Talk:The Darkside Vol. 1

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

Hip-hop Low‑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 Wikipedia. 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. --STAT- Verse 00:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Darkside (Fat Joe album) → The Dark Side (Fat Joe album) — I made a new page called this because Fat Joe stated on his Twitter that the album was called "The Dark Side"... http://twitter.com/JOEYCRACKTS/status/12606595076 Please put this page over the The Dark Side (Fat Joe album) page. Y5nthon5a (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppisite Done STAT- Verse 04:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What does "Oppisite Done" mean, and why was this pagemove reversed? An explanation would be very helpful, for the benefit of anyone else coming along. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I said that before you did the page move. Someone else created a page with the same exact stuff as this page aleady had and made the move request. I took it to a Admin who merged the two pages history's. The album has been said as The Darkside in most places and it was called The Dark Side on Twitter. So the move was not needed. STAT- Verse 03:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know you said it before I did the page move. I saw it. That doesn't explain what it means. When someone from requested moves comes along, we would like to see something that explains the situation. That's the ideal anyway. The point is to communicate, clearly, and here. Just... next time, try to say more, and explain, for the benefit of everyone else, what's going on. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only put it here in case someone else comes around and wonders what happened STAT- Verse 00:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to clarify - "Opposite done" (I'm assuming that's what you meant to type) means that you moved it back to "Darkside", yes? Spelling it out in detail is a Very Good Idea. The two word phrase "opposite done" is obscure and not very helpful. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. It's clear communication that makes this site work. Full declarative sentences are Very Good. Laying out the relevant facts is Very Good. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singles

Why do you insist on putting bullets points, STATicVerseatide? It is a paragraph not a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.228.20 (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singles Paragraphs are writen in Bullet form so everyone that reads the page knows the split of the singles in case they only want to know about the first or second. STAT -Verse 18:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case why aren't all other album pages the same layout? People can see the two albums easily by the fact that it begins on a new line and is also in the info box to the right. Lists are supposed to be short and identified by a symbol of some sort. The information in the Singles section is quite lengthy, therefore in the context of English grammar isn't a list. If it makes you feel any better you can put a second line break if you so wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.228.20 (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your information you have violated WP:3R. Albums are supposed to be in list form in Singles sections. I could name a lot of albums were its in bullets but to aviod you f'n them up too they won't be named. STAT -Verse 19:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you must know I'm a Fat Joe fan so wouldn't do anything to purposely mess this page up. Look at Joe's other album pages. No bullet points present. It is obvious you do not know much regards English grammar. --94.192.228.20 (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, I should point out that bullet points should not be used, but prose. The fact that other articles use the list format only goes to show that these articles are poorly written. I should also point out that you don't have to violate 3RR in order to get blocked for edit warring. — ξ ^xplicit 19:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Any guideline that says bullets shouldn't be used??? I did'nt think so~~. And for the record i didn't edit war just review the page history. STAT -Verse 19:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but bullets just maks it easier to read. STAT -Verse 20:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided it on my talk page, where you asked. Easier to read? That's subjective. Others may think it's more difficult to read. Also, I count one, two, three reverts by you, STATicVerseatide. — ξ ^xplicit 20:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

READ IT. He added the info about the next single and I put it in Bullets. That wasent a revert of anything. STAT -Verse 20:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STATicVerseatide, reviewing a page history doesn't include constant reverting and reporting a fellow Wikipedia for edit warring without seeking clarification beforehand which you have done. --94.192.228.20 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to do some guideline and policy reading considering you weren't aware of 3R. Do you even know what reviewing page history means? STAT -Verse 20:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the revisions. It's reverting, regardless of whether or not you kept the "undo" in the edit summary or not. Additionally, please keep your condescending comments towards the IP to yourself. Your incivility, along with your personal attacks by calling the user a vandal when they're attempt to make constructive edits, can lead you to a block as well. — ξ ^xplicit 20:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have pressed the UNDO button twice on this acticle. The IP edited like Seven times and after that I fixed the formating. see diff That was NOT a revert because I didnt take out any content or revert anything. The second edits were reverts. STAT -Verse 20:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]