User talk:Realist2/Archive 17

Washington, D.C.

Hi! I'm in the process of nominating Washington, D.C. for FA status. The article's undergone a rather lengthy peer review, but I would appreciate if another FA review would take a look at it to really assess if it's up to FA standards. Thank you for any help you can provide. Best, epicAdam (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I have no problem taking a look. I'm a little busy at the moment because I have promised to look over someone else's article (luckily it isn't too big) and I have just nominated an article for FA myself (Michael Jackson). However, I imagine I could easily give you an assessment within the next 36 hours if that is OK? — Realist² (Speak) 16:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. You can leave any comments you have, well, anywhere. The PR is still open and I'm watching this page as well. Best, epicAdam (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's going on my todo list now, won't forget, cheers. — Realist² (Speak) 16:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the article. I can see that you were definitely busy over at the MJ FAC. :-) As for the points you mentioned, I have a few responses:

• Web links: Luckily, there's no restriction on how many web citations there are as long as they're from good sources. User:Ealdgyth gave the sources the once-over and determined them to be sufficient.
• The URL for ref 19 is now working.
• The current guidelines recommend providing citations after punctuation; not necessarily after periods. A citation that comes at the end of the sentence typically indicates that the entire sentence was referenced from that source, which is not always the case. It is for that reason that I provide the citation directly after the sourced information as to avoid any confusion.
• Picture captions have periods at the end if they're complete sentences; it's not really a consistency issue as much as a grammar issue. If a caption is a fragment, then no periods are included.
• Sports section sourcing: I take WP:CITE rather seriously about "material challenged or likely to be challenged". Providing citations for the sake of providing citations is just silly; however, if there is material in this section that you believe to be false or misleading, please let me know. Other Featured Articles such as New York City and San Francisco, California do not provide citations for information that is unlikely to be challenged. For example, I do not believe there is any serious doubt that the New York Yankess and the New York Mets play in New York.
• Education and health care sourcing: This relates to the same issue as above. I doubt it is likely that someone will challenge the fact that the University of the District of Columbia is located in the District of Columbia. However, if there is any material that you believe may be factually inaccurate, then please let me know.
• Mini paragraphs: From my experience as a former university instructor, for whatever reason, this was one of the most challenging ideas for students to grasp. Grammatically, paragraphs separate subjects, regardless of their length. Yet, students always had a tendency to lump information together into mega-paragraphs when it was inappropriate to do so. Maybe they thought it "looked better"? I really have no idea. However, if there are two paragraphs that you feel cover the same subject and could be merged, please let me know.
• I have added the non-breaking spaces to all instances where they may be required.
• Per examples provided from other FA articles, country flags are included in the Sister Cities section.
• At least on this side of the pond, both "healthcare" and "health care" are equally acceptable. However, I have changed the header to reflect the consensus on Wikipedia.

Thank you very much for taking the time to review Washington, D.C. If there are any other issues which you feel would prohibit the article from being promoted, I would welcome the suggestions. Best always, epicAdam (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for putting D.C. through the wringer, as I know I'll be getting no favors at FAC. I have actually been checking out the FAC page for a while now. What "little twigging" would you like to see performed on the article? Thanks, -epicAdam (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

