Talk:Royalty (Chris Brown album)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Royalty (Chris Brown album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150531194039/http://www.ariacharts.com.au/chart/urban-albums to http://www.ariacharts.com.au/chart/urban-albums

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Royalty (Chris Brown album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220074508/http://rapnative.com/news/chris-brown-album-royalty-appears-on-the-chart-at-number-3-behind-justin-bieber-and-adele/ to http://rapnative.com/news/chris-brown-album-royalty-appears-on-the-chart-at-number-3-behind-justin-bieber-and-adele/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511020309/http://www.ariacharts.com.au/chart/urban-albums to http://www.ariacharts.com.au/chart/urban-albums
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rsg.co.za/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Opening discussion on vandalism, cherrypicking and editorial bias on this article
There is a pattern of blatant vandalism and cherrypicking on this article whereby conseriable sourced content is being removed without justification or any sound explination. Moreover, cherrypicking is being done to selectively highlight only negative reception, thereby violating WP:NPOV. It's quite sad to see this kind of editorial biased, which is consistent with the editorial bias present on other album articles of said artist. Failure to provide justification for all these changes on this talk page will result in the article being reverted to its prior state before the vandalism occured. User:Instantwatym 21:34, October 22, 2022‎

Plot section
The plot section must be removed as unsupported by any sources. It was added in 2019 by WuTang94, without any supporting cites. Nobody in the media is describing this album as having a "plot" or synopsis. Something like that may be true of a concept album containing an overarching theme, but none of the media are describing Royalty as a concept album or describing it as having a theme. Binksternet (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * References 70 and 71 indicate an 8 part linear video series. The language used in the Wiki article is "Brown directed and released eight music videos for Royalty, serializing them to construct a linear story". This is consistent with references 70 and 71. I agreed previously that the plot summaries should have been removed until references were provided. But now there are references to support the plot summaries (i.e. references 72-78). But you continued your revert cycle on the basis of WP:Evade for the individual providing those references, even though it hasn't been proven that they are violating WP:Evade. So what exactly is happening here?
 * - First you make multiple reverts against an editor on an accusation of WP:Evade without having proof. In the process you nearly violate 3RR with multiple revrets of the same content within a 24 hour period without engaging in any form of dispute resoltion.
 * - Then you provide a false edit summary to say that you are removing unrefernced plot summaries, but you removed additional content from the article in the process.
 * - I step in to correct the last masked vandalism edit to restore the additional sourced content that was removed, while omitting the unrefernced plot summaries.
 * - Then the user you were previously accused of WP:Evade provides references 72-78 to restore the plot summaries, and you revert them again on the basis of WP:Evade which apparently is still not being violated.
 * This is nonsensical and you know it. Instead of blindly reverting sourced content and defending it per WP:Evade, why don't you actually look in detail at the sources and the content include within and compare that to the language present in the article and see if there are discrepancies and/or misrepresentations? And use that as justification in talk page discussions and edit summaries explaining what sourced content you are removing.  Instantwatym (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The two reliable references cited in the section are only about individual songs. They don't describe the album as having an overarching theme or synopsis or plot. The unreliable source singersroom.com should be deleted. It's a promotional website that anyone can write for, and the author of the piece, Elle Breezy, is not a reliable journalist.
 * My removals at this article are supported by policy. Blocking policy says "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." Chris Brown articles are routinely targeted by banned User:Giubbotto non ortodosso who creates dozens of sockpuppets every year. These sockpuppets are easily recognized because they push a positive spin on Chris Brown, and they often restore the edits of previous socks. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 6 references from 70-78 are either Billboard, E Online or MTV, all of which are reputable. You started this talk page discussion by saying that "The plot section must be removed as unsupported by any sources. It was added in 2019 by WuTang94" This individual is not a blocked user so using WP:Evade or Blocking Policy for that section, which now has sources included, is not valid. Moreover using blocking policy of WP:Evade policy freely without saying who added the original content being removed is also is not valid. Lastly freely accusing anyone that protects sourced content in these articles or adds additional sourced content as being a sockpuppet of a banned user without proof is not invalid. You editing practices are dubious at best and you keep shifting the goal post. Your original reversion was for WP:Evade. The subsequent reversion were for unsourced content, which is laughable considering you removed sourced content in other areas of the artcle during that edit. Then when references were provided for the plot summaries you reverted for WP:Evade, which again was unsupported. Then you created this talk page discussion that the section is unsupported, despite a list of references supporting it. Now you're saying that the section should still be removing because 1 reference in that list of references is unreliable. Remove the excerpt for the unsupported reference if you wish but the rest should remain. Instantwatym (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you are scrambling for reasons to keep shitty content. The album having a "plot" is unsupported except in the terribly unreliable source singersroom.com. When WuTang94 was adding things like the album having a "linear story", there was no support for that in the cited source. The Billboard source lists his videos but says nothing about a linear story, or plot, or synopsis, or overarching theme of the videos. WuTang94 made that shit up. I don't think WuTang94 is a sockpuppet, but the edits surrounding an album theme were a violation of WP:No original research.
 * Because of persistent sockpuppet disruption and severe problems introduced by good-faith editors such as WuTang94, repairs to this article can get complicated. I'm not going to shy away from complicated repairs. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I think the only person scrambling is you, as pointed out by the examples above, which are consistent with your disruptive edit history on this article. Even still you're trying to deflect and moving the goal post and pointing out 1 questionable source in a list as justification for removing an entire section. This is after you gave up on your WP:Evade excuse and invalid use of Blocking Policy reverts. All edits on Wikipedia are logged, whether those edits disruptive or constructive. You can continue as you wish, but your building a case against yourself with certain disruptive edits (such as the case on this article where you used a false edit summary to remove additional content from other sections, perhaps hoping no one would notice). And yes you are definitely shying away from complicated repairs, because you revert and blank entire sections and misuse WP:Evade and Blocking Policy, without actually looking at the content and sources in detail. It comes across bot like revert behavior as opposed to an informed complicated repair. All that said, my opinion is that you haven't provided valid justification to blank the now sourced plot summaries as a whole. But perhaps the excerpt where there is a singersroom source can or should be excluded. But this isn't my edit anyways, so the user who added the references for the plot summaries and additional users can weigh in and decide how to proceed with this dispute. I've given my opinion and reasoning.  Instantwatym (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)