Talk:Regulate (song)

message: Requesting that previous synopsis of song is reinstated. I've referred multiple friends to this post. It was very funny and also informative. Please don't take away the charm that made this so page so special.
216.193.225.202 (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd thought it may seem, this is an encyclopedia. Being 'charming', 'funny' or 'special' is not only outside of Wikipedia's remit, but is actually damaging to its primary purpose of providing accurate, well-researched, properly-sourced content. This article was undeniably very funny, and I suggest you reinstate it on a blog, or a more appropriate website. Believe me, the internet is already full of places to put amusing content. --Korruski (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Request delisted.   Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 00:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not censored, but we have a nascent proposal here to back door elimination of content based on a few parties finding it 'funny'.  Disagree that a subjective view held by a few is rationale for content.  Thought through to its logical conclusion, one could simply navigate to article one found 'offensive' and simply declare them 'funny'.  Should this mean the content is removed?Cander0000 (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear either to have not read or to have misunderstood the arguments people have made for removing the content. Noone that I am aware of has said it should be removed because it's funny, but that it should be taken out because it is against a number of WP policies and guidelines, including one on the length/detail of plot summaries, and ones on the notability of article content. People, including me, have linked to these policies a number of times and yet are ignored. Interestingly, it is actually the people who want this content in who are making the argument "it should go in because it's funny". That is as weak an argument as saying "It should come out because it's funny". --Korruski (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are cogent points, I appreciate your raising the level of discussion.  I disagree that 'because its funny' has not been cited as a reason to remove the synopsis.  Those terms, and/or similar terms intended to persuade editors and viewers to see the content of this article a frivolity have been invoked, including phrases such as "fact that it's absolute nonsense" and "don't clutter up an encyclopedia with your 'humor'", "clearly intended as humor".  Suffice to say, these statements do nothing to advance an argument and generally are as equally unsupported by standing wikipedia policies as some of these breathless rebuttals claim the article is against them.  I've favored quotes from registered users to show these are not the drive-by comments that might not give a true picture of consensus.  If it can be disregarded as a case for removal whether or not one finds it 'humorous', that leaves issues such as Original Research, length of the plot summary and notability.  Hopefully the synopsis can be worked on to better meet those standards.Cander0000 (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 216.193.225.202, 29 September 2010 

message: Again, it might have been humorous to you, but thats because its clear that you have no understanding of Hip Hop Music. Humor is subjective, you still have yet to give a valid reason why this article shouldnt stay. Original Research and Third party research do not fit; if you do not provide a real reason as to why this article can't stay, its time to take it to your wiki higher ups. Its become clear that you guys have no ideal what youre talking about and have started to take this personally; this cannot be settle with the mods that we have as is. -E 17:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was clearly intended to be humorous, and many of the commentators seeking to keep it have said as much. However, even if we assume it was a good faith attempt at a genuine plot summary, I would point out once again that overly long and detailed plot summaries are also against guidelines. There are no 'wiki higher ups' but I have already explained how you can make a request for comment, if you think that would help. --Korruski (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see anyone "taking this personally". I do see people who keep repeating "but i wanna do it this way" even though "this way" is contradicted by multiple wikipedia policies. Active Banana  (bananaphone 20:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  So Empress Ericka, you're saying again that you don't find it humorous. Funny, you said pretty much the opposite on your blog post about it (I believe the word "hilarious" was used), where you crowed about how great and funny it was, and declared that you would come to this talk page to preserve it.  Classy. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah! Ohnoitsjamie is my new hero. I have never seen so much disingenuousness gathered together in one place as one can now find here, with all of these folks insisting that the "synopsis" wasn't funny. PurpleChez (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Re " rather then linking articles." Thats what hyperlinks are for - no need to repeat ad nauseum on every talk page what is already available elsewhere. Active Banana  (bananaphone 14:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: You keep sayin its Not A Humor Site... There was no humor in it.

