Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PHShanghai (talk | contribs) at 16:37, 10 March 2022 (→WP:ANI: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thank you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi! Just wanted to thank you with the original barnstar for all your great work on Zayn articles! :)

A page you started (Dangerous Woman (album)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Dangerous Woman (album), Cornerstonepicker!

Misplaced Pages editor Garagepunk66 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I enjoyed reading the article on the upcoming album Dangerous Woman by Ariana Grande. Very nicely done.

To reply, leave a comment on Garagepunk66's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Meat Loaf on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Women in hip hop.

We need to have a discussion because I really don’t want to do this edit warring. We came to a conclusion on Missy Elliott and Missy Elliott only. While I agree that the title doesn’t belong to one individual person it doesn’t make sense to add it to every single female rappers lead. To their legacy sure, but adding it to all of their leads feels sloppy and dilutes the title especially when they have other achievements, titles and accomplishments that could be added to the lead section. I’m even a fan of some of the women but when it comes to my editing I try to not convey any biases towards them. For instance with Lil Kim she has been cited as the "Queen Bee of Rap" by Billboard, The NYT, BET and many many more. And considering the citations I found went as far back as the 90s it would be more appropriate for her lead section. And the removal of it from the legacy section is completely unjustified, you reverted the whole edit for no good reason. And if that continues I’ll have to get someone else to get involved. As far as Lauryn Hill if you are gonna put that she’s been called the "Queen of Hip Hop" in the lead then you either need to change the wording or put it in a different section along with other accolades. You just slapped it in the middle of a random section in the lead and it makes no sense when reading it.

My problem isn’t with you putting titles in these women's lead section. It’s the fact that you are only willing to have things your way, and that you are doing it in a sloppy manner. Kanyfug (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Also to add. I could probably find a decent amount of articles stating that Olivia Rodrigo, Doja Cat or Normani are the "Queen of Pop" should I also put that in their leads? If you think adding it to this many peoples lead section is justified then that would also be justified. Kanyfug (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Also as far as Queen Latifah goes. There’s nothing wrong with me adding time accuracy. Most of those citations are from the 1990s and 2000s. One of the citations you have stated that she’s the "Queen of rap's daisy age" not the "queen of rap" and your most recent citation states that she has been referred to as the "Queen of rap", the publication themselves didn’t refer to her as such. Making it an invalid citation since you said "several media articles have referred to her" as such. I’m not debating if Queen of Rap belongs in her lead section. However I believe her legacy section should include time accuracy, and should give too much weight to her musical career considering she has had a equally or bigger career as an actress. Kanyfug (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kanyfug: There are numerous sources calling these women that nickname. The thing is, this is an imaginary, not real title. It's not a presidential title, nor an official occupation. There's no reason for it to be removed from all of them, the reasoning you were given here Talk:Missy_Elliott#Queen_of_Rap says it all. And "Queen Bee" is an alias like "Queen Bey", not a title. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

If it’s not a real title that holds no weight, why are you so insistent that every single female rapper has "Queen of Rap" in their leads? I don’t have a problem with the titles but I just don’t believe that it belongs in some of the leads for these women. The legacy section would suffice. And as far as lil Kim, it’s not an alias it is being used as a reference to a literal Queen Bee whereas for Beyoncé, "Bey" is an abbreviation of her name and a play on "Queen Bee". Multiple publications including Billboard, NYTs, and BET have referred to her as the "Queen Bee of Rap", considering that I believe it would be better suited in the lead if you insist on having titles there. Also to make note, Lil Kim herself has often referred to herself as such and even stated that she wasn’t the "Queen of Rap" (Elliott has denied the title too). Again adding it to every single female rapper's lead section feels sloppy and biased. As I mentioned before there’s plenty of new artist with publications giving them honorifics and it would not look great to put them in their lead section. But again I don’t dispute these things being mentioned in the rest of the article. Kanyfug (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

that argument can be used to anything we write here, 'why do we we add..'? if nothing is actually real. It is not a Predidential title, and is not essential to just one person. Four people have it, all properly sourced. she used to call herself that alias in all her songs, hence media writers saying 'the queen bee....'. it's not honorific. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It’s not an alias here’s an example: http://www.bonafidemag.com/cheat-sheets-lil-kim/ Kanyfug (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It is, she uses the alias for her record label Queen Bee Entertainment and for the name of her book Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Let’s say that it is indeed an alias. "Queen Bee" would be the alias not "Queen Bee of Rap", please don’t act dense to prove your argument. If publications didn’t add the "of Rap" I would understand your position a bit more. Kanyfug (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

but still, the part 'queen bee' is not honorific. rap is her genre. 'queen of rap' is, that's the common one. This is an example, Vanity Fair: "Beyoncé...labeled the Queen Bey of music." not honorific. "Queen of music" would be. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, if that’s your argument fine. But if it’s not a real title and it holds no weight why is it wrong for others to edit and change or add another title to the lead? Why does it have to be "Queen of Rap" or "Queen of Hip Hop" in every mainstream female rappers' lead section. There’s an over saturation of the title being used in the lead. There’s about 5/6 woman with the title in their leads, which is a bit much. Once you start adding it to everyone’s lead section where does it stop? I’m waiting for a genuine answer to this question Kanyfug (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

due to the same reason, is not real and not a Presidential occupation. Quoting user Escape Orbit on the Missy Elliott's talk page, debate about how this title compares to how others are known is irrelevant, and amounts to original research. It is not a real position. Quoting The Gnome on the Latifah's talk page we should be able to include in the appellations of persons the terms "king" or "queen - to the extent that they are so called in sources. In so many words, we can have many kings and queens here. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

But wouldn’t that debate include you? I’m genuinely asking. Because anytime I have put another title up you revert it. Kanyfug (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

mm I remember you were removing them (?) Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

What I’m saying is that if the title isn’t real and doesn’t holds a lot of significant weight as claimed, why does it matter if it’s replaced with another title? Because you seem to shut down or remove any other titles being put in the place of "Queen of hip hop" or "rap" in the lead. And you don’t offer any legitimate reason for this, you also don’t try to find a common ground or solution. Some of the woman have been cited with other honorifics. But for you it has to be those honorifics in particular in the lead or you’ll revert it. Why? Kanyfug (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Natasha Bassett on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Your recent editing history at Trollz (song) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
WP:STATUSQUO says: Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit. Don't start throwing attacks about not reading guidelines when the very guideline you use tells you to not blindly revert, which is what exactly you're doing. shanghai. 19:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not hard to understand... statusquo is for new edits; and I opened the Talk page, righ there for a click. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

But you keep reverting when the very guideline that you keep citing tells you to NOT blindly revert. The guideline itself has this sentence that you keep ignoring: "If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it." In fact, there's an entire article that describes your behavior at Nicki Minaj so far. shanghai. 12:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. shanghai. 16:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)