Talk:Layzie Bone

message: Honestly I'm not trying to be an ass but what does that have to do with anything? Everybody who has kids loves them. That seems more like the opinion of a devoted fan than a fact or something that's NPOV. BronzeWarrior 23:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  he loves his children 

message: Are you sure he was born in 1975 ??? On google & wikipedia you find many different answers... 134.59.6.84 09:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: As there is no prose content to this article, there are no BLP issues; nothing even remotely controversial is discussed on the article. If there are specific BLP problems with the article, please enumerate them. And use the talk page, rather than disruptive reverting. Chubbles (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My 2¢- I don't see any BLP issues, in fact I don't see much of anything. As a member of a notable group who has also had a solo career, Layzie should have his own page per the guidelines at WP:BAND. This needs expansion, not redirecting. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been redirected, again. Chubbles (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP

message: Hi, The subject of the article fulfils the notability criteria at Wikipedia and should have an article of their own. The article needs major expansion, however. It currently offers very little to the reader other than basic information. It should have a section on their musician history, early life, projects and reviews by news papers, magazines and music reviews. There are lots of information that can be added; this for example, this, this, this, this and many more could be used to aid in this process. Note: WP:BLP is not the same as WP:NN or WP:MUSIC. The subject is notable and there are no BLP issues I can see) fr33kman -s- 02:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may wish to note that the other party in this dispute removed all the prose content from the article a while back, with no explanation. Chubbles (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Restore it then. It will still need expanding at some point. It is not wikify'ed, it needs a lead and then additional sections.  fr33kman -s- 13:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't. I'm already at my 3RR limit and the redirecter refuses to talk on this page. Chubbles (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Understand, no problems. I'll do it then. :-) fr33kman -s- 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, the article is in an okay state now and appears to establish his notability. However I don't think JBSupreme made a mistake or acted in any way inappropriately in this case. He/she first added appropriate tages to get editors to fix the article. After about 25 days he removed the serious BLP violations and wrote it down to a stub. Slightly over 2 months later when still no one had bothered to write an article establishing notability he redirected the article. Editors then proceeded to revert this without bothering to try and fix the article. Remember it is the responsibility of editors who insist someone is noteable to establish that which was not properly done until now Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't claim that he/she did act incorrectly, at least initially. The edit warring that later occurred is what was incorrect, and in that regard, they are more to blame than just the one editor. When someone reverts an edit they are proffering the opinion that they disagree with it; whilst it would be better to have first discussed it on the talk page, any further reverts must be discussed first, in order to prevent what has occurred, an edit war. People don't seem to realise that edit wars seriously harm the encyclopaedia. They drive newer editors away (and the vast majority of substantive edits are made by newbies, not established editors) and they cause the article to become less reliable and essentially unusable by the reader (who is the most important person here, not the editors, and not me). If I (who knows nothing about the subject, and doesn't edit within music subjects) can find notability (within minutes) and improve the article, surely someone with almost 30000 edits, or someone else with almost 9000 edits, could have done the same? If an article can be improved, it should be. I realise that the first instinct when one's edits are reverted is to revert them back (usually with anger), but we need to ask ourselves, why did the other editor revert them? We also need to assume good faith, talk to them and see if we can come to an agreement. Just because we're open content and allow any one to edit, doesn't mean we can stop acting professionally, indeed we need to act more professionally. fr33kman -s- 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text: *I showed up because I saw the request for a third opinion. I gave my opinion, then Fr33kman made the improvements. Seems like a happy ending to me. Anjyway, can anyone tell why the WikiProject hip hop tag won't stay hidden with the others? I tried to fix it 3 times and I just can't get the little sucker to  hide. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, the template code needs a  added to it. I've done it for you :-) fr33kman -s- 18:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, I guess that's better, but it's not in the little box with the others. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, nor will it. The wikicode that the template is written in uses a manual style of box creation rather than using class=ambox which is what the others use. It should really be rewritten fr33kman -s- 20:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I see. I add projects to a lot of talk pages, and there is a lot of annoying inconsistency with the naming of the templates, (using "project" instead of WikiProject, etc) but this is the first time I've run into something like this... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *You should make a list of them as you come across them. I think there's a WikiProject (WP:WikiProject Templates?) that goes around and fixes all these templates. If you're interested in learning more wikicode, I'd start with m:Help:Template and m:Help:ParserFunctions and their related pages. You'd be advanced coding in no time, let me know if I can help! :-) fr33kman -s- 21:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: The article is no longer a stub and has been expanded into a C-class article. The subject is notable and has a solo career and a career with Bone Brothers that is separate from his membership in Bone Thugs-N-Harmony. Editors should not revert this edit but should improve it instead. There are many ways it can be improved. Steven has been shot, almost had his finger bit off and has acted as the influence for other rappers. All of these claims can be referenced on the Internet. 
Edit-warring has to stop on this article and editors should note that further wars will likely result in user-RFC's or blocks. Admittedly the article was in a poor condition and the prose was rather poor also. Street lingo should be avoided unless quoting someone directly. 
I, and others will be watching this article. Thank you, have a nice time improving this article! fr33kman -s- 21:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the article is in an okay state now and appears to establish his notability. However I don't think JBSupreme made a mistake or acted in any way inappropriately in this case. He/she first added appropriate tages to get editors to fix the article. After about 25 days he removed the serious BLP violations and wrote it down to a stub. Slightly over 2 months later when still no one had bothered to write an article establishing notability he redirected the article. Editors then proceeded to revert this without bothering to try and fix the article. Remember it is the responsibility of editors who insist someone is noteable to establish that which was not properly done until now Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't claim that he/she did act incorrectly, at least initially. The edit warring that later occurred is what was incorrect, and in that regard, they are more to blame than just the one editor. When someone reverts an edit they are proffering the opinion that they disagree with it; whilst it would be better to have first discussed it on the talk page, any further reverts must be discussed first, in order to prevent what has occurred, an edit war. People don't seem to realise that edit wars seriously harm the encyclopaedia. They drive newer editors away (and the vast majority of substantive edits are made by newbies, not established editors) and they cause the article to become less reliable and essentially unusable by the reader (who is the most important person here, not the editors, and not me). If I (who knows nothing about the subject, and doesn't edit within music subjects) can find notability (within minutes) and improve the article, surely someone with almost 30000 edits, or someone else with almost 9000 edits, could have done the same? If an article can be improved, it should be. I realise that the first instinct when one's edits are reverted is to revert them back (usually with anger), but we need to ask ourselves, why did the other editor revert them? We also need to assume good faith, talk to them and see if we can come to an agreement. Just because we're open content and allow any one to edit, doesn't mean we can stop acting professionally, indeed we need to act more professionally. fr33kman -s- 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text: *I showed up because I saw the request for a third opinion. I gave my opinion, then Fr33kman made the improvements. Seems like a happy ending to me. Anjyway, can anyone tell why the WikiProject hip hop tag won't stay hidden with the others? I tried to fix it 3 times and I just can't get the little sucker to  hide. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, the template code needs a  added to it. I've done it for you :-) fr33kman -s- 18:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, I guess that's better, but it's not in the little box with the others. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, nor will it. The wikicode that the template is written in uses a manual style of box creation rather than using class=ambox which is what the others use. It should really be rewritten fr33kman -s- 20:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I see. I add projects to a lot of talk pages, and there is a lot of annoying inconsistency with the naming of the templates, (using "project" instead of WikiProject, etc) but this is the first time I've run into something like this... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *You should make a list of them as you come across them. I think there's a WikiProject (WP:WikiProject Templates?) that goes around and fixes all these templates. If you're interested in learning more wikicode, I'd start with m:Help:Template and m:Help:ParserFunctions and their related pages. You'd be advanced coding in no time, let me know if I can help! :-) fr33kman -s- 21:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article has now been expanded into C-class