I finished the copyedit. There were a few spelling and redundancy errors, but they should be cleaned up now. I think the article meets FA standard, but I'll be there to help with the FA review. All the best, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• "I think the article meets FA standard" - Kodster is that an endorsement of my article, if so I bloody wish you would add it to the FA review! :-) Cheers buddy, you have copy edited that darn article so many times, if it does ever pass you have a stake in it's success. — Realist² (Speak) 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I wrote in the FA review! (Though I haven't given a support...yet). :-) All the best, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 18:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Wackymac's issues with the prose are resolved. He seems like a tough reviewer, so if he agrees with the prose, then it must be good. I'm going to fix the lead for Strawberry Fields Forever, but I have the FAR page on my watchlist. When I'm done with the lead, I'll go through the article to see if it meets the criteria. All the best, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 18:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Email incoming.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 18:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, 1 support and zero opposes (looking good for now), Xp, there is honestly no need to send me a talk page message about an off wiki email. Lol, I get the all and respond eventually don't worry. — Realist² (Speak) 18:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How long do FACs last?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 18:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Forever. :-) Until a reasonable consensus has been made. 1 support and zero opposes won't cut it unfortunately. Thankfully, many people contribute to FAC's, so it's only a matter of time. All the best, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 18:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good news. Check out the FAR page. :-) Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 23:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw, I think you need to clarify your support though, the way I read it, you seem to say that the last time you supported you didn't mean it? If that is true, it will look bad on you in the eyes of others. If I'm misreading it sorry, if you mis-wrote, you need to clarify that. — Realist² (Speak) 23:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the mess. I fixed it, it should be more understandable that I wasn't experienced enough to know the difference. Anyway, as Xp said below, 3 supports and 0 opposes. The only problem is that all 3 supports are people who, in one way or another, have been involved with the article. Getting an uninvolved support from an experienced editor will give us a fighting chance, IMO. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 00:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, fingers crossed, more supports might come. — Realist² (Speak) 00:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

3 supports, 0 opposes and the article is improving the whole time!:)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 23:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I already told you R2, but Kod I'll be at a birthday party tomorrow practically the whole day so I won't be here. Good luck and make sure my userpage doesn't get vandalized.;)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 00:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll put your user page on my watchlist, just in case. Have fun. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 01:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright I'm back.We played Halo 3 for the Xbox 360,ate cake and candy,and went to Lazerstar. But my paranoid mom hated lazerstar(Thought it was "bad" place) so the whole great fun day ended badly. How's the Michael Jackson FAC going?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 16:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry about that, the MJ thing is going OK 4 supports 0 opposes. — Realist² (Speak) 16:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Make that 5 supports, 0 opposes. This is going very well, but I think it's going to be a while before any major consensus. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 18:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's going very well at the moment, in the next 30 minutes (maybe earlier) I will be adding a huge chunk of info to the article (2 paragraphs), when they arrive, could you copy edit them? — Realist² (Speak) 18:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Strawberry Fields Forever

Full dates are supposed to be wikilinked. Solitary years and months generally aren't. I have no clue what this "new rule" is, but I've never heard of it. All the best, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 18:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

See here, Tony actually writes most of wiki's rules around MoS. — Realist² (Speak) 18:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll leave them for now (it is optional), but taking them out is an option. Anyway, for Strawberry Fields, I noticed that you moved the references to the end. The references in the middle of sentences are for the quotes. Every quote should be referenced (next to the quote) according to MoS. I'm going to undo your edits if you give the "OK". All the best, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 18:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Quiet...

I've been watching classic videos on YouTube and for some reason when I check MJ and JJ pages, little discussion was going on. LOL BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 00:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I miss your little comments here and there and you have much better old school knowledge than me. What do you think of the Thriller article now? — Realist² (Speak) 00:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's nice, lol. Looks like the whole thing got a great makeover, lol. Thanks for the comments. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 01:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My talk page

You can be the caretaker for it if you want, seeing as I've not had time to edit much. And I haven't been inspired to edit. I think I might start editing the Stones page though. Or the Nikki Sixx one. And if I do, I'll check in on whatever you're getting up to. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

My pleasure :-). It has been AGES since you lasted edited. I'm surprised you can sign your comments it has been too long. — Realist² (Speak) 01:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

dates

Absolutely, Br and US raw formatting is transformed into the plain text (there are guidlines at MOSNUM for which is more appropriate). Then we see what all of our non-logged-in readers see, which is just as well, since there are lots of inconsistent dates and glitches concealed from us by the auto system. People seem to be pleased about the reduction in the sea of blue and underlining; there's quite enough already without the silly dates. MOSNUM, rules for the raw formatting, whether they’re autoformatted or not), and MOSLINK and CONTEXT.Cheers Tony (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Realist—Thanks for your kind words, but after my horrendous RfA a few years ago, which I completely mishandled, I'll never go there again. I have absolutely no confidence that RfA weeds out unsuitable people, and such an unmediated process can easily become an abusive, medieval trial. Since then, I've trashed so many FA candidates and been rather uncivil to so many people that the knives would come out immediately: my back would be porous. In any case, I'm quite unsuitable to the admin role, since doing mop and bucket would bore me. I'd rather do mop and bucket writing "how to write" guides, which require a huge amount of hum-drum formatting. On that subject, you may be interested in having a snoop around the page I just finished today: feedback on how to improve it is welcome on the talk page there. The first set of exercises—all I've done thus far—focuses on the use of hyphens and dashes.

