Talk:Sean Combs/Archive 1

Integrate his non-Music Life
I felt a little betrayed and confused (a little), when I finished this article, had this puzzle constructed in my head, and then saw the Other section, which has crucially important info in it but has been somehow relegated to second-tier simply because it wasn't about Puffy's brief music career. This article is not about his music career--anything noteworthy in his life should be in it. (And frankly, his songs that don't hit the top 40 merely dilute the article, too.) His clothing label is one of the more noteworthy things he's done in the last 5 years, so to relegate it to a miscellaneous Other section doesn't make sense. Right now he's praised in the abstract for his work in the mid-90s, and then the last 10 years are all about crime and punishment, while in actuality, he got famous in the last 10 years after being a pop-star in the mid 90s. It's like taking an article on Madonna and putting everything past 1990s Vogue as an epilogue. -User:mrcolj 71.37.94.102 13:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The date of birth is wrong! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdLVWMxMes8 P Diddy is 55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaellabahn1 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Chappelles Show
Someone wrote:

In Chappelle's Show, there is a Making The Band 2 skit with Chappelle as Combs, a lazy, childish, flamboyantly gay, cookie loving, milk obsessed, hilarious producer. Combs is trying to get the members to do their freestyles but they failed because of arguments in the studio. (Which did happen in the real show but the skit shows it hysterically)

This is a very poor section, and I removed it. The skit is not notable enough to Diddy's career to bear mentioning in his article. Furthermore, it is clearly NPOV and obviously unnecessary. I added a note to allude to it, but no critique of the show. L.A.F.

Let's take off the phrase "well known." The Chapelle Show is a hit in certain demographics, but isn't big enough to have anything considered "well-known." 71.37.94.102 13:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC) "Certain demographics"... old timey racism from 2005, classic.124.168.48.233 (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Move request
This guy's changed his stage name so often (Puff Daddy, P. Diddy, and as of two days ago, Diddy) that moving the article to his birth name seems like the only sensible course of action. Bear in mind he's no Bono or Madonna&mdash;his birth name has become quite broadly known. This has been especially true in recent years, as the popularity of his Sean John label, his various political activities, and of course all this stage name switching has led to most press coverage referring to him specifically as Combs. -The Tom 05:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. "Diddy" is certainly not the most commonly known name. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:53, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Against. "Diddy" is his name as an artist, and that's his choice...not ours. If that's what he wants to be called professionally, then that's how he should be listed. BigGuy219 19 August 2005
 * Support. Every news story about him invariably uses some nickname (which varies) plus his legal name, which has not. CDThieme 05:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Use his real name, as his nicknames do vary quite a bit. – AxSkov ( ☏ ) 07:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Diddy is definately not the most common name. Agree with most other comments above. Jonathunder 17:48, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Please clean up the references in the article itself and the remaining double redirects (I have changed the most important ones). Dragons flight 15:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Finances
I've heard that Sean Combs has done very well for himself, especially with his clothing line. Does anyone have info on his financials? Vicarious 16:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

bad boys of comedy
there should be some mention of his attempt to be def comedy jam--Jaysscholar 19:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Come with me
The other day I heard a different song with the same tune as Come with me, and was told it was pretty old. Any info on it? Hackwrench 15:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's Kashmir, by Led Zeppelin. Eixo 15:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
In the section titled : Other work.

This should be a quote of someone who is influential or simply be removed. This is NPOV " he is also one of the most despised. Some have argued that he is perhaps the worst thing that has ever happened to hip hop. " I will rephrase. Thanks.

--- This whole piece is NPOV. If you just arrived from mars, you would have no chance whatever to understand what makes mr Combs important. The first sentence gives it all away ("CEO" ? Please; get another claim to fame). I am no "hater" of this man, but if this biography was written about a company, it would not have stood for long. So if we grant the man a ceo/entrepenour status, perhaps wikipedia shoudl treat him like one in its writeup? Or maybe we should tell people that this is a popular music singer from the west coast rap tradition who is popular on mtv? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.198.156 (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

P Diddy

 * Combs was soon acquitted of all charges relating to the shooting incident, followed almost immediately by a break-up with Lopez. With the media circus over, Combs changed his stage name to "P. Diddy".

Didn't he change his name well before then? I believe Jennifer Lopez and he changed their names simultaniously to J Lo and P Diddy? In the meantime I'll citation it. 211.30.80.121 23:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

J Lo is just a nickname. :)166.82.187.246 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm
Not too sure Diddy is a "gay musician". Vandalism?Extenebris 11:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * lol, i think so.. how can anyone who's been with lopez be gay..

Publicity!!!!!!????????????? gav 19th august 2006

PE 2000 remix
could anyone tell me if the neptunes remix of PE 2000 was on the PE 2000 single? (can be heard here.) 23:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Second Child
Why doesn't this article state that he and his model girlfriend are pregent with their second baby? Lil Flip246 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing his name again
Well, in the UK at least. violet/riga (t) 15:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if the article could cite anything known about how he chose these names. Wasn't the "puff" a reference to (pick one) smoking crack or the report of a gun, which is why he abandoned it after the big incident? --Dhartung | Talk 20:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say in the article we should refer to him as "Combs" rather than Diddy, since: 1) there is no one of his nicknames that is predominant across his entire career; and 2) it sounds more encyclopedic in tone. --Delirium 02:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Image
Someone with the right software could get a free picture of Combs from Rocketboom's 2006 Time 100 at http://www.rocketboom.com/vlog/archives/2006/05/rb_06_may_09.html --Erri4a - &#91;&#91;User talk:Erri4a&#124;Say what?]] 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Current image can't possibly be right. Maybe it's one from his youth but he still looks too different.

"Controversy"
I don't think it makes sense to mention his minor conflict with 50 Cent, seeing as how there is nothing pertaining to the whole Bad Boy/Death Row situation, or the dispute he had with Jadakiss, Styles, etc. I realize the media was hungry for a "beef" and tried to make it seem like it was more than what it really was (which forced 50/Puff to downplay it everytime it was brought up), but still... :\

2006 CMA's Awards
P. Diddy had a controversial reaction, when he lost a Country Music Award to Carrie Underwood. He swore many times, threw a glass of water to an operator, then a glass vase very close to him, then he finished with "and gimme the f***ing award, you country ****** *******" or something like that. This video feature has been uploaded to YouTube. It must be there at the Controversy section, because I think it made strong reactions. 86.101.211.226 16:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Glass eye"
How is his having a glass eye controversial? Ghilz 03:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont ever remember P. Diddy being crucified in the "Hate Me Now" video. I only remember Nas being crucified near the end. Although im fairly sure Diddy wasnt, someone check up on this. BishopTutu 07:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Kim Porter?
Why is Kim Porter redirected to this page? Is this not the same Kim Porter from "Wicked Wicked Games" on My Network TV? Brian25j 17:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's his wifes name.

Create Disambiguation?
As most Sun readers in the UK will know, as well as fans of Scottish football team Gretna FC, Puff Daddy is also the nom de plume of billionaire Brooks Mileson.

Should a disambiguation page not therefore be created... so that when people type in Puff Daddy they can either choose between Sean Combs or Brooks Mileson? Tris2000 17:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it true he is of somali origin? i have heard this rumour many times march 7 2007


 * Hell no he isn't. He is what he looks like: African American. 74.12.222.149 (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, and on what continent do you think Somalia is then, Mr 74.12.222.149?? ;-) Tris2000 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Manchester United
THIS ARTICLE SHOULD INDICATE ABOUT P DIDDY'S SUPPORT FOR MAN UTD.

HE HAS CONNECTIONS WITH WAYNE ROONEY N RIO FERDINAND.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.20.234 (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Details about reason behind name change to P.Diddy?
I vaguely remember that during a larger live event a few years ago, the woman who was responsible for the booking mentioned that she had met Puff Daddy recetly, and that he would change his name to P. Diddy "because Notorious B.I.G. called him by that". Well, that's what I remember. I thought the P. Diddy name didn't sound very serious (even less than Puff Daddy :-)), and I could make out about no rational reasoning for such a name change (although tone and wording of the woman's remark indicated that it was serious). Okay, it actually happend some time later. However, I have not found any definite information about the reason behind his name change and if the claims concerning Notorious B.I.G. are true - only what I might classify as second hand rumors (and this includes my own statements and experiences). It also appears that he used the name P. Diddy earlier in works in which he participated (not sure about that, though). This article obviously tells little about this. Anyone here with some more definite information? --Klaws 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Diddy And His Songs
I listen to diddy's songs all the time actually i think hes the bomb!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.208.0.230 (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

umm
no mention of his early career and his break with B.I.G.? 134.69.166.125 10:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Silly Nicknames
If I missed it, my apologies - but couldn't find any explanation as to why a seemingly intelligent grown man would give himself such a silly, childish nickname - not once, but twice!

You haven't listened to his intelligent grasp of the geopolitics behind the high price of fuel for his jet. In that one he sounds like a retarded 13 year old. --71.102.254.48 (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of vandalism
I just spent 15 minutes cleaning up vandalism and requested temporary page protection. Most of it is traced back to 71.232.243.229 hopefully this is all. :) Yamaka122  ...☑   20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just cleaned up a bit more, namely "N. Diddy", "Notorious N.I.G.", and variations of the n-word. --Patik 02:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hip-Hop Wealth
This article says that Sean Combs is both the second-wealthiest (top of the page) and wealthiest (first paragraph under Controversy) person in the hip-hop business...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.15.82 (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WTF
In various places throught the article it says N. Diddy instead of P. Diddy and its fukin pissin me off —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.194.79 (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know why it says P. all over the article, it should say N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.238.85 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Racoon dogs?
Erm, apparently his jackets featured very real "raccoon dog" fur?

Problem is, there is no such species of dog that is a raccoon dog (as this article states). Besides, that doesn't make any sense to talk about a species of dog. Talking about a certain "breed of dog" makes sense but doesn't apply here. Imagine talking to someone about a specific species of human... jeez....

The news sites/original poster probably almost definitely meant that the coats featured [Tanuki] fur which is commonly referred to as "raccoon dog" and is a fairly common animal in Asia / Japan. It is neither a raccoon or a dog (but it is a canine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.97.30 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

New nickname?
This article says he denies changing his nickname to Sean John. If so, why has everything been changed to Sean John?68.166.37.220 (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Article quality and content
Recent edits, especially placing reference-needed tags, will show that concerns have been raised over this article with respect to the policy on biographies of living persons. Interested editors would be well behooved to address the style of this article, and also to provide references for many, many statements. There is a limited timeframe to address these concerns, maybe two weeks at the most. Following that, large portions of this article are at risk of summary deletion. Articles on living persons need high-quality citations, which in this case should be easy to find for those who are interested in maintaining the article. Thanks in advance for your help! Franamax (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Christian Album
i read somewhere that diddy released a gospel album. is this true and if so should it not be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.131.8 (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It never materialized, as I recall. Gimmetrow 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up
umm, someone apparently vandelized the page. im gonna try and delete the more obvious stuff (like sexual relations with 50 cent) but could someone please go over again and make sure nothing subtle was changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.57.1 (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Blog
Please do not start a revert war, the blog is legit, factual, and vital in this individual. It is obviously important enough to be on his website. Lajolla2009 (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should we report on what some celebrity says on his blog? Is it central to his notability? Have reliable sources reported extensively on his blogs? And finally, when you restore disputed texts, do not revert every other change made to the article. Gimmetrow 06:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need for image protection first of all. The reliable sources are obvious as seen in his video, it is Diddy, Sean Combs talking. He also advertises about the blog site in the video. The section is a vital update to his life. Lajolla2009 (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. It's almost entirely irrelevant to what he is known for. Has CNN or BBC reported on Combs' blogging? And please explain why you reverted everything else in the process? Gimmetrow 06:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. CNN and BBC are not the only reliable resources. His blogging is factual, official, and he wants it to be known. The other reverts are accidents as you can see that I didn't revert to your newest changes. Lajolla2009 (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are multiple issues here. First, are Combs' video blogs about politics of any significance? That would be demonstrated by some reliable source like CNN or BBC mentioning Combs' video blogs, say because they actually contributed to political debate or something. Second, if his political views are notable or should otherwise be reported in an encyclopedia, does the paragraph accurately reflect what is said in the video blog? I would say, no: it's misleading and sensationalizes the content. Gimmetrow 07:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The politics blog is just an example of his collection of blogs. That's significant. The sentence did summed up what he wants to say in the blog, note that the other sentences set up for the example as given in his latest commentary blog. Feel free to add everything you believe is said in the blog, if you listen carefully the last sentence was explicitly stated in segments. Lajolla2009 (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed "resolved" tag. I still don't find this of any significance. Certainly not enough for a separate section. If he's endorsed some candidates, then just say that in the Personal life section. I also think the blog section still misrepresents what the vlog says, but since I don't think the section should be there at all I'm not overly inclined to "fix" it. Gimmetrow 13:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The blog is another section that is different from the personal life section. It deserves its own section, I agree with Lajolla2009 Dreamweaver123 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The vlog as vlog doesn't seem significant. If his political views are significant, they'll be referenced in other media (BBC, CNN, etc). A separate section? Unless his political views are routinely reported in major media, a separate section would seem likely to give it undue weight. Gimmetrow 22:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are furthermore WP:Biography of living persons issues with the text as written that you are edit-warring over. Restoring that exact text rather than discussing it first is, in my opinion, a blockable offense. Gimmetrow 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Views
I think there should be a section on his political views. He posted a video of himself on YouTube where he says some pretty vulgar things about Sarah Palin. [] has a link to that video. Apparently, he doesn't like Alaska because there aren't any "crackheads" up there; I'm not joking, he actually said that. It's pretty offensive to Alaskans, not to mention women.

I'm not going to add that to the article just yet, but I think it's worth talking about, since there isn't anything on there about his political views at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.155.1 (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He's also "scared" of her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70wGnx_lZio 199.214.26.82 (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Pls fix 'Personal Life' section
1) Pls put the info in order. Chance was born in July 2007 so she should be listed followed by the twins.

QUOTE: Combs has never married but is the biological father of five children and one through adoption. 2)Pls fix. Puffy didnt adopt Quincy Brown. He has 5 kids: Justin, Christian,Chance,& twins Dlila,Jessie. Quincy is Al B Sure's son. He lived with Puffy when his Mom dated him but his Dad is Al B Sure. My proof is in the child support Kim sued 4 she didnt sue 4 Q, just Christian & the twins. My source is the public NY court papers. Kim presumably gets support for Quincy from Al. Thx. 70.108.110.251 (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Adoption was changed to "association" because the he has not adopted Quincy. However, I don't think that "through association" is clear at all. I changed to the text to "the informal step-father." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeatheadMathlete (talk • contribs) 02:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Diss song
In no part of the page there is not any kind of information that talk about the spanish song Pi-di-di-di written by Calle 13 dissing him, and the another persons/groups for which he has been dissed along his career —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.76.226.138 (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because it is most likely not notable. The list would be too lengthy if we were to add every diss song about Diddy. Feudonym (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
There isn't really a criticism section, is there? No one's said anything bad about him worth knowing? No accusations? No one saying he tried to murder hip-hop? Am I the only one who thinks that? And I don't mean diss songs or beef, I mean things said in interviews or reviews, anything like that. 208.81.93.189 (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Criticism is integrated through the article. Gimmetrow 13:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation style
What is the preferred citation format being used on this page? I would like to avoid violating CITE. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I find manual citations easier to maintain. Since I do most of the maintenance on the article, I prefer no cite templates. Gimmetrow 00:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So other than no citation templates do you have any preference? Plastikspork (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A third opinion has been requested upon this page and another, Kimora Lee Simmons. I'd like to point out that the latter page involved three eds, so a 30 is inappropriate. I'd also point out that citations on any page should always follow the format already set up on that page, even if this means that automation is impossible. It's really up to the editor to ascertain the format in use before adding citations (and up to previous editors to be civil and not "own the page"). Other than that, the issue here is hard to fathom. Please contact me on my talk page if this comment is insufficient. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, but it's not clear what citation format is currently being used other than no citation templates. Some citations put the date before the title, some put the date after the title. Some include a period delimiting fields, some omit the period.  Some are using bare urls.  Reference 25 appears to be broken.  I would love to help clean up the references on this page, but I am afraid any work that I do would be immediately reverted.  I am awaiting a clarification on what edits I am allowed to make to this page. I am assuming that I am allowed to make edits which conform to the citation style, but the precise citation style is currently not clear. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ref 25 was damaged in this edit. Citation style should be pretty clear, but this article is subject to constant vandalism anyway. Dates go after author; if there is no author, then cite starts with title and date goes after that. Gimmetrow 05:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Plastikspork hello! My MO would simply be to make a copy of the topmost reference citation and modify it. Who can blame you then? Happy edits, sorry to hear about the vandalism, hope you all liked my text edit. Redheylin (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My hope is to get to the heart of the issue with the citations. So far we have established that there should be no citation templates and the rules for location of dates.  It appears as though the rules used by the citation template are desired, just not the use of the template in its unsubstituted form.  I have a script that fixes punctuation and formatting inconsistencies in citations by first converting them to a citation template.  I could easily have it substitute the template instead if I could figure out if that is the desired effect.  I did this with the first citation and my change was only partially reverted by the owner of this article so I feel I am getting closer to a solution. Plastikspork (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There it is - "owner". Go ahead and run your script wherever you want, but the particular issue here is closely related to an old Arb case and is expressed in a long-standing guideline at WP:CITE. Why do you care about the "citations"? I've told you I find it easier to maintain the article without using templates. Nobody else seems to worry about nasty things in an article about a subject with more than enough financial resources to sue Wikipedia into the abyss. So, Plastik, are you going to maintain this article and deal with vandalism daily for the next few years?  Gimmetrow 03:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, if owner was the wrong word. I am just trying to figure out how I can help with the formatting of the references.  It appears that the format is basically what is produced by the citation template in its substituted form, with the exception of the phrase "Retrieved on" being replaced with "Accessed". Yes, I do plan to help watch this page for vandalism.  The more the better. Plastikspork (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here it says; Each article should use the same method throughout—if an article already has some citations, an editor should adopt the method already in use or seek consensus before changing it....  Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. That's it really. Not only the format but the method should be agreed first. Redheylin (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Diddy as 007?
They talked about this on the radio. No way that should fly I dont care how much money some one has that dosnt give them the right to distroy a saga. Diddy as James Bond is like Stevie Wounder as Hitler It dosnt make any scence. It needs to be a white british guy like alway or the series will be destroyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.211.31 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Ha, Stevie Wounder... George Lazenby was Australian, by the way, not that this is anything to crow about.124.168.48.233 (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There should be a controversy section
There are many claims that P Diddy stole songs from others. Perhaps someone could at least acknowledge these as controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.105.158 (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

p diddy
i heard he married and has 2 kids is that true? '' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.100.91 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs adding: His role in Get Him to the Greek
Under Sean Combs, he played Sergio Roma in the film Get Him to the Greek. His character, presumably based loosely on his own life, sends Aaron (Jonah Hill) to pick up and take rockstar Aldous Snow to the Greek. 152.7.25.188 (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Filmography
perhaps there should be a filmography section added what with the growing number of films and tv shows Diddy is starring in? examples I can think of are Get Him to the Greek, the sequel to Carlito's Way and certain CSI episodes. A more comprehensive list can be found on imdb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.206.91 (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of some unheard of person with his name
Whats relevance of some unheard of person using Diddy name ??? With a questionable source Billybruns (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The relevance is that a lawsuit by that person affected the stage name of the subject of this article. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok so removed the 2nd mention doesnt need to be there twice. Billybruns (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead is a summary of the rest of the article. A summary repeats information, so yes, pertinent details do get repeated in the lead and the article. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Swag
P Diddy changed his performance name to Swag sometime this year.75.246.193.105 (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)166.82.187.246 (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

