User talk:2Pac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My very own talk page. Anything you write must have a point. Garbage will be ignored

Contents

[edit] My talk page

Welcome!

Hello, 2Pac, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Rklawton 17:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pink 'U + Ur Hand'

Hi, You removed my statment about the title of the song referring to ion, calling it 'untrue and prob. vandalism'. I can tell you that it wasn't vandalism. Also, if you believe it to be untrue, could I please ask what you believe the title of the song to refer to?

from the lyrics:

I'm not here for your entertainment... It's just you and your hand tonight... You know who you are High fivin, talkin ****, but you're going home alone arentcha?

Now, I believe that talking about somebody who wants to 'pull' Pink, but then saying he's going home alone, and it'll just be him and his hand, is an obvious reference to him ing alone. Unless you can provide a reason why that is not the case, I'll re-add it. You can reply either here or on my talk page. Thanks. Saccerzd 16:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Please read Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which all articles must follow. Wikipedia is a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia; it is not a place to argue a particular point of view. Thank you. --Madchester 01:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basketball

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Downwards 21:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Looper5920 10:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RS 500

If you're going to add the RS 500 rankings to album articles, use the template that exists for it. See my change to Hotel California for an example. Wasted Time R 11:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove official templates (copyvio in particular). --kingboyk 08:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ur a fucking nerd

stop wasting ur life listning to GreendaY AND MAKING MMASSIVE ARTICKLES ABOUT A SHORT SIONG GET A LIFE SHUT DOWN--Big-piggy 17:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

initiating HeckXX's_Noob_Corrector.exe...
Found 8 mistakes:
1. S top
2. Ur / You're
3. Listening
4. GreendaY / Green Day
5. MMASSIVE / Massive
6. ARTICKLES / Articles
7. SIONG / Song
8. GET A LIFE / No solution, probable hypocrisy

Also, Eminem rocks lolk. HeckXX 21:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eminem Album's

One more revert and we go to arbitration for revert warring. I'd like to avoid that, but you seem to be missing the point of my deletion , so let me try to make it clear here. Whether or not they belong according to article length is entirely beside the point - the statements have no citations or sources. They are therefore violations of Wikipedia:No_original_research. If you have any further questions about what's necessary by all means contact me. Daemon8666 06:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing_sources may help as wellDaemon8666 06:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-05_Eminem_Album_Articles - per existing wikipedia policy I will attempt this before requesting arbitration.Daemon8666 19:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not that I have a problem with the article length right now. That's something to address later. Regardless of what you call the section, or whether or not it's been around for a while, it is NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC. Without citations. I could make Britney Spears the longest lasting Queen of Egypt if I felt like it. Citations seperate original research and unverified claims from true information. Until it is verified it does not belong in any section regardless of it's title. You want it in there so bad, that's fine - give me a Source interview with Eminem, or a transcript from G-Unit's radio show. Until the info is backed up, it is pure speculation and I will continue to remove it bases on Wikipedia: No Original ResearchDaemon8666 02:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand we have the cittations tag, but that is for info that needs to be sourced. This information is IMPOSSIBLE to source - you're never going to find Eminem sitting down explaining all his songs. The moment he or Dre does, the information casn go back in. Until it does, PLEASE leave it alone.Daemon8666 23:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to explain to you this five times.
  • It is a violation of Wikipedia: No Original Research. Regardless of ANY OTHER FACTOR, this warrants its deletion. You want it sourced, put it on the talk page until it is. It does not belong in the article, because as I've said before, citations are what keeps people from making unwarranted claims. Whether you like it or not, or believe in it or not, your having an account and editing on wikipedia implies that you agree to follow wikipedia's overriding consensus in matters pertaining to article content and formation. It is the basic foundation of wikipedia that for consistency and accuracy's sake that these protocols be followed. No one is qualified to say what Eminem meant when he wronte those songs, PERIOD, besides the author himself, or an accredited expert; say someone who interviwed him directly or maybe he explains it in his biography. I agree that ANY sourced information should be pulled out in a specific section, such as a Trivia section, but no unsourced information can remain for the article to maintain the wikipedia standard.
  • Even if it were sourced, it makes the article long and unwieldly. This may be overcome by rewriting the secion, but UNTIL THE ISSUE OF CITATIONS IS ADDRESSED IT DOESN"T MATTER. Send it to arbitration or whatever you want, but ACTUALLY READ THE SECTION AT Wikipedia: No Original Research FIRST.
  • You mentioned using the "need citations tag". While I agree that wikipedia has many articles that fit this tag, THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE CASES. The Wolfdog article does, for example, since most of the information was either at one time sourced but is no longer (such as now-dead links), or was badly sourced initially and now needs to be re-verified. A large tract of information comprised entirely of statements of incredibly dubious accuracy is NOT such a situation.

There's really nothing else I can do here.Daemon8666 07:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your talk page

Also, I don't think anyone's going to object if you delete Big-piggy's comment. That's the kind of garbage that we editors are here to prevent. Regardless of the dispute, nothing excuses actions like that, and you shouldn't have to put up with nonsensical profanity here.Daemon8666 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

[edit] Love. Angel. Music. Baby.

I made some of the changes you requested at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby., but I have a few questions about the others. Would you mind taking a look at the userfied version and my responses on the nomination page and commenting? ShadowHalo 04:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XXL (magazine)

I noticed that you've edited on the XXL page recently. well, I've just tagged it as unreferenced and as containing original research. If you value the content of the page, please refer to it to provide references to it, otherwise I intend to reduce it to fully verifiable facts, which would bring the article to a stub.

--lincalinca 07:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ur list of best rap albums

Nice List,Though instead of All Eyez On Me,You should put Me Against The World by 'Pac. Nice Best Rapper list too. Hurricaneshady 15:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of theories

The "Seven Day Theory" page has obviously been deleted, so there's an element of flogging a dead horse about this, but bear in mind that an article on a theory only needs to demonstrate the notability of that theory, rather than actually arguing that it's true. Speaking for myself, I think every conspiracy theory is absolute nonsense, but there are an awful lot of people around the world who are prepared to claim that the Illuminati exist or that Osama bin Laden didn't have a role in planning 9/11. The theories themselves are what's notable, even if the people subscribing to them might need some time in a quiet room with a straitjacket. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ur music

Coudnt agree with you more on the loser sterotypes who hate rap. I hate ja rule too . do you like chamillionaire? P.S delete that shit that loser posted up there, Secondandonly 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2Pac is alive??

Thanks for helping fix the vandalism on 50 Cent. GlassCobra 15:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)