User talk:GTH25

GTH25, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi GTH25! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm Binksternet. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Bad 25, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! GTH25 (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Michael (album) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The first edit was about the album type. The second edit was about put Michael Jackson's name first in the producer section. Two unrelated edits. GTH25 (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. 3 revisions on the same article is classified as edit warring. You should communicate more with other editors to prevent such situations arising. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 14:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Like I said before, two unrelated edits. And yes I will. GTH25 (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael Jackson albums

GTH25, you cannot just disregard WP:CONSENSUS. If you have a problem with a consensus established, it would be more appropriate to start a new discussion with evidence to support your claim. Also, I advise reading WP:WIN. In this case, consensus determined that Michael was a compilation album not because of new material, but because they were from various points in his career and were not necessarily recorded for the same album. If the songs were all recorded for the same album, calling it a "studio album" would have more merit. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Another Part of Me" wasn't recorded for the Bad album. "Streetwalker" was suppose to be on the Bad album but it was replaced by "Another Part of Me". That doesn't make Bad a compilation album. It doesn't matter when he recorded the songs, just as long as they weren't released before. GTH25 (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Time of recording aside, the major thing is that the Michael songs were not recorded with the intention of being released on the same album. If they had been, it could've been a studio album or EP. Since this was not the case, it was a compilation album. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Neither was "Another Part of Me" for Bad and "Come Together" for HIStory. If a singer records a song three years ago and decides to use four of the songs he recorded at that time for his new studio album, that doesn't stop the studio album from being a studio album. GTH25 (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Depends on how many tracks an album has. If an album has 20 songs which includes perhaps 5 or 6 previously recorded songs, that would be one thing. On the other hand, if 12 out of those 20 songs were from previous eras, not really studio, particularly if the eras were scattered. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It would still be a studio album. Studio albums contain new music. Compilation albums contain previously release music. Live albums contain live music. GTH25 (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Newly released material doesn't always indicate studio album. You've likely confused it with the idea of something like how High Hopes by Bruce Springsteen was a collection of previously unreleased songs that were re-recorded and released for the album. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

What Bruce Springsteen did was re-record and rework the songs for the album. The songs were still written and recorded beforehand just not released. He could've release those songs the way they were and it would still be a studio album. GTH25 (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The difference is Springsteen did so specifically for the album. The songs on Michael were not all intended specifically for one particular album. If the majority of the Michael songs were SPECIFICALLY INTENDED for one particular album, it would be studio. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. "Another Part of Me" wasn't specifically intended for Bad and "Come Together" wasn't specifically intended for HIStory and they're studio albums. A studio album is still a studio album. No need for all capitalize words, or bold words or unnecessary italicize words. GTH25 (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If one or two songs were not specifically intended for one album, that's one thing. But if the majority of songs on an album were not intended for that album, it's a different situation...... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if all or none of the songs were specifically intended for one album. The songs are new so it's a studio album not a compilation of previously released songs that everyone has heard before. Studio albums contain new music that wasn't released before. GTH25 (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

NO guess work - all we can do is regurgitate what the sources say - we must stick to the sources (see WP:STICKTOSOURCE). We have sources like the fact Rolling Stone magazine noted: "He would not have released anything like this compilation". Your personally are free to disagree with the most popular music magazine in the world - but here at Wikipedia we have no choice but to call it what the industry does. If there are sources that dispute this fact then we cam talk - but reverting based on your personal interpretation of what a studio album is not how it works here. -- Moxy (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a guess work. Well this is a time when Rolling Stone is wrong. They're wrong about the album type. They can't say "He would not have released anything like this" because they don't what Michael Jackson would or would not have done. Michael is a studio album of new music, not a compilation of past songs that everybody has heard. What past albums were "Hold My Hand", "Best of Joy" and "Behind the Mask" in before? GTH25 (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@GTH25: Allow me to explain as I was one of the original editors who brought up the whole Compilation versus Studio Album thing. A studio album is curated by the artist or by an A&R agent (the person at the label who helps artists find songs, contacts producers etc). The Michael was a collection of songs recorded across the span of Jackson's career - he was not involved in the decisions around the mixing, mastering or creation of the track listing. The choice of songs was done by people who were not involved in any of the original recording sessions, they curated a list of songs that were never intended to be released together as a single body of work. Without the intent to produce a cohesive album from the artist or A&R label of the time Michael cannot be considered a studio album. By its nature, it is a collection of unreleased songs packaged together, and thus it is compilation of unreleased recordings. Without Jackson's permission it is impossible to say whether any of the recordings were supposed to appear on the same album. By its very nature it is a compilation album, songs from different periods of time, from different recording sessions etc, packaged together to form a single album. This is much the same as any artist that releases a greatest hits album - its songs from all periods, all producers etc.

