Talk:Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded/Archive 2

Edit Request
Please re-add the deluxe edition and the 'Re-Up' covers as they are relevant and should be on the page like they used to be. I don't understand why they were taken off?? 124.186.137.129 (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Singles
What is The Boys doing in singles?The Boys is from The Re-Up,not from PF:RR!What about to add Automatic?Automatic is only a single in France! --Nikinikolananov (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Re-Up is a re-release of PF:RR which means its singles are also PF:RR's singles, that is why 'The Boys' is on there Whatever318 (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Bonus songs from rereleases of albums that were released as singles are excluded (Template:Infobox album) Dan56 (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

And why don't we do the singles thing to like like this: --Nikinikolananov (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Stupid Hoe (Promotional)
 * 2) Starships
 * 3) Roman Reloaded (Promotional)
 * 4) Right by My Side
 * 5) Beez in the Trap
 * 6) Pound the Alarm
 * 7) The Boys (The Re-Up)
 * 8) Va Va Voom
 * 9) Marilyn Monroe (song)

The Re Up Tracklist
Somebody please add it, it was released today http://www.sohh.com/2012/10/nicki_minaj_pops_the_pink_top_off.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieee13 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please Add 'The Re-Up' tracklist
The re up tracklist was released today, please add it. http://www.sohh.com/2012/10/nicki_minaj_pops_the_pink_top_off.html

Charlieee13 (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That website is NOT a reliable source, once Nicki CONFIRMS the tracklist or it comes from an actual RELIABLE source and not a blog who gets it's information from other unreliable websites.--1flyguyrob (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.allmusic.com/album/release/pink-friday-roman-reloaded-re-up-2cd-1dvd-mr0003797862. Is is a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.132.204 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * . No, it's not for this purpose. Pretty much the only reliable source for the track listing would be Nicki herself, or her record label, or a major news agency (CNN, The Wall Street Journal, Billboard (news, not forums), etc.) gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 00:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Electropop songs

 * Diff in question. Dan56 (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Rather than engage in a fruitless edit war, I'll discuss this here. I re-added a portion of the my edit that Dan removed, because I believe it is reliably sourced and is not a "synthesis" as other editors seem to suggest. According to this source, various songs on the album are in the electropop genre. These are the specific songs mentioned: "HOV Lane", "Whip It", "Automatic", "Come On A Cone", "Young Forever", and "Fire Burns". I understand that I misrepresented this source in regards to Pink Friday being predominantly electropop. I'm not interested in defending that point any more, to be honest. In regards to calling "Roman Holiday" and "Beez in the Trap" electropop, a review at Allmusic and another one at Rolling Stone are used in the article to back up this claim. I'm not entirely sure how this is original research. It seems more that someone just doesn't like their fave being called electropop. I'm interested in adding this information to the article because I have been editing Synthpop lately and helping populate the Category:Synthpop musicians category. As outlined on Talk:Nicki Minaj, it (so far) has been determined that Nicki Minaj's works widely incoporate this genre, so I've been working to improve the coverage of that on articles related to her and other artists. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Where in any of the sources you cited does it say "Widely recognized as a rap artist, Minaj heavily lends herself to electronic music genres"? You're advancing a position not supported by the source cited, which is original research. You're also using sources which are not the most reliable around; blogs like The Boombox? Idolator (website)? Per WP:NOR, "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". The sentence introducing the composition section ("Stylistically, Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded is divided by...) was formulated from its mention in several premier review publications, from which I used the LAtimes source to cite. There has to be a single source that says explicitly that this is an electrpop album, not combining one source that says these two songs are electropop in a review of an album with 19 songs, with another source that says another two are electropop. As an aside, "Romand Holiday" and "Beez in the Trap" have their own articles, so that information belongs there, not as an overview of the album's music/lyrics here. Dan56 (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In short, the majority of the most reliable review sources say something along the lines of one-half hip hop and one-half dance or pop, usually one of the two. If there is a minority view, then quote them (WP:FRINGE), but no source you cited says "...especially electropop, on Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded", or "pervasively toiled in...", which you combined with "Widely recognized as a rap artist...", as a whole not supported by a source. BTW, the closest thing mentioned in the Allmusic source to "electropop" is "there's vaudeville-hop opener 'Roman Holiday' where the rapper/singer adds performance artist to the list by doing a British constable impression over knotty electro," while the Rolling Stone review says "electro-rap boastfests", so there are other issues as well. Dan56 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, if you feel an edit war is unnecessary, wait for a response and subsequent discussion to develop before restoring your changes. I'll promptly respond back, or let you know when I can or am available online. Dan56 (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the article
Hey guys, I was suggesting to split the articles off Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded and the re-release Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded - The Re-Up.

There's too much information for either article. Plus I was searching some info about the re-release. The Roman Reloaded and The Re-Up both have articles from Metacritic and is very hard to have in both articles.
 * Link for The Re-Up on Metacritic
 * Link for Roman Reloaded on Metacritic

Another reason for the split is the single releases, especially in the infobox. There have been alot of vandalism against the infobox for the singles, which have been untrue, true and just completely unjustified.

Critics which i've research such as Allmusic and Digital Spy have referenced The Re-Up as an Extended Play, so I believe it should be a split article. Who Supports or is Against this? GirlsAlouud (talk &middot; &#32;contribs} 02:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I'd support that. Dan56 (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support just like Versus (EP) &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  15:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, the article is just too packed the way it is. Separating the article will bring both back down to an appropriate size. 68DANNY2 (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly support The article is already big enough, and box sets such as 3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album) have their own page, but the difference is that it has lot's of new material and info to support it's own page.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Assuming the article will be split, would it be categorized as a box set or an EP? Both terms can be applied to the product, being packaged as three discs but containing only eight new tracks. To avoid any editing conflict, it might make sense to come to a consensus beforehand. 68DANNY2 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but the disc 1 (8 new tracks) isn't available as a stand alone disc is it? Treat is as Versus (EP) / Raymond v. Raymond by Usher. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  23:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Va Va Voom
Lately, there have been numerous conflicting edits as to whether or not "Va Va Voom" is a single from Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded, The Re-Up, or both. It is apparent that there has been no decision made on how to categorize it, because the information changes every day. It would make sense to come up with a consensus and stick with it. 68DANNY2 (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Included on the deluxe edition, which is not a re-release, so yeah, it belongs in the singles template. Dan56 (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It needs a source to verify that it was released, though, which isnt in this article. The one used at Va Va Voom is for radio releases and doesnt have a date. Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You can see the date here.108.69.24.180 (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Revision summary, December 4, 2012
I couldn't fit all this in the edit summary field, so I've referenced that comment over to this post:

In response to the tags at the top of the article, I tried to establish a more appropriate tone throughout the article, rewording sections that used "unencyclopedic" language. In the process, I came across a dead link, and seeing as though there was another reference for the same topic, the dead link was removed. Also, "Marilyn Monroe" has not been confirmed as a single. Like my description says, Nicki wanting it to be is one thing, and an actual release is another. It was removed from the singles template and the section stating that the song "has to be" a single has been replaced by a sentence expressing her desire, with its reference still included.

Until it has been decided that the article has been revised enough to remove the tags, I have left them on the top of the page. Let me know if there are any further revisions I can assist with to improve the article. Thanks, 68DANNY2 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Automatic
Add Automatic to the singles list. It was released in France instead of Va Va Voom. Add it to the singles or it will be an incomplete article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceCowboyz (talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please cite a source proving what you say (WP:V) Dan56 (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Single Trouble
If I Am Your Leader is not a single, why is it listed as one — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisWiltroutzzz (talk • contribs) 21:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Fire Burns
Fire Burns is song from Trinidad rapper Nicki Minaj. A poll was posted from Minaj to have her fans decide the next single(s). It was divided into three groups. The first group was a choice between: "Marilyn Monroe", "Young Forever", "Fire Burns", and "Gun Shot". "Marilyn Monroe" came in first place, "Young Forever" came in 2nd, "Fire Burns" 3rd, and "Gun Shot" 4th. Since Fire Burns did not win the poll, it would not have a music video and would not become a single, despite the fact that rumors said it will. Fire burns is a song about Minaj getting over a bad break up, and she says that her boyfriend will pay the consequences for what he did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.126.186 (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

HOV Lane
"HOV Lane" is a song from Trinidad rapper Nicki Minaj. HOV Lane is a song that talks about Minaj having a fast car and that it's faster than her haters. HOV Lane was one of the songs that questionable if it was going to have a music video and becoming a single or not. It was entered in a poll with tweo other songs. Those songs were: "I Am Your Leader" and "Champion". Champion won the poll. However Champion did NOT become a single because it conflicted with another song that was suppose to become a single and have a music video: "The Boys". Champion wasn't the only song that has been canceled due to certain reasons. "Marilyn Monroe", "Roman Holiday", and "Whip It" were also canceled to become singles and have music videos. Back to "HOV Lane". Being unsuccesful in the first round, HOV Lane was given a second chance to become a single. "HOV Lane" was going against, "Sex In The Lounge", "Whip It", "Come On A Cone", "Roman Holiday", and "Beautiful Sinner." HOV Lane came in 4th place unfortunately so now it will not have a video or become a single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.126.186 (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Please add a link of valad proof of this poll — Preceding unsigned comment added by PartOfCheysWorld (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

 * Original
 * Muzeeenoze's revision

Dan56 again misses the point. I'm not concerned with your "additions" to the Springsteen article. I'm noting that you have not registered the same complaint as you do here, and you have not tried to "fix" the Springsteen page, yet you block and vandalize the Minaj page when I attempt to balance the Review section in the same way. Your gender and racial bias are evident. Either fix the Springsteen page, or stop vandalizing my fair edits.

For the forum, the following is a more concise synopsis of my dispute with Dan56:

Dan56 responds to me: "You're trying to overemphasis two reviews (Rolling Stone and Spin) to make them seem more flattering of the article's subject, and tactlessly rearranging positive criticism ahead of quotes from mixed reviews, which Metacritic clearly shows are the majority." However, Dan56 has no such qualms when editing Caucasian male artists, such as Bruce Springsteen. Springsteen's album, Human touch, received "mixed" review from Metacritic, and a 4-star review from Rolling Stone. Just as did Nicki Minaj. Yet, here is how the Review Section appears after Dan56's edits as of yesterday: "Human Touch's release was met with a generally mixed critical reception.[citation needed] Allmusic described the album as "generic pop" and "his first that didn't at least aspire to greatness." Rolling Stone gave the album 4 stars and noted that the songs "explore the movement from disenchanted isolation to a willingness to risk love and its attendant traumas again." The review also stated that the title track "stands among Springsteen's best work." The album is generally disliked by Springsteen fans and was recently ranked last among his 17 albums by the website Nerve. Regarding the bad reputation of this record and Lucky Town among his fans Springsteen said: "I tried it [writing happy songs] in the early '90s and it didn't work; the public didn't like it."[6]

Dan56 does not cite the page for "tactlessly rearranging positive criticism ahead of quotes from mixed reviews." Dan56 is clearly presenting a double-standard. One for African American female Rappers, such as Nicki Minaj, and one for Caucasian male rockers, such as Bruce Springsteen. The Springsteen Review section contains exactly 4 sentences, the second and third of which are devoted to the positive Rolling Stone review. That's exactly one half of the Review section devoted to a "minority" opinion. In the Minaj Review Section, there are 7 sentences in the first paragraph, none of which Dan56 "allows" positive reviews, and in fact insists on deleting the "positive" part of the mixed reviews, rendering them "negative," which contradicts his own assertion that the reviews were essentially "mixed.  A "mixed" review, must by necessity, contain "positive" and "negative" elements.  We'll see how deep Dan56's bias goes when I add the award section, noting that Roman Reloaded won the Billboard award for Top Rap Album, and won the American Music Award for Favorite Rap Hip Hop Album, while also being nominated for Favorite Pop/Rock Album. Perhaps Dan56 will find mentioning such awards "tactless."

By a show of hands (or comments), does this revision to the article's "critical reception" section smack of POV content removal (WP:VNT), editorializing (WP:WORDS), and undue weight to minority viewpoints (WP:UNDUE)? Oh, and being neutral in form, considering most of the reviews that the album received were "mixed", as verified by Metacritic and The Independent, both of which are cited in the article, yet the editor seems to overlook that ("using metacritic is lazy"?), along with a few other reliable third-party sources (GoogleNews' index of sources, The Huffington Post) Dan56 (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Muzeeenoze's revision is clearly a "fan edition" of the truth; removing negative information about the album (such as it's mixed score), and replacing the information with full, long quotations from a few reviewers who were positive about this release. They should be issued a warning about neutrality. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 06:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Having examined this matter, I have reached the same conclusions as Dan56 and Statυs. Since Muzeeenoze is not taking the time to discuss this dispute, other than this post on Dan56's talk page, and keeps reverting, this needs to be taken to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents...especially the latter if the former does not generate any help. Flyer22 (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dan56 and Status. Muzeeenoze's revision is nothing more than a fan trying to embellish the reception from "mixed" to "positive," violating NPOV in the process. As Flyer22 said, if this continues, the matter should be taken at ANI if discussion here or on any relevant talk page is not successful. — ΛΧΣ  21  06:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Following a review of the edits, I definitely have to agree with the general feeling that this user has been (not-too-subtly) trying to alter general critical consensus of the album from mixed to positive. Holiday56 (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. I'm sorry, I did not realize I should answer on this page. I replied several times to Dan56 directly, and he ignored my replies. Here are two items which Dan56 has a problem with. A quote by David Jeffries of AllMusic states: "Cut the iffy pop off these 19 tracks and you're left with Roman's true four-star empire, but as it is, Roman Reloaded is a frustrating mix of significant and skippable." Dan56 insists I not use the full quote, and keeps removing the part about "four-star empire." In fact, that is the author's main point, and of several critics. The "pop" songs diminished an album that would otherwise be great. In the Jody Rosen review by Rollilng Stone, Dan56 mocked my inclusion next to the 4-star review of indicating the review means "Excellent." Without context, the number of stars do not connote anything. Rolling stone defines 4 stars in their system as meaning "Excellent." In no case have I tried to imply the album was reviewed uniformly, or overwhelmingly positive. I adhered to the general consensus that the reviews are "mixed." However, Dan56 insists that "mixed" means "negative." He repeatedly removes "positive" reviews" from the top paragraph, insisting that I am "spinning" the results by doing so. The "Reviews" Box on the right side of the page, lists 7 positive reviews, and 3 average or negative. When I wrote that there are 27 positive or average reviews, versus 3 negative review on Metacritic, Dan56 again complains I am spinning" by giving the actual facts. Keep in mind, I did not remove the overall score of 60%, even though it can be argued that the less stellar number is arrived at by including reader reviews, which are not permitted. I also must say that I do not appreciate that several of you have accused me of being a "fan," which, aside from being irrelevant, is intended to impugn my integrity. Wikipedia is not "professional" as such, and the designation of the word "fan" to be used as an insult is contrary to Wikipedia's stated mission of being inclusive. In fact, the idea of "Visual" editing is to include more nontechnical types of people, and welcome their input. I'm in fact not a "fan" of Ms. Minaj, per se. I am, however, an opponent of biased, myopic editing being exhibited by a few. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzeeenoze (talk • contribs) 22:14, 8 July 2013‎ (UTC)