Know your Manual of Style. Tony (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Article I created

Ah, I wasn't aware of the move... or even a discussion. I appreciate your letting me know, very thoughtful of you. - Toon⁰⁵ 23:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 23:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

:-O

Yay! Liberals! Pro-Choice! Pro-Queer (I don't care if you tell me not to use that word here, I'm a Liberal! :-D)! Pro-Science! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with conservatives, but the extremists can take their vile bigotry elsewhere. — Realist² (Speak) 23:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I have an account on conservapedia. I deleted the criticism section on Al Gore's page, saying that if George Bush didn't have a criticism section, why should Gore? I wasn't taken kindly, to say the least. :-) Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 18:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson 2

Hi Realist, just left this not at the FAC too. I'm heading out for the evening, but I can fix both issues tomorrow. Then there will be no image problems at all! I'll probably give a copy edit too since I neglected to do so when you requested one awhile ago... Sorry about that! Been busy in real life... --JayHenry (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

:-(

"I don't know how to fix that star issue either and Giggy always seems to busy to help at the moment."

Really sorry if I've given that impression - I always do what I can to make time for people doing good content work such as yourself. I've been frustrated over the ridiculous drama that never stops, but if I've missed a request made by you (or anyone else, related to an article) please, PLEASE, trout me ASAP.

And I fixed it up on Commons. Cheers :-) —Giggy 07:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean it in a bad way, look, hell, your a lot more busy than me, with wiki and commons. Requests slip my mind all the time (I've just realized that I'm behind on a peer review I promised), with so many people needing your expertise, the last thing that you need is someone bothering you about some bloody star. You have helped me loads in the past and I have said multiple times that I hate nagging the same people over and over for help, it is unfair on them. You won't be getting a trout from me, hell no. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 12:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Mills

Please stop your attacks on the Heather Mills talk page. Writing "you seemingly don't care that this has potentially libelous consequences" is extremely insulting, and "despite me telling you multiple times that the source does not support the claim" is very arrogant indeed. I remember a young man who didn't know how to reference edits a few months ago until someone took the time to show him, so I ask you again to stop these attacks.--andreasegde (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what Realist2 meant by "this has potentially libelous consequences" is that you (Andreasegde) are "implying" something that may/may not be true. I don't have any extraneous info on this, but I do agree that Realist2 should talk this over with Andreasegde in a calm way. Also, Andreasegde, English is not Realist2's primary language, so just keep in mind that Realist2 may sound "arrogant" and such when he may not be able to explain himself in any other words. Just something to keep in mind; I just don't want to start an argument that could have some nasty results, being friends with you both. :-) Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The former husband said that basically, it must be true because "I heard it from my mates and they would never lie to me". Then because the Times (who hate Mills by the way) allowed this guy to repeat his claims on their article it must be true that Mills really said he was gay and worked for MI6. Basically we are taking the side of the mans friends as FACT, over Mills, simply because it appeared in The Times. No scrutiny, we just accept it as legal fact. Hmm. Still, I believe Andreasedge has now improved the source or added more. — Realist² (Speak) 18:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• "simply because it appeared in The Times" is as naïve as one can get. The Times newspaper is respected throughout the world, and Mills' reputation for telling the truth is not - that is a fact. Would you rather completely believe many of Mills' claims that have been proven to be totally untrue, or references?
• The article now has 116 references, BTW.--andreasegde (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Not really, I think it is quite naive to think that The Times knows what happened in their private marriage. Times is just a platform for this man to spread the gossip his friends told him (he admits that it is gossip from a bunch of mates!!). Also, how do we know that they did even tell him that? Maybe he is making up that his friends told him something. No one will ever know what happened in the private marriage of those two and just because one side of the story was reported in The Times that does not make it factually accurate or the truth. But since you have admitted that you don't like Mills you probably can't see the obvious. — Realist² (Speak) 00:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Jackson FAC

