Talk:Perfect Hair (album)

Perfect Hair Forever?
This article was tagged by a bot for WP:ANIM because it has a similar name to the TV series Perfect Hair Forever. Is this article in any way connected to the series? If not, I'll remove the Animation tag. Thanks! Luthien22 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cite web
First of all, TheAmazingPeanuts, when reverting another user's edit (e.g. ), please provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion in the edit summary. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith.

If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the talk page first, and then revert (referencing the talk page in your edit summary), rather than the other way round.

Please refer to Revert only when necessary, which says that it is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. 153.205.9.91 (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding how we use Cite web, we have to follow the instructions written at Template:Cite web. As written at Template:Cite web, the "work" parameter is an alias of the "website" parameter, which is used for the title of a website. ''The "publisher" parameter is used for the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the "publisher" parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website); omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher).''

Now, I support Dan56's edit and can make a compromise there. I just don't understand why TheAmazingPeanuts reverted Dan56's edit and said that "you could just remove 'work' and replace it with 'publisher'". TheAmazingPeanuts, could you explain the reason why you think we should replace the "work" parameter with the "publisher" parameter? Your edit seems to contravene Template:Cite web. If you think Template:Cite web is wrong, what you have to do first is propose a change at Template talk:Cite web. 153.205.9.91 (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It still don't give you any excuses for your behavior on my talk page, that behavior why you got blocked in the first place. I been on Wikipedia for two years now, I edit a lot of pages, and you making a big deal over one simple edit. Maybe try to make a account, I've probably take you seriously. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my behavior on your talk page. However, it does not justify your edits . Could you respond to my question? 153.205.9.91 (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That the way I edit pages on Wikipedia and I never got reverted by other editors for those edits except by you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if never getting reverted by other editors, it cannot be a reason why you edit this article against Template:Cite web. You have to explain the reason why you think we should replace the "work" parameter with the "publisher" parameter. 153.205.9.91 (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I not the only editor who does that, other editors like Koala15 and even Dan56 have edited pages in that style sometimes. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what Koala15 thinks about this issue. Either way, regarding this article, you have reverted Dan56's edit, and I support Dan56's edit . I have no idea why you are claiming that he edits an article your way. I really want to know why you think we should replace the "work" parameter with the "publisher" parameter. As I explained above, your edit contravenes Template:Cite web. 153.205.9.91 (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert Dan56's edit or try to be sneaky about it, I just think the edit I made is a little bit better that way because most articles have it in that style. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * With this edit, you reverted Dan56's edit  and my edit , replacing the "work" parameter with the "publisher" parameter. I doubt that most articles have it in that style, and I believe we have to follow Template:Cite web. 153.205.9.91 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dan56 said how these titles are displayed throughout the article (italicized or not) should be consistent (WP:MOS). Look, I've been on Wikipedia as long then you have never been, and other editors do edit that way. It's just you making a big deal over nothing. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, Dan56's edit is consistent with WP:MOS and Template:Cite web, and I am saying I can compromise with his edit. However, you reverted his edit and my edit, without explaining why. 153.205.9.91 (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you hear me say I didn't revert Dan56 edit? I've already tell before I didn't revert his, I just revert yours. You're not an administrator, anybody have their own way of editing. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, with this edit, you reverted Dan56's edit  and my edit , replacing the "work" parameter with the "publisher" parameter. You have to provide a valid reason why your edit at this article can contravene Template:Cite web. 153.205.9.91 (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How many times I have to tell it to you, I've already explained my reasons why I did those edits. I like to hear a second opinion, instead somebody who got BLOCKED for vandalized my talk page. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you gave us any valid reason why you think you can edit an article against the Wikipedia principles such as Template:Cite web. If you want to hear a second opinion, please feel free to bring this case to Dispute resolution noticeboard. 153.205.9.91 (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is another user who made this edit as similar to my edit. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the template page is not a Wikipedia policy or principle. Use some common sense. What's a more practical concern? A title being italicized consistently throughout an article, or how a template's parameter is applied? The latter isn't even seen by readers, and I've been creative myself in how I use templated citations, so I don't understand the zeal with which the template page is being upheld here. I also know from past experience that there are automated bots that go around articles removing the dashes I originally added to the work parameter. Lastly, the IP user is correct about what the template page says, but I don't follow what it says in my own editing, so I can't side either way. But such a technical concern usually pops up in good article or featured article reviews. Perhaps everyone should just let it go until this article reaches that point in development? Dan56 (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I put you in to this argument. So you saying Template:Cite web is not very important issue? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * TheAmazingPeanuts, I am saying I would like to compromise with Dan56's version. If you object to that version, please explain what you think about Template:Cite web. You have to explain yourself why you are editing this article against Template:Cite web. Indeed, some articles are written your way; other articles are written Dan56's way; other articles are written my way. Just pinging other editors does not solve the issue. Since you are the only user who is editing this article your way, I want to know your opinion first. If you want to hear a second opinion, you can bring this case to Dispute resolution noticeboard. If you think Template:Cite web is wrong, you can propose a change at Template talk:Cite web. 153.203.7.132 (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you not read Dan56's comments on this? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have read his comments above, but I don't think it justifies your edits . If you don't want to compromise with Dan56's version, you have to convince us yourself. 153.203.7.132 (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm done with this crap. You clearly don't won't me to do my work, all you doing is just harassing me for no reason. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)