2000
Didn.t he start in 2000. And didn't he make his own record company? It's on the front of Love Hip-Hop CD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.187.246 (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What's this?
Diddy Sued for $1 Trillion, and Blamed for 9/11? Should this be added? -- тнєѕαℓχ -  tคlк  -  ¢σηтяιвυтισηѕ  04:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Looks frivolous. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Image lead
I'm tired of image changes. The lead image for this article has been File:Sean Combs 2.jpg (or File:Sean Combs.jpg). An IP seems to want to use File:Sean Combs 2011.jpg. First, 'up to date' is not an argument - there is no preference for more recent over less recent images per se. The original lead image reflects the subject at a more significant period, I think, although I'm not going to say that's strong in this case. Primarily, I do not find the IP's "proposed" image an improvement. It doesn't show more of the face, and doesn't illustrate the subject any better, in my opinion, and the poor contrast makes it worse. I would say it's better than File:Diddy Dirty Money.jpg, used later in the article, so I'm OK with replacing that image with the "proposed" one, while keeping the original lead image. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/2007-10-24-1368831046_x.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking
There's some hideous overlinking in this article. It isn't as big a deal as a copyvio but my attempt to take it out was reverted by a date warrior. Would anyone else like to have a go? --John (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You claim "there's some hideous overlinking". This is the only edit that User:John has made recently. That edit has a lot of parts, but I only see one link removed: New York City, New York. So one link is "hideous overlinking"? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. New York City, New York redirects to New York City as there is no need to disambiguate, but why would this article need to link to the NYC article let alone a ponderous redirect to it? This is the problem with making blind reverts, it damages articles. --John (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

70.60.93.151
Naming Names should be cleaned up. Combs should be called by his given last name. All informal nicknames or performance names such as "Puffy", "P. Diddy", and "Puff Daddy" should be replaced with "Combs" where possible.
 * That would be quite repetitive. Combs could be used in the first instance in each paragraph, and then the artist name of the time. --Erri4a - &#91;&#91;User talk:Erri4a&#124;Say what?]] 22:36, 25 Sepember 2006 (UTC)
 * RafikiSykes (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Lox publishing dispute
Perhaps the Controversy section should include something about The Lox's dispute over publishing rights with Combs, which was recently settled, see.
 * RafikiSykes (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Grammys
The wiki indicates that he won 9 grammys, but shows only 3 specific wins. Grammy wins are important enough to be listed in completion in a biography.
 * RafikiSykes (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

For some reason...
For some reason, whenever I come to this page, it's vandalized in SOME way. I'm going to put it on watch. If any more vandalism occurs, I'll see to it that the page gets locked. DrowningInRoyalty


 * Heh, I thought to myself how hilarious it would be to write an entire section on his "Proactiv Solutions" commercial. Something like "P. Diddy is a big supporter of Proactiv Solutions acne medication, and quote 'Didn't want no bumps on my face.  I'm going to be straight up with you.  You know what I mean?' and additionally likes it because it enables him to 'preserve my sexy, you know what I'm saying?'"  Just a thought.  I guess that would be vandalism though.

Even though this is kinda off topic can someone help the new list of best-selling remix albums worldwide with its structure.
 * RafikiSykes (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Parking lot for close paraphrases

 * Section Business ventures has "In 2002, he placed at #12 on Fortune Magazine's "40 under 40..."

which closely resembles

In 2002, Combs was featured at #12 on Fortune magazine's "40 Richest People Under 40" list.

--John (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Date format change proposal
The format of the dates in the references used in this article should be altered to be in a format of "May 4, 2012" (as per this edit). GFHandel &#9836; 00:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dates in the format of "May 4, 2012" are unambiguous and are easier for readers to quickly comprehend than are dates in the "2012-05-04" format.
 * The Cite web template (which the references should, and will one day soon, be using) recommends using the "May 4, 2012" format.
 * The dates already in the main article text are in the format "May 4, 2012" so without the proposed change, more than one date format is used in the article. This proposal will increase consistency in the article.
 * From WP:CITEVAR: "when adding citations, to try to follow the system and style already in use in the article". This can be interpreted to apply to date formats—which means that it would have been better to use the familiar (and existing) format of "May 4, 2012".
 * WP:CITEVAR states that YYYY-MM-DD format "may be used", but doesn't insist on it.
 * WP:RETAIN is not of primary importance here because its intention is to provide consistent formatting within the main article text (e.g. so that a combination of mdy and dmy formatting doesn't develop).
 * However if WP:RETAIN is to be considered, please note that the article used "May 4, 2012" formatting for referencing prior to the use of the "2012-05-04" format (as demonstrated by the article in this state).
 * In my experience (and I add/format a lot of URL references using Cite web) the format of "May 4, 2012" (or "4 May 2012" where required) is far more commonly used these days (than is the format of "2012-05-04").
 * Apart from arguments of "it exists", there has been no proffered argument that demonstrates a tangible benefit to the article by using the "2012-05-04" format.


 * Support as proposer. GFHandel &#9836; 00:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This article has developed over a period of about 6 years. The reference style, from earliest times, has been publication dates in Month dd, YYYY, and accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD. It currently has 77 references in this consistent style, representing quite a bit of prior editorial work. From the edit history, it appears the first accessdate was indeed in YYYY-MM-DD, and newly added references have followed the existing style of the article. On to some of your specific points (is this a templated text?) Gimmetoo (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Distinguishing one type of reference information (publication date) from another type, arguably less important (accessdates), aids the reader, by helping them not to read one date as the other.
 * I don't see that recommends anything, and I'm not sure why it would be relevant. Cite web appears to omit to show any examples with one of the acceptable styles; if this is taken to suggest something contrary to MOSNUM, then the examples may need to be revised.
 * The article already follows a consistent style, as far as I am aware. "Consistency", in MOSNUM, does not mean a single style in both the article and the references. MOSNUM explicitly allows YYYY-MM-DD formats in the references.
 * The style of references has been followed; although WP:CITEVAR did not exist in 2006 in that form, references have been pretty consistently added following the style as specified (publication dates in Month dd, YYYY, accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD).
 * I agree WP:RETAIN is not of primary importance; WP:DATERET is the more relevant guideline
 * The first use of accessdates, as far as I can tell, were in YYYY-MM-DD format, so even the "first major contributor" clause of WP:DATERET argues for retaining the style with which the article has developed
 * I'm not sure what "commonly used" means here. Most developed articles I'm aware of use YYYY-MM-DD formats, though some were changed (see WP:FAITACCOMPLI). I know of relatively few articles (some, but comparatively fewer) that developed from earliest times without YYYY-MM-DD style for either publication or accessdates.
 * Distinguishing the publication dates and accessdates is a benefit. Some may not agree, I'm aware, but that's why we have a guideline about not changing arbitrary style options. It's also more compact. I don't see any benefit to removing YYYY-MM-DD accessdates from this already consistent article.


