User talk:MikaSan

Welcome!

Hello, MikaSan, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Fæ (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado

Please quit adding the Nelly Furtado album to the Neptunes discography. The source you are adding does not show that any work ever actually happened, that it is scheduled for any album which will ever be released. Nothing.—Kww(talk) 12:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Your addition about Nelly was also bad. There is nothing at http://bbcicecream.com/blog/2011/10/17/studio-time-5/#more-26328 that says anything at all about the 7th studio album, and it's a blog, anyway. Please review WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL, and stop adding rumours about future events to articles.—Kww(talk) 16:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, please stop doing this. The source doesn't meet WP:RS. Even if it did, there isn't enough material to add anything meaningful. Don't add rumours and uncertain things to articles. Limit yourself to verifiable facts.—Kww(talk) 04:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please pay attention to these messages. Please respond. Please read WP:RS. Information from neptunes.org cannot be added to Wikipedia. It's an unofficial fansite. Only add information you can find a reliable, third-party source for the information. Not a fansite.—Kww(talk) 11:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Backing up Kww's comments. Fansite rumors/unsourced stuff is just going to be removed. Please also use the show preview button when editing, instead of making many small saves/edits. This will prevent the edit history from becoming cluttered with a zillion changes. Thanks. - eo (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Add the sources first. Do not continually readd the information without adding the sources. There's just no excuse for this: you cannot add material sourced to a fansite to Wikipedia, especially not information sourced to a fansite that you are responsible for. Don't continuously add the material unless you add reliable, third-party sources that actually support the material you are adding at the same time. I've asked you to read WP:RS, and I'm asking you to read WP:BURDEN at the same time. You have to provide reliable sources for this information.—Kww(talk) 19:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't fix every article at once, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't fix anything at all. Feel free to add reliably sourced information to any article you choose.—Kww(talk) 15:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Was there some misunderstanding about the phrase "reliably sourced"? Have you reviewed WP:RS? Why did you think simply readding all that material was acceptable when you cannot point to a reliable source for any of it?—Kww(talk) 18:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If 3/4 of them cannot be confirmed, then 3/4 of them need to be removed. For the songs that have been released, aren't they on the production credits?—Kww(talk) 21:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I will review them again over the weekend. I will remove all references to fansites, so don't add those back, and I will remove all songs I can't verify. I know it feels like I'm picking on you, but it isn't a personal thing: I just noticed that the article had become full of things which went against our policies.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Finding a reliable source can be hard, but you had some in your last effort: articles in Complex magazine and Wave newspapers. There's no magic: it's just using Google and other search engines to find what you are looking for in established magazine and newpaper sites.—Kww(talk) 23:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Frustration

Hello, MikaSan. I noticed your post over at Kww's Talk page and I thought I'd drop you a note which may help. It's a bit long, but having seen the size of that discography, I don't thing a lot of text will scare you.

First of all, I should mention that I edited your posts a bit to make them easier to understand. I didn't change any words or spelling, but I did separate the examples you listed by giving them bullets (an asterisk as the first character in a line makes the line a bulleted list item) and I trimmed the http junk of the full URLs to make them internal wikilinks.

The other thing I did was to add signatures for your posts so that Kww or any other user (1) knows who wrote the text; (2) can click to your Talk page through the links that are part of a signature; can tell when the posts were added. You can (and should) do this in the future when posting on user pages (including your own). It's really easy, all you do is add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post, and the mediawiki software does the rest! Your tildes get replaced by sig links and a timestamp.

But about frustration: I see you have been working steadily on The Neptunes discography since at least May 2010. I can understand that you'd be upset when so much of your work gets deleted (some editors go into a fury when you change just one of the sentences!), but for better or worse, it's how a wiki like this works. And, usually it's for the better, even when it causes ulcers and high blood pressure in the editors, because the extra eyes and hands usually lead to an improved article. (The obvious exception is a deletion or addition by vandals, but Kww is no more a vandal than you are.)

So my advice is to take a deep breath, calm down (if you haven't already), and take a closer look at the reasons for Kww's recent deletions. They certainly weren't meant to aggravate you! He was thoughtful enough to provide clear edit summaries, so you should be able to just what he was getting at. And I can confirm what he says: we really need to have only verifiable content based on reliable sources in our articles. That means blogs and fansites are not accepted (not even yours). It also means anybody can delete unsourced material when they see it, especially if they've given enough notice.

