# Talk:Dangerously in Love 2

I'm sorry, but as foreshadowed in the RM above and in the absence of any response so far I am reverting these edits.
The first introduces an inconsistency in the article text, which IMO is more serious than having the lead not exactly match the title, particularly when the lead does match the title proposed in an open RM.
The second removes content seemingly for no purpose (other than to oppose the RM). Andrewa (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And it has been re-reverted [1]. I operate under a one-revert rule, so I will take it no further at this stage, but the issues remain, and the lack of discussion is disappointing. Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dangerously in Love 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Will be reviewing this shortly =D--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The song later became the title track to Knowles' debut album of the same name, Dangerously in Love < cut out “of the same name, Dangerously In Love”  Done Jivesh   • Talk2Me 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
spawned generally < spawned a generally  Done Jivesh   • Talk2Me 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
of positive reception < of positive reviews  Done Jivesh   • Talk2Me 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
retitled < titled  Done Jivesh   • Talk2Me 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
No official music video exists for the song, though the performance on her Live at Wembley DVD was frequently aired on BET. < proof?
I removed it. Jivesh   • Talk2Me 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
According to the sheet music published at Music Notes by Hal Leonard Corporation,  < unnecessary
If you see recent GAs, this is how the composition section is written. It should have a sentence stating from where the music sheet was taken and who published it. Jivesh   • Talk2Me 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
After doing the above suggestion comebine the next two sentence like "Dangerously in Love" is a moderate R&B-quiet storm ballad pacing in medium time while also containing samples of soul music.
Related to above. Jivesh   • Talk2Me 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
According to < cut out  Done Jivesh   • Talk2Me 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
was generally positively received < received mostly positive reviews  Done Jivesh   • Talk2Me 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine gave a mixed review of the song, stating that although superfluous, it seemed a bit dated: "Unfortunately, the album is bottom-heavy with mid-tempo numbers and R&B balladry; a near-carbon copy of Survivor's melodramatic "Dangerously in Love" is completely superfluous [...]". < Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine gave a mixed review of the song, stating that it seemed a bit dated and that it was “a near-carbon copy of Survivor’s melodramatic “Dangerously in Love” [that] is completly superfluous.”  Done Jivesh   • Talk2Me 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
half-a-million of ringtones. < five hundred thousand ringtones.  Done Jivesh   • Talk2Me 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Your live performance sections is really unclear since you keep switching from place to place.  Go back and organize in accordingly to make it more sense.
I will do this after 18 hours. I have to go to school. Jivesh   • Talk2Me 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done Jivesh   • Talk2Me 11:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Finish this and I will come back.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jivesh   • Talk2Me 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Much better now =D....passing--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, all. I know nothing about this song and have no opinion about what this article should be named. But I stumbled across the following solicitations that pertain to the above !vote, and I felt obliged to note that here. I noticed, btw, that many people here are involved in the  Beyoncé wikiproject.
I'm not alleging any wrongdoing. To be candid, though, I don't like to see any editor soliciting others to join a !vote, even fellow members of a wikiproject. It's my opinion that that's what watchlists are for; and that it's just too easy to influence a !vote by a solicitation like this. I realize opinions about that may differ from mine, in all good faith, and I'm also perfectly familiar with the "Appropriate notification" and "Inappropriate notification" sections of our  canvassing rules, as well. I note that the "Appropriate notification" section says putting a short, neutral post on a wikiproject page is probably okay, but that the policy also tends to discourage posting wholesale to other user's talk pages. I won't argue these points with anyone, however; I know they're subject to interpretation, as well as dispute.
So while I'm not asserting that User:Jivesh boodhun or anyone else has violated the rules, I do think all interested parties should have the chance to discuss this. In particular, I've notified two admins about this: Andrewa because he was party to the !vote above, and Kww because he previously objected ( permalink ) to  a similar solicitation made for  an AfD (scroll down to note the "canvassing template" there). "Similar" in that many of the same users were contacted, I mean, rather than similar in the way they !voted. I've also informed Jivesh, of course.
Anyway, here are the relevant diffs, found by looking through Jivesh's  contribution history.
The following editors were solicited by Jivesh, and appear to have responded by !voting:

solicitation at 8:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC) of user Adabow (talk · contribs) who !voted "support" (contrary to Jivesh).
solicitation at 8:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC) of user Novice7 (talk · contribs) who !voted "neutral".
solicitation at 8:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC) of user Cprice1000 (talk · contribs) who !voted "neutral".
solicitation at 8:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC) of user BabbaQ (talk · contribs) who !voted "oppose" (same as Jivesh).
solicitation at 8:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC) of user Tbhotch (talk · contribs) who !voted "oppose" (same as Jivesh).
solicitation at 8:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC) of user Ozurbanmusic (talk · contribs) who !voted "neutral".
Here are all the other users I could find that Jivesh solicited, and who appear not to have responded:

solicitation of user SnapSnap (talk · contribs)
solicitation of user Cherryguy93 (talk · contribs)
solicitation of user Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs)
solicitation of user Candyo32 (talk · contribs)
I notice from  his contribution history that Jivesh pretty much repeated the same kind of notification process beginning at 16:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC) over this !vote at a different article, and that in that case, nearly everyone opposed him. Again, no assertion of wrongdoing, but regardless of the actual outcome in such a circumstance, I really don't think this is a very sound practice. Since this isn't my area at all, I probably won't comment further, and I'm certainly not going to argue policy points about this with anyone. But I just thought this was something that interested parties should discuss, and should try to come to a conclusion about for going forward. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What wrong have i done? I never tell editors to support me. I only tell them to participate. I really do not understand why this has been set up. I mean, is there anything wrong in what i have done? This has nothing to do with WP:CANVASS. Several editors also opposed me even though i am really good friends with them. Jivesh   • Talk2Me 07:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
And the reason for which i contacted these users is that the are part of the Beyonce Wikiproject. I cannot ask someone who knows nothing about Beyonce to comment here. Jivesh   • Talk2Me 07:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is what i posted 

### Dangerously in Love 2 URGENT
Please participate here.' Jivesh   • Talk2Me 
Thanks for your participation. Jivesh   • Talk2Me 

And i thanked everyone irrespective of their vote. I always ry to be polite. Jivesh   • Talk2Me 08:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no concern over the way Jivesh enlists people to participate. I feel that it's appropraite to grab our attention on our talk pages rather than just leave it to chance I may run into the article that needs discussing. As part of the Beyoncé wiki project, I like knowing when things come up. RatiziAngeloucontribs 12:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a note, in case you didn't know: interested editors can watch the project's article alerts to stay up-to-date on activity. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, Jivesh did nothing wrong! He didn't forced a certain vote from someone, he just made it known that this was going on! and thank goodness he did because look at the conversation that sparked about it! From the list, I can see that a majority of the people Jivesh informed were from the wikiproject, and that makes it even more okay! We are in the project for a reason, so I personally find it very helpful that Jivesh informs users.Theuhohreo (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. That is what i wanted to say. I cannot tell someone knowing absolutely nothing about the music industry, or Destiny's Child or Beyonce to participate here. Jivesh   • Talk2Me 17:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, me and Jivesh are good friends here on wikipedia, and if he did something wrong i would have no problem in saying so. I always keep an honest opinion and do not let anything influence them. But i really find nothing wrong with this. Some discussions go about unnoticed even though they are included in various pages. Jivesh simply made user aware of the discussion and offered those people to state their opinions, good or bad. This entire Solicitation Discussion seems so pointless, especially when their is a more important topic above that needs to be dealt with! Theuhohreo (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Dangerously in Love 2. 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/20110527083429/http://itunes.apple.com:80/us/album/survivor/id169717715 to https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/survivor/id169717715
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225031458/http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&title=Dangerously%20In%20Love&artist=Beyonce&format=SINGLE&perPage=25
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724121515/http://www.nuts.co.uk/video/search/all?term=Suga+mama+by+beyonce&x=0&y=0 to http://www.nuts.co.uk/video/search/all?term=Suga+mama+by+beyonce&x=0&y=0
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707231141/http://www.beyonceonline.com/us/news/beyonc%C3%A9-set-release-i-am-yours-intimate-performance-wynn-las-vegas to http://www.beyonceonline.com/us/news/beyoncé-set-release-i-am-yours-intimate-performance-wynn-las-vegas
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 01:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)