Talk:You Make Me Wanna...

Requested move

• Moved. Courcelles 01:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You Make Me Wanna → You Make Me Wanna... — Per the cover art, My Way CD track listing, Billboard, iTunes, Hung Medien and Usher website. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support – The sources clearly show it is "You Make Me Wanna..." Novice7 (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - This clear. Per Novice. Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding line under critical reception

I want to add a line that indicates how well the song "You Make Me Wanna..." by Usher was received by music critics under the header Critical Reception, but it gets reverted. I wonder why this happens because the edit I want to make isn't false; the cites from reviews show a favorable response. An introduction line under Critical Reception is necessary to make things clear by means of a conclusion.(MakeMeWannaDamian (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC))

As the multiple warnings from multiple editors on your talk page keep saying, you are adding your interpretation of material from multiple sources. Having reached your final warning under the IP, you now seem to be editing as MakeMeWannaDamian. I'll give you a final warning there as well. You will need to discuss the issue and reach a consensus on the articles' talk pages BEFORE you continue or you will be blocked from editing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

So if I understand this correctly, do I have to write down the necessity of an edit on this talk page before I actually do it?(MakeMeWannaDamian (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC))

You have been making the same types of edits to multiple articles and have been reverted by several editors who left explanations on your talk page. Before adding what you think critics thought of a song to any more pages, you will need to discuss the issue, figure out why you have been reverted repeatedly and build a consensus as to whether your opinion is correct or not.

On several pages, you have been adding things like "The song received universal critical acclaim from music critics." However, you do not have a source that says that. Instead, you have several sources (reviews from individual critics) that you feel are "critical acclaim". There are several problems.

First, you need one source that says critics acclaimed the album. What you are doing instead is adding up stuff from several sources to say something new. Wikipedia calls that synthesis.

Next is your choice of words. "Acclaim" is a very strong word. "It's got a good beat and you can dance to it" is not "acclaim". "Acclaim" is unrestrained praise of every aspect. As an extreme, it is very rare. Don't call anything "acclaim" unless you are quoting a source that uses that word. "Universal" critical anything would have to come from absolutely every critic on the planet". That is what the word means. Not many or most, all. You do not know what every critic said about the song. As a result, there is no way you can use the word "universal".

If you want to say critics like/hated/loved/disliked/etc. a song, you will need to find sources that say exactly that. Given the number of times you have been reverted and warned, I would strongly suggest you discuss your edits on article talk pages before you make them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Then WHERE do I need to place that source? I've seen so many Wikipedia articles where there's no link to a source after the introduction line that indicates how well it was received. And just for the record, I only added the word "acclaim" a few times and I did that based on what the critics said.(82.217.67.186 (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC))

If you feel you have an independent reliable source which states the song received generally favorable reviews from music critics, I'd suggest linking to it here first. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on You Make Me Wanna.... 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/20120709145923/http://articles.nydailynews.com/1999-11-09/entertainment/18114908_1_police-harassment-movie-theater-deplorable to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/1999/11/09/1999-11-09_joining_the_class_struggle_r.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100708194155/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/all-the-number-ones-singles-list/_/1998 to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/all-the-number-ones-singles-list/_/1998/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)