 * We are being objective, which is why you're revision is not being accepted. You're trying to overemphasis two reviews to make them seem more flattering of the article's subject, and tactlessly rearranging positive criticism ahead of quotes from mixed reviews, which Metacritic clearly shows are the majority (yellow anyone?) and a reliable third-party source explicitly states the album received (which is cited). We're not giving undue weight to minority viewpoints. Considering the characterizations of the reviews by Metacritic (mixed, positive, etc.) the section appropriately leads off quoting three mixed reviews, one negative, one more mixed review, and another negative in the first paragraph. The ratings template shows 5 mixed reviews, 4 positive, and 1 negative. And last but not least, you were notified twice at your talk page to consider the talk page, as well as twice in my edit summaries. Your rant-like, oddly explained edit summaries don't seem like direct replies and evoked a different sentiment than the one you left here at my talk page saying I had made a great point. Dan56 (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Dan56 continues to show his bias, and refuses to address the specific examples I gave of his impartiality, while again making personal insults. Let me ask the "forum" something- if I add the FACT that the album won the Billboard Award for Top Rap Album, won the American Music Award for Favorite Rap/Hip Hop album, and was nominated for Favorite pop/rock album, will you allow Dan56 to delete that also? Dan56 is showing intense bias, and it should not be supported. Read Dan56's own words in this section. He says: "The ratings template shows 5 mixed reviews, 4 positive, and 1 negative." Meanwhile, he earlier says: "Considering the characterizations of the reviews by Metacritic (mixed, positive, etc.) the section appropriately leads off quoting three mixed reviews, one negative, one more mixed review, and another negative in the first paragraph." Dan56 is so biased, as to miss his own illogic. Additionally, calling a review "mixed" is subjective. How much negativity, or positivity does a review need to be "mixed." Why is Dan56 afraid of stating "facts." Interestingly, when Dan56 deals with "white" acts, such as Bruce Springsteen, he quotes Rolling Stone magazine in the first couple of sentences, and makes them most prominent. Dan56 says this to me: "You're trying to overemphasis two reviews to make them seem more flattering of the article's subject, and tactlessly rearranging positive criticism ahead of quotes from mixed reviews, which Metacritic clearly shows are the majority." And yet, on the Springsteen page, which Dan56 is currently editing, this is the review section. Notice, that the album received "mixed" reviews from Metacritic, and then notice how early, and prominently Rolling Stone is presented: "Human Touch's release was met with a generally mixed critical reception.[citation needed] Allmusic described the album as "generic pop" and "his first that didn't at least aspire to greatness." Rolling Stone gave the album 4 stars and noted that the songs "explore the movement from disenchanted isolation to a willingness to risk love and its attendant traumas again." The review also stated that the title track "stands among Springsteen's best work." The album is generally disliked by Springsteen fans and was recently ranked last among his 17 albums by the website Nerve. Regarding the bad reputation of this record and Lucky Town among his fans Springsteen said: "I tried it [writing happy songs] in the early '90s and it didn't work; the public didn't like it."[6]

Dan56 is presenting a double-standard- one for African American females, and one for caucasian rockers. Dan56 is content with a short paragraph, mostly highlighting the "minority" opinion of Rolling Stone, when it comes to Springsteen. And yet, he vandalized my fair editing of placing the Rolling Stone review deep in the first paragraph. Dan56 clearly has an agenda. I've never used the talk back pages, and was not clear on how to use them. Obviously, if you read my addtions, and see that they are all backed by proper references, and all taken from major sources, you will see that I am doing my best to edit fairly. Dan56 is doing his best to make this personal, and is basically "bullying" me by continually removing anything I add. My hope is that Dan56 is not vandalizing other prominent Balck female artists. Why have you not listed the awards won by this album, Dan56? Do you not consider Billboard or the American Music Awards to be significant? Will I be "tactless" if I mention them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzeeenoze (talk • contribs) 11:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * These were my only contributions to Human Touch, genius. Take a look at my actual contributions and see how stupid your comments sound. Good luck convincing anybody with this line of argument. BTW, stop leaving your verbose, slanderous comments at the top. New messages are left at the bottom, and should be signed using four tildes, like this: ~ . Dan56 (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've heard a lot of cheap shots from editors without a leg to stand on in arguments, but "racial and gender bias" takes the cake. Get over it. This album wasn't well received by critics. Your revision would have been misled readers into thinking it was well received, which is why it will not be accepted. Cheers. Dan56 (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but Muzeeenoze is making good solid points, and Dan56 just keeps name-calling ("Genius", "Stupid Comments", "verbose.") And why is Dan56 not criticizing the Springsteen page- it is hypocritical. Muzeeenoze is being respectful, at least now- aand he's (or she?) right- it does seem racist or anti-female. Come on guys, read what Muzeeenoze is saying- look how reasoned the argument is, and how objective. Then read Dan56 calling him "Genius," etc, and only saying the reviews were "mixed." Well Muzeeenoze is right- mixed means positive and negative. So why is Dan56 insisting on burying the positive. And actually, I checked myself. WAAAAAAAAy more reviews were actually positive. By the way, why can't the guy be a FAN??!! What are you all, scientists? Don't you think most critics are fans?"? I don't usually write here, but this Dan56 guy is totally being a bully.  Read his nasty comments to this guy, after the guy made good, solid points.  WTF?  I'd much rather have intelligent discussions like Muzeenoze is offering, then nasty, snivelly coments like this Dan guy.Fobishmuster (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Dan56 says to Muzeeenoze "This album wasn't well received by critics." That actually proves Muzeeenoze's point. The album was well received. And it was poorly received. Therefore it is mixed. Dan56 is showing his true colors there. Muzeeenoze is right.Ramscub82 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you think he made good, solid points, and there's nothing wrong with his cheap accusations, it is the two of you who are showing your true colors here. Apparently due weight and proportion of viewpoints are foreign concepts to you. And I find your characterization laughable--I buried the positive by lending one whole paragraph to positive reviews? WOW!! Metacritic clearly shows 16 out of 30 reviews were MIXED, and a reliable third-party source reinforces this FACT, but perhaps they're all racist and sexist too, LOL. Just like me when one of the articles I actually contributed to significantly (not a random Springsteen article; cheap shot) happens to show a well received album--1991 (EP), or Minaj's first album. But those are flukes, right? How can it be when my "true colors" are racism and sexism. If you want to see nasty comments, take a gander at your pal's edit summaries on July 7, where out of nowhere he exploded with vitriol after weirdly leaving me this message saying I made a good point. Schizo-like behavior. Dan56 (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you're doing it again. Words like "laughable," "foreign concept", "Schizo." They are all attack words, and "Schizo" is a cruel term- add that to your gender and racial bias. Once again, Mixed does not mean negative. You are misleading people if you do not allow the positive reviews equal footing with the negative, especially when you consider the album got a 60 from Metacritic. That is the top of the Mixed reviews, meaning it is more "positive" than "negative." You still have not addressed why you think its's ok in Springsteen's case, but not here. Answer that, please.


 * I added one revscore there. Otherwise, what do I have to do with "Springsteen's case"? Better yet, what about 1991 (EP) and Pink Friday, which I actually made significant contributions to? You're doing it again, nitpicking three words out of entire paragraph refuting your position. No remark on the comment above? Dan56 (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Fobishmuster (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the movies and music chart, you can see that Metacritic puts the album one point away from "Generally Favorable" reviews. Clearly, to only show negative, as Dan56 wants, it would not reflect the nature of the ratings.Fobishmuster (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again Dan56 defeats his own argument, by citing a random critic's review as "proof" of Dan56's biased viewpoint. You are accusing Muzeeenoze of weighing Rolling Stone's opinion too heavily, and then you cite a magazine with far less influence as your "proof."http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/album-nicki-minaj-pink-friday-roman-reloaded-island-7621985.html Clearly, you have an agenda other than facts in regards to this album.Fobishmuster (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually I cited more sources in earlier comments, but neither of you paid much attention (look above). Where does it say "excellent" in Rolling Stone's review, as Muzeeenoze wanted? Why reiterate a four-star rating already noted in the ratings template? Why are you so against anything remotely not positive to this album? Are you color blind? Can u not see how many yellow-marked reviews are shown? Are positive reviews in the minority or are they not? Does the phrase "mixed or average reviews" mean anything? How are the first four reviews quoted in the section "negative"? What "nature of the ratings" are you referring? They averaged out a score that doesn't indicate "favorable reviews", but "mixed" reviews. Get over it. Calling me biased wont get any of your changes done, but I suspect you know how weak your position is, so what different would it make, right? Dan56 (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Watch me drop the stick and leave, knowing there's no more need for this discussion and Muzeeenoze's revision surely wont be happening. I'll continue making significant contributions to Wikipedia articles in an unbiased manner and you'll keep being irked by anything unflattering about topics you're a fan of. Cheers. Dan56 (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To answer Dan56's questions, You must state that 4 stars means excellent, because the number of stars in and of themselves, means nothing. Rolling Stone defines 4 stars in their system as "Excelllent." I'll print the chart below. Second, I'm not against non-positive reviews, as I have added several. Third, Positive reviews are not in the minority. They are second to mixed, with negative being in the minority. Positive and negative reviews are also the compositional elements of "mixed" reviews. Several editors have joined me in ascribing racial or gender bias to Dan56's edits. Again, Dan56 refuses to answer why he does not object to the Springsteen article being composed of mainly Rolling Stone's positive review, when Metacritic gave it a "mixed" rating. Yet, he continues to vandalize any attempts at balance in the present article. You asked if I am color-blind. I'm not, but clearly you are. Please refrain from letting your racial and gender bias color any future edits. By "dropping the stick," I believe you are conceding the argument. Do others agree? Here's the chart that shows why I called 4 stars in Rolling Stone Excellent. Let me know if you have trouble understanding, Dan56.