message: Have removed the following as the first bit is unclear & all is unreferenced:
One of his children, named Angel, died due to lung complications he is often heard shouting him out.  Layzie's best friends are Bizzy Bone & Krayzie Bone his cousin is Wish Bone and his brothers are Flesh Bone and Stew Bone.
If anyone can sort it out, please return it to article.--Technopat (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that it is best to remove it (that's why I put the  tags in; I wasn't one hundred percent comfortable with it and was hoping someone would do the additional research to credit it. Cheers! :-) fr33kman -s- 18:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unclear & unreferenced text 

message: For anyone doubting how officail this is, look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thug_by_Nature.
The album was clearly released under 'L-Burna'.
He was also named 'L-Burna' in some soundtrack album i can't remember.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.238.22 (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  L-Burna 

message: I'm not very sure on how old Mr. Steven Howse is. But he has stated in interviews that his older brother Stanley (Flesh-N-Bone), close friend Anthony (Krayzie Bone) and cousin Charles (Wish Bone) are older than him. He's the second youngest member of Bone Thugs-N-Harmony. The youngest being another close friend, Bryon (Bizzy Bone). So whoever keeps changing up the ages, you should think first. It's not possible for Layzie Bone to be the same age as his older brother Flesh-N-Bone. Flesh-N-Bone was born in June of 1973. Someone changed Layzie Bone's age saying that he was born in September of 1973. Three months apart? Not possible at all. Plus keep in mind that he stated that he's younger than both KRAYZIE BONE and WISH BONE. Put that in caps so you won't miss the names. That is all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.195.101 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layzie Bone's age. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Layzie Bone. 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/20071020043157/http://www.btnhcentral.com/layziebone.php to http://www.btnhcentral.com/layziebone.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified