" where required) is far more commonly used these days (than is the format of "2012-05-04").
• Apart from arguments of "it exists", there has been no proffered argument that demonstrates a tangible benefit to the article by using the "2012-05-04" format.

GFHandel ♬  00:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. GFHandel ♬  00:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This article has developed over a period of about 6 years. The reference style, from earliest times, has been publication dates in Month dd, YYYY, and accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD. It currently has 77 references in this consistent style, representing quite a bit of prior editorial work. From the edit history, it appears the first accessdate was indeed in YYYY-MM-DD, and newly added references have followed the existing style of the article. On to some of your specific points (is this a templated text?)

• Distinguishing one type of reference information (publication date) from another type, arguably less important (accessdates), aids the reader, by helping them not to read one date as the other.
• I don't see that {{cite web}} recommends anything, and I'm not sure why it would be relevant. Cite web appears to omit to show any examples with one of the acceptable styles; if this is taken to suggest something contrary to MOSNUM, then the examples may need to be revised.
• The article already follows a consistent style, as far as I am aware. "Consistency", in MOSNUM, does not mean a single style in both the article and the references. MOSNUM explicitly allows YYYY-MM-DD formats in the references.
• The style of references has been followed; although WP:CITEVAR did not exist in 2006 in that form, references have been pretty consistently added following the style as specified (publication dates in Month dd, YYYY, accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD).
• I agree WP:RETAIN is not of primary importance; WP:DATERET is the more relevant guideline
• The first use of accessdates, as far as I can tell, were in YYYY-MM-DD format , so even the "first major contributor" clause of WP:DATERET argues for retaining the style with which the article has developed
• I'm not sure what "commonly used" means here. Most developed articles I'm aware of use YYYY-MM-DD formats, though some were changed (see WP:FAITACCOMPLI). I know of relatively few articles (some, but comparatively fewer) that developed from earliest times without YYYY-MM-DD style for either publication or accessdates.
• Distinguishing the publication dates and accessdates is a benefit. Some may not agree, I'm aware, but that's why we have a guideline about not changing arbitrary style options. It's also more compact. I don't see any benefit to removing YYYY-MM-DD accessdates from this already consistent article.