Just read your reply to my last comment. My concerns were not sheer length, but rather there's a lot of extraneous information in the article. I'm going to just go ahead and start trimming details from the article since it's at FAC, although I would have preferred to be able to edit it without the pressure of having to respond to an FA nomination. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going for a walk, and then I'm going to eat (it's a lazy Sunday for me). I'll start work in an hour or so, when I get back. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

R2 can you check the MJ article? I just used a script called advisor.js. It adds a list of suggestions concerning Wiki-code within an article. I don't know anything about the more fancy code,can you take a look and see if the script did a good job?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks OK, so as long as no-one else reverts it then its OK. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 01:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're breaking the three revert rule when I'm trying to help you. I'm still working on that section, and it's not helping. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it had no constructive criticism, had no mention of cameo appearances, did not present a worldwide view of his video career. There rest of what you have done is excellent (well i wasn't impressed with the 1993 allegation whitewash) — Realist² (Speak) 06:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you summarize the fact that he has cameos in videos in one sentence? I'm pretty sure you can, while listing just a few cameos in a few videos. As for the 1993 child abuse allegations, it's best to keep it to basics here (Jackson was accused, allegations became public, public backlash, Jackson entered a settlement) and leave the sordid details for the main article, because it's just too much of a topic to get into on the bio page. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly favor the full story of the allegations instead of hearing the same tabloid version of affairs, it is back to accurate and neutral now. There was a lot of discussion about this on the talk page. I'm interested to integrate the physical appearance and finances info, that is a good idea, but there is a lot of medical info in there that is important but I'm not sure it would fit well into the time line. If you think you can do that give it a go, I'm just stumped on how it would make sense if scattered. For example his drug addiction and weight lose had an affect on his face but if you seperate it ouf from that section you would have to go into extra detail each time reminding the reader "oh and by the way this also affected his appearance". Now the money stuff is a lot easier. — Realist² (Speak) 06:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It'll be pretty simple, really. I'll get to it tomorrow. You really need to keep the 1993 allegations paired down, because much of the information provided was really skewed in favor of Jackson, creating neutral POV problems. Keep it to the most basic facts; public reaction was the most important part of the controversy anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the police closed their investigation citing lack of evidence, he was never charged, there isn't much documented evidence. — Realist² (Speak) 07:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep it to that, then. The article doesn't need to talk about the father's character. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The fathers character is part of Jackson's defense. — Realist² (Speak) 07:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not necessary to go into in Jackson's article. You have a subarticle for a reason. What's important to the general reader is what I highlighted above: Jackson was accused, allegations became public, public backlash, Jackson entered a settlement. For details, they can go to the subarticle. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I went and made some alterations, I removed about 500 bytes, I think you removed 800 bytes so it's a happy medium, I might still tinker it down a little though. — Realist² (Speak) 07:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to remove that vitilago picture, as well as the signature image. They are utterly superfluous and don't add anything to the article. In regards to the vitilago picture, it would be more prudent to get a fair use image of Jackson to show off his lightening skin. This is not an article about the disease; the only reason it's relevant is because Jackson has it, and you can't have an image of someone who isn't Jackson to demonstrate this. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a much better picture. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You can definitely find a better, more suitable picture for the music video section. The current "Scream" image doesn't tell the general reader much; it's just Michael and Janet in black and white. Better to go with something more visually engaging. Why not a shot from "Thriller", "Billie Jean", or "Black or White"? WesleyDodds (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't cut much about Jackson's health and appearance. What I did cut is relatively unimportant for context for the general reader. I don't think it needs its own article. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please not edit the article when the "Under construction" template is in use? The point of that template is to reduce edit conflicts when I sit down and edit for several hours. You can revert all you want when I'm done, but your constant reverts while I am making edits makes me lose progress and make it confusing when I try to find out what has and hasn't been done. I've asked you before to assume good faith, so please don't revert while the template is up because it's very discourteous. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not telling him to voice his opinion. We exchange pleasantries and opinions quite often. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with you?