 * Support The only reason that accessdates ever existed in YYYY-MM-DD format was that the citation mechanism created them in that format at the time when users could set the displayed date format in their preferences. Following the unlinking of dates, that mechanism disappeared, and we were left with the underlying accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD format, despite them being added without any actual editor preference being made. That seriously weakens arguments about respecting original authors' intentions, and leaves us to consider what is best for articles now. The argument that a mixture of date formats helps the reader distinguish between date of publication and date of access makes sense, but I don't find it convincing, as their positioning by all of the citation templates is so very different. The overriding arguments are that DMY and MDY are much easier to comprehend at a glance ('September' is clearer than '09'), and that consistency in the format of dates throughout an article is desirable - and that includes the references. The only place where YYYY-MM-DD dates have a place is in tables and infoboxes, where space is at a premium. --RexxS (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your technical history does not appear correct. The first accessdates added to this article were in YYYY-MM-DD format, without any autoformatting. (If I recall correctly, autormatting wasn't used with the mdy publication dates, either.) I am glad you recognize that distinguishing types "makes sense". Thank you. In my experience, the confusion resulting from the differing positions of dates in the references is helped, rather than harmed, by having two types of dates in different formats. It allows the reader to quickly identify the publication date and accessdate in the reference, whether they are at the start, middle, or end of the reference. It aids the reader. I am aware you may not find that benefit convincing, but others may not find the benefits of another style convincing, either. We have gudielines to prevent arbitrary style changes based on such arbitrary preferences. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. RexxS has provided a reasonable summary of the history behind the date format wars to which I will add two points:
 * Gimmetoo hints at "technical advantages" in favour of the yyyy-mm-dd format. But in fact there's only one, that it's sortable, which is irrelevant for citations. The technical advantage it did once have disappeared with date delinking, as RexxS says.
 * Documentation for the citation template specifically says in reference to the accessdate parameter: "use the same format as other dates in the article". It's time to put this date format nonsense to bed once and for all, and for Gimmetoo to drop his stick. Malleus Fatuorum 04:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. Perhaps an administrator could fix that rather irritating "in in" error in the citation template's documentation. Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please avoid making this personal, MF. Was "drop his stick" needed or helpful? Gimmetoo (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was. Malleus Fatuorum 06:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per GFHandel, RexxS and Malleus. It seems blindingly self-evident that most editors would find September 9, 1998 easier to parse than 1998-09-09. I am not sure how the bee entered the bonnet here, but the sooner it flies off and does something more useful the better for us all. --John (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been answered many times. You claim that most editors would find one form easier to parse than another. Your unstated premise is apparently that this factor so overrides any other consideration for readers (including the benefits of distinguishing, etc.) or anyone else, that ISO-style dates must be removed. But this is contradicted by the guidleline, which explicitly authorizes ISO-style dates, including explicitly for the accessdates. I would generally agree that formatting should benefit the reader, but between a benefit that would violate guideline and one that is explicitly in accord with guidelline, I think I would go with the latter. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per RexxS and MF. Pumpkin Sky  talk  10:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per the above. "We've always done it this way" seems to be the counterargument.  Let's let the readers read, not decode.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Explicilty allowed by guideline, and for which no substantial, evidence-based reasons have been provided to change. Let's aid the readers to read, not confuse them. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Rexx's comments, especially. Plus I find these ISO dates difficult to parse, and I bet our readers do too. External tools such as WP:Cite4Wiki do not offer ISO dates, only the other two options, so using one of the other options makes articles easier to maintain. -- Dianna (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per everybody, this looks like a clear improvement to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, because there is no good reason for this disruption, and ... why has the entire Merry Band of Jack Merridew and Rlevse Supporters in the FAC Matter shown up suddenly on this particular article. If at first you don't succeed ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, do you have any reasons for your oppose that relate to the article itself, or to the technical issues we are discussing? -- Dianna (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Chewbacca defense. Sandy is also relying on the "if you have no argument, smear everybody you disagree with" school of debate. Let's not cloud the issue with facts, eh? Since when have Malleus, John, GFHandel and I been "Jack Merridew and Rlevse Supporters in the FAC Matter"? That's pretty laughable, isn't it. It's commendable that Sandy wants to stand up for her chum, but it's only helpful when there's something constructive to say. The ad hominem BS is far too obvious for anybody to take it seriously. --RexxS (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why, I would never stoop so low as to smear everyone I disagree with, if for no other reason than the lack of enough hours in a day-- I'll have to content myself with just those who travel in roving bands of bullies trying to enforce their views of ... well ... everything they hold in common and sacred, with is ... everything they hold in common .. which is ... cabalism. On the citation matter, I happen to agree with our guidelines that they are a matter of consensus, and I also hold that those who work on articles should determine the consensus for the citation style for those articles, not those who show up to bolster their buddies to win a meaningless argument.  Whatever floats your boat, some get gratification building articles, others get it bringing them down.  May whomever prevails be sure to stick around after the little turf war is over and actually maintain the article you now seem to care so much about.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have had little or nothing to do with the other editors in this debate, and I have only made one communication to another editor regarding its existence. I (and most others) have retained a polite and non-personal perspective in this debate, so I'm saddened to see the level of discourse diminished with personal attacks such as "Merry Band", "cabalism", and "roving bands of bullies". For the record: are you applying any or all of those epithets to me? GFHandel &#9836; 08:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow Sandy, that's extremely unexpected. We are discussing date formatting here, and which format of dates best serves our readers. It's incredibly inappropriate of you to make these allegations here. It leaves me worried for your well-being, to be honest. --John (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Extremely unexpected" for Wehwalt, Diannaa, RexxS and Rlevse/PumpkinSky who are all supporters of Alarbus/Merridew and his band of socks and who together took a minority position in the FAC wrecking crew, when Alarbus/Merridew is known to have plagued Gimmetrow for a long time over citation style, to all suddenly show up for the first time, at the same time, on an article they have nothing to do with and have never edited, to argue something that doesn't belong here anyway, is not unexpected; it's quite the norm for how that group works.  The personalization began with the appearance of uninvolved editors here to try to affect consensus on an article they don't even edit.  If someone wants to impose a house citation style, the place to do that is on guideline pages-- not by taking on an article they don't even watch, continuing the plague of Gimmetrow by Merridew.  Until such time as house style or guidelines change, citation style is a matter for article by article consensus, and for uninvolved editors to pile on to change citation style on an article they don't even edit is suspect, considering their history with Merridew and Merridew's history with Gimmetrow.   They should take it to the guideline page if they want to impose a house style. Now, as to It leaves me worried for your well-being, to be honest, weren't we down this very road years ago, when you made statements about Ceoil's mental health?   I thought you'd seen the light and changed. If you're reverting to abusive adminly old ways, it's time to re-examine ... something ... that is related to your fitness for adminship.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Aw, come on, Sandy. I was never involved in the FAC leadership debate that seems to be such a sore point for you. My contributions are public record and unless you can show how I was in any way involved, you really ought to strike my name from that peculiar accusation. My earlier interaction with Gimmetoo over the issue of date formats can be seen at Talk:Ursula Andress so it's not unsurprising that when I noticed the debate on John's talk page, I followed the link to this page and saw the same problems that we had discussed previously (as I suspect the other editors who arrived here did). I promise you I did not sit down with Malleus at the Manchester Cabal Meetup in February and plan to ambush Gimmetoo three months later. And the only interaction I've had with John is when I argued for him to have the ARBDATE restrictions lifted from him as he was clearly caught up in a dispute that he had no part in. Sounds familiar. Finally, it's is extraordinarily ironic that you should be fabricating the sort of connections that you have: This isn't about personalities or cabals; the whole point of the debate is that many of us prefer months to be have names, not numbers, and want to reduce the usage of YYYY-MM-DD formats; while Jack is a big fan of YYYY-MM-DD dates and he'd be arguing against us if he were here! Don't you think that 'April' is a much more beautiful use of the English language than 'month 04'? --RexxS (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You might notice I never said anything about what brought Malleus or John to this issue (a discussion that brought me here as I attempted to mediate). The folks who subsequently showed up here is not at all ironic, and they should all be embarrassed to be so obviously partisan.  (Doubt that they are, though.)  So, why don't all of you stop fighting over trivia that makes not a wit of difference to anyone after you're done here, except the person who stays to maintain the article, let the folks who actually maintain this article decide what citation style to use, and take this little tiff to MOS if you want to gain consensus to enforce a specific style across the entire WIki?  Doesn't matter who started this; does matter who grows up and stops it, before you chase off the editors who are doing the work of watching and building the article.  My bottom line is the editors who are involved with an article should decide citation style within guidelines, if you want to change that guideline, go gang up elsewhere.  This is unbecoming and disgusting what is going on in here.  A continuation of the lamest arbcase ever.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Malleus and John didn't take part in the "FAC wrecking crew", so they have your permission to express an opinion here. Whereas I, who also had no part in the "FAC wrecking crew" don't have your permission to have an opinion. No wait, that can't be it. Maybe it's because I'm a known supporter of Jack Merridew, who is in favour of ISO dates, so I can't express the contrary opinion, since that is cabalism ... no, that would be if we had the same opinion. Oh well. Does that mean that you don't prefer "April" to "month 04" after all? --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It means either you're being deliberatively obtuse, or you don't want to take this discussion to the guideline page where it better belongs. Probably because the proposed change will gain little traction there, and it's sooooo much more fun to create drahmaz in here !!! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, your posts seem to imply (please correct me if I am misunderstanding you) that it is not okay to have a discussion about changing the format of the access date on this one particular article; that the overarching manual of style of guideline has to be changed. I am pretty sure you are incorrect about that; it is possible to have a discussion about changing just this one article. There does seem to be a parallel discussion about the guideline happening right now, and some people have participated in both discussions. -- Dianna (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you can discuss an article, but then you should discuss the article, rather than repeat non-specific "arguments" already discussed at the guideline level, and not accepted. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus on individual articles can and does change regardless of what is happening at the guideline level. That's what this discussion is about; a consensus change of citation style for this one particular article. This is permitted. -- Dianna (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying a group of editors, whose proposal was rejected by the larger community, can go to each article individually and "form a consensus" to do what was rejected the larger community, over the objections of the existing editors of the page? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are several acceptable citation styles; different styles appear in different articles; consensus changes; this article could be changed. That's what I'm saying. -- Dianna (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see what you're getting at, Gimme, but surely the problem with that is how to define who the 'existing editors' are? Must an editor have a certain number of edits within a particular time period to qualify for participation in a discussion? And who would set those numbers? It holds far too much danger of creating ownership of articles for my taste. I willingly accept that you believe having accessdates in ISO-style is an improvement (to distinguish from publication date and for compactness). I think you can accept that I genuinely believe that dates containing a named month are an improvement anywhere where we are not constrained for space (easier to parse and more consistent than a mix). It seems to me that consensus has changed in the two-and-a-half years since the 2009 RfC, and more folks are moving towards favouring the latter rationales over the former ones. Let's actually have the debate on the issues, and not get distracted by the ad hominems that seem designed merely to disrupt the discussion on GFHandel's proposal. Lest I forget, though, I must remind Sandy that policy and guidelines on Wikipedia are descriptive, not prescriptive, and document what we do in articles. The MOS is not an abstract set of rules, derived in isolation from actual editing, rather it reflects actual practice in articles such as this. If it transpires that there is a clear preference here for 'April' over 'month 04', then that is the time to take a case to the MOS. Considering the actual issues, rather than the crimson clupeids, may I take it that you'll be !voting with Malleus and me, rather than Gimme and Jack, if that happens? --RexxS (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose If it's working fine, leave it the way it is - for one thing. For another, it makes sense to have access and archivedates in yyyy-mm-dd format (pls don't say ISO, there's some problem with the Russian Revolution that makes them not ISO-xxxx compliant) because they take up less space that way and those dates are not important - honestly, do you want a line wrapped around so that you the reader can see that I the writer/reviewer clicked on a link or opened a book on "February 27, 2012" rather than 2012-02-27? RExxS is incorrect on the history too, some of us specifically never set a date preference, because we cared about what the actual readers saw. The removal of autoformatting meant nothing at all to me, I already had the anonymous view that always included yyyy-mm-dd. It's a great and succinct format for a most incosequential yet necessary datum. Moreover, our guidelines say quite clearly that if that is the established format, it should be left as is. What a crazy little tempest! Franamax (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with possible line wraps (which is never a reason to not present information in the most obvious and customary way to our readers—which is what the supports here wish to do). GFHandel &#9836; 08:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you like it because it is shorter? That actually seems like quite a good argument. I've always wondered why this metadata even needs to be displayed to the ordinary reader; I wonder if it would be possible to make it invisible and you have to enter edit mode to check it? Just a thought. I still value consistency with other dates in the article and readability (as long as we display this data at all we may as well do so in a format people can understand!) over brevity but thanks at least for making a coherent argument for your preferred style. --John (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I wasn't clearer, Fran, but you're missing the point I was making. I also never set a date preference (because I wanted to see what the viewers did), but every time I used the 'cite' button on the toolbar and filled in the fields to create a citation, the script rendered the accessdate in YYYY-MM-DD format (and linked it), regardless of what format I used to enter it. That is why we were used to seeing so many articles using that format for accessdate - and the likely reason many people just copied that when hand-crafting references. I believe the proliferation of YYYY-MM-DD for accessdate is merely a historical accident of the choice made by the programmer of the script for the cite button, and that is why I refute the arguments about "original author" choice in these cases. Interestingly, this article had no references at all for more than three years after its creation! Our guidelines - for what they are worth in this instance - also say that date formats should be consistent. The early versions of this article contained a mixture of DMY and MDY formats (example), and nobody would argue that regularising those contravened the "established format" guideline. There's nothing special about YYYY-MM-DD dates that elevates them to sacrosanct status and should exempt them from the same consideration. By the way, "ISO" is ok most of the time - it's simply YYYY-MM-DD but only defined for use on dates in the Gregorian calendar. --RexxS (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If an article were inconsistent it could be regularized. This article has a consistent style explicitly authorized by the MOSNUM guideline, and per the same guideline, that style should be retained. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, it is metadata, and if there were a way to hide it altogether I would be all for that. It's no different than the type of camera used to acquire an image really - absolutely essential info, but only for those of us who nurture that particular interior geekiness. :) I've been concerned for at least 3 years now about the explosion of inline cites (perfectly justifiable in terms of ensuring article quality) and the impact of the resultant massive "References"/"Footnotes" sections. I would !vote for even the primary date used in footnotes to have a 3-character alpha month for purposes of brevity, it is a footnote after all. I've never quite understood those who argue we should have fully narrative dates in such a minor location, when the works themselves are so heavily abbreviated. A paper published in j. Res. Mol. Bioch. on 27 February 2007, the date takes as much space as the name of the journal? OK, maybe that's not the best example until Sean Combs gets his chem doctorate, but still, we're not reading "Twas The Night Before Christmas" to the audience here, it is the footnotes by now and IMO we should be presenting only the minimally necessary information. A locally consistent but above all terse format to me ideally satisfies the goals of simplicity and comprehensibility. Franamax (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, just so it's clear. This article currently has references using the format with publication dates in Month dd, YYYY, and accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD. The article developed with this format accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD from the beginning. A format that distinguishes publication dates from accessdates is beneficial, because
 * Distinguishing types of dates by format aids readers to easily identify one type of date vs. another
 * YYYY-MM-DD for the accessdates in particular de-emphasizes the accessdate as less important, largely technical information; it's also more compact
 * The main arguments for changing this long-established format are essentially 1) YYYY-MM-DD dates are harder to parse, and 2) cite templates do not show examples using YYYY-MM-DD. Neither of these arguments are specific to this article. I argue against these reasons as follows:
 * Changing an accessdate like "2012-04-04" to "April 4, 2012" may arguably make it "easier to read" in isolation, but in a reference, the change makes it more likely for a reader to confuse an accessdate and a publication date. This is especially so in citations where only one date is present.
 * If the documentation for a template does not the range of MOSNUM-allowable options, and that is being taken to argue those options do not exist, then that's evidence the template documentation is misleading, and that the template documentation should be revised.
 * Gimmetoo (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The article developed with this format from the beginning"—except that it didn't. When the article was in this state it did not have a single reference using "YYYY-MM-DD" format (with all month references spelt in full). Note that that state of the article was reached by 1,418 edits made by over 100 editors in almost four years.
 * Simple clarification - "this format" refers to the accessdates. At the point you are looking the article did not have a single accessdate. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact it was Gimmettoo himself (using his alternate account of Gimmetrow) who unilaterally introduced the yyyy-mm-dd format into the article with this edit of 29 October 2006, almost four years after the article was created, so as you say, hardly "from the beginning". But until then the article wasn't using accessdates at all, so maybe that's what he means. Malleus Fatuorum 12:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it is necessary to distinguish date formats between references and article text; instead, I'll give our readers credit to realize that there is a very long horizontal line under the distinct section heading "References" to assist them in distinguishing which section of the article they are viewing.
 * The use of "YYYY-MM-DD" is not supported by the Cite web example template—which is what is used to copy-and-paste to obtain a set of blank fields. That is because the use of things like "April" (instead of "04") is no longer considered to be in the best interests of our readers. There is now a great deal of reasoned support on this page for that view.
 * GFHandel &#9836; 10:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The first accessdates added to this article were in YYYY-MM-DD format, and that is how the article has developed. YYYY-MM-DD is explicitly allowed by the guideline even now. But if you think what does is relevant, then it certainly does support YYYY-MM-DD: . Gimmetoo (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - I find the "all number" way too difficult to read. Agree with whoever said "April" is better than "04". Besides, all the other dates in the citations have the month name, so why should accessdate be in a different format? Don't get it. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you not notice the section immediately above you? Or any prior discussion of the reasons? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, I read through the whole thing. It just happens that I find the citations in this article difficult to read because of the accessdate format. I have used Cite web and used accessdates such as April 27, 2012. I don't understand who decided this or why: "That is because the use of things like "April" (instead of "04") is no longer considered to be in the best interests of our readers."  Just my view.  MathewTownsend (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article developed with this format. Can you me where it was supposedly decided to remove YYYY-MM-DD dates from all articles because they are allegedly "no longer considered to be in the best interests of our readers"? As for readability, I find the following difficult to read.
 * Your mileage may vary, but I find that date difficult to read. Is it a publication date? An accessdate? Something else? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can tell the difference, and I doubt that anybody who knew what an accessdate was would confuse the two even in such an abbreviated example, but I agree that YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The repeated claim is that 2012-05-08 is "difficult to parse". Well, putting the dates in the same format makes them more difficult to functionally interpret, another form of parsing. I have observed editors (in the process of changing date formats in long lists of references) claim the accessdates are inconsistent, when as far as I could tell they were all consistent. The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that they are reading some publication dates as accessdates. When both are present,
 * clearly distinguishes types of dates so it is very easy to read, even at a glance. But when it is written as
 * Of course, someone *can* figure out which is which, but it takes me and presumably others more attention to determine which is which quickly than the prior form. Accessdates are about our relation to the source rather than the source itself. They serve a largely technical purpose, and using ISO-style dates for them helps readers understand them as technical, less important pieces of information. Indeed, if people are arguing that they are "difficult to read", perhaps that's a good thing; as this is information that is generally not useful to readers, that's an argument for putting all accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD, on principle. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave up long ago trying to figure out what was going on in some peoples' minds, but I sympathise with your observations. We both know, I guess, that we have a different kind of consistency in mind. You say that the pattern A-B, A-B, etc. is consistent, while I'm saying that A-A, A-A, etc. is more consistent. Perhaps I should use the word "uniform" to describe what I would like to see with date formats. I'd think your example above is a rarity on Wikipedia (but that's just my hunch, not a survey result). If this sort of example:
 * and its ilk are actually much more common, then your 'distinguishing' line of argument is that much weaker, I think. Perhaps Franamax's explosion of highly detailed inline cites demonstrates how much more common it is nowadays to have most of the information supplied for every cite. Naturally, that is a strong recommendation for using WP:List-defined references and/or shortened footnotes to get the "snot" out of the edit window, so that you can actually read the text that you're editing. But that, of course, is a debate for another time. --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If cite details increase, then the citations become longer with more line wraps (exacerbated by multiple columns). So it's more difficult to distinguish one date from another at a quick glance, because a reader loses location information. Writers use patterns, like A-B, A-B as you say, to help organize and identify structures. Wedonotwritesentencesthiswayinsteadweputspacesbetweenwords. We do not write the letters together with "uniform" spacing (documents used to be like that). Wiki doesn't "uniformly" put all content under level2 headers, but we use level3, and even level4, to provide structure. It's consistent in a way, but it's not "uniform". I think a "uniformity" which degrades the structure is largely a "foolish consistency". Gimmetoo (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave up long ago trying to figure out what was going on in some peoples' minds, but I sympathise with your observations. We both know, I guess, that we have a different kind of consistency in mind. You say that the pattern A-B, A-B, etc. is consistent, while I'm saying that A-A, A-A, etc. is more consistent. Perhaps I should use the word "uniform" to describe what I would like to see with date formats. I'd think your example above is a rarity on Wikipedia (but that's just my hunch, not a survey result). If this sort of example:
 * and its ilk are actually much more common, then your 'distinguishing' line of argument is that much weaker, I think. Perhaps Franamax's explosion of highly detailed inline cites demonstrates how much more common it is nowadays to have most of the information supplied for every cite. Naturally, that is a strong recommendation for using WP:List-defined references and/or shortened footnotes to get the "snot" out of the edit window, so that you can actually read the text that you're editing. But that, of course, is a debate for another time. --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If cite details increase, then the citations become longer with more line wraps (exacerbated by multiple columns). So it's more difficult to distinguish one date from another at a quick glance, because a reader loses location information. Writers use patterns, like A-B, A-B as you say, to help organize and identify structures. Wedonotwritesentencesthiswayinsteadweputspacesbetweenwords. We do not write the letters together with "uniform" spacing (documents used to be like that). Wiki doesn't "uniformly" put all content under level2 headers, but we use level3, and even level4, to provide structure. It's consistent in a way, but it's not "uniform". I think a "uniformity" which degrades the structure is largely a "foolish consistency". Gimmetoo (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If cite details increase, then the citations become longer with more line wraps (exacerbated by multiple columns). So it's more difficult to distinguish one date from another at a quick glance, because a reader loses location information. Writers use patterns, like A-B, A-B as you say, to help organize and identify structures. Wedonotwritesentencesthiswayinsteadweputspacesbetweenwords. We do not write the letters together with "uniform" spacing (documents used to be like that). Wiki doesn't "uniformly" put all content under level2 headers, but we use level3, and even level4, to provide structure. It's consistent in a way, but it's not "uniform". I think a "uniformity" which degrades the structure is largely a "foolish consistency". Gimmetoo (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is that there are only two real opposes here. Isn't it time to end this apparently endless discussion and just make the change that consensus is evidently in favour of? Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess you told me! And then what ... the wrecking crew moves on to the next target, an article they've never edited, and changes citation style there, since they can't accomplish this change at MOS?  Rhetorical:  what is it this crew has gained or hopes to gain?  Alienating editors who watch and maintain articles?  The power of winning a useless argument?  A de facto change in MOS since it can't be accomplished directly?  I really don't understand what motivates people to do something like this.  I repeat; my oppose is that the citation guidelines allow this format, and those who actually work on the article (not those who showed up only and exclusively for this discussion) should determine the citation style.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My position very simply is that until Gimmetoo's intervention almost four years after the article was created it did not contain dates in the yyyy-mm-dd format, and I see no valid reason why it should do so now. Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that meme was already dealt with somewhere on this page, but just in case, I reviewed the older versions and found the article had no accessdates or full citations until about 2006 ... like this just before Gimme edited and  what's this, after citations were added a few months later?  Maybe I'm missing something. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a meme, it's a fact. When introducing accessdates there was no good reason to choose a date format other than the one already used in the article. Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no good reason not to do it that way, either. And nobody objected in 2006. Or 2007. Or 2008. You get the picture. Are you really saying that now, 6 years later, when the article is consistent, you can change it because you don't like an edit from 2006, that was not contrary to any guideline in 2006 and is not contrary to any guideline now? Are you going to apply that principle everywhere? If not, why not? It seems like a glorious principle for disruptive editors to use down the road. But you're semi-retired, what do you care? Gimmetoo (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The really puzzling question Gimmetto is why you're so obsessed with this issue. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with MF's view. I disagree with the pejorative implication of "wrecking crew" because the desire to improve the article for all readers by using things like "April" instead of "04" cannot reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to "wreck" the article. GFHandel &#9836; 01:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is such an issue, surely you will prevail then at the appropriate MOS and guideline pages, and avoid demoralizing editors by an article-by-article campaign to install something that has not been endorsed or accepted wikiwide. I hope you enjoy whatever it is you're winning if editors who have watched and developed articles for years are chased off over something on this level-- as if MOS warriors didn't get a bad enough name from the date delinking arb. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The truth is that it's only Gimmetoo's intransigence that has made this a big issue. Why is he so resistant to the clear consensus? Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus on the broader issue, Malleus. And I'm sure you can appreciate that it's offensive when folks charge in to an article they've never edited to make an example that is not endorsed by any Wiki-wide guideline. Perhaps similar to how you feel when someone who can't write barges in and starts altering prose you've labored over for years? For the record (since the old FAC discussions are what got me drug in here so John could insult me), here are only some of the old discussions I referenced almost a week ago (perhaps, Malleus you've forgotten or weren't around when we were forced to deal with the ISO date issue because the cite templates only accepted them in many cases): Now, perhaps the templates are now fixed (I'll never hold my breath on that, though) so that editors have more choices, but that wasn't always the case (ISOs were at one point forced upon us), it's unfair to call Gimme intransigent when he respects guidelines, and this raises the bigger concern that I share with Gimme, which is that because of the vagaries of the citation methods on Wikipedia, in the absence of broader consensus, we leave citation style to consensus within guideline, article by article. For folks to barge in and try to change one article when the broader proposal has been rejected boggles my mind. Like we have nothing better to do. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive30
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive25
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive48