A studio album entails a set of recording sessions with an intent to produce recordings for a specific album release/body of work. We should really consider a separate type of album called "Posthumous" but until there is widespread acceptance of that as a new type of album for the infobox, compilation is the next best fit. My opinion is the majority, amongst editors and critics alike. As noted above, there was support by revered industry music critics. I haven't seen anything from you that coherently presents an argument for why Michael is a studio album, plus what makes you more qualified to decide what the status of the album is? Do you write for World renowned media publishers such as the BBC and Rollingstone? Do you have years of music journalism experience? Even if that is established, we do things on wikipedia by WP:CONSENSUS - after discussion and careful consideration of third-party reliable sources. If you present a discussion (that doesn't belittle others, that is referenced and sourced by reliable sources) then other maybe willing to consider your point of view however, I will warn you that there has already been a very extensive discussion about this and the consensus was pretty clear. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can ask you the same questions. what makes you more qualified to decide what the status of the album is? Do you write for World renowned media publishers such as the BBC and Rollingstone? Do you have years of music journalism experience? One thing we both have in common: we're Wikipedia editors. Michael is a posthumous studio album: a studio album that is released after the singer's death. A posthumous studio album isn't going to have the artist's complete vision for the album and some songs are going to be from different periods. Michael is a studio album of new music, not a compilation of past songs that everybody has heard. What past albums were "Hold My Hand", "Best of Joy" and "Behind the Mask" in before? GTH25 (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying I am more qualified. I am merely pointing you to the consensus that the community agreed with based on the opinions of publications such as Rollingstone and the BBC. You seem to have completely ignored that it is not me nor or other editors who are saying it is a compilation album, rather it is the consensus that was formed from the majority of reliable publications. drop the stick → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 12:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Dont get yourself blocked - talk it out - gain consensus before moving forward with the same thing

}

Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block.

The three-revert rule states:

-- Moxy (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been talking it out. Why single me out? What about the other editors who are also engage in edit warring? GTH25 (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the link provided in the edit summary ?

Did you take the time to read over Talk:Michael (album)/Archive 2#End the Edit War - Studio vs Compilation - if you think there is new evidence then start a new talk - on that talk page. We have basic conduct expectations for ALL editors as seen at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - again I think your edits are in good faith and dont want to see you blocked over something to trivial

Yes I have. It wasn't correct. Did you saw the source I provided? Here it is. Michael is in the discography section along with other studio albums such as Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad etc. GTH25 (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok so your saying that you dont care about what the community has decided in the past? Just wnat to be clear what your plans are here - are you willing to follow our process and gain new consensus or are you just going to keep reverting? -- Moxy (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth. I read it and it's not correct since Michael is a studio album and not a compilation. Yes I want a new consensus. As long as anybody doesn't change it to compilation, there will be no reverting. And didn't you saw the source? GTH25 (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I am getting others involved - pls see Talk:Xscape (album)#what sort of album is Xscape ? (my post at the bottom of the thread) -- Moxy (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? Let's talk about this between you and me. GTH25 (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

We need others involved as you think Rolling stone magazine or the BBC is not a reliable source - yet think some poster is. I think you need to hear from others what they think about this. Pls in the future DONT delete or change other peoples comments as you did here. -- Moxy (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Like I said before, don't put words into my mouth. I never said I don't think Rolling Stone or BBC are not reliable sources. Didn't you read what I said it was? It's a page from the official Immortal show program. It has Michael Jackson's studio albums discography with Epic Records and it has the studio albums from Off the Wall to Michael. You can't get any more official than Michael Jackson products from Michael Jackson. GTH25 (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It does not say that they are studio or compilations in anyway whatsoever - just an image. Can we get you to read over Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. -- Moxy (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It says Michael Jackson discography - even in French. Neither does discography sections in Wikipedia but people know they're studio albums. There is no Number Ones or The Essential Michael Jackson in the discography section of the Immortal show program. Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad, Dangerous, HIStory, Invincible, Michael - all studio albums. GTH25 (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

People aren't always referring to studio albums when talking about discography, just saying. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

that is what we call original research. RCA records claimed that Christina Aguilera's album Lotus was her fifth album here, yet we all know that it is her 7th album because in edition to five English language albums, she has released one Spanish album and one Christmas album yet her label don't count these as studio albums. We need to all move on from this conversation, as it is so over. @GTH25: if you still won't drop the stick then open a brand new discussion at Talk:Michael (Michael Jackson album) and we'll all vote on it per WP:CONSENSUS but until we see a clear cut discussion where the majority of editors want the album to be called a Studio Album it won't happen. Given the number of reliable sources that already call the album a compilation album, this is unlikely to happen. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 12:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If you do open up a new discussion, remember that winning isn't everything. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

See also Wikipedia:Editing policy

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.