In case you didn't know the Metrosexual category is on its way to being deleted and that is why I removed it. There is no source in the Beckham article for him being Metrosexual. But I see you've reverted my work on David Beckham and left a bad faith edit summary specifically for me, "get over your problem with sexuality asap". I have no problem with sexuality, but I DO have a very BIG problem with you stalking me. Yet again you are wiki-stalking me from one article to another even after you agreed to stop doing so. Why are you so bloody obsessed with me? Stop harassing me! Caden S (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you had explained that in the edit summary it would have been fine, but all you said was "removed", thus I assumed you were being your usual self. Actually it is mentioned in the article that he is meterosexual under the "fame beyond football" section. Apparently he is quite the meterosexual. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 14:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you have de-watchlisted the articles CadenS is working on (it should have been done long ago). This last edit of yours I would consider well within WP:Wikistalking (though you may only consider it article improvement), and I considered for a moment reporting the pattern, but since you have agreed to de-watchlist CadenS's articles, I don't anticipate any further problem. As well-meant advice from another editor, please do not become so invested in another specific editor's work in the future. There are far more productive (and less drama-inducing) ways to help build Wikipedia. -kotra (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, at some point it becomes counter productive. — Realist² (Speak) 17:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Peace Dove

This is really weird, Realist, because about two hours ago I thought about sending you a message with the words "Dove of Peace" in it. "Great minds think alike", as the saying goes. :) I truly thank you for your message.

Anyway, as this is Wikipedia, everyone falls out at some time or another, and we have done it (I also had a little thing with Kodster when he first joined, so you are not alone :) This means two things: either the two users never talk to each other again, or they reach an understanding of respect, which is a very good thing. I agree with the latter, wholeheartedly. I wish you the best.--andreasegde (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been under a lot of wiki stress (as have you I imagine) regarding this Jackson FA review and sometimes tempers fray when your rushing around against the clock. I read the archived Mills talk page afterwards and realised you had attempted to make the article more neutral. I took objection to that one source because in my eyes at least, it is no more than a claim by the husband and should be treated as such. Nevertheless my tone was inappropriate. — Realist² (Speak) 17:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Strawberry Fields Forever

Up for GA. Wish me luck. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 22:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay, good luck, I have my fingers and toes crossed! — Realist² (Speak) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that the musical structure system is too "stubby". Oh well, I just added it to the WP:GAN page, so I'll expect a nomination in the very near future. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 23:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost all articles are put on hold for improvement, your article won't be quick failed. — Realist² (Speak) 23:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson-related work

Have a Barnstar =) - Toon⁰⁵ 22:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude, cheers that's amazing!!! Lol, I'm actually setting up another Jackson article in a moment. Feel free to look at it when it's ready!! Cheers for the star!!! — Realist² (Speak) 22:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You should see HotCat for quick categorizing.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 04:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I like looking around though, hehe. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 04:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well I use way too many tools and scripts. See my monobook, it's crazy.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 04:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. Replied

I did as well. Feel free to notify every time you reply, but I do check my contributions every once in a while (I have it set to have a different color when it is updated). Hope the article works out. Leonard^(Bloom) 02:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I try not to bring personal biases and such into these matters, and that includes responding to the bias and POV as well. Good job on MIJ though! Leonard^(Bloom) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cheers

Seriously? Don't quit. Having to get through a horrible RfA is much worse, my friend. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just terrible, I have plans for other Jackson articles but it looks like they will be harder to set up than I thought. I cant believe it was an admin who made that deletion nomination. Just clear bias on his part. I also made 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson in my sandbox last week, which fared a little better, at least it wasn't nominated for deletion in 8 minutes. — Realist² (Speak) 08:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's no surprise. Lots of people have something personal against Michael. I think he's one of the greatest musicians to have ever lived. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing, even with photographic evidence of his vitiligo, there are some people who will refuse to accept it or him. Chin up Realist. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 08:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuff.co.nz

I noticed in the FAC for Michael Jackson a query was raised about the reliability of Stuff.co.nz and a way to show that reliability would be to show they were backed by a media company. The webpage is in fact the news portal for New Zealand's largest media company, Fairfax New Zealand [1]. I hope that helps. --JD554 (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Already taken care of, cheers though. — Realist² (Speak) 09:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a chance?!