 * What's clear to me is that the yyyy-mm-dd format is simply a hangover from the days of date autoformatting, a half-baked idea that should never have seen the light of day. Today it has no place except in situations where dates need to be sorted, as in tables. As for John insulting you, well, I agree that any concern he expressed for your well being was ill judged. Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do my best to avoid the MOS pages like the obsessive plague that they are, although as FAC delegate, I was obligated to stay abreast of changes there ... so ... you may well be right that they are now a hangover, but I really don't know if ISO dates are a relic or not or if they have some other use still. What I do know is that the damn MOS changes so often that it's silly to spend so much time on this, and it's rude to insult an editor and attack an article that was and is following guidelines, and if the ISO dates are indeed a relic, the collaborative, indeed kind and wise thing to do is to address the issue at the core, MOS, not by going after one editor and one article.  Particularly when we've seen that pattern before, and it is destructive to editors, to articles, and to a collaborative environment.  I hope John finds himself able to regroup and come back to the admin we had come to enjoy.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We have people arguing that accessdates must be "May 9, 2012" because they absolutely must be in whatever format these users think is the most readable format in isolation (without providing any evidence, of course), and others saying accessdates shouldn't even be displayed at all. Clearly a group of editors want iso dates gone, but consensus is a matter of reasoned, solid arguments. If you want iso dates changed, you need to engage discussion on the matter and respond to objections (RexxS has been doing this). At this point, all the above lacks any solid, convincing, evidence-based arguments for changing the existing format. If anyone has one, please provide it. If not, then I think we can be done here. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, consensus is about consensus, not about perceived "rights" or "wrongs", or "reasoned solid arguments" – which you have yet to provide yourself – and the consensus here is clearly against you. Malleus Fatuorum 05:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the job of those proposing a change to provide strong reasons for the change. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, consensus is clear in this case (as substantive arguments have been provided—which have been supported by the majority of editors here). After a little more time for comment (preferably from editors with input other than IDONTLIKEIT), I intend to rework the references in this article to be based on the standard Cite web template (as is the convention), and therefore to use the suggested accessdate format of "Month Day, Year" (as is the convention now used by all editors who copy-and-paste the template fields from Cite web). I will do this, not as part of some "cabal" or "wrecking crew", but with the same intent on which I base all my editing activities: the desire to improve the article for our readers.
 * I will add that I am very surprised that less than 10% of the references in this article use the Cite web template—which has resulted in much too wide a result in reference syntax. Converting all the web references to using the standard Cite web template will be a large job in this case, and I could use all the help I can get (and perhaps the work could be divided up by sections?). Anyhow, when this is all over I'll make a start and do the best that I can.
 * GFHandel &#9836; 08:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You have stated your intent to violate yet another guideline. Good to know. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely you are not now going to start arguing that the citation format ought not to be consistent? Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually yes, consensus among the regular editors of this article is indeed quite clear. Gimmetoo, SandyGeorgia and myself agree that the existing format is adequate, and no substantive arguments have been put forth to change this particular article . It does seem that your proposal has rallied some inchoate sense of a need for change of something or other. Please address this at the relevant guideline and policy pages and return when you have developed the enyclopedia-wide consensus you seem to be prematurely declaring here. Franamax (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In what sense is SandyG, who has made only two edits to this article almost four years ago a "regular editor"? You yourself have only made 28 edits, the last well over a year ago, so what's your definition of "regular editor"? Malleus Fatuorum 12:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, I am not a "regular editor" of this article. As far as I know, the only "regular editor" here is Gimme (that is, an editor who followed this article before and independently from this style dispute).  I am here because I was asked to opine in a disagreement between friends on what our guideines say (I thought I had done that impartially, and was surprised to see John claiming some issue because I didn't look at the actual edits, which was eggggzactly the point-- I was only commenting on the guideline).  I re-engaged when I saw an influx of editors unrelated to the topic attempting to affect consensus on an article they don't even edit (WP:POINT), and I continue to say that it is demoralizing and demotivating to editors when one article is targeted because a group wants to effect a wider change to a guideline.  It's just not nice-- take it to the guideline, leave the individual article alone until you gain consensus.  It's the editors who work here who have to deal with whatever method is used, as well as the ever-changing citation methods.  IF there are serious problems with ISO that need to be addressed, reason will prevail in a broader discussion. Again, what have all of you gained by all of this illwill?  When you "win", what have you won ?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Conversely, what would Gimmetoo lose by recognising that consensus is against him, as it so obviously is? Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus, as expressed in numerous guidelines, is to not arbitrarily change styles. Are you saying that a group of editors, very likely including off-wiki canvassing with an intent to harass, can form a "consensus" in direct opposition to the consensus expressed by the wider community in a number of previous discussions? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're being very free with your allegations of underhanded practice; unless you have some evidence to back up your accusations I suggest that you withdraw them. Consensus on this article is very clearly against you, and you need to accept that and move on. Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Very few "arguments" here for changing styles are about this article. If it's been established at guideline level that styles A, B and C are acceptable, then they are acceptable. The "Style B is bad" sort of "argument" has been rejected repeatedly at the guideline level. If all the "argument" here is just more "Style B is bad", without reference to this article, then that "argument" is simply refuted by pointing to the consensus guideline. No substantial reason has been provided for changing this article. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One might equally well argue that no substantial reason has been provided for not changing this article to have all its dates formatted consistently. Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The dates are formatted consistency, publication dates in one format and accessdates in another. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's two different formats; the best you can claim is that it's consistently inconsistent. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * How many edits does one need then to be entitled to contribute to the discussion? Franamax, you're on shaky ground with only 28. Actually, Gimmetoo would get to make the sole decision if our opinions were weighted according to the number of edits; between his two accounts he has made 452. Wouldn't this be somewhat opposed to the spririt of WP:OWN though? --John (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For my purposes, there's a distinction between anyone who was editing this article before and independent of the style dispute. I don't think your analogy of weighting above would apply, at least IMO.  The question is, who works on the article and what has been gained by all of this ill will, and why isn't this effort expended on the guidelines rather than one article and one editor, who not incoincidentally was targeted in the past ?? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

7,968 words in this section arguing over the access date that nobody will read anyway. You people crack me up! Tex (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If that was all we had done you would indeed by entitled to your crack. Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tex is right, I'm unwatching now, but this sort of thing is really sad and doesn't speak well for Wikipedia. When so many good editors are arguing over a silly accessdate, instead of letting Gimme go about his business of maintaining an article no one else ever cared about, we've got issues.  Did we learn nothing from the lamest ever Arbcom case?  Bye, I'm sorry I wasn't able to be of more help; I thought I could affect some reason among people I think of as friends, and I've surely failed.  Work to do elsewhere.   IF there is a reasonable RFC somewhere about the guidelines, I'd appreciate it if someone would ping me.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes John I am on shaky ground. However I do feel that I am on stronger ground here than anyone else bar Sandy (who's correctly spotted the bullying) and Gimme. I've had this on my watchlist for ages, and if you look (way) back you will find where Gimme was on holiday and I discussed with Sandy picking up the ball on the BLP issues - and I think I got bitten a bit by Gimme when they got back on the scene for overstating something. So this article has been on "our" radar for years. It's not the hot zone it used to be, but all the way through it has been Gimmetoo riding herd here. I can bear witness to that, day-by-day from my watchlist, and I do believe that no single other participant in this discussion can do so. The plain fact is that you are all interlopers, sharpening whatever particular axe into a sharp WP:POINT, but you have no real particular interest here other than to win a battle. Everyone seems to have their own particular need to win something. In your case, you got pissed off about being reverted and rather than just redoing the edit without the automated changes (so as to, you know, make an improvement everyone could agree on) you decided to make an issue out of it. And suddenly all these revenge-seekers and axe-grinders took notice and here we are. The sad thing is that even given my low level of participation lately, I will still be a major "responsible" watcher here, long after the rest of you have moved on. And given how effectively this lot has screwed over the major friend of this page, I might even end up as the man in charge. Nice work there... Franamax (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Who exactly are you accusing of "bullying", and in what way has Gimmetto been bullied? If it's so lame to want a consistent date format throughout the article then why is Gimmetoo so resistant? Why is it such a big deal for him when hardly anyone else cares? And if he's such a "friend" of this article, why did he fail to spot and correct a blatantly obvious copyright violation, and in fact in his unseemly hast to revert John went so far as to restore it? The bottom line is that this isn't Gimmetoo's article and he has no right of veto over it, whatever you may believe. Malleus Fatuorum 11:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * These criticisms are not justified. John did not decide to "make an issue out of it" (as I started this proposal with no communication with anyone else). I did not do so as a "revenge-seeker" or "axe-grinder", and I can't remember ever having had dealings with Gimmetoo. And if the thought of using things like "April" instead of "04" is enough to demoralise someone to the point where they feel forced to walk away from an article, then there was most definitely too great a sense of ownership. I also don't believe that will happen, as I believe Gimmetoo will remain here as the dedicated and hard-working editor he has demonstrated. Regarding "long after the rest of you have moved on"—that is an assumption that is unwarranted. I have a vast number of articles on my watchlist to which I routinely perform clean-up, improvement, and anti-vandalism duties—and I will commit to keeping this page watched for those purposes. GFHandel &#9836; 22:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support If a date is intended for machine-sortable usage like punch cards, then all-numeric dates with leading zeros like 2012-05-04 are fine. If the date is intended for humans to read (which is what content on Wikipedia is for) then “May 4, 2012” is easier to read. Greg L (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I have only one motive: to improve the article for our readers—which in my opinion (and, as it turns out, the opinion of the majority here) includes displaying things again like "April 9, 2012" instead of "2012-04-09". I say "again" because that was the direction adopted after the more than 1,000 edits by more than 100 editors over the almost first four years of the article's life. I'm more than willing to go through the article and implement the Cite web template for the 70 or so web links that (unfortunately) have not been standardised during the article's history. I will use the format of dates that is recommended by that template (the format that, in my experience, is the dominant format used by editors utilising the template). Of course, it will take a few days to load, check, and transfer the details of each URL to the Cite Web template, so I'm asking editors here to be patient and tolerant while the work happens. So how about we all relax a little, let me get on with the task, and see what the results look like? GFHandel &#9836; 22:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This might not go over too well, as Gimmetoo is also down on the use of citation templates and considers their addition to an article as controversial. -- Dianna (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Confronting Gimmetoo about anything never goes well, but that's no reason not to do it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I made a good start on this today, however Gimmetoo has now threatened me on my talk page with:
 * Installing cite templates on an article that does not have them is contrary to guideline. You have previously been notified of this. You are also changing the reference format. As such you are knowingly editing in violation of guidelines. You will not be warned again.
 * I was under the impression that consensus was achieved, and I observed that there were no objections to my stated course of action (above). I don't understand the "Installing cite templates on an article that does not have them is contrary to guideline" message because that would mean that you could never add them (say) if the original editors didn't know how to use them when adding references. I will also note that the article does have Cite web template use (I think about seven of them were present before I start editing today).
 * GFHandel &#9836; 01:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If your interest is "to improve the article for our readers", then you would not attempt to install cite templates on this article. There most certainly was an objections to your stated intent to violate guideline. Prior to this "discussion", It had 77 references without cite templates. It doesn't need them. Adding cite templates would adversely affect readers. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way would it adversely affect readers? Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * well, I support what GFHandel is doing because I like the article and wish it t be easy to read and understand for me. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is simply not correct. This was the state of the article prior to my edits today. If you click Edit at the top of the page and search for "{{Cite web" you will find six examples. I am flummoxed by "Adding cite templates would adversely affect readers" because providing a standard method of presenting and formatting references is precisely designed to assist readers. Additionally, the job of going through the article and applying the templates (although large) will improve the overall quality for our readers (I've already corrected a few problems). GFHandel &#9836; 01:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you are simply not correct. This article had no citation templates prior to this "discussion". I further note that certain editors are even edit-warring over capitalisation of the cite templates. Have any of you looked at ongoing and recent arbitration? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the one who added those six recent {{Cite web}} templates, and I was talking about the state of the article that I found on 2012-05-09 when I offered to patiently go through the article and improve the formatting of the references. Regardless, the whole thing is moot since the article now has the template (and will soon have many more). For a little sense of proportion, please note that there are well over a million uses of the {{tl|cite web}} template at en.WP.
 * Edit-warring? What war? I used {{Cite web}} and MF changed that to {{cite web}} . I'm happy with his change and will continue with his suggestion (when I have time to continue). Could you please stop trying to find fault?
 * Could you please provide us with a link to the guideline that states "Installing cite templates on an article that does not have them is contrary to guideline"? I will note that you now consider the action to be "contrary to guideline", however a week ago you considered it to be "controversial". What happened in that week to upgrade the practice from "controversial" to "contrary to guideline"? I have asked for more details about this at the Citation template talk page.
 * For the record, when you write "You will not be warned again", what are you suggesting your intentions to be when I (and I guess others now) resume the task of using the {{cite web}} template in this article?
 * GFHandel &#9836; 04:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One can only assume that he's threatening to block us, just as he threatened to have me banned from GA reviewing. Some people are quite simply unfit to be administrators, and Gimmetoo is one of those. Malleus Fatuorum 04:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I have no dog in the {{tl|cite web}} vs Cite web issue. I'm simply one for consistency, and the first occurrence of the template I came across in the article was {{tl|cite web}}. To call that an edit war I think says a great deal about Gimmetoo's unbalanced attitude. Malleus Fatuorum 04:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. And having found one blatant copyright violation in this article (now dealt with) I have to add that much of the rather flowery prose makes me suspicious that there are others as yet undiscovered. Perhaps Gimmetoo might like to address that? Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I continued with the work today, however I just received the following message on my talk page:

{{Quote box |quote= As an uninvolved administrator, I would like to ask you to heed WP:CITEVAR. Please stop adding citation templates to articles which have been established without them. In particular, you have been advised already that Sean Combs was established without citation templates, and that others object to the conversion. Therefore, it is inappropriate for you to continue to convert references in that article to use templates, as with. |source= &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |width=70% |align=center}}
 * To which I replied:

{{Quote box |quote= No, it's not "others" who object, it's "other" (see the talk page discussion). From the same discussion, please note that others do support the use of the templates. The proposed action of adding the templates was made on the talk page and the work began yesterday. It is a large job, and I will have to do it in stages. It is now inconceivable to leave the article in a state where it has a mixture of referencing styles. In adding the templates, consistent formatting is being established, and issues are being detected and corrected (e.g. unnecessary use of archives, missing dates, etc.). Consensus has been established at the talk page, and at least one other admin has contributed to the work. For the record, could you please explain to the entire community exactly what it is about the templates that you feel are not helping to improve the article for its readers? |source= GFHandel &#9836; 21:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |width=70% |align=center}}
 * I don't see a relevant post on CBM's talk page, so I'm guessing he was contacted privately about this? I'm interested to read what any involved editors think about this development. I am more willing than ever to continue with the work, because I know that I am improving the article's quality for all of our readers.
 * GFHandel &#9836; 21:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good work GFH and Malleus in tidying up the references. Gimmetoo, you'd better not be threatening to block as you are clearly involved here. CBM, which others besides Gimmetoo do you see objecting to the use of cite templates? --John (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with John, though there's still some faulty citations on the page. e.g. ref 67goes to this useless page. Good work GFHandel! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you to all. I'm going through the references in numerical order, so 67 is some way off. For each reference, I'm loading the destination URL, and confirming the parameters to be used in {{tl|cite web}}, so I will eventually detect problems such as the one you noticed. Thanks. GFHandel &#9836; 22:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was feeling a bit left out, not having been warned by CBM, but it's all OK now, I've had mine as well. The fact of the matter though is the pre-existing citations were a bloody mess, and it would be exceedingly hard to make them worse. the date format was the least of the problems. If CBM decides to block us for tidying up this article than it's yet another battle scar I'll wear with pride. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to edit this article for a few days, but I would like to make it clear that I support improving this article by adding citation templates. Templates make citations easier to maintain and are familiar to all but the newest users. They ensure that all citations within an article will be fairly uniform in presentation. Material inside citation templates is accessible to Citation Bot, and ones without templates are not. Citation Bot crawls the wiki, fixing citations, making formatting corrections, and adding things like DOIs and jstor information (we're not likely to see any of those on this particular article unless Mr. Combs changes career paths, but still). -- Dianna (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked at how the citations have varied over time in this article, and I must agree that settling for a consistent style is an improvement to the article, even if it is a minor one. What is more important is that using the {{tl|cite}} family of templates does make it easier for automated tools to clean up and maintain citations - as well as emitting COinS data for others to use. Nevertheless, we should always be aware of the known problems with that family of templates, principal of which is the time taken for the server to re-create the page when it is edited. I've just checked the times with and without rendering the cite templates and the 33 templates in use at the moment increase the serve time from 3.1 sec to 4.4 sec. This suggests that using cite templates throughout is likely to increase the serve time form around 3 sec to less than 6 sec and I don't believe that presents a significant problem for editors. Although, should the number of references increase into the hundreds, then a faster cite template would be preferred - assuming that the article hasn't been split and converted to summary style by then. If there are any other reasoned arguments against the present round of edits, then it seems sensible to debate them on this talk page. I'll drop a line to Carl and invite him to comment on the discussion here. --RexxS (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * While "improving" an article is a good thing, templates are not necessary, and they are a hindrance in various ways. The genuine improvements I've seen are a few archive links and some minor rephrasing, none of which required cite templates. I objected to the templates as soon as they were brought up. Continuing with these questionable templates could be viewed a an attempt at WP:FAITACCOMPLI. As for some of the "improvements": - it's trivial to find . And the complaint about ref 67 above (probably meant 69) could have been fixed with . I will remind editors to avoid "personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct."  Gimmetoo (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you are saying. Why do you decide what to do with the article when other editors object? The citations really are a mess. Shouldn't you be glad that someone is taking on the job of fixing all the citation errors? I don't understand your point of view. And it seems drastic to threaten editors who are improving the article with being blocked. I thought that anyone could improve an article. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody would stop "improvements". But that rhetoric hides the issue about templates. Do you think templates are always and everywhere an improvement over any other system? If so, then that's where we differ. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I have no opinion in general about templates. I think what RexxS and others have said is persuasive. And I think the citations in this particular article are a mess and that GFHandel is doing a good job fixing things up. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Tidying up" whatever "mess" you think you saw did not at all require templates. Why not just "tidy up" the existing references? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because I would tidy up using templates and might be blocked for doing that. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go as far as to say that the references are a mess, however I'm still keen to do my part to standardize them with the cite web template (as per consensus here).
 * I will go as far as to say that the article layout is a mess. Why is a heading such as "2010–present: The Dream Team and Diddy Dirty Money" a sub-heading of the "Early life" section? If Mr Combs is planning to live to 150 then I guess that age 41 (in 2010) could be considered "early", however I'm suspecting that to be a tad optimistic. Perhaps Gimmetoo would like to leave the mundane formatting tasks to us worker ants here, and spend some time considering the layout of the article?
 * GFHandel &#9836; 00:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have always been against imposing templates on article that didn't previously use them because they clutter the text, and I'm opposed here for the same reasons that I've had and expressed for at least six years. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But the article did previously use them. And it's inline citations that clutter the article text, not templates per se. Malleus Fatuorum 04:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Rexx - Does the page generation time differ based on whether a person viewing the article is logged in or not? People who are not logged in are served a cached version of the page. @ Gimmetoo, SandyGeorgia: My opinion is that citations in templates are far superior to hand-made citations. Please check out what we've done on Adolf Hitler as an example. {{tp|sfn}} templates combined with cite book, cite journal, and cite web templates make for a highly organised set of citations. Order promotes stability, and stability helps create a quality experience for our readers. {sfn} templates automatically collate duplicate references and create clickable links down to the bibliography. The system does not work as well on articles that are mostly cited to web pages, but it's a nice example of what's technically possible. I am in favour of using technology to speed editing as that frees up more editor time for other tasks. The time of our editors is virtually our only resource, so we need to spend it wisely. -- Dianna (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Diannaa: The server only has to generate a page when the wikitext changes, i.e. on preview or when you save an edit. Otherwise you get the last cached version of the page from the squid and templates have no bearing on that - it happens in milliseconds. The template "load" on the server only affects editing, not viewing, logged in or not.
 * @Sandy: if the text gets too cluttered, then why not use list-defined references and shortened footnotes? They can go a very long way to restoring the readability of what appears in the edit box.
 * Anyway, Gimme is the major contributor to this article, and as such deserves to have his substantive arguments debated fully. I would certainly agree that not every article is well-suited to citation templates. As an example I argued strongly for the retention of parenthetical referencing in Geogre's Ormulum at Featured article review/Ormulum/archive1, since Geogre's writing style was complemented, in my humble opinion, by that referencing format. Sadly, I lost that argument. There are, in general, clear advantages in the use of citation templates, as are rehearsed above, but we must be prepared to discuss with Gimme (and anyone else who wishes to comment) when they disagree. I know that many editors worry that citation templates are off-putting for newcomers - and that is a genuine concern in many articles. Would I be right, Gimme, to see that as one of your major reasons for preferring hand-written cites in this article (which may be a natural magnet for younger, less experienced editors)? --RexxS (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But the issue here isn't parenthetical referencing; it's inconsistent, incorrect, and messy referencing. Malleus Fatuorum 04:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not just "tidy up" the existing references, if you thought they were "messy"? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am. God knows what you're doing though. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I will again remind editors that "Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as trolling and harassment". Gimmetoo (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Provoke"? My intention is, as it has always been, to improve articles for WP's readers. I have little control over whether that intent "provokes" someone. I will remind you that WP:AGF applies here as well, so please consider that a number of hard-working and dedicated editors are spending time to improve this article. Unfortunately, I don't have much time today, so I'll have to continue with the work later in the week. GFHandel &#9836; 23:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not your statements that I had in mind. However, I don't find templates (or the date formats for that matter) to be an improvement. They are style changes, so largely arbitrary. (Templates have some significant drawbacks, however.) It take a lot of editorial effort to completely change the style of an article with 70+ references. Why spend all that effort? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to see the benefit of carpet-bombing everyone with general policy advice, and actually class such actions as much closer to harassment than anything I've seen here from other editors. The reasons for change are amply covered (and supported) above. Yes, it does take a lot of effort, but as stated and demonstrated, I (and of course others now) are happy to do the work. GFHandel &#9836; 23:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the "reasons for the change" are not amply covered and supported. Nor were they discussed. I objected and editors nevertheless proceeded to change the article without discussion. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I already explicitly told you how to improve this citation. How is tagging it "dead", despite already knowing what to do, "improving" the article? And, tagging as "not in citation", when it clearly was , let alone other links with the same 2007 quote. This is "improving" the article? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * because I want to be helpful but not to get in trouble using templates, which is the only way I know how to do it. So now the article is receiving a cleanup, it helps to know which citations need replacing. Also, the wayback machine link wasn't there. Maybe you need to use named references or something.  MathewTownsend (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

