114.74.99.99

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Get Up with It. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Get Up with It, you may be blocked from editing. Dan56 (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

There has been a source cited, verifying it is a compilation album, long before you started vandalizing this article. If you continue to pretend there isn't, and if you continue to remove it, you may be blocked. Dan56 (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I had a look and this is a mistake from the person that wrote the article. Surely a primary source - an album review from the time period - is much more reliable? Not enough? Here's an original 1974 promo poster from the time period that calls it an album. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Miles-Davis-Get-Up-With-It-Rare-Original-Promo-Poster-Ad-Framed-/292756102097 So, officially, it's always been considered an album and not a compilation.

A compilation album is still an album... Dan56 (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Another reliable source, Signal to Noise magazine, called it a double LP compilation. Dan56 (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

These sources inaccurately describing this album as a compilation album are secondary sources. The original promo poster is a primary source and does not call it compilation album. There's no mention of the word. It was simply promoted as one of Miles Davis' many albums. It is very peculiar to claim that a text from over 40 years later holds more weight than the official poster used to drum up interest in what was then his latest release. If the album was sold as a compilation album, the record company, Columbia Records, would have used that word. What a modern day journalist retroactively claims is ultimately irrelevant.

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Get Up with It shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dan56 (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

---