A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following:

1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.
2. Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
3. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
4. Does not engage in consensus building:

   a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;

   b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

5. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

--Moxy (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I just want Michael and Xscape to be correctly as studio albums. Please. Is that too much to ask for? :( GTH25 (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

All we can do is regurgitate what reliable sources say - not about what we would like to see. A proportional poster - the source you have provided thus far - is not a real source. Even Jackson's official twitter page said "that a new compilation album, comprised of previously unreleased songs by the man himself, will be out May 13th." as reported here. You will need sources and a new tlak to change anything. -- Moxy (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't a promotional poster. It is a page from the official Immortal show program. Here's the show program with some viewable pages including the discography page that has only his studio albums listed including Michael. Nowhere in Michael Jackson's Official Twitter do they call it a compilation album. That source is lying! It doesn't matter if Xscape was released after Michael Jackson's death, it still is a studio album. GTH25 (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Final warning regarding posthumous Michael Jackson albums

Wikipedia is not about what you want to see, your opinion that they are "correctly label as studio albums" is just that... an opinion, It is about what the community (as a whole), supported by reliable sources think. It has been explained here and at Talk:Xscape (album) several times and you have failed to listen or gain a WP:CONSENSUS. If you change either Michael or Xscape to studio album again, I will have no choice but to report you to administrators and there is a strong possibility you could be blocked, or banned from editing. Please consider this your final warning → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 10:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Lil-unique1 For what? For correcting the album type of Michael and Xscape to studio album (an album of new music) instead of compilation album (an album of previously released songs). GTH25 (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

GTH25 therein lies the problem if you think you're at risk of being blocked for "changing the album type" on Michael and Xscape. The issue isnt that you want to make a change, the issue is the way youare going about it. You're one editor taking on the world in terms of reliable sources and a general consensus. The way you have gone about it was disruptive. When there are multiple reliable sources involved it comes down to community consensus - a discussion of opinins which is weighted according to both the number of people holding each opinionand the reliable spurces they provide as evidence. Repeatedly stating a point witgout consensus but findinga relevant source is original research. Also, your definition of studio and compilation albums is incorrect. The term studio album came from differentiating between an album recorded in a studio (studio album) and a live album (the recording of live performances). A compilation album is a collection fo recordings from multiple albums or eras which may have been previously releaeed before. Compilation albums often include remixes, rarities, b-sides and left over songs as well as newly recorded material. Also albums that contain cover songs are considered studio albums and they contain previously recorded and released songs so again you are mistaken. Both Michael and Xacape more closely resemble a compilation album because they contain recordings from multiple eras, recording sessions and periods of time. They contain recordings that maybe have never been intended to be released on the same album of material. Now aftwr reading all of the above, and all of the discussions on this topic you really have only two options: 1) if you are not willing to accept the comments above, open a discussion at Talk:Xscape (album) and see if there is a consensus for your opinion (I'll add that at this stage your view is an opinion not a fact) 2) continue to disrupt wikipedia which will result in us asking for a WP:TOPICBAN whereby you will be disallowed from editing articles related to the topic as you cannot adhere to a consensus. Failure to adhere to that would result in a website-wide block. Id ask you to consider whether this is worth being blocked for? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 18:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:GTH25/sandbox (April 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GTH25/sandbox.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to link to the submission!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

LA Reid Credit

According to the references, Reid compiled the album and oversaw production (executively produced) the album. It would be wrong to list Reid as a producer because at the present moment in time we don't know if he worked on individual songs or the album as a whole. Also, as we have a compiler field we should List Reid there. If it turns out he produced songs too thn we can add him back to the producer field. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 11:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

K. GTH25 (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:COI

Hello, GTH25. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:GTH25/sandbox

Hello GTH25. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "sandbox".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:GTH25/sandbox}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. C679 20:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)