An edit adding some information contrary to the cited sources, this time by someone from the "group of copyeditors". I'm glad to see such keen interest in "improving" the article. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You've got it backwards, Gimmetoo. I didn't add any content at all. I removed "to commemorate the inauguration of an annual October 13 'Diddy Day'" because there's nothing in the source saying that the event is held annually; it looks like it was a one-time thing. And I removed "It featured a white carpet to go along with the white dress code" because it had been lifted directly from the source without any paraphrasing, and is thus a copyright violation. -- Dianna (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you got it backwards. Your edit put Diddy Day on October 16, 2006; contrary to the cited source. And you have not corrected it. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, another copyvio. Well done, Dianaa for removing it. I wonder how many more there are? I think in general the style of the article could use more work as well; it's a little chatty and fannish in places. --John (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The style of the language is precisely why I'm convinced that there are still other copyright violations in the article. Malleus Fatuorum 14:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and I've just found another one. The entire final paragraph of the Charity work and honours section has been copied from this web site. Why is Gimmetoo not helping with this effort? Was it him who introduced all these copyright violations? Malleus Fatuorum 14:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you still installing cite templates without discussion? Also note that most citations put the author in "First Last" form, not "Last, First" form. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you not addressing the very serious issues of copyright violation in this article instead of repeatedly whining on and on about trivia and ignoring direct questions? Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And surely you know enough about basic coding to know that with named parameters it makes no difference what order they're given in? Malleus Fatuorum 15:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which issue do we currently think is more important, the date format, the use of cite templates, or the numerous copyvios and turgid writing style? I started off with an innocent copyedit whcih happened to align the date formats, but I think we have now uncovered some far more serious problems. This situation could have been designed to illustrate the ownership that well-meaning editors who have worked on an article can come to feel. --John (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have addressed them. Why are you repeating such very serious accusations without evidence, especially after being challenged on them? Recall WP:NPA. And surely you know the difference between  and  . Gimmetoo (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because they're true? You have studiously ignored the several copyright violations found so far, and I have no doubt that more will be found. Why did you let the article get into this state? Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a highly provocative accusation. Demonstrate or retract, please. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This talk page is full of such demonstrations of your focus on trivia while very obviously ignoring this article's far more serious problems, which you have not lifted a finger to help correct. Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet another very serious accusation. I have addressed every alleged copyright issue brought to my attention, including one that you studiously failed to correct. If you thought it was serious, why did you not correct it? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I drew the first one to your attention, and given your very clear ownership issues allowed you to deal with it as you felt appropriate. You might, for instance, have decided to rewrite the offending text instead of deleting it. But tell me, why have you failed to spot any of the copyright violations discovered so far? Did you introduce them? Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With 452 edits to the article under your two different identities (why do you do that by the way?), you are by far the main contributor to it. It is obvious from the amount of fuss you have made over a nonsense formatting issue that you regard the article as being "yours" (and, notwithstanding WP:OWN, that is something we can all do to some extent). Fine. So why have you allowed at least two serious copyright violations onto the article? Did you add them yourself? If we look further will we find more like this? I'd like to work on the article but am reluctant now because of the possibility that it is infected with multiple copyvios. Is it? You seem like the best person to ask as the most prolific editor of the article. --John (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you accuse me of "OWNing" at the same time as you accuse me of not "OWNing" the article enough. I don't recall adding any text so far alleged to be a copyright issue, and I resent your repeated accusations. Now are you willing to cut the rhetoric and actually engage collegially, or not? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}Collegially, hmm. Like this, you mean? As long as it is all about winning a debate rather than improving articles, it will be difficult for others to work with you. Your use of "alleged" above is another example. Recall this recent conversation, where arbitrator User:AGK who you were trying to get me into trouble with replied "so far as the mere conduct of you both is concerned, John is a model editor by comparison to you. Pretty much everything I have seen you write could have been worded better, if indeed it had to be said at all; and you really ought to take a good hard look at how you are interacting with your peers. If the present dispute continues then I'm sure another contributor will open a review of the situation, and I must say I expect that the community will look unkindly on your conduct"; did you learn anything from that? Now, article talk isn't really the place for this conversation, but I do think you need to reassess the nature and tone of your contributions here if you want to encourage others to "engage collegially". --John (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it, do you? Has none of your behaviour changed since AGK got involved? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For the sake of apportioning blame (or not as the case may be), the copyright violation I discovered earlier today was introduced by an IP on 11 October last year with this edit. Gimmetoo next edited the article four days later, and interestingly did not object to the IP's use of the {{tl|cite web}} template. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Interestingly did not object to the IP's use of the cite web template"? Where do you get these things? I'm fairly sure I reformatted the stray template while updating some other information in light of a newer reference. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you fiddled with your pet peeve of citation style while completely ignoring the fact that the entire text had been copy and pasted? Didn't the writing style look odd to you? Have you in fact checked any of the citations in this article, ever? Can you explain, for instance how this supports anything in the sentence it follows, which says "Sean Combs was born in a public housing project in Harlem, New York City, the son of Janice, a model and teacher, and Melvin Earl Combs"? Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't recall, and the link no longer provides the full story, but I would presume it included a brief biography of Combs that used the name of one or both parents. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This cite was not recoverable using the wayback machine, and we don't need two cites for these basic facts, so it's been removed. -- Dianna (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Except for perhaps the word "violent", this information is trivially verifiable, for instance . Gimmetoo (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss to figure out what's going on with this edit. In the first part, the text is missing a word now ("New York drug Frank Lucas"). In the second, apparently "party promoter" was removed, but why? See p.2 of a Time article that was already referenced there, for instance. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that a college student threw parties seemed unremarkable, so I cut it. I will replace Malleus has added the missing word. Stopping for a while; someone else can have a go. -- Dianna (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact the citation says nothing about him being a party promoter while at Howard; what it says is that he "schooled himself in party throwing", not at all the same thing. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's quibbling. He is frequently referred to as a party promoter during college, that it was his "first job in entertainment", and even suggesting that these provided him connections to arrange the Uptown internship. He did not merely throw parties while in college, but sold tickets to them . The Time article puts the phrase "party thowing" in the same paragraph discussing the 1991 event. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not quibbling at all, as the two things are very far from being synonymous. "Schooling himself in party throwing" may well have involved him in charging for tickets, but that doesn't make him a promoter as opposed to someone simply throwing a party and hoping to recoup some of the costs. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Charging for tickets is not at all the same thing as recouping some of the costs. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In your world perhaps. But the bottom line is that none of these sources call him a party promoter during his time at Howard. Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked over these additional sources and I still am not seeing how throwing parties was influential in the development of his career or tells us something about his character. I don't think it's important enough to be in the article. -- Dianna (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned in substantial reliable sources (specifically - the general biographies). It's important enough to be in these sources. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Many of those sources are just breathless hagiographies though. "Hold the front page! A student throws parties!" Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources find it relevant to mention in relation to this subject. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Templates, specifically
This article developed to have 70+ references, all written in wikitext without templates. I object to templates on this article for a number of reasons
 * Cite templates increase the computational time to deal with the article in various ways. For editoring, it increases the time for preview and save; on articles with a lot of templates I sometimes have to wait over 30 seconds to preview/save. For reading (not logged in), articles with templates do appear to take longer to display, possibly due to time to process various tags the templates add. Even a few seconds extra on an article with ~5k views per day can mean hours of reader time.
 * Cite templates clutter the text. The same information, without templates, is almost always shorter in the wikitext.
 * One of the "advantages" claimed of cite templates is "consistency". YMMV, but I don't find the following citations, produced with the same template, to be consistent with each other. One has the date in parentheses as the second piece of information, while the other has the date as the third piece of information, and not in parentheses. These look like they came from different style guides. Citations of both types are almost inevitable in an article like this, referenced mostly to webpages.
 * RexxS says that manual citations may be easier for newcomer editors.
 * There are some other considerations, but I think that's enough for now. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See above, there are more important issues than cite templates. --John (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you find the inline citations problematic, a good option is to convert to list defined references. There's a script available that we can use to help with the conversion. It's a good citation system for stable articles that use a lot of web-based citations. It also makes it easier to put all the parameters into the same order on each citation, if that's important to you. As newer contributors would not be familiar with the system, it would require you to incorporate any new citations into the existing style, like I do on . A sample article with list-defined references can be found at Ted Bundy. But that's fusswork best left for another day; for now we had better focus on locating and removing any further copyright violations, and finding a way to resolve the remaining dead links. -- Dianna (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As implemented, LDR is not really a good option, as it separates the citation information from the text. That could have been addressed had LDR been discussed with content editors before being implemented, but now that's water under the bridge. Nor are "dead links" really an issue - if the material was published, it can still be referenced even if the link goes "dead". (There is one mention in this article of material that was retracted, but that's a special case, and the cite is to the retraction.) Gimmetoo (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the dead links. The information at Link rot states that dead links are a serious threat to the verifiability of the references. And as you know, WP:Verifiability is a Wikipedia policy, very important, much more important than the formatting of the access dates, or whether the references are called with a tag or a template, or whether it says "accessed" or "retrieved". -- Dianna (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Dead links says: "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." Gimmetoo (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the problem that Gimme mentions is one that any form of named references suffers from. By implementation, all but one of the named references are separated from the text in every case. LDR differs only in that the full reference can always be found in a fixed place (in the References section). When I think of all the times I've searched back-and-forth in some large articles trying to find where a reference is defined in full, I'm surprised the adoption of LDR has not been universal. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's an easy solution that avoids the hassle with LDR of having to keep two windows open; just add "importScript('User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js')" to your skin's CSS and all the citations are collected together for easy reviewing and editing in a separate window underneath the edit window, whether the article uses LDR or not. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "hours of reader time" is designed to demonstrate. I just loaded the article as an anonymous reader in Firefox and the article displayed in under two seconds (IE took a little, but not much, longer). Of course it all varies a lot based on any number of caching mechanisms, but I don't feel we should be discussing issues to do with page-loading times (something that will only improve over time as hardware and network throughput improves). I have witnessed the different renderings of the cite web template, but that's the consensus decision that was made; and of course, the point is that if the rendering is under the control of a common mechanism, it can all be changed quickly (unlike hard-coded reference syntax). I don't believe that templates cluttering the text is a show-stopping issue. There is just so much reference text disrupting the article text anyway, that a bit more syntax is not much of a concern; and actually, I believe that the "|parameter=" syntax helps the editor to visually skip forward to find the marker. I am very interested to discuss LDR (should anyone care to push that a bit more here). Lastly I will note that as I write this, there are 1,117,911 uses of the cite web template at en.WP, so perhaps we shouldn't get too worried about how it is affecting or "disrupting" this one article (i.e. lots of articles and editors seem to be coping with it). GFHandel &#9836; 06:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All you've said is that you don't consider the disadvantages of templates much to be worried about. I consider them rather more significant to this article, and consider whatever benefits the templates provide rather insignificant to this article. And so it is an arbitrary style issue; styles, like tastes, are not really debatable. We have a long-standing guideline against changing styles arbitrarily. That should have been followed. It wasn't. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The general points regarding benefits that I (and others) have observed also apply to individual instances—e.g. this article. The guidelines also state that change can be accomplished: "...or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it"; and that was done. Instead of all this, how about leaving it alone now, and perhaps saying a simple "thank you" to the many editors here now who are working to improve the article for its readers? GFHandel &#9836; 22:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you believe the "general points" (whatever they are) apply to every individual instance, then make that argument at the guideline level. If you cannot get consensus on that, then you don't have a consensus based on "general points". That the disputed changes have continued, without discussion, is not particularly helpful. (That recent edits have had WP:V and other issues is also not helpful.) Gimmetoo (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @GFHandel: I am going to put some general information about list-defined references on your talk page. It's the same tool Malleus was talking about; you can use it to get the citations out of the way temporarily while editing the prose, or you can ask it to get the citations out of the way permanently into a separate section. -- Dianna (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Very interesting. GFHandel &#9836; 22:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @GFHandel: I am going to put some general information about list-defined references on your talk page. It's the same tool Malleus was talking about; you can use it to get the citations out of the way temporarily while editing the prose, or you can ask it to get the citations out of the way permanently into a separate section. -- Dianna (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Very interesting. GFHandel &#9836; 22:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit issues
Another 2 days have passed. Editing has continued changing the styles of the article without discussion or consensus here. In addition to a handful of genuine improvements, I have observed editors removing cited or easily verifiable material, tagging cited material as not cited, and "copyediting" that adversely affected the text, making it less accurate or more difficult to verify. Good job. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for instance . If I recall right, the quote was in the video linked on the referenced page, but in any event it was reported elsewhere and even mocked on a comedy news show . Or : I have no idea what this editor tried with google, but this EW article "Rough Daddy" was easy to find. Editors should show due diligence before removing material. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This negativity is hardly worth a response ("without discussion"?); except to say: feel free to help the other hard-working editors who are working to improve the article for all its readers. GFHandel &#9836; 02:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did any of you respond on this talk page while editing in the last couple days? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

To address another issue: a concern was raised above that "Cite templates increase the computational time". For comparative purposes, the Jennifer Lopez article uses 350 cite templates (257 "cite web", 81 "cite news", 8 "cite book", 2 "cite journal", and 2 "cite album-notes"). Loading that article in a browser (which had never opened the article) took about eight seconds. Load time doesn't appear to be an issue at that article, and in conjunction with other page load overheads, I can see no reason for concern based on the 80 or so uses this page will have. GFHandel &#9836; 02:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even a few seconds matters when a page is viewed thousands of times a day. And templates slow things down for editors, too. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Gimmetoo, why don't you welcome the help of GFHandel and others, since you don't seem to want to clean up the article yourself? IMO, the article is definately improving. An article on such a high profile person shouldn't be in the mess it was in for such a long time. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're getting at. Genuine improvements are always welcome anywhere, but how could one welcome the inappropriate removal of content? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The information is still there; it's been paraphrased. If you have a citation for the direct quote and think it is preferable, you could try to make a case for re-adding it. But in my opinion saying "Combs said that fans didn't know how to address him, which led to confusion" is a lot easier to understand than "the P was getting between me and my fans". -- Dianna (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have sources, and are able to extract the meaning from the paragraph I removed as unintelligible and undertake a re-write so it's understandable, that would be great. -- Dianna (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If editors would stop removing material, none of that would be needed. And while technically this is not material removed, perhaps you might look at why the article no longer shows any material about Club New York, Lopez, or the lawsuit. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If editors would stop adding copyrighted and unsourced material then removal would not be needed. Malleus Fatuorum 12:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if editors would stop removing sourced material, there might be some progress. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you'd exercised due diligence in your efforts here there would have been no need to remove anything. There has in fact been a great deal of progress, despite your filibustering, unless of course you believe that an article containing multiple copyright violations is in some way superior to one that doesn't. Malleus Fatuorum 12:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been a great deal of style changing, and some improvements, but I'm confident you wouldn't say that removing sourced information improves the article. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then your confidence is misplaced. Incoherent ramblings, whether sourced or not, are unhelpful. Malleus Fatuorum 12:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Granted, incoherent ramblings are not helpful, but that's beside the point, as the issue is the removal of sourced information written in English. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Gimmetoo, if you have some good content you wish to add or re-add you are free to do so at any time. If you think re-adding content that's been removed might be contentious, just post your proposed edits here on the talk page first for discussion. -- Dianna (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, you have so for not addressed or fixed any of the issues I brought up. Did you propose or discuss your contentious edits? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you could be more specific about what you want fixed, that would be great. Some of your concerns were dealt with already, and the talk page is too huge to navigate. There's no reason why you couldn't edit the article too, though, and fix problems yourself that you may have spotted. No one is working on it right now. -- Dianna (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The only "concern" of mine that I'm aware was fixed was one word. If you could fix the specific things I have already mentioned, it would be a start. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please make a list of your concerns, so I don't have to wade through a 200K talk page. If you want me to help you, you are gonna have to make a list of what you think needs to be done. And please do start jumping in and working on the page yourself. -- Dianna (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I point out specific removed information that was sourced or easy to verify, and apparently that's not specific enough. This edit  with the edit summary "trim unref" removed content sourced to the February 2007 issue of Blender magazine; did that editor check the source?  Still no mention of Club New York, Lopez, or the lawsuit on the page? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I clicked on the Blender article, and the material is no longer there. http://www.blender.com/?src=fc The same phrase is in the Telegraph, so we can source it to that. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-gullible-making-an-art-form-of-consumerism/story-e6frezz0-1225878114367 done -- Dianna (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's the paragraph I removed, as I was unable to parse the meaning and it was unsourced.

Material that claims someone assaulted someone and that folks were shooting at one another surely needs sources in a BLP so i took it out. You say you want this sourced to Entertainment Weekly http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,273202,00.html, but that source does not mention Lil Kim or Lil Cease. If you want that part to stay in, another source will have to be found.

I have re-added the content about the assault charges (re-worded so it is easier to understand the sequence of events). However, the article doesn't say whether he was convicted, and if so, what penalty he faced (a fine? jail time?). If you could locate any information on the outcome of this charge, that would be great. -- Dianna (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Your third concern is a lawsuit, and the source you want used is the LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/12/business/fi-combs12. I need a little help with this one please, as there are three separate legal matters discussed in the LA Times article. (1) James Sabatino sued Combs in an attempt to receive payment for work done in 1993; (2) James Waldon sued Combs for damages over an alleged attack by Combs' bodyguards (this incident is presently in the article); (3) Combs accepted responsibility for Chance, a daughter he fathered with Sarah Chapman (this information already appears in the article). So if you wish the Sabatino lawsuit to appear in the article it can certainly be added, but it would make sense to find some sources that talk about the outcome of the suit. This LA Times article doesn't do that. So let me know what you want done here please. -- Dianna (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I gotta get ready for work now and will resume editing the article after supper if you want me to. -- Dianna (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How could you "click on" the Blender article? It's a printed magazine. That this sentence was accompanied by a link that worked in 2007 but no longer does is not cause for removing material. WP:Link rot specifically says "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." Do you agree with that, or not? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edit removing the paragraph about the Stoute incident claimed that "Google pulls up nothing on this incident". You claimed "nothing". I found something immediately. You also claim you are "unable to parse the meaning" of that mateiral. It's English - what don't you understand? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I just discovered that a few paragraphs have been snipped out; it's the material you were wondering about that covers the night club incident. I will locate the latest version later after work. I have to go now or I will be late. TTYL. -- Dianna (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This one happened in one of your edits. If you recognize what happened, you might avoid it in the future. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

done -- Dianna (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a rather confusing talk page edit, as it adds to material that I had already replied to, changing the context of the reply. Anyway, this LA Times article give the outcome of the Stoute charges. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." This was an AP story. The title (which can still be found easily) is "Chicago Mayor Gives Diddy Key to City". If you really want to quibble about the trivial info (cufflinks), then, though it was almost certainly in the AP story as well. Next , specifically the "cn" for "His attorneys were Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. and Benjamin Brafman." The tagging editor should have by that point read the following reference, and known that the info was there. I'm still waiting for "discussion" on the numerous unnecessary style changes that were and are made here over objections. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that these issues have not been handled, and the editors who imposed their preferred style over objections have also abandoned discussion of their "proposed" style changes. If they have now abandoned the article, then it is time to facilitate other editor fixing the article, including restoring the long-standing styles. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a curious definition of "fix". Are you ever going to anything substantive to this article, or are you just going to keep on whinging endlessly about your preferred citation style? Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus was to implement the technical changes, so they should stay, in my opinion. I have not abandoned the article; there is simply nothing left to do from a technical point of view, and no new material has been added that needs attention. -- Dianna (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Malleus and Diannaa. The article has not been "abandoned" by the editors who recently worked so hard to improve it. I will observe that the sky hasn't fallen in, and that there hasn't been a single complaint (regarding the consistent reference style, and easier-to-digest date format) from other local editors or resulting from the 407,418 views the article has received in the previous 60 days. GFHandel &#9836; 23:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus was to improve the referencing mechanisms, and it was done and should remain (or be yet-further improved). I've tidied a few nits. Methinks this was mostly about not archiving this silly thread. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for those who "worked hard to improve" the article to fix the issues they created. They have not . Because they left the article with content issues they created, it appears that their goal here was to change the existing, consistent, long-term stable style of the article over objections and without discussing the objections. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If there's content issues, please don't be coy about it; if you could please describe the problems that you are asking help with. I am not going to play guessing games with you as to what problems you are perceiving or what sort of help you require. -- Dianna (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop playing games. I brought up issues on the talk page, and you failed to address or discuss some of them. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not playing games. You waste my valuable time if you expect me to comb through a 200-kb talk page to verify that all your content concerns were addressed. To the best of my knowledge they were all addressed. If you have a specific error to report, please go ahead and do so. -- Dianna (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You chose to use your time to arbitrarily change the style of this article (to something inconsistent, even) and create problems along the way. You waste my valuable time by not responding to the issues when I raised them, and expecting me to repeat them when available evidence indicates they will never be addressed. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your sole activity on Wikipedia for the last four days has been to post to this talk page! In the meantime I have logged 82 administrative actions, mostly file deletions; performed 52 edits to articles; finished off the promotion of Heinrich Himmler to GA status; participated in a couple of discussions at ANI; and answered eight queries on my own talk page. So I really question who is wasting whose time here. I am not going to hunt through this article or talk page for unaddressed issues; please re-post any unresolved issues you expect me to deal with. I have already politely asked you to do so several times. Any further posts like the above will be considered trolling on your part and will go unanswered. -- Dianna (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Violation of CIV noted. If you are unwilling or unable to put in the time needed to fix your the problems you have created, then just say so. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which planet are you posting from? Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems evident that Gimmetoo's only concern is over the date formatting used in this article, not its content, as if he loses this battle than he'll find it even harder in the future to impose his preferred yyyy-mm-dd format on others. Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Gimme, I've repeatedly said that I am willing to help, but you refuse to reveal what the problems are! I am not going to put in the required time to locate problems when you sit on your hands and do nothing, when it's obvious that you already know what the problems are, and refuse to tell me. I refuse to be manipulated in that fashion. -- Dianna (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I identified problems and you did not fix them. If you are "not going to put in the required time" to respond to them, then why are you here? Gimmetoo (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was planning on doing routine monitoring of new additions, where all new content should be (a) evaluated for inclusion-worthiness (b) checked for copyvio (c) checked to make sure the source is reliable and actually backs up the addition (d) copy edited to an encyclopedic style and (e) incorporate new citations into the existing citation style. But there's been no new content added for a long time. -- Dianna (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I just noticed a bit of misinformation here: What I said was "I am not going to put in the required time to locate problems when you sit on your hands and do nothing" and you are interpreting that to mean "not going to put in the required time" to respond to them. It's not the same thing at all. -- Dianna (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Dianna, I have told you that you have not responded or fixed some of the issues brought up here. It was you who made allusion to your valuable time. So, if it was not lack of time that led to you to not see, fix, or respond to some issues, then what was the reason? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, I've also lost track of what the outstanding content issues are. Could you please (succinctly) list them again, and I'll do my best to help you and others address them. Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 04:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, and next
I've just finished going through all the references in the article—which are now standardized with the "cite web" template, have all the appropriate parameters filled, and are all named. I'm curious to see the LDR effect of putting all the reference information in the References section, so would it be possible for someone who knows the process to perform that edit, and then immediately revert? It would be interesting to evaluate how easy it is to edit, and to see if section load times are effected by LDR—things that might be tested by looking a the test revision of the article. Anyhow, up to others if this should be tried here. I know that there are many editors here who are much more familiar with the GA process than myself, so how much more work do editors here feel would be required to achieve that status? I'm happy to continue working towards that goal if thought to be reasonably achievable. Thanks to everyone who helped with the recent work. Cheers. GFHandel &#9836; 08:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * User Br'er Rabbit has just converted the article to LDR format—thank you. Happy to discuss of course, but I think LDR is very nice because it moves almost all of the complexity of referencing away from the casual editor. One question: does it mean that adding a reference means editing the entire article (with two changes in the one edit), or should two smaller section edits be made (one in the section with the new reference, and one in the References section)? If it's two section edits, then I guess that the References section edit should be made first so that the article is not left in an inconsistent state (even if that's briefly)? GFHandel &#9836; 09:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The main thing that has to happen is for a user familiar with the system to monitor the article and incorporate any new citations into the existing style. This can be part of the routine monitoring of new additions, where all new content should be (a) evaluated for inclusion-worthiness (b) checked for copyvio (c) checked to make sure the source is reliable and actually backs up the addition and (d) copy edited to an encyclopedic style. I don't think it matters in which order the edits are done. Normally I do it as two section edits, the prose first and then the references, on an article with {sfn} templates. For an article with list-defined references I would normally do it as a whole-article edit.
 * I have taken several articles to GA and can tell you there's still a ways to go here. Articles are normally not promoted with dead links, and we still have three to resolve. And Citation Needed tags are a quick-fail. Any unsourced material will have to be sourced or removed. Every niggling fact does not need a citation, but all statistics and numerical values and direct quotes need sources, as well as any contentious statements likely to be challenged. -- Dianna (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. A "discussion" which never happened is now "closed", while one of the editors who insisted on removing content and changing the style is now replacing citations to news articles with repeated refs to a book apparently written by a children's author. Why? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that you still don't get it ought to give you some food for thought. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No response on the sourcing question, I see. Nice to know that Billboard doesn't show "Been Around the World" charting . When you are willing to address content and sourcing appropriately, let me know on my talk page. Until then, I'm not watching this train wreck. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain the problem without the cynicism (because that just makes it harder to interpret your request)? If you are saying that there is some information that is unsourced, and you have provided the source, I'm curious why you aren't willing to click the relevant "Edit" button in the article and help to improve it? Would you like me to add the reference for you? To the other editors here ... is all that is being asked is to add a reference? GFHandel &#9836; 20:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please not modify the context of my comments? One editor removed content because, according to the edit summary, "Replace unsourced content with sourced content; Billboard Hot 100 site does not show these other songs as charting, so I have removed that claim". But Billboard did, which illustrates the quality of "research". Again, I am not watching this article. When the "editors" here are willing to address content and sourcing appropriately, let me know on my talk page. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are no longer watching the article, why are you continuing to post here? It can make sense to walk away from an area of Wikipedia that is causing one frustration, but to work it has to be total. Declining to work on improving the article, yet continuing to make unhelpful and cryptic remarks here seems like the worst possible solution. --John (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hip-hop or hip hop?
There are 16 occurrences of "hip-hop" in this article and 6 of "hip hop". Which should it be? Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Our article is at Hip hop music which is slightly indicative. My own view is it doesn't matter; clearly both are used in the literature, but obviously it should be consistent throughout. Well spotted. --John (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For consistency with our article then I'm going to go with "hip hop". Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

is this a fan club page or an encyclopedia??
i think this page should get the treatment. please.
 * RafikiSykes (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's a fan club. I've tried to update erroneous sections and it has lead to a speedy deletion of each change.. Correcting one or two sentences lead to edit wars by individual on this page and can lead to deletion of all ones materials by Wiki editors. Why are some editors such fierce protectors of this man's legacy, particularly when it involves violence as is documented in newspaper articles. I do not believe this is a trustworthy page. This page should have the "this is an advertisement" disclaimer on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.155.100 (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

GA
Amazing (especially considering where the article was earlier this year). It really is inspirational to see a hard-working and dedicated editor like Diannaa plugging away to achieve such great outcomes. Well done, thanks, and best wishes for the GA. GFHandel &#9836; 00:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn, premature. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * fixed — Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This nomination is closed. Interesting that a user who has made only 6 edits to the article (and 2 to the talk page) chose to restore the closed nomination, with inappropriate edit summaries, rather than address any of the content and sourcing issues I've already raised. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to repeated restoration I have been forced to quick fail this article for unresolved sourcing and content issues. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed, gimme; you're being disruptive. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing and content issues have still not been addressed. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing that hasn't been addressed is your long-standing disruption, which I doubt you'd be getting away with if not by some miracle you'd managed to get through RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * why is this? I've been watching the page ever since the Rabbit started fixing the citations. Also have noted Dianna's contribution. Gimmetoo has contributed nothing positive and only disruption. How can this be? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been going on for years with Gimmetoo, on various articles. Only he can say why. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing and content issues have still not been addressed. I'll check back in a couple days and if they are still not addressed, I will consider a GA review. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to make a fool of yourself that's entirely up to you, but I'd strongly suggest a community review, as after your recent shenanigans an individual review would likely result in sanctions against you. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What happened here was that some peripheral content for which I was unable to locate readily verifiable sources was removed as part of the GA prep. That's a perfectly normal part of preparing an article for nomination, and I am prepared to defend the choices that I made. The fact that an independent reviewer has now passed the article to GA, while saying that "overall the article is really good", only serves to back up my choices as being improvements to the article. I would also like to point out that if you have some good properly sourced content you wish to add to the article, there's no reason why you can't add it yourself. There's no need to try to intimidate me or bully me into doing it for you. -- Dianna (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * wp:GAR does say:
 * Fix any simple problems yourself.
 * Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see there is still no substantive reply to issues that were raised weeks ago now. You removed sources, and sourced information. Had you addressed the issues when they were raised, perhaps they could have been discussed and resolved, but your persistent refusal to engage discussion made discussion difficult.Gimmetoo (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you for real? Either put up or shut up. Malleus Fatuorum 05:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He's just being petulant and [ disruptive], as usual. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Gimmetoo, more than one editor has requested that you make a succinct list of the problems that you feel remain. Could you please do that now so that we can try to address the issues? GFHandel &#9836; 06:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I listed some, and they were ignored, or worse. And certain editors here even seem to repeatedly modify my talk page comments. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I really want to thank Malleus for all his terrific copy edit work, most of it done back in May, which made the article so much better. His work is one of the primary reasons why the article is at GA today. And GFHandel and Br'er Rabbit put in a lot of work on the citations. It's a real testament to how much can be done when a few people get together and collaborate on an article. Gimmetoo, as far as I can tell, all your concerns that you listed back in May were dealt with. If I missed something, please tell me what it is, or edit the article yourself to make the improvements you feel are necessary. I ask you for the sixth time. I do realise that some peripheral content (such as the cuff links and keys to the city story) for which I was unable to locate readily verifiable sources was removed as part of the GA prep. That's a perfectly normal part of preparing an article for a GA nomination, and I am prepared to defend the choices that I made. So if you would like to discuss any specific items that I removed, things you think are important that are now not included that you wish to have re-added, let's talk about it and get your input as to what further improvements you feel are needed. That's how collaborative editing works, and you're welcome to participate. -- Dianna (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I am pretty sure the removal of the cuff links/keys to the city story is what is troubling you the most, so I will give a thorough explanation for that particular choice. The link went dead, and your reasoning is that it doesn't matter; since the citation was available at one point it doesn't matter that we cannot access it any more. But the material at WP:DEADREF says to "Remove hopelessly lost web-only sources: If the source material does not exist offline, and if there is no archived version of the webpage (be sure to wait ~24 months), and if you are unable to find another copy of the material, then the dead citation should be removed and the material it supports should be regarded as unverifiable." So I took it out. It's not an important part of the story anyways; and sketchily-sourced material has to be removed as part of GA prep. Sourcing is the main thing that separates a GA article from a B-class article. -- Dianna (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. I first identified and tagged the "key to the city" Channel3000.com reference (which was added on October 29, 2006) as a dead link, and I remember spending a long time trying to find a replacement—but couldn't. I found it troubling that no source could be found for the event of a celebrity receiving the key to a city, and agree with the removal of the information because it would be better if WP could be certain about such claims. GFHandel &#9836; 22:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried to source it too, but failed. It's not an important enough piece of information that I would leave it in the article essentially unsourced. The fact that they awarded him a "day" tells the same story. -- Dianna (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As did I. If Gimmetoo's got a reliable source then it's more than time that he revealed it or STFU. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa, you will notice that Diddy Day was discussed previously (see May 29), and you chose not to reply. For support in removing the material, now you mention a clause in WP:DEADREF. This story was released by AP. Are you disputing that this was an AP story? Are you disputing the title of the story? You are aware of other links that corroborate the material; one is in the article, and another provided on the talk page mentions other details (the cufflinks). "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link...." It's now been over two weeks since I asked why you removed sources and replaced them with what appears to be something written by a children's author. (The removed sources were from Time, USA Today, Rolling Stone, People, CBS.) No reply from anyone. You removed material verifiable to Billboard that you said you couldn't find, even though a link was provided. Why did you not resolve these when they were raised? You've also removed material from early life that is routinely found in reliable biographies, and then abandoned discussion of that point. And by the way, Diddy had 7 Grammy nominations in 1998 according to a NYTime source that is no longer in the article; the article only mentions 5 of them. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Diddy Day: Sorry, I'm not seeing any discussion on May 29. There were no posts to the talk page or edits to the article on that day, so I am unable to reference your concern using that. I did find where you had noted an incorrect date for Diddy Day had been entered into the article at one point, but it is correct now (October 13, 2006). If there's something you feel is unaddressed about Diddy Day, I have no idea what it might be.
 * Cufflinks I am not disputing the fact that AP sent this story out on the wire; I spent quite some time on at least three occasions looking for another source for the material but did not find anything. The AP website does not give access to the story either. AP requires that all its subscribers remove the material from their websites two weeks after it is first published, so there is no archive copy at the Wayback Machine. So the link has been dead since November 2006. Sourcing requirements say that if no hard copy exists, and there are no web copies to be found, the information has to come out as unsourced. Sorry.
 * Children's book: The book citations were substituted as a way to cut down on the number of citations in the article, thus making it a little smaller and leaner and easier to load. It's a hundred-page book for the teen market with footnotes and a bibliography, a perfectly acceptable source in my opinion, and I was also able to use it to source some other material in the article that had no sources prior.
 * Removal of material: Some material was cut to improve the article as a way to make it better. Sure, some peripheral properly sourced material was removed, but it was done as a way to improve the article in preparation for GA. We really don't need to mention in the body of the article every single award the man has ever received, and we really don't need to list the chart positions for every single record ever released by him and by everyone ever affiliated with him. That's not what makes for good, engaging prose. There's probably enough material for a sub-article about the awards Combs has received, but someone else will have to tackle that project; I'm not interested.
 * Grammy nominations There's a chart at the bottom of the article that lists all nine grammy nominations.
 * Early life: Here's the early life section as it appeared in early May, the day before my first edit to the article:

And here's the way it appears today:

So the only difference is the removal of peripheral material about Combs' father. The phrase "after a party" was removed. Nicky Barnes did not discuss a relationship with Melvin Combs in the quoted source (only Lucas mentioned him), so I took it out. Here's what the source says:

-- Dianna (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Diddy Day & cufflinks: The "key to the city" material is from a story published by AP. You don't dispute It, and it correlates with other material. The cufflinks, in particular, are mentioned in a number of sources that are still available online. This was already brought up (and link provided) on May 27.
 * Children's book. The issue, as mentioned when it was brought up, was the replacing of cites. There is no need to "cut down the number of citations", and doing so degrades the article. This should have been discussed on the talk page, and certainly when the issue was raised.
 * Removal of material. You claim now that you removed material as "improvement", but in many instances the material was removed with an edit summary or comment alleging it was "unsourced", when it wasn't, or could easily be sourced. Removal of sourced material, especially when the removal was disputed, required discussion.
 * Grammy awards. Days after I pointed out that reliable sources (e.g. ) say the subject received 7 Grammy nominations in 1998, the article still lists only 5 nominations for 1998.
 * Early life. Refers to the party thrower/promoter content, which sources refer to as context for the 1991 CCNY incident. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't really have anything new to say here, and neither do I. I stand behind the choices I made, and the article has now attained GA status. -- Dianna (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I checked out the Grammy nominations and the website used as a source http://www.rockonthenet.com/archive/1998/grammys.htm shows five Grammy nominations in 1998, not seven. This website http://www.digitalhit.com/grammy/40/nominees.shtml also lists five. -- Dianna (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * NYTimes clearly says seven in 1998. Here's another . At least one of the missing two is probably for being the producer on Life After Death, also nominated for rap album. The other could be for producer for "Honey" (doesn't seem to be credited on "Butterfly"). Gimmetoo (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did some pretty extensive searching today and could not find anything about these other two. You edit more on this topic than me, so maybe you will have better luck finding this information. It's surprising that the Grammy website does not archive the nominations (only the winners). -- Dianna (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have put the cufflinks back in using a source that covers both things.
 * I think the book is a perfectly acceptable source, and it has contained information I was not able to find online. If you don't agree that it's a reliable source, please post an inquiry at the reliable sources noticeboard.
 * My concern was primarily the replacing of sources. Time, USA Today, Rolling Stone are good sources for the entertainment industry, and available online. Adding new sources would be fine, but replacing good sources with a juvenile-target offline source doesn't seem like an improvement. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do understand what your point is; I just don't agree with you. -- Dianna (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have put the party promoter thing back in, right before the description of the 1991 incident. It does give some context to the event.
 * Sorry some of my edit summaries were inaccurate in that they did not describe all of my thought processes. So here's my complete edit summary for : "I can only find a source for the chart position for one of these four songs. This Billboard website is sure annoying and hard to use. If I only have a source for one, then I'll have to cut the other three. Well, that's silly. I think I will cut all four. These lists of songs and chart positions are boring anyways, and are of little value to the reader."
 * Not every piece of information that we are able to source necessarily belongs in the article. We have to be selective about what is included. I think the article is fine as it stands. Now that I have compromised and re-added some of the content as requested, I politely suggest that it's time for you to give some thought to compromising too and backing down on this point about the chart positions for various songs. -- Dianna (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll think about it. Celine Dion, an FA, has peak details for songs. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Peak positions for singles from debut album. "Can't Nobody Hold Me Down": #1; "It's All About the Benjamins": never charted; "Been Around the World": #2; "Victory": never charted. I gotta log off now. See you tomorrow. -- Dianna (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent additions about Tupac incident
I have twice removed lengthy additions about the Tupac incident. It's not a good idea to add so much content to the article about this incident, in my opinion. It gives undue weight to this one event compared to the size of the article, and it implies that Combs was responsible for the incident. We have to be very careful what we say here or we may be in violation of the biography of living persons policy, which could put Wikipedia in a bad position legally. The content should not be re-added for that reason. The editor who added it very likely has a conflict of interest. Please don't re-add it without coming here to the talk page first to discuss. Thank you. -- Dianna (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Revolt
Someone should add details about his new channel Revolt (network) 162.115.236.104 (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Than k you for the tip. I will add it right away. -- Dianna (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not let Gimmetoo do it for a change? Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Age Anomaly ('Background information' box)
If he was born on 4th November 1969, he'll be *43* now- not 42. ( -: 99.171.229.222 (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You must have been viewing a cached version of the page, as I am seeing age 43, even when logged out. Please refresh your cache and let me know if there's still an anomaly. Thanks. — Dianna (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed you are right! I do see 43 now- I thought later that it might have been a cache-related issue (OpenDNS)- I wasn't really sure at the time. OpenDNS can be a pain at times. Thanks for taking the time to answer my query. ( -: 70.238.217.98 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Acting Section
They should be seperated from his music pursuits. Cause I know he had a roles in Monster's Ball, Get Him To The Greek and in CSI Miami. I was about to add it in but was all put in his music section.Justwisted (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything directly related to the entertainment industry is in the chronological "Career" section, whether it is acting or music business. Other ventures such as his clothing line are in the "Business ventures" section. -- Dianna (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

He also acted in Hawaii Five-0 season 1 episode 21 "Hoʻopaʻi" in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justbones (talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Fragrance deal with MAC division of Estée Lauder 
See more news releases in Fashion | Retail  | Entertainment  | Leisure & Tourism Sean 'Diddy' Combs' Unforgivable is the Number 1 Selling Men's Fragrance in Department Stores Across America Estee Lauder and Federated Stores Join Diddy the New York Stock Exchange to

Celebrate the Success of UNFORGIVABLE A F SEAN JOHN UNFORGIVABLE NYSE SEAN JOHN UNFORGIVABLE NYSE (L to R) John Thain, CEO New York Stock Exchange; John Demsey, global president, Estee Lauder Companies Inc., M.A.C & Sean John Fragrances; Terry Lundgren, chairman, president and CEO, ... NEW YORK, April 3 /PRNewswire/ -- Sean John Fragrances, a division of — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.221.6 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2014
On the first line of this entry, the stage names for Sean Combs should include: 'Puff Daddy, Puffy, P. Diddy, and Diddy'.

lwc30326 07:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * are you requesting that "Puffy" be added? Cannolis (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Djddy? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Category
Please put the Category:American Catholics in, thank You very much !. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.3.193.170 (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not done. He is already in the more specific category "African-American Catholics". -- Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hallo, Diannaa, only that we do not misunderstand ourselves: Category:American Roman Catholics (Sean Combs is at first Roman-Catholic, then American-Catholic and at the end African-American Catholic. this is not false..., however, this depends on the human personality if it would be inserted. Thank You, to learn one mor time. Greetings from Cologne.
 * Greetings from Alberta. Our category system resembles a tree. The category:African-American Catholics is a subset of Category:American Roman Catholics. Including him in "African-American Catholics" means he is automatically included in the parent category "American Roman Catholics". Adding the parent category is redundant. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * thank very much (realy), Dianna, best wishes, love & peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.209.75.96 (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Where is MMM??
if you are going to lock the page, then at least keep it updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:75:F6F:F561:AC08:D129:FFF:BE65 (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Added. Thanks, -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on January 20 2016
Within the "1997–98: "Puff Daddy" and No Way Out"-section of the "Career"-section, the same source (Traugh 2010, p.61.) is cited twice for the same claim (The "The album produced five singles: "I'll Be Missing You", a tribute to The Notorious B.I.G., was the first rap song to debut at number one on the Billboard Hot 100; it remained at the top of the chart for eleven consecutive weeks and topped several other charts worldwide"-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.115.81.90 (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the observation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

not mentioning “The Family”
While Puff Daddy & the Family is a redirect here and No Way Out seems to have been released crediting Puff Daddy & The Family, the article on Sean Combs does not mention “the family” at all. -- Gohnarch░ 16:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not seeing much coverage of this online, and I don't remember even seeing it mentioned when prepping the article for GA back in 2012. It appears "The Family" were/are various artists signed to the Bad Boy label that appeared on the album No Way Out. — Diannaa (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

section 3.4	Legal troubles is severely lacking
If someone has the time to add to this section, chk out: http://crime.about.com/od/famousdiduno/ig/mugshots_rap_hip_rb/rap_puffymugshot.htm & http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/23/diddy-s-crazy-rap-sheet-from-attacking-a-record-exec-to-his-alleged-kettlebell-assault.html Yaakovaryeh (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits
User talk:Mangodebango is a paid editor who has been doing some edits to the page. Some of these edits are acceptable, and some are not. I have made changes to the new material as we go along. A brief summary of my rationale was provided in the edit summary for these edits, but Mangodebango has asked for further information via email. I am responding here in case other interested editors wish to comment or participate. (I had to do revision deletion as some of the content added by Mangodebango was found to be also present at the copyright web page http://www.pbs.org/weta/finding-your-roots/profiles/sean-combs/. This is why the edits themselves are no longer visible in the page history.) Mangodebango indicates that the same material is also present at www.combsenterprises.com and is an official biography prepared by Combs' PR team. This does not change the copyright status of the material or make it okay for it to be copied to this wiki. Also, in many cases, material prepared by a public relations team will be written more like a press release and will not be the kind of neutrally worded prose we want for our website. You wouldn't find it in a paper encyclopedia, and we don't want it here either. So, the bulk of the material that was removed was removed for this reason. Here's some details on the rationale for other changes.
 * He had a lemonade stand: This is a less important detail; it's something virtually every child would do. What kind of restaurant it was and what position he held are less important details which I removed before I discovered it was also a copyright violation from the PBS article.
 * I removed a list of sub-companies of Combs Enterprises from the lead, because the article is not about Combs Enterprises; it's a biography of Sean Combs. The same material is also present in exactly the same wording in this copyright press release, but regardless of the copyright issue, it's too much detail for the lead and had actually removed it on that basis before I discovered it was copyvio.
 * Material on his acting career was initially moved down to the filmography section and was later removed when I discovered it was a copyright violation.
 * Information that Combs was attending Harvard while simultaneously working at Uptown Records was removed, as that info does not appear in the sources provided. I removed it for that reason before I discovered the prose to be identical to that found in the copyright PBS article.
 * Mangodebango's addition On May 20th and 21st, 2016, Combs brought back together Bad Boy Records' biggest names for the first time ever to celebrate their 20th anniversary on the eve of Notorious B.I.G.’s birthday was changed to read On May 20 and 21, 2016, Combs launched a tour of Bad Boy Records' biggest names to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the label. This change was made to improve the grammar and to make it read more like an encyclopedia article and less like a press release. The fact that BIG's birthday was the next day is of interest only to marketing people, so I removed that. After two sold-out shows at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, Puff Daddy and the Family launched a successful tour that sold-out twenty shows across the United States and Canada during the summer of 2016 was changed to read The two shows at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn sold out, as did an additional twenty shows across the United States and Canada to make a more encyclopedic and neutrally worded version.
 * I removed an unsourced addition about Comb's work on sound tracks for films. All additions must have sources please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Legal Troubles
Combs' arrest was removed for being unsourced but should be restored with a source added. Numerous media outlets reported his 2015 arrest.

He also has a civil suit recently filed against him by an employee. I don't know the BLP policies on that -- does it need to survive a motion to dismiss before being added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.142.187 (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't include arrests that don't result in convictions. Likewise the civil suit will not be included unless it results in a major settlement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That seemed odd to me so I checked the policy on BLP; I think you may have misread it. Combs isn't a "relatively unknown" subject, so properly-sourced information on arrests and accusations is appropriate. Obviously they shouldn't imply that he committed the acts accused (except his guilty plea for a harassment 'violation'). 66.87.143.165 (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Legal Troubles, rfc
Should this BLP article include widely-publicized arrests that did not result in convictions (or, in one case, a minor offense conviction)?

My understanding is that BLP only forbids this for "relatively unknown" subjects. This page's administrator seems to disagree. 66.87.143.172 (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, require that our biographies try to balance the relative importance they give to different aspects of their subjects' lives (both positive and negative) in line with what is emphasized by reliable sources (such as biographies published by academic presses and other established publishing houses). Whether Combs' arrests were "widely publicized" is beside the point (having lived in New York and been subjected to its tabloid press, I am aware of how widely publicized they were). The question is whether other biographies written by historians and other quality writers, not gossipy biographies that one might find at the supermarket check-out line or in the airport, give prominence to his arrests. I can't say for sure, having done no research on the subject, but I suspect the answer is that they do not. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that they do.

Biography.com profile at https://www.biography.com/people/sean-puffy-combs-9542180 LA Times retrospective at http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-sean-p-diddy-combs-bad-boy-entertainment-retrospective-20151005-story.html 99.203.1.171 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe Summoned by bot. It depends on the extent and depth of the coverage and how significant they are from the standpoint of his overall life. Coretheapple (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably, although it of course depends on exactly what material you're proposing to add. The subject's long and complicated relationship with the police/law is exhaustively documented in RS, and indeed forms part of his cultivated persona at a high level, or else once did, which is itself something that is exhaustively documented in RS. There is no BLP case here for default exclusion of arrests that did not culminate in convictions, although that should not be taken to mean that every single interaction with law enforcement the man has ever had is automatically noteworthy. Advocata (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends on the sources — I think this RfC would be more helpful if it asked about inclusion of a specific proposal with sources, otherwise I think "It depends" is the only answer to this general question Seraphim System  ( talk ) 06:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The bot has removed the RfC IDtag, can this be closed now? L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  11:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends I have been watching this for some time, and agree with Seraphim System.  d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  02:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't include. Checking the Biography.com and LA Times webpages the IP mentions above, the 2015 arrest is not mentioned in either article. I don't think we need to include it, as it did not result in a conviction. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends, in concurrence with previous commenters with the same opinion. Alt. Eno  16:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't include. While he is famous enough for inclusion to be arguable. The arrest itself is not related to what he is otherwise known for.  I don't think we need to include it, as it did not result in a conviction. Elmmapleoakpine (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sean Combs. 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/20120629033839/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/06/jimmy_henchman_implicated.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/06/jimmy_henchman_implicated.php

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) 18:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2018
Grammar correction from: "Sean John Combs (born November 4, 1969)[4] also known by his various stage names Puff Daddy, P. Diddy, Puffy, Diddy, Brother Love and B. Love, and is an American rapper, singer, songwriter, actor, record producer and entrepreneur born in New York City and was raised in Mount Vernon, New York."

to:

"Sean John Combs (born November 4, 1969)[4] also known by his various stage names Puff Daddy, P. Diddy, Puffy, Diddy, Brother Love and B. Love, is an American rapper, singer, songwriter, actor, record producer and entrepreneur born in New York City and raised in Mount Vernon, New York."