From what I've seen here and in the edit summaries, I think you had that chance, but didn't react quickly enough, so Kww moved into action on The Neptunes discography. It could have been me, or any other editor. When that happens, though, try not to let your frustration boil over into a rude posting or insulting edit summary (or whatever); check that you do indeed have reliable sources, or find them, and then confidently re-add the material that you can actually verify.

And that's how we build a great encyclopedia. Keep up your hard work in that direction! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, as I see you made some edits to The Neptunes discography while I was composing the note above on my steam-powered computer, I have another, serious word of advice: Re-adding all the material that Kww just cleaned out as unsourced with only a small percentage of new references is a Really Bad Idea. I suggest you revert your edits yourself and then re-add the few things you've sourced (easier option), or go in now and remove every last bit of content you just re-added without any reference whatsoever (much harder option). The fact that fansites aren't accepted as reliable sources does not mean the solution is to remove the refs to the fansites. Good luck, and remember to add the refs before or with the content, not after. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado

You need to find a reliable source that shows a recording was actually made. Not that the Neptunes thought about it, or that someone hired them to make it, or that they were seen in a studio, but that the recording was actually made.—Kww(talk) 22:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Confused about format of The Neptunes discography

Hello, MikaSan. I apologize in advance for the length of this message, but I'd like to clearly explain my confusion. I hope you will read through it all.

At The Neptunes discography, the short little intro says, "Singles are in bold, album names/releases are in italics." This is a little weird, since the Wikipedia Manual of Style tells us that album titles are (automatically and naturally) in italics (so this is right, but we don't need to say so), and that song titles (be they singles or not) should have quotation marks around them. The use of bold should really be reserved for headings and the first mention of the article's subject. However, I understand that the bold currently in the article is trying to communicate something (i.e., that the songs were singles).

The problem is that I can't make out the format of the entries. Look at this excerpt that I've copied from that page:

1991

S.B.I. (Surrounded By Idiots) - Surrounded By Idiots (Studio Session)

• Skull, Caps & Strip Shirts (Samples Michael Jackson's Human Nature)
• If Ur Freaky Baby (Samples Michael Jackson's Lady In My Life)
• It's Like That (Samples Patrice Rushen's You Remind Me)

(All Tracks Produced By DJ Timmy Tim aka Timbaland)

1992

The Party - All About Love (CDM)

• All About Love feat. Magnum, The Verb Lord (aka Pharrell) (Future Mix)

(Produced By Teddy Riley, Additional Drums By Pharrell Williams)

Wreckx N' Effect - Hard Or Smooth (November 24)

• New Jack Swing Part II
• Rump Shaker (#2 US R&B/Hip Hop) (Single) (August 25)

(Produced By Teddy Riley, Written By Pharrell Williams)

I know next to nothing about these artists and their works (okay, I admit I may have heard of Michael Jackson). But I understand these are some works that are supposed to be published musical works (it's a discography) that were written or produced by Williams, Hugo, both, or as The Neptunes (as per the revised intro). The works were apparently published/released in 1991 and 1992, as indicated by the headings. And I guess the things in italics are albums. That much seems pretty clear.

Then I get lost. The very first thing, S.B.I. (Surrounded By Idiots), is in bold, so I understand it's a single. It appears to come from the album called Surrounded By Idiots (Studio Session). But what are the lines that follow? Is Skull, Caps & Strip Shirts a song? It's not in bold (but doesn't have quotation marks, either) so I guess it's a non-single song. But what is its relation to S.B.I. (Surrounded By Idiots)?

Skull, Caps & Strip Shirts has a note, apparently telling me that the song(?) samples Michael Jackson's Human Nature). "Human Nature" is linked, so if I click through I see that it's a single, which explains the bold. But why is Michael Jackson bold? He's no single, and he's not the subject of the article.

Then comes "If Ur Freaky Baby", without quotation marks, which might be another song title. Apparently it samples Michael Jackson's Lady In My Life. Again, Jackson is unnecessarily bold (and needn't be linked again). But "Lady In My Life", which I happen to know is a song on Thriller, is also marked in bold, although it was never released as a single.

This strangeness goes on through most of the article, which makes it very confusing. On top of everything else, none of this stuff has any reliable sourcing, so maybe it ought to just be deleted instead of reformatted. It's not clear what The Neptunes had to do with the 1991 entries anyway; the note says that "all tracks" were produced by Timbaland, so again I guess we're talking about multiple songs, but what did the Neptunes have to do with them?

Could you take some time and delete the unsourced and uncertain material (it can always be re-added later when we have references) and use proper formatting to clarify the rest? It would really make a big improvement to the article. I'm watching your page, so if you want to reply, explain or ask questions about the above, you can do it here. Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)