message: Whilst appreciating that the article with the brilliantly funny synopsis included might not meet the requisite editorial standards, I'd like to offer this thought - that the article may very well attract users who don't normally visit Wikipedia, maybe a portion of the internet population that really needs to be encouraged away from the shallower pools of the internet and into the deeper waters that this outstanding project charts. Maybe there are more important things than inclusion criteria? Mrcakey (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fancrufty pages of all sorts "may very well attract users who don't normally visit Wikipedia", however, we are not here to provide fancrufty / John Stewart pages to attract more customers. We are here to provide an encyclopedia. Active Banana  (bananaphone 22:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fancruft" is my new favorite word. It's also a handy term that hits home. I for instance am a huge Simpsons fan and love indulging in Simpsonsiana. Still, I wonder sometimes if the 100s (1000s?) of articles on the Simpsons (and Star Wars and anime and other pop culture stuff) couldn't be consolidated, at least a little. PurpleChez (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A neutral voice 

message: Hoped we were done with this nonsense; hopefully this ANI posting will get some more eyes here and allow us to walk away from the deceased equus for good. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a different issue.  It is incorrect to paint it as the same thing.  Rooot (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The root (no pun intended) cause is the same thing though - giving undue weight and importance to the ridiculous summary.   a_man_alone (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the very fact that there are still people willing to discuss this an indication this is not a deceased equus? Not to mention calling it a ridiculous summary is the very thing that's been keeping this discussion alive. It's clear there are 2 points of view on this. The "removers" (for lack of a better word) who are adamant this shouldn't be here but only really give links to articles that are subjective and open to interpetation and the "adders" (again..lack of better word) who keep claiming it's not humorous when we can all agree that it is. This still doesn't make it any less true. I don't think this is such an open/shut case as you guys are trying to claim it is. Mind you that being said...just like the editor fellows above me I'm 100% convinced my opinion is right so it's not a case that'll ever be solved I'm assuming  13.17.125.8 (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more of a Zombie Donkey.  It's dead, but people keep bringing it back again.   Zombie Donkey.  Heh heh heh.  I just made myself laugh.   a_man_alone (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hihihihihi....damnit...I giggelled.  13.17.125.8 (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

text: WP:ITSFUNNY isn't a valid edit reason.  Corvus cornixtalk 20:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has provided that reason for including a reference to multiple, verifiable, third-party sources about a notable event.  There was absolutely nothing funny about the edit that I proposed and this ANI has nothing to do with adding any text whatsoever from the "synopsis."  Stay on topic here.  Rooot (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've only seen one reference that could meet WP:Reliable sources criteria.  A single blog post from one news site doesn't meet notability criteria, and violates WP:UNDUE. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been over this.  Just because I only cited one source doesn't mean that there is only one source out there.  This is really basic stuff.  If you want, I can re-add it with a citation to every source I find.  This sets a bad precedent and will create an extremely unwieldy references section, but since you have it in your mind that we all of a sudden need to cite every possible source on a subject, I guess that's what will have to happen.  Rooot (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, I need to ask since when do we care that there is only one single source on anything?  There are single source citations all over Wikipedia - probably on every single article.  Or are you just making up policy because it suits your non-neutral point of view?  Rooot (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why is it difficult to list those other sources here so they can be discussed? OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't and I never said that it was.  Instead of attacking me and posting bullshit ANIs, you should have acted civilly and asked for this in the first place.  Rooot (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've been warned twice on your talk page for attacks and civility issues. You won't be warned again. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing uncivil about what I have said to you.  You have been consistently on the attack for no reason.  Back off.  Rooot (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ANI posting