(Removal of two grammatical errors: "and" after "B. Love", and "was" before "raised in Mount Vernon".) 155.98.131.6 (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks, good catch. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sean Combs → Diddy – Per WP:STAGENAME for artists. He is also the primary topic for Diddy. Even though he had used several stage names, they are all variations of Diddy and Diddy is his preferred nickname : see his website, Twitter, and Instagram. 67.149.246.163 (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not enough consensus among RSes for common name. While subject uses Diddy for music, film credits have been as Sean Combs, and news mentions have used "Sean 'Diddy' Combs". Subject also has websites that refer to him as Sean Combs. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Diddy is what he has most consistently called himself professionally for about 14 years now, to this day. And let’s not act like he’s known for his acting skills.... Trillfendi (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He's had a number of stage names over the years, but his real name is pretty well-known. Best to stick with that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this guy has a tonne of stage names. I see no reason to merge the dismabiguation page into a giant hatnote here either.. The nominator has not shown primary topicness either. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the almost infinite amount of stage names and name variations the subject has. For this subject, renaming the article to any stage name will almost guaranteed to be subject to some form of WP:RECENTISM issue. Steel1943  (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral on Diddy (entertainer) or Diddy (musician), oppose Diddy because no rationale has been provided for Combs being the primary topic for it.   SITH   (talk)   14:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Middle name
An edit recently changed the middle name in the lead sentence from John to Love. The edit had an explanatory edit summary but no support. I missed seeing the explanation and reverted the edit, then undid my revert after seeing it. The result of some followup googling indicated that there has been some confusion in the past regarding this. This could use clarification and support in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So far the supporting citations for the name being legally changed are the gossip website TMZ (here) which says he has filed a petition in California to legally change his name, and the citation Pierre Slade‎ included, which was this one, which cites the TMZ report as its source. Checking the reliable sources noticeboard regarding TMZ gets mixed results. I don't think we should include it until there's a better source and the petition is actually approved rather than merely filed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Not strongly associated

 * Black Rob – Signed to Bad Boy label; appears on ~3 Combs songs
 * Carl Thomas (singer) – Signed to Bad Boy label; appears on ~2 Combs songs
 * Da Band – Band created by Combs and featured on a reality TV show.

The list of associated acts is already pretty long and I don't think these three are strongly associated with Combs. I think we should leave them out.— Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

"Sir Rock Obama" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sir Rock Obama and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 19:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Result: Deleted on October 22, 2022. Stoarm (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

RS-sourced material removed
RS material was removed as linked to below with the unusual explanation "doesn't seem to be particularly relevant."

It seemed sufficiently relevant for multiple RSs to cover it. We generally look to RSs as objective indicators of what is relevant, rather than to an individual editor's "not particularly relevant" subjective opinion, for notions like this - same as with article notability discussions. Otherwise, we have chaos (just imagine an article notability discussion as to what is notable, if we did not have GNG as a guide).

I strongly urge therefore that it be restored. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Combs&diff=next&oldid=1126144475 2603:7000:2143:8500:15C2:4FA7:3ED8:3C82 (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the information would be relevant if Conrad Tillard had a lasting impact on Combs's life. Do you have any citations that show a lasting influence? As it was worded, I expect that if such content were in the article at the time of a Good Article nomination, the reviewer would ask for such details, or request its removal. — Diannaa (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I think it may perhaps be best to stick with WP policies and notions of what makes someone or something notable. Which is RS coverage. Otherwise, the best-intended of us can perhaps too easily fall victim of applying subjective standards of our own, that do not mirror those adopted by the community. The RS coverage here indicates its appropriateness for inclusion. Secondly, "had a lasting impact on x's life" is not a WP-adopted test. If it were, we would be at risk of an editor deleting all sorts of facts from this article -- even his birthday. It's just not a standard, and not I would suggest the place of any one editor to adopt it as a standard, without community action to do so. Thirdly, of course it is of influence. If someone is at risk of being killed, and another person potentially saves their life by actions such as those described here, it strikes me as that having potentially saved their life is "a lasting influence." And that it would be easy to see that. I again strongly urge that it be restored. 2603:7000:2143:8500:D42:AF2B:F5B5:344D (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither of the cited sources says that Tillard potentially saved Combs' life. The entry seems to be more about Tillard than Combs; and it's already mentioned in Tillard's article. — Diannaa (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ”Tallard also protected Combs, sending elite guards from his Mosque No. 7 to guard Combs, who was receiving death threats from gangsters connected to Knight.” Perhaps you missed that? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the feud? It’s rather famous. And the killings that attended it? Famous as well. And obviously this was about protecting the subject of this article by sending bodyguards - or do you not see that in the sources. Or is it unclear what the bodyguards were sent to forestall? Plus - you’ve ignored (I don’t know why) my other points. It’s a slippery slope when we avoid the wisdom of following the RSS, and take out subjective views as to what is important, and elevate out subjective view and present it in a discussion like this as though it is WP policy. Which is perhaps the flavor of what I am hearing here, unless I’m missing something. I really don’t understand. --2603:7000:2143:8500:181D:6AEC:2E52:A41A (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Quoting something from the Wikipedia article Suge Knight is not actually mind-changing for me. Part of good editing is deciding what to leave out. — Diannaa (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Cassie Ventura linked
The wrong Cassie Ventura is linked as his wife. She would have been around age 10 when they got married… 2600:6C44:507F:F8E1:A96A:78D:CC3A:4766 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. Cassie Ventura born 1986 would have been age 21 in 2007. Fun fact: They were never married. — Diannaa (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Mount Vernon
Mt. Vernon is not part of NYC. It's in Westchester County. 2601:44:409:407F:A018:1D5E:22C:9994 (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It says Mount Vernon, New York. It turns out that "New York" is the name of a city as well as a state in the US. — Diannaa (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Wardrobe section is…unnecessary?
Other than the first sentence, this section is about him bragging about a party he held over years ago.

If it were about the annual White Party as a wardrobe function, that might be different, but it's about specifically the 2007 event Father-science (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I have removed the section. Thanks for the suggestion. — Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Link to Tupac's Murder
I may be mistaken, but why is there no mention of his involvement in Tupac’s death? Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it's unsubstantiated? soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Then write "It has been widely rumoured that Combs put out a hit in the form of a $1 million bounty on Tupac Shakur and Suge Knight which resulted in Tupac's death, most noticeably in a book written by Greg Kading, an LAPD that worked on a multi law-enforcement task force that investigated the murders of rap stars Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls in the mid-2000s. Combs has repeatedly refuted this rumour and it remains unsubstantiated"? Regardless it deserves a mention surely? Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't put unsubstantiated rumors in our biographies of living people. See WP:BLP — Diannaa (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my bad Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The recently arrested suspect in the case attributed his motivation for the murder of Shakur in part to the $1million bounty offered by Combs (from an interview back in 1998): https://www.laweekly.com/the-keffe-d-tapes-10-highlights-of-confession-from-gangster-who-says-sean-combs-hired-him-to-kill-tupac/ 70.18.241.130 (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't add that without much better sourcing. Exceptional claims require impeccable, preferably multiple, high quality sources. See WP:BLP. — Diannaa (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding criminal matters, we don't mention accusations, rumors, or the like unless and until the person charged with a crime. It will have to stay out for that reason as well. — Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We do mention accusations, actually. Wikipedia is littered with them. Provided they're notable and well sourced, they're fine to be included. Here's an entire section of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Kurt_Cobain#Conspiracy_theories WikiMane11 (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the point being that that page isn’t a biography of Courtney Love. On other Wikipedia pages, the accusation levelled at Combs is included
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Davis_(gangster) Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So he would have to be charged in order for us to include it? Would it being claimed under oath suffice? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When you discover violations of our biogtaphies of living persons policy on other articles, please feel free take the time to clean them up. — Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, ., like pointed out, it's an unproven accusation, a WP:FRINGE theory. Wikipedia does not thoughtlessly report on rumor, gossip or any unproven accusation. It's a serious matter and it's a WP:BLP violation to restore the material, as it has been taken in question. If you believe it should be included it's up to you show why, not the other way around.  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not break any WP:BLP rules. It is not libellous, it is not original research and it is well sourced. If you feel it still does meet the required standards, despite this new references, I will not fight it further. WikiMane11 (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's sources that state the unproven accusation, but that doesn't make it substantiated or well sourced. It is libellous to include it. Libel calls for immediate removal of libellous content, and even its removal from the page history via revision deletion. — Diannaa (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I appreciate what you're saying, but it is NOT libel. If you feel it's not notable, that's one thing, but it is absolutely NOT libel. As for why it should be included now, Duane Keith Davis has just been charged with the murder of Tupac Shakur. It's in the news at the moment. Davis is on record claiming that Combs offered a $1m bounty: https://www.laweekly.com/the-keffe-d-tapes-10-highlights-of-confession-from-gangster-who-says-sean-combs-hired-him-to-kill-tupac/. WikiMane11 (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It might violate NPOV, perhaps include Combs' response? Can you explain why it isn't libel? The legal definition for libel is incredibly broad and is not restricted to falsifiable written material Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Surely what is considered libellous is at the subject's discretion? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But obviously that wouldn't make good policy, so we have to presume what the subject would consider libellous i.e. unsubstantiated/unproven statements that harm the subject's reputation/dignity/honour ? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a simple layman breakdown for you, as I don't believe you understand it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G3Z3_Joedk&t=155s . If Wikipedia was claiming Combs was guilty, that would be libel. If Wikipedia is stating that others have reported accusations, that is not libel. Especially if they're notable publications doing so (which they are here). It's a statement of fact. I agree that (if kept) the section should be expanded to include Comb's statements on the matter. It's hard to progress work on this with reversions happening on a per-minute basis, however. WikiMane11 (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And I'd say that at this moment in time it is unproven and certainly damages his reputation, so for now it should be removed. It would have to wait for either verified written evidence or admission of guilt, or his death Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not how libel works. Also, please do not keep replying to yourself on this page. Thanks. WikiMane11 (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So I could say you torture kittens in your spare time and newspapers could report that widely as a statement and that wouldn't be considered libellous for them to do so? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah nah I watched the video and you're right, sorry for the spam Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * don't know why I said written Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

More sources for the deleted content. Every link below mentions Combs: This is not "fringe". WikiMane11 (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * CBS News - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb4B2njFFtw
 * LA Weekly - https://www.laweekly.com/cops-book-says-sean-combs-suge-knight-ordered-tupac-and-biggie-killings/ (Includes a quote from Sean Combs about these allegations: “This story is pure fiction and completely ridiculous.”) Source of accusation: Police confession - https://www.laweekly.com/the-keffe-d-tapes-10-highlights-of-confession-from-gangster-who-says-sean-combs-hired-him-to-kill-tupac/
 * Vanity Fair (September 29, 2023) - https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2023/09/tupac-shakur-las-vegas-murder-arrest: "In 2011, LA Weekly reported that Davis told investigators that Diddy had offered him $1 million to kill Shakur and record label cofounder Suge Knight, who was driving the BMW in which the rapper was shot.
 * Forbes (September 30, 2023) - https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2023/09/30/duane-davis-can-be-convicted-of-tupac-shakurs-murder-even-if-he-wasnt-the-triggerman-what-to-know-about-the-hardened-gangster/?sh=68528d726a67
 * ABC News (September 29, 2023) - https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/arrest-made-tupac-shakurs-killing-case-rapper-103607180
 * Rolling Stone (September 29, 2023) - https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/duane-keffe-d-davis-arrested-tupac-shakur-murder-1234835483/


 * All we actually have is multiple sources reporting what Detective Greg Kading said happened in a 1998 interview. So we only have one source for the allegation, and that's Detective Greg Kading. — Diannaa (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the released confession of Duane Keith Davis (who has just been charged with Tupac's murder, and is currently in the news) is actually the primary source of the accusation. Secondly, the reverted edit was not, as claimed, libellous. Thirdly, these are widely reported allegations that Sean Combs has publicly responded to. This all makes me wonder why you're blocking its inclusion and posting threatening messages on people's talk pages. WikiMane11 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your point has been made. Perhaps you WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT, but it's best to WP:DROPTHESTICK at this point. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * he makes the point well Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am irked because Diannaa posted a misleading threatening message on my talk page. However, I have responded to every point, as requested as an editor. I believe it's clear that it does not violate WP:BLP or WP:FRINGE, but I'd appreciate feedback. WikiMane11 (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2023
Kim Porter's page was deleted the day following Sean Combs settling a lawsuit by Cassie, his ex-girlfriend, who left Combs after a conversation with the Kim Porter prior to her death. 2603:9001:8900:2455:F84D:B88:D9F9:C7F8 (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Update section
The section mentioning Revolt (business) should be updated to include the fact he stepped down as chairman after a string of sexual assault allegations. Source: https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/sean-diddy-combs-steps-down-revolt-sexual-assault-lawsuits-1235811046/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:A83:87F0:91F2:DFFC:D0B8:7DEF (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Top bio section request
I was thinking about adding something like this: Sean Love Combs (born Sean John Combs; November 4, 1969), also known by his stage names Puff Daddy, P. Diddy, or Diddy, is an American rapper, record producer, record executive and accused sexual predator. I wanted to add "accused S.P." because of his current status. What do you think? Let me know. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 05:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Innocent until proven guilty. Let's leave this out. There's no rush to put the sexual predator label until it has been proven in court. – robertsky (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Providing "Legal Issues" as a separate section and not as a sub-section under "Personal life".
Many biography pages, like that of OJ Simpson, Jeffery Epstein, Harvey Weinstein etc. have a separate section for their respective legal and criminal involvements. However, as similar suit has not been followed for this page, a discussion on the merits of such practice is required. Saket Sharma (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I have made it a separate section. — Diannaa (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct
Is the whole situation of the accusations of P. Diddy being a sexual predator notable for this page? Cause I don't see it anywhere and seems to me like it should be notable. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Three lawsuits within a month, and past allegations as well. He also stepped down as chairman of Revolt because of this. A section is warranted. —2601:8C0:A83:87F0:91F2:DFFC:D0B8:7DEF (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I am also talking about the "Flavor Camp" that he ran. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Was there any allegations of inappropriate relationship with Danity Kane and Aubrey O Day, she has already come out and said about the "raids", you "reap what you sow". Ducky008 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

BIO Info--"Partner"
Cassie Ventura listed as a "partner" in the bio section should be removed. It is an insult to the victim. Cassie Ventura has revealed, during the time period in question, to be trapped, a victim of rape, violence, abuse and sex trafficking at the hands of Sean Combs. These are her words in a lawsuit filed against Comb's and Bad Boy Records which was settled by Combs. Complaint-ventura-v-Combs. Just because the popular media identified them as in some sort of consensual relationship or "partnership" does not mean the popular media did not get it wrong, nor does it mean they knew she was actually a victim. Can an individual be a partner AND a victim, perhaps, but in her own words in the lawsuit not once does she describe herself as a partner. To remove the label of her as a "Partner" to Sean Combs, based on what Cassie Ventura has recently brought to light, is not a denial of history but a realization of what the history actually was, and it was NOT as a partner. Because it has been incorrectly categorized for so long, does not mean it should carry forward incorrectly. Further, there is no documentation of any real partnership, but perhaps the misclassification of her situation by popular media, which is often NOT a reliable source. Through her own lawsuit, she has labeled herself "trapped by Mr. Combs in a cycle of abuse,violence, and sex trafficking" Complaint-ventura-v-Combs Let's not insult the victim by claiming she was a partner to Sean Combs. To this point, the "partner" category should be removed from ALL articles without any concrete evidence, beyond the local tabloid or paparazzi rag. Additionally, Cassie Ventura is less a partner to Sean Combs as Jennifer Lopez was, and as of the date of this entry Jennifer Lopez is NOT listed as a partner, raising the question who actually is the deciding person or source of who is a partner or not? --Ducky008 (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I hear you, but what term do you propose in it's stead? The sentence flows poorly otherwise. Heyallkatehere (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * BTW: Lopez is briefly mentioned in the "Legal issues" chapter. NSX-Racer (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to read "Cassie Ventura, with whom Combs had a long-term relationship" — Diannaa (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Puffy Combs
the lede currently says "also known by his stage names Puff Daddy, P. Diddy, or Diddy". He was also known as "Puffy Combs" and just Puffy, and none of the variants shown have the word "Puffy" so I think it should be added. Here's a NY Times citation https://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/24/nyregion/rap-producer-testifies-on-fatal-stampede-at-city-college.html 207.237.14.175 (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * "Puffy" is listed in the infobox. It would be a bit unwieldy to add two or three more stage names to the lead in my opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, but it might be nice to note those aren't the only nicknames. Maybe add, "among others" or "and others"? Late20thCenturyMan (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I used "also known by numerous stage names, including..." — Diannaa (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the lead section is only for immediate knowledge. "Puffy" was more-so a nickname used only for his production credits, liner notes, and as a nickname. The three that are mentioned are the ones that he has released albums or singles under, everything else will belong in the "other names" section of the Infobox.
 * This also goes for his nickname of "Love"; he didn’t have any releases under that name. Pillow da Don (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Federal investigation in the lead
Is there an actual announced federal investigation? Seems an awful lot of weight to put that speculation in the lead if there is no official announcement. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the speculative parts of the lead need to be removed, and have done so, as the statements released by Homeland Security do not say those things. For example, The Guardian notes that "The department did not specify the target of the investigation." So we should not speculate. It's not our job to draw conclusions. — Diannaa (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

House Raid
Maybe y'all should add the fact that his house was recently raided by law enforcement and he went on the run ever since. 2603:9000:7300:3F83:39C9:F44D:3565:C434 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There's some content on that topic in the section "Sexual misconduct allegations and lawsuits". — Diannaa (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There do not seem to be any reliable sources that say he is on the run. — Diannaa (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2024
Change "Sean Love Combs" to "Sean Combs". He is not the personification of love, and he just got exposed on camera physically assaulting Cassie Ventura. 104.139.37.104 (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: What do either of those things have to do with removing a stage name? Tollens (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)