User talk:Realist2/Archive 24

Scream/Childhood

Congratulations! I also very much agree that editors as a whole get told off more than anything else. It's especially irritating because editors who actually provide GOOD content to the encyclopedia aren't given any credit! Quite frankly, it feels like there are ten people who delete things for every one editor who contributes info... Have a nice day! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very true lol, you have a good day too. — Realist² 23:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) — Realist² 09:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Bling bling

Thanks a lot, this is a rather unexpected honour. While on the topic of Stark Raving Dad, it is possible that it might head to FAC in the future (depending on when WP:SIMPSONS gets around to doing season 3 for our FTD). Before that though, I would like to add some comments about the episode from Jackson himself. So far, I have been unsuccessful in finding any, but if you, or anyone in the project, could find any (from magazines, or books about Jackson that don't show up in Google news or Newsbank), it would help a lot. Any comments he's made about Bart would be useful too. Thanks, Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

On this milestone. Useight (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :-) — Realist² 04:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate

Hey Realist, it's me Paaerduag :) Wow, I just glanced over your talk page - you've come so far since last year :) I reckon you could have a real good shot at adminship, and to think that I still remember your first edit haha. Anyway, great work, and just so you know, after a long break I'm contemplating coming back to wikipedia. Again, thanks for the email you sent a while back checking up on me - I reckon the break has been great, now just to find something to write about :P Anyway, how are you going? Are you at university yet? I'm finishing year 11 in 4 days, and then it's the big year, year 12 hehe. But that's not gonna start till after an EIGHT WEEK BREAK!!! Anyways, great to chat again, and hope everything's going fine.

From Paaerduag --Paaerduag (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, I would love to see you back at Wikipedia asap! We need more good Michael Jackson writers, who use sources and everything lol. I'm really good, in Uni studying law, still a while to go yet. Apparently there is going to be a "Off the Wall 30" in 2009, so there is an article we could write. :-) — Realist² 13:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

really? that's pretty cool about "Off the Wall 30", although I'm kinda still holding out for the new album - I guess he should take as long as he needs though; I have a feeling it'll be really special when it comes out. By the way, how come the article on the new album was deleted? just because news on it has been so sparce lately?--Paaerduag (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All forthcoming albums that don't have a release date or album title are no longer allowed. Still it was terribly written and the sources were bad as well. It degenerated quite a lot. :-( — Realist² 11:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Womanizer

Hi, I do not understand why we have to put two charts from Netherlands. I think the official singles chart is the Mega Single Top 100, and the Mega Top 50 is Airplay chart. Is what I think maybe I am wrong.--Albes29 (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is confusing, the dutch chart system is really odd. According to the articles Mega Single Top 100 is a component chart of Mega Top 50. Accordingly it is the Mega Top 50 that is Netherlands main chart. Thus you actually removed the wrong one. However that was not why I reverted you, I've only just read into it. The reason I reverted you was because you removed sourced material with no explanation, and I'm no mind reader. Please use edit summaries in the future. Now, since we are on the subject, what on earth are we going to do about these dutch charts? My feeling is the component chart, "Mega Singles Top 100" (a bloody awful title BTW), should be removed. Thoughts? — Realist² 18:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First thanks for the advice about my talk page. The true is that was not a bad intention to removed does comments. they where when I start to edit and mostly because I was new, and as you can see my english is not that good. About the Netherlands chart, I have seen many discussions about this topic, and almost everyone have said that the official one is the Mega Singles Top 100, I really have not idea, I just think is not a good idea to have two Netherlands charts. Thanks

OK, I will speak to User:Kww about the charts. He is good with these things. — Realist² 18:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, the articles are correct: the Mega Singles Top 100 is a physical only chart, and its figures are used in calculating the Mega 50, which includes downloads. That means that regular rules on component charts should apply: if it's on both charts, only list the Mega 50. If it's only one one chart, then list the one it's on.—Kww(talk) 19:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for clarifying that :-) — Realist² 19:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson

Sorry, I've been out of town the last few days and am just catching up. I'll do my best to help you soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first off you should split "Scream/Childhood" into two articles, one for each song. All other major examples of split singles are done this way, such as "Day Tripper"/"We Can Work It Out" and "All Apologies"/"Rape Me". "Scream" alone will be the easier one to write about, I gather. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I had a feeling I should, the only problem is, I can't find any more reliably sourced info on Childhood. It's a really none notable song. I will keep looking hard for new info first, let you know how it does. If you still think it should be split off, even though it's that small, I will go ahead and do it. — Realist² 11:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd be surprised if you couldn't get "You Are Not Alone" to Featured status. Wasn't it the first single to debut at number one on the Billboard Hot 100? Something like that; I remember there was something quite notable about the single. As I understand it, to have a Featured Topic, the main article (HIStory) and two-thirds of the daughter articles need to be FAs. That sounds doable. Also, FA song articles don't need to be huge (and rarely are); they just need to be comprehensive. Just Like Heaven (song), one of my song FAs, isn't the longest article in the world, but it fulfills all the FA criteria. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping swiftly in – there is no requirement for any of the articles to be FAs to get to FT status, let alone ⅔; they just have to be of a reasonable quality. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Half-Life 2 titles is sailing through its candidacy, despite only including one FA. – iride scent 03:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the FT criteria lists these requirements: (i) At least 25 percent of the articles are featured class (featured articles or featured lists), with a minimum of two featured items. (ii) All other articles are good articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well we will soon enough figure out what the criteria is when I nominate all these articles for FT. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic about the potential of these singles, maybe I can get more than one of them to featured. I've never got a single featured before and I envision a detailed structural analysis is needed. The problem with this is, HIStory was released in 1995, by which point the US and UK media had turned against Jackson. Reviews of HIStory's music are weak in quality, weak details or specifics. By this point his personal live