Talk:Run the Jewels (album)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Hip hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

User Koala15 - vandalising this page[edit]

I have been watching the activity within this page and has noticed that Koala15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Koala15) has been unnecessarily removing other user's contribution to the Run the Jewels album and artists page, despite the contributions being reasonably or well sourced. The recent reasons given by @koala15 for removing other users contribution suggests personal preference. For instance, @koala15 refuses to accept the relevance of non-US labels in relation to the Run the Jewels project. Run the Jewels licensed and released their first album on a non-US label (Big Dada / Ninja Tune), for European release; this information was taken from a valid source. Even El-P of Run the Jewels credits this label with helping to expand its accesibility - see this source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BLnKpEW6pg

Nevertheless, @Koala15 has dismissed these facts and provided no reason for removing these noteworthy contributions, other than citing 'other labels aren't notable' and 'doesn't matter, US labels only'.

I suggest for other users and moderators to challenge or restrict @koala15 and his/her aliases from editing this page.

Dude, its a fact that were not supposed to put labels the album was re-released on in other country's. You just sound like you have some sort of WP:COI. Koala15 (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Koala15: If what you said and have done is true regarding the re-release, then Run the Jewels' release on Fool's Gold counts also as a re-release and shouldn't be included on the infobox; only 'Self-released'. Run the Jewels was self-released first, worldwide, digitally. I say this isn't true, simply because the record was physically released and manufactured only in the U.S (through Fool's Gold) and then in Europe (through Big Dada). Technically it's not a (physical) re-release because it wasn't re-released in the same physical locations. If anything, by removing completely valid and factual additions to this releases proves that you are enacting WP:COI, seeing as you would prefer to remove anything that doesn't meet your own bias towards non-US labels. fasokanesq (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2014 (BST).

Pleas read Template:Infobox album#Label, "Only the record label that the album was originally released on should be specified. Where significantly different versions have been released (featuring alternative track listings) e.g. in the US vs UK, the later release date or record label should be mentioned in the article, for example in a Release history section." Koala15 (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As there are two editors who have breached WP:3RR, I've temporarily protected the page to prevent further edit warring in lieu of blocking. I don't see anything that would be considered "vandalism"; this is a minor content dispute. It is expected that you resolve the problem here, on the article's talk page, before any further reverts take place. If you resolve your issues before the protection expires, please let me know and I will remove it. Kuru (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]