User talk:Joseph Prasad

This is my talk page. Leave me messages here.

Glen Campbell

Other articles like Reba McEntire, George Jones, Jo Dee Messina, Tanya Tucker, Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings, Loretta Lynn, etc. use this. Also, note that what you said here, you said "other main careers", but Campbell has had a variety show called The Glen Campbell Goodtime Hour on CBS television and has been in other filmography. Just because Taylor Swift doesn't have doesn't mean others do. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 06:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Corkythehornetfan, There is no reason, as there is no other career section, all those articles aren't Good Articles, except for Reba McEntire, which is also known for acting. Also, he is not known for acting, why do you think he has infobox musical artist instead of person? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, but it doesn't make since to have all of the sections in the GC article to be level 2 sections headers. The sections for his career should be listed under a main level 2 section heading and the following as section 3 or lower. Let's be consistent with most other musician articles. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 06:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to Pink (singer)

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. The stylized version of her name is covered in the lead, but per WP:STAGENAME, the most commonly used name should be the name of the page (which it is), and that name should match the name in the infobox. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Onel5969 (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Death Battle

Hello, I'm 85.210.181.124. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Death Battle without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! 85.210.181.124 (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

List of 2015 albums

Sure a reason!!!!! I was just adding TWO new albums out in July! But u destroyed my work! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickykidd (talk • contribs) 06:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Trickykidd, well, you could have mentioned that in your edit summary, and it is not much work. Not hard to press the revert button. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are right. To add the third quarter was not much work! But u deleted it while i was adding new albums. THIS was much work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickykidd (talk • contribs) 06:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, just know to provide what you were doing in the edit summary. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I always did Trickykidd (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you didn't provide enough, your edit summary was very broad, and made it seem like you were adding a section for no reason. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited I Know (Drake Bell song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Drake's Album

Stop trying to make it a mixtape. It literally doesn't matter what he wants to call it to keep his fans from being disappointed in the quality, the fact that it was sold for $12.99 on iTunes and allegedly fulfills a 4 album contract with Cash Money is proof enough that it's an album. Drop the issue, because I won't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinw303 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

For one, that's original research, two, if that fufilled the contract, he wouldn't be making Views from the 6 with the same label. Three, Billboard says it's a mixtape. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No, actually, Billboard calls it an album: http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6480631/drake-entire-album-hot-rb-hip-hop-songs-chart

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinw303 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Citation needed

You can use {{cn}} for short. Properly factored, it looks like {{cn|date=March 2015}} —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Your placement of the referencing tag at the Leonard Nimoy article with this edit [1] was disruptive and tendentious as well as pointy rather than constructive and helpful. I have removed the tag per WP:DETAG and suggest you read the subsequent section of that same article, found here [2]. If you have issues with the article, discuss them on the talk page but don't edit disruptively to make a point. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I was not making a point in any fashion, ATinySilver seems to have no problem, YOU only appear to have a problem, you just appear to hate me. There was plenty of unreferenced info, I added the citation needed template. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Placing cn tags everywhere is also tendentious, pointy, and disruptive. If you don't stop, I will have no qualms about reporting you at the appropriate noticeboard for disruptive editing. No one "hates" you, but your behavior is definitely disruptive and needs to stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I must ask anyone and everyone to not provide any appearance that I am taking sides in any fight (or potential fight) in which I have no dog, metaphorically. I was helping with Wikicode; nothing more. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You have violated 3RR as well, so... -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

ATinySliver, I'm not saying you're taking a side, I'm saying you didn't object. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but it does give the appearance, so please refrain. That having been said, the tags appear to be correct on first blush; there could even be more in the article. That having been said, the purpose for these tags is to remind ourselves and other editors that (and where) an article needs to be improved. Whenever that is our motivation—as opposed to tagging for its own sake—then it's usually correct. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm don't give a crap bout the previous discussion, your wording is fine, ATinySliver, I dropped it. I'm tagging sections that are unreferenced so editors can improve the article, heck, I may add needs extension tags for those tiny sections. Usually, when I tag something, I get to it eventually and do it myself. The tags just highlight the issues for other people. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

AN/I notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You're doing it again. Please stop. I could have taken you to 3RR previously and chose not to in order to give you a chance to cool off and think about things. Others at AN/I are imploring you to change your behavior. Please don't take things to the next level. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Iconic is still POV, I'm not doing anything wrong because you're not supposed to change anything until discussion on that subjct is done. You've violated 3RR as well, you can't give me warnings when you're doing it too. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Iconic" is not POV. Spock is a television icon, the word is a descriptor. "Best known" is someone's opinion and is not a descriptor. There's a difference. I can give you warnings when what you're doing is not just the action but the behavior is disruptive. And you are being disruptive. Others have also told you the same. As far as not "changing anything", I'm not changing anything that is in dispute. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead, report me, you violated as well. And they're not, there just giving me suggestions on how to edit the page, not on my acclaimed "behavior". And yes, we were discussing best known and Iconic, and you changed it anyway. And nobody besides you has used the word "disruptive", so shut up. Your claim is wrong. And what source shows he's a icon?

Oh, and a quote from your page: "Because those of us on the Spectrum are unfailingly "rule-followers", we are also honest to a fault. When we are accused of lying or intentionally being disruptive or not acting in good faith, it's quite hurtful." -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)