That's not much of an edit summary. Please take close look at what I actually added. I think it's helpful, as was suggested in the FAC, to mention the fact that Invincible was widely anticipated as a comeback album that didn't quite work out. My changes were not that major, and they were all referenced. What specifically are you objecting to? Regards, Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite a number, my main concern though was neutrality and undue weight. — Realist² (Speak) 10:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This was an important album for Jackson, it's not undue weight to just add a couple of sentences to put it in context. I'm only trying to help you out here. Instead of just reverting the whole thing, could you not at least consider each addition on its own merits? What's wrong with saying it cost $30 million? Do you not think it's of interest that it was the most expensive album ever made? Which of my edits did you feel were not neutral, out of interest? Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that "$30 million" claim, its bogus. That was the expected price that Sony touted to the media. It was a figure what would gave included money spent on promotion and videos but none of it happened in the end. It was definitively planned to be huge but in the end it didn't pan out for whatever reason but the media kept using the figure (maybe as a tool against Jackson). It definitely needs an extension so I suggest that you add that info to my sandbox and maybe we can work a piece out together? At the moment however I'm so drained I feel like withdrawing the nomination. My workload doubled when someone randomly tagged my article for deletion. — Realist² (Speak) 11:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't aware of that. I'll have another go in your sandbox then, as it does need more detail. I appreciate this must be an exhausting process-- I wouldn't want to have to put myself through a FAC! Don't worry about the AFD; there's no way that will be deleted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, no rush! Make sure you have a good sleep and see how you feel when you come back to the computer. There's still plenty of time. Cheers, Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah R2. Don't lose sleep (literally and otherwise) over this. I'll help you with some of the suggestions. If you withdraw the nomination, you'll be wasting all the sleepless nights working up to this moment. There's a chance that the article will go through; like everyone else has said, get a good night's sleep, and think about it. :-) Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 20:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

MJ

Ah, something tells me it will become or has become good enough to pass this time. I think you should get very good sleep every night. I've read bits and the prose appears OK. I'll come back in a few days and review. You're seeing only negative things; most people are just making comments.

Don't worry! Tony (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Even with one oppose, that's only for technical reasons, and can easily be fixed. I don't think there's any reason to worry. (Until Tony reviews it. ;-)) Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 15:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I think it will be promoted this time. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good job on your work on improving the article. Orane (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you edit warring at this point?--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiLove

Wiki Love!!!

Here's your Wiki-Love R2!!!:D Calm down about the Michael Jackson article nothing will go (seriously) wrong.:P Just grab a nice comfortable chair,kick back and relax.:)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 03:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, thank you, by the end of this I will probably have a few loose screws. — Realist² (Speak) 03:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Invincible

Not familiar with AIM... in any case, it's not something I'd be able to set up until this evening as I'm at work now. But still happy to help out if I can. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The supremes, Mr. Jackson and stuff