 * is this for real? How the hell are worlds like "Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded received outstanding reviews from two of the most influential music magazines in history, Rolling Stone and Spin" not a violation of WP:PEACOCK? Neither Spin Magazine nor Rolling Stone explicitly calls the album outstanding. Also all of the critics listed are influential. Giving prominence to Spin and Rolling Stone over Robert Christogau, The Observer or All Music for example is absurd as all are influential in their own right. The critical reception section of an album is supposed to be a reflection of a cross-section of all reviews from respected and qualified music journalism sources. Muzeeenoze's edits violate WP:PEACOCK, WP:BIAS and WP:SYNTHESIS. The purpose of things like metacritic are to aggregate the scores for us so we don't make judgements for ourselves. Dan's version is far superior, being more encyclopedically and fairly written. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  15:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just let em talk amongst themselves. They know their joint wont go through. Dan56 (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Rating System
Like the first edition, it employed a five star rating scale but this edition had new definitions of what the number of stars meant and this edition employed the use of 1/2 stars in the reviews. The descriptions of the markings used in the third edition of the guide are: Muzeeenoze (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)muzeeenoze
 * Classic: Albums in this category are essential listening for anyone interested in the artist under discussion or the style of music that artist's work represents.
 * Excellent: Four star albums represent peak performances in an artist's career. Generally speaking, albums that are granted four or more stars constitute the best introductions to an artist's work for listeners who are curious.
 * Average to Good: Albums in the three-star range will primarily be of interest to established fans of the artist being discussed. This mid-range, by its very nature, requires the most discretion on the part of the consumer.
 * Fair to Poor: Albums in the two-star category either fall below an artist's established standard or are, in and of themselves, failures.
 * Disastrous: Albums in the range of one star or less are wastes of vital resources. Only masochists or completists need apply.
 * Average to Good: Albums in the three-star range will primarily be of interest to established fans of the artist being discussed. This mid-range, by its very nature, requires the most discretion on the part of the consumer.
 * Fair to Poor: Albums in the two-star category either fall below an artist's established standard or are, in and of themselves, failures.
 * Disastrous: Albums in the range of one star or less are wastes of vital resources. Only masochists or completists need apply.
 * Disastrous: Albums in the range of one star or less are wastes of vital resources. Only masochists or completists need apply.
 * Disastrous: Albums in the range of one star or less are wastes of vital resources. Only masochists or completists need apply.

Agreed. Dan56 admits he lost. Muzeeenoze wiped the floor with him. Fobishmuster (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say that there are viable points in both arguments. From reading the critical reception section I believe the general tone leans significantly towards negative. But some of the edits made by Muzeeenose were quite bias in favour. Maybe someone could edit the section to make it less bias, without putting in ludacris statements such as "Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded received outstanding reviews from two of the most influential music magazines in history, Rolling Stone and Spin" The tone of the section should be mixed to positive. On meta critic the album was 1 point away from generally favourably, yet the general tone gives the impression that it was mixed to negative. KaneZolanski (User talk:KaneZolanski) 16:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)