message: This is not an exhaustive list, but it should aid in the discussion of whether to include.  Feel free to add anything you find to this list.
I will add to it later when I have time, but will begin with the original reference:
*http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/uponsun/2010/08/warren_g_nate_dogg_classic_reg.php
*http://www.neatorama.com/2010/08/07/wikipedia-explains-rap-music/
*http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/Droll-Wiki-author-pokes-fun-Regulate-lyrics/article-2481092-detail/article.html
*http://musicnerdery.com/tag/appreciation/
*http://sputnikmusic.com/blog/?tag=warren-g
There are countless regular blog posts talking about how "cool" "funny" or whatever.  I'm not going to list them here unless someone feels they will help in the conversation.  A Google search for "regulate synopsis" or "regulate 'warren g' synopsis" will yield a few hundred.  Relatedly, there are many forum posts on the topic but I doubt they would qualify as technical "sources" for our purposes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooot (talk • contribs) 22:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Blog posts (pretty much everything listed above) do not meet WP:Reliable sources the vast majority of the time.  One of those sites listed above, in fact, was connected to a user who argued here that she didn't think there was anything funny about, while crowing about how funny it was on her blog, which is why I found it difficult to assume good faith in many of the arguments posted here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know anything about what has gone on in the past here.  It certainly was funny, anyone trying to deny that is lying.  Nevertheless, I am not suggesting we add the "synopsis" back at all, but rather simply add a quick reference to the fact that the "synopsis" was a cultural event related to this song.  I don't know why you can't seem to understand the difference between the two.  Rooot (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a big difference between a 'cultural event' and a 'vaguely funny subversion of Wikipedia which gets picked up by a number of blogs'. The first would generate coverage in reliable sources such as major national newspapers, the second is simply a flash-in-the-pan bit of entertainment which, due to the nature of the internet, leaves a slew of unreliable sources behind it long after it should have sunk back below the surface.--KorruskiTalk 09:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually take your side of this debate on Wikipedia articles and it always comes out that editors would rather err on the side of inclusion (and that is for whole articles).  All we are talking about here is one single line referencing the fact that this event made news.  There are multiple, verifiable sources that we can use as citations.  I really don't see what the problem is here besides the fact that apparently a bunch of people came in here a few months ago and wasted a bunch of everyone's time arguing the merits of the "synopsis" itself.  Let me make this clear one more time: I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE "SYNOPSIS" and I'm not trying to argue at all that we should include even a fragment of it.  All I am saying is that we need to include a reference that the "synopsis" (I don't even like calling it that) was made about this song.  I think Wikipedia policy is on my side on this issue and have yet to see any real argument against it besides that you all don't like the sources.  Let me tell you something: the first source that I used was the Phoenix New Times, a well-established publication with significant circulation.  Sure, it isn't the New York Times, but this isn't a huge event either.  That's why I'm not suggesting we make a whole damn article, but rather a simple, one-line reference.  That's all.  I just don't understand all the animosity towards this proposal.  Rooot (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my gut reaction was, and still is, that this gives undue weight to a bit of frivolity. Actually, my very first reaction was that this was trying to make a point by bypassing prior consensus, however I do believe now that that was not your intention. Anyway, I take your points and I agree this may not be a black-and-white case, but I am still not convinced that any of the sources cited are sufficiently reliable, and that includes the Phoenix New Times. I would be interested to hear the views of other, previously uninvolved, editors on both the issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:RELIABILITY.--KorruskiTalk 10:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

text: An unsourced original research posting put on Wikipedia which gets removed due to lack of sourcing and being made up, gets mentioned by non-reliable sources elsewhere, and somehow that means that they're notable and reliable sources?  Corvus cornixtalk 23:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Mike Shinoda count as a reliable source? http://mikeshinoda.com/2011/03/16/7278/192.31.106.34 (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it's recursive - he's referring back to the originally removed synopsis.  It's also a blog, so is sailing close to the fail wind straight away.   a_man_alone (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sources referencing the "synopsis"  

message: I propose the current Wikipedia entry for Regulate (song) be updated with a newly released remix, including nods to all collaborators:
Warren G, Nate Dogg, and Michael McDonald - I Keep Forgettin' to Regulate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp5wID1FWOk&feature=player_embedded
Donrb (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No evidence that DJ EkSel is notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Regulate Remix released, proposed update to page. 