Thanks, Realist. I feel bad that I was so flippant towards you in the FAR; but if you want to help I could really really really do with some help copy editing the page! Diversity and all, as you say. Anyway, either way, there are no hard feelings from my side. (O and I much prefer your new sig!) ( Ceoil ^sláinte 10:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to The Supremes; thanks a million! ( Ceoil ^sláinte 01:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Its 3am here too, yipes; best of luck with Ml Jackson. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 02:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha, hospitalizion is the impression I have too from following the FACs! I think its quite good for such a difficult subject; but eh you really need to tout for a copyeditor. Not easy to find, but they are out there. Anyway, you are doing something right, as I listened to Triller for the first time in years tonight. I never realised it was so damn funky! ( Ceoil ^sláinte 02:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm looking into it, I'm aware that because its Michael Jackson it's under a lot more scrutiny, I'm used to that. I'm glad you like Thriller it's a good album, everyone seems to own a copy lol. — Realist² (Speak) 02:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Im watching the vid on you tube for the first (?) single. Its amazing now that it was banned at the time (in IRL). Its great for sure, but very tame by todays standards. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 02:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a good video, it's actually the 7th and final single from Thriller. It was almost never released but Jackson kicked up batshit fuss (too right) about it (he and John Landis and already thought of the video plot) and they eventually did it. — Realist² (Speak) 03:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember now. It was just such a trill when I saw the video after it was unbaned (yeah I'm that old) and the back story in Yetnikoff's "howling at the moon" is just so fanicating. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 03:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, it is good, although not his best. I think Remember the Time and a few others are better. Maybe thats just because thriller has been so over played though. — Realist² (Speak) 03:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you not think "Remember The Time" is a little pompus and self regarding? Eh! (By the way you are always welcome to send utube links, wheather they be good or bad) ( Ceoil ^sláinte 03:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, I just think he wanted to take it to the next level, is he meant to give up after Thriller and say "oh well, I can't beat that". He use of special effects in the early to mid 90's was ground breaking. I would say that Earth Song was a little pompus, but with Jackson's mental state I'm not sure it was actually intentional, I don't believe he understands what he's doing half the time, at least based on the medical info. Besides, the message in Earth Song was good so I think the pro's out way the con's. All the money from Earth Song went to charity, if he uses a flashy video to help sell it (at his own cost I might add) and it all goes to a good cause, that's great. I think people are to judgmental of him (some of it he deserves, most of it he doesn't). However the chilling part is, if there was no Michael Jackson many thousands of children would be dead in Africa right now. He gave all his profit from the Dangerous World Tour to charity which was $100 million+ alone. I think a lot of the truth has been covered up by the tabloids though. Its wierd, I've lived in so many countries but it's only in the UK and America where there seems to be a really passionate hatred of him. — Realist² (Speak) 03:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Other times he was just sticking two fingers up to the press — Realist² (Speak) 03:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

First time seeing that, thanks. That is so seriously OTT, it had me in stitches ;) ( Ceoil ^sláinte 11:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think he enjoys pissing his critics off some time. — Realist² (Speak) 12:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've watched the triller video seven or eight times now, and its just faaaannntastic. But I'm not sure if Id go with "he enjoys pissing his critics off as in interviews" as he comes across as royally thick and conceated in interviews; yet holy christ can that man can dance! Bty sorry for all the typos, Realist. Anyway, let me know what you think of this. (And no Im not that old!) Ceoil ^sláinte 15:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to apologize to me about typos, English isn't my first language, so many people critisize my spelling on wikipedia that I never point out anothers flaws. Lol that video is funny, I can't understand that sort of music but I think thats just a cultural thing on my part. Since you like his dancing I'm trying to thing of some of his best performances. This is a favorite of mine, it's amazing how agressive it is when in life he seems so shy and timid. — Realist² (Speak) 15:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"it's amazing how agressive it is when in life he seems so shy and timid" - Maybe beacuse hes a Savant syndrome? I'm delighted to know that you cant spot my bad spelling, cause its a big thing with me!! Thanks for the vid. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 15:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, it's quite sad really. Oh and sometimes he doesn't dance, he just sings instead like this. — Realist² (Speak) 16:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you like Slash? — Realist² (Speak) 17:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This was amazing too and I'm not into rock. — Realist² (Speak) 17:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitive proof that even at 45 he was a better performer that Britney Spears lol!! — Realist² (Speak) 17:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember seeing that befor; O very nice find! (bty dont tell anybody about my MJ thing; I have a rep to protect! Har har. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 19:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol, sure think. :-) Look at us jabbering away, back to work. — Realist² (Speak) 19:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I was just going to say enough, back to work. I glad there are no hard feelings, and Im gald we are on the same side at the FAR. I misjudged you, but thats all HIStory now. Later. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 19:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OMG, HIStory, you would make a great MJ fan! :-) Later Ceoil. — Realist² (Speak) 19:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

References

This will make you laugh: Michael has 171 references, and Heather Mills has 170. Has the world gone mad? :))--andreasegde (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I think you will overtake me at some point!! — Realist² (Speak) 13:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna stop this. 182 references; it just doesn't seem right at all... :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OUCH!!! — Realist² (Speak) 18:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, Realist2!