Gimmetoo (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support The only reason that accessdates ever existed in YYYY-MM-DD format was that the citation mechanism created them in that format at the time when users could set the displayed date format in their preferences. Following the unlinking of dates, that mechanism disappeared, and we were left with the underlying accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD format, despite them being added without any actual editor preference being made. That seriously weakens arguments about respecting original authors' intentions, and leaves us to consider what is best for articles now. The argument that a mixture of date formats helps the reader distinguish between date of publication and date of access makes sense, but I don't find it convincing, as their positioning by all of the citation templates is so very different. The overriding arguments are that DMY and MDY are much easier to comprehend at a glance ('September' is clearer than '09'), and that consistency in the format of dates throughout an article is desirable - and that includes the references. The only place where YYYY-MM-DD dates have a place is in tables and infoboxes, where space is at a premium. --RexxS (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Your technical history does not appear correct. The first accessdates added to this article were in YYYY-MM-DD format, without any autoformatting. (If I recall correctly, autormatting wasn't used with the mdy publication dates, either.) I am glad you recognize that distinguishing types "makes sense". Thank you. In my experience, the confusion resulting from the differing positions of dates in the references is helped, rather than harmed, by having two types of dates in different formats. It allows the reader to quickly identify the publication date and accessdate in the reference, whether they are at the start, middle, or end of the reference. It aids the reader. I am aware you may not find that benefit convincing, but others may not find the benefits of another style convincing, either. We have gudielines to prevent arbitrary style changes based on such arbitrary preferences. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. RexxS has provided a reasonable summary of the history behind the date format wars to which I will add two points:
  • Gimmetoo hints at "technical advantages" in favour of the yyyy-mm-dd format. But in fact there's only one, that it's sortable, which is irrelevant for citations. The technical advantage it did once have disappeared with date delinking, as RexxS says.
  • Documentation for the {{citation}} template specifically says in reference to the accessdate parameter: "use the same format as other dates in the article". It's time to put this date format nonsense to bed once and for all, and for Gimmetoo to drop his stick. Malleus Fatuorum 04:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  PS. Perhaps an administrator could fix that rather irritating "in in" error in the citation template's documentation. Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  Please avoid making this personal, MF. Was "drop his stick" needed or helpful? Gimmetoo (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, it was. Malleus Fatuorum 06:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support per GFHandel, RexxS and Malleus. It seems blindingly self-evident that most editors would find September 9, 1998 easier to parse than 1998-09-09. I am not sure how the bee entered the bonnet here, but the sooner it flies off and does something more useful the better for us all. --John (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This has been answered many times. You claim that most editors would find one form easier to parse than another. Your unstated premise is apparently that this factor so overrides any other consideration for readers (including the benefits of distinguishing, etc.) or anyone else, that ISO-style dates must be removed. But this is contradicted by the guidleline, which explicitly authorizes ISO-style dates, including explicitly for the accessdates. I would generally agree that formatting should benefit the reader, but between a benefit that would violate guideline and one that is explicitly in accord with guidelline, I think I would go with the latter. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per RexxS and MF.PumpkinSky talk 10:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per the above. "We've always done it this way" seems to be the counterargument. Let's let the readers read, not decode.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Explicilty allowed by guideline, and for which no substantial, evidence-based reasons have been provided to change. Let's aid the readers to read, not confuse them. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Rexx's comments, especially. Plus I find these ISO dates difficult to parse, and I bet our readers do too. External tools such as WP:Cite4Wiki do not offer ISO dates, only the other two options, so using one of the other options makes articles easier to maintain. -- Dianna (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per everybody, this looks like a clear improvement to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, because there is no good reason for this disruption, and ... why has the entire Merry Band of Jack Merridew and Rlevse Supporters in the FAC Matter shown up suddenly on this particular article. If at first you don't succeed ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Sandy, do you have any reasons for your oppose that relate to the article itself, or to the technical issues we are discussing? -- Dianna (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  The Chewbacca defense. Sandy is also relying on the "if you have no argument, smear everybody you disagree with" school of debate. Let's not cloud the issue with facts, eh? Since when have Malleus, John, GFHandel and I been "Jack Merridew and Rlevse Supporters in the FAC Matter"? That's pretty laughable, isn't it. It's commendable that Sandy wants to stand up for her chum, but it's only helpful when there's something constructive to say. The ad hominem BS is far too obvious for anybody to take it seriously. --RexxS (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Why, I would never stoop so low as to smear everyone I disagree with, if for no other reason than the lack of enough hours in a day-- I'll have to content myself with just those who travel in roving bands of bullies trying to enforce their views of ... well ... everything they hold in common and sacred, with is ... everything they hold in common .. which is ... cabalism. On the citation matter, I happen to agree with our guidelines that they are a matter of consensus, and I also hold that those who work on articles should determine the consensus for the citation style for those articles, not those who show up to bolster their buddies to win a meaningless argument. Whatever floats your boat, some get gratification building articles, others get it bringing them down. May whomever prevails be sure to stick around after the little turf war is over and actually maintain the article you now seem to care so much about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  I have had little or nothing to do with the other editors in this debate, and I have only made one communication to another editor regarding its existence. I (and most others) have retained a polite and non-personal perspective in this debate, so I'm saddened to see the level of discourse diminished with personal attacks such as "Merry Band", "cabalism", and "roving bands of bullies". For the record: are you applying any or all of those epithets to me? GFHandel ♬  08:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Wow Sandy, that's extremely unexpected. We are discussing date formatting here, and which format of dates best serves our readers. It's incredibly inappropriate of you to make these allegations here. It leaves me worried for your well-being, to be honest. --John (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose If it's working fine, leave it the way it is - for one thing. For another, it makes sense to have access and archivedates in yyyy-mm-dd format (pls don't say ISO, there's some problem with the Russian Revolution that makes them not ISO-xxxx compliant) because they take up less space that way and those dates are not important - honestly, do you want a line wrapped around so that you the reader can see that I the writer/reviewer clicked on a link or opened a book on "February 27, 2012" rather than 2012-02-27? RExxS is incorrect on the history too, some of us specifically never set a date preference, because we cared about what the actual readers saw. The removal of autoformatting meant nothing at all to me, I already had the anonymous view that always included yyyy-mm-dd. It's a great and succinct format for a most incosequential yet necessary datum. Moreover, our guidelines say quite clearly that if that is the established format, it should be left as is. What a crazy little tempest! Franamax (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  I have no problems with possible line wraps (which is never a reason to not present information in the most obvious and customary way to our readers—which is what the supports here wish to do). GFHandel ♬  08:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  So you like it because it is shorter? That actually seems like quite a good argument. I've always wondered why this metadata even needs to be displayed to the ordinary reader; I wonder if it would be possible to make it invisible and you have to enter edit mode to check it? Just a thought. I still value consistency with other dates in the article and readability (as long as we display this data at all we may as well do so in a format people can understand!) over brevity but thanks at least for making a coherent argument for your preferred style. --John (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Chicago articles
• High-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Mid-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Hip-hop articles
• Top-importance Hip-hop articles
• WikiProject Hip-hop articles
• C-Class Miami articles
• High-importance Miami articles
• WikiProject Miami articles