message: Glad to see that someone seems to have taken control of this article and made it once again an encyclopedia article rather than an in-joke among rap fans. Hadn't checked in in a long time...funny to see how many of the posts in favor of the joke article were unsigned.... PurpleChez (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you so obsessed with people signing their comments? not all of us have an account. Does that make their opinion any less valid? You're acting like a jerk to a lot off people by belittling them for not signing their comment. Regardless of whether they are or are not right your behavior is down right rude and in fact more than a bit childish. 13.21.125.9 (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No more childish than bringing a 16 month old conversation back to life with your observations.  If you have nothing to seriously contribute to the discussion, don't bother at all.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're replying to him and not to me? Frankly it's none of your business whether he contributes to the discussion, you don't have any ownership over Wikipedia, and his point is perfectly valid. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you?  You'll have to remind me when I was ever obliged to reply to you, as I don't remember - sorry.  And you are utterly wrong that it's none of my business to comment, for the very same reasons you espouse - nobody owns Wikipedia, but we are all tasked with improving the encyclopedia, and I don't see how the above comment does that, hence my suggestion that they either do so constructively - which many IP editors do - or keeps their perceived persecution to themselves.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm somebody who raised a similar objection to PurpleChez's hectoring tone just a couple of weeks ago, just below this very comment - see here -  Talk:Regulate_(song)#Incredible_pedantry_here.... 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, right, I see. Frankly it's none of your business whether I contribute to the discussion, you don't have any ownership over Wikipedia.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, well done engaging with the issue there. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Oh, so now you think "Frankly..." is an inappropriate response to a post?  Perhaps you should head over to the doublethink page and contribute there - you seem to be well acquainted with the topic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: I assume this article was protected after the death of Nate G. Some time has passed and I believe semi-protection is only supposed to be indefinate in the case of ongoing vandalism, which I don't believe is happening here. Can it be removed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.77.164 (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was semi'd due to continual vandalism over the synopsis, as a look through the page history will show.  Given that Nate G's death was in fact used a prompt to restore the long synopsis again, there's no reason to assume that the vandalism won't re-occur if protection is lifted.   a_man_alone (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not alone in that opinion. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 13:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You most certainly are not. I have no doubt that the moment this article is unprotected folks will be tripping over each other (virtually, of course) to restore the completely inappropriate clown-world synopsis. If these folks are so hell-bent on seeing that garbage online once again why don't they all post it to their blogs or make a facebook page for it? It doesn't belong here.PurpleChez (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Not really. When proposed content is against general policies and guidelines, and against specific consensus, then continuing to add it is not simply an 'editorial dispute'.--KorruskiTalk 13:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Korruski!!!! I couldn't agree more. And, once again, I've got to chuckle at how many of the folks who want to go back to the joke version don't have the grapes to actually log in and sign their posts. PurpleChez (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still semi-protected? 

message: This article: Toilet_paper_orientation suffers from the same lack of observation of seriousness. All you good editors are needed there... 128.220.160.6 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More clean up needed 

message: I stopped by this article after listening to Regulate for the first time. I thought "Wow, this article is more bland than most Wiki song articles that I have come across; I wonder what is on the discussion page?" Wow.... what a bunch of worthless bickering. 
Just to be sure, I went back and read the synopsis via a previous revision. It actually makes the Wiki entry worth reading. The synopsis is objective; the content being summarized is humorous.
The moderators of this page propose a precedent that is simply not sustainable. Should all objective summaries of humorous content be banned? Imagine the lasting damage to Wikipedia's credibility if someone giggles upon reading an objective account of Dave Chappelle's most popular comedy routines.
If you think the synopsis is too long, then we should attempt to reach agreement on an acceptable abridged version. Any arguments regarding relative humor of the synopsis are subjective, based largely on emotion (therefore inherently illogical), and have no place here. Accordingly, any moderator who substitutes facts and logical reasoning with feelings and emotions has no place on Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.83.55 (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again...a supporter of the joke article who didn't have the stones to sign his comment. There is no "agreement" to be reached...the old synopsis was NOT objective, it was INTENDED to be humorous, it was original research, it was overly long, and it didn't belong here. The fact that the content being summarized is humorous does not mean that the summary should in itself be humorous any more so than a summary of a Shakespearean sonnet should rhyme. Blazing Saddles is one of the funniest films ever made but its plot summary is straight-forward. The "synopsis" wasn't dropped (only) because it was too long...it was dropped because it was inappropriate for numerous reasons, violated numerous wikipedia policies, and was repeatedly determined by editors to be entirely un-encyclopedic. If you want to see it online again, put it in your blog, and all the kids in the dorm can have a great big laugh and pat themselves on the back for being too edgy for Wikipedia. I'll close by doing what few of these children have the guts to do...sign my post.... PurpleChez (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing he didn't sign in because he hasn't signed up and made the commitment to editing Wikipedia that you have. And now he won't because you've hectored, patronised and made a series of unfounded assumptions about him and demonstrated what smug, humourless posessive dicks Wikipedia editors can be to people who don't agree with them. Please show me the policy prohibiting "humourous intent", please explain to me why this "original research" is any more egregious than any other unsourced summary (yes, I know "other stuff exists" is no excuse, but seriously, you need to spend this much time and energy to squash this bug?), please explain to me how the tone was "un-encyclopedic" when the whole idea was that it was an ultra-encyclopedic take. Tell me how it was "inappropriate" - are you saying that Wikipedia is censored now? And those other "numerous reasons" - what were those, exactly? It's pretty telling that he (the alleged edgy fratboy) made a serious of relevant points and a call for compromise and you (the committed editor with "guts") have failed to answer any of them and fallen back on ad-hominem insults. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incredible pedantry here.... 

message: Is the YouTube link dead? It will not load up for me.--98.87.95.230 (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1plPyJdXKIY seems fine to me. It has an unskippable 30-second ad, so maybe if you block the ad, the video appears to be broken? Melchoir (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Works fine for me.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube link 

message: According to this article, Nate Dogg does not appear in the video due to a conflict between Def Jam and Suge Knight.  A book that you can't read directly of the internet is cited.  But if you've ever watched the video, CLEARLY you will see Nate Dogg in it.  Please fix this. 174.101.58.147 (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your belief that you see Nate Dogg in the video does not constitute a published reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, well done here. A new person tries to correct a fact and you basically tell him to fuck off. Try either (a) having a little patience or (b) not replying. The balance of proof here is not on 174.101.58.147, a "fact" in the article goes against basic common sense and the source is offline and unverifiable. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I think the cited book is at my local library, will have to take a look. Cannolis (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Cannolis. My feeling here is that there may be two videos, as the one described sounds nothing like the one I'm familiar with (and which is linked in the article) 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  "CLEARLY you will see Nate Dogg in it" is a PoV or OR, not a reliable source - what if they used a look-alike? - Arjayay (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  "what if they used a look-alike?" is a PoV or OR, not a reliable source, also balance of probablilities is against you. Now inaccuracies are fossilized because admins are sarcastic and arrogant, and new users are scared off before they can learn how to research citations. So well done there Arjayay. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nate Dogg not in the video? 