I am grateful for your confidence: My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Again, Thanks! Okiefromokla questions? 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck and don't block me! :-) — Realist² (Speak) 21:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll put you on my white list. :) Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What? You have a white list? You could put me on the pink list (due to my abject cowardice). :))--andreasegde (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Invincible section 2000-2002

Hope you feel better soon. :-) If you really care at the moment, I responded to the improved section at my talk page. But if you're sick, you may want to rest. Again, get well soon. All the best, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 19:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Heather, again :)

That's a bit much; nobody in the whole UK likes her (even though they might defend her in print, and you like her a bit :)). The Daily Mail serialised her book, and then found out she was telling porky pies = lies. That's why the paper doesn't like her; because she lied. It's an old English thing; don't ever solicit pitying public feelings, and then get caught cheating, or lying.

Actually, I really do understand her (being working class and coming from the north of England myself) but there is a massive difference between what you tell your friends and what you claim to be the truth to the national press. As Richard Nixon once said (and he knew) "It's always the lie that catches you out." The biggest mistake she made was a single ego problem: She thought she could have it all. I pity her more than hate her, because she got involved in something much bigger than she could understand.--andreasegde (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I do sympathise with you feeling ill at the moment. I really hope you get better soon (although that comment is useless, because an illness doesn't get better because of somebody saying it should, but I said it anyway (Doh!). Look after yourself, you future admin... :)--andreasegde (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your endless effort to maintain the Micheal Jackson article at the utmost quality. Congrats! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Love you keeper!!! Cheers!! — Realist² (Speak) 00:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, giving you a "Michael Jackson FA" barnstar seems a bit redundant now, doesn't it? Cheers, R2, and a big congrats on the FA (more to come hopefully). hug :-) Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 14:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fingers crossed, I nominated the 1993 allegations for GA last night. So happy!! Cheers, Kodster, you helped a LOT! — Realist² (Speak) 15:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I figured out how to do the little stars and pluses on top of your user page (I like it). :-) I gave myself a star for Michael Jackson, I think that's fair right? (We all know you deserve one.) :-) Good luck with 1993, I'll help you with it if the GA review comes before I leave. Cheers, I feel so much better now! Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 15:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 15:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell yeah, you copy edited the entire article like 6 times as well as doing various specific sections even more. Hehe I like your symbols. Lol, I even removed Fields forever from your todo list :-) — Realist² (Speak) 15:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL so it was you! I was wondering who did that! I was hoping it was automatic: that would be cool if your to-do list changed by itself when you did something! LOL thanks! Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 15:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You got 7 GA's (does that include "Fields Forever"?) and an FA. — Realist² (Speak) 15:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The best of all congratulations to Realist2, who worked like a demon to get that FA.--andreasegde (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers!! I still think you can get Heather next to him up on that FA board! :-) — Realist² (Speak) 15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

An FA of his own

LOL sorry for the bad pun. :-) Anyway, I think I'm going to try my hand at getting Strawberry Fields Forever Featured. Do you think it's worth a shot? Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 15:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I think you would get a lot more satisfaction getting The Beatles to FA, secondly I hate singles, I find writing about singles really hard because of the lack of information. I think it's hard enough getting them to GA. However, I think you can do it, I think you have enough info, it's just that singles are not my thing. However you thrive on singles, I find them really difficult. — Realist² (Speak) 15:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles is more of a long-term thing. I don't think I could handle that by myself, though Lord knows I've tried. :-) And I find singles to have more information. Plus, "Strawberry Fields" is one of the Beatles' most famous songs. Really, if you say "Strawberry Fields" to someone, they will (most likely) automatically saw "Beatles". There's PLENTY of books on Strawberry Fields. Plus, think about it. How many people write critical analyses of Hey Ya! (Featured Article, I might add)? I think I can handle it. I'm not doing much else, and I'll still be on vacation for a bit after I leave. Which reminds me, would you mind watching my user and talk pages while I'm gone? I don't want vandals to seize the moment (and trust me, Huggle makes enemies, not friends). ;-) Cheers, bud. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 15:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you can do it, I agree, The Beatles is a long term project. Sure I'll watch your pages. I'm thinking of going through the MJ wikiproject and putting some articles up for deletion. There are so many pointless articles on Michael Jackson, like his puppet show! — Realist² (Speak) 16:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Still looking for copy-editing?

I might have some time today... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied at yours. — Realist² (Speak) 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)