message: sign of the times by bob james has a piano solo which is also sampled in this
86.6.236.99 (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --ElHef (Meep?) 16:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 28 June 2013 

message: I think it's worth mentioning that the song is a rare instance of a pop song without a chorus (often called a vocal hook in hip hop) as mentioned in the Rolling Stone oral history of the track linked below. I also think it's interesting that the rerecorded clean version is what was released on the album (not to be confused with the odd editing choices made for the video) and that the original version contained a lot of profanity but nobody seems to have that version. Also mentioned in article. I would like to add both of these points of interest. 
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/warren-g-and-nate-doggs-regulate-the-oral-history-of-a-hip-hop-classic-20141219 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torncurtain (talk • contribs) 
: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017 

message: I think it's worth mentioning that the lyrics to Jens Lekman's "Sweet Summer Night on Hammer Hill" include:
Oh, I still remember "Regulate" with Warren G.
Could that have been back in the sweet summer of 1993?
[Actually, it would've been 1994]
108.82.244.22 (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled header 

message: (This would go under synopsis)
On a cool, clear night (typical to Southern California) Warren G travels through his neighborhood, searching for women with whom he might initiate sexual intercourse. He has chosen to engage in this pursuit alone. Nate Dogg, having just arrived in Long Beach, seeks Warren. On his way to find Warren, Nate passes a car full of women who are excited to see him. Regardless, he insists to the women that there is no cause for excitement. Warren makes a left turn at 21st Street and Lewis Ave, in the East Hill/Salt Lake neighborhood[6], where he sees a group of young men enjoying a game of dice together. He parks his car and greets them. He is excited to find people to play with, but to his chagrin, he discovers they intend to relieve him of his material possessions. Once the hopeful robbers reveal their firearms, Warren realizes he is in a less than favorable predicament. Meanwhile, Nate passes the women, as they are low on his list of priorities. His primary concern is locating Warren. After curtly casting away the strumpets (whose interest in Nate was such that they crashed their automobile), he serendipitously stumbles upon his friend, Warren G, being held up by the young miscreants. Warren, unaware that Nate is surreptitiously observing the scene unfold, is in disbelief that he’s being robbed. The perpetrators have taken jewelry and a name brand designer watch from Warren, who is so incredulous that he asks what else the robbers intend to steal. This is most likely a rhetorical question. Observing these unfortunate proceedings, Nate realizes that he may have to use his firearm to deliver his friend from harm. The tension crescendos as the robbers point their guns to Warren’s head. Warren senses the gravity of his situation. He cannot believe the events unfolding could happen in his own neighborhood. As he imagines himself in a fantastical escape, he catches a glimpse of his friend, Nate. Nate has seventeen cartridges to expend (sixteen residing in the pistol’s magazine, with a solitary round placed in the chamber and ready to be fired) on the group of robbers, and he uses many of them. Afterward, he generously shares the credit for neutralizing the situation with Warren, though it is clear that Nate did all of the difficult work. Putting congratulations aside, Nate quickly reminds himself that he has committed multiple homicides to save Warren before letting his friend know that there are females nearby if he wishes to fornicate with them. Warren recalls that it was the promise of copulation that coaxed him away from his previous activities, and is thankful that Nate knows a way to satisfy these urges. Nate quickly finds the women who earlier crashed their car on Nate’s account. He remarks to one that he is fond of her physical appeal. The woman, impressed by Nate’s singing ability, asks that he and Warren allow her and her friends to share transportation. Soon, both friends are driving with automobiles full of women to the East Side Motel, presumably to consummate their flirtation in an orgy. The third verse is more expository, with Warren and Nate explaining their G Funk musical style. Nate displays his bravado by claiming that individuals with equivalent knowledge could not even attempt to approach his level of lyrical mastery. There follows a brief discussion of the genre’s musicological features, with special care taken to point out that in said milieu the rhythm is not in fact the rhythm, as one might assume, but actually the bass. Similarly the bass serves a purpose closer to that which the treble would in more traditional musical forms. Nate goes on to note that if any third party smokes as he does, they would find themselves in a state of intoxication daily (from Nate’s other works, it can be inferred that the substance referenced is marijuana). Nate concludes his delineation of the night by issuing a vague threat to “busters,” suggesting that he and Warren will further “regulate” any potential incidents in the future (presumably by engaging their enemies with small arms fire).﻿ 2603:8000:EB01:15F:C1F3:A235:50B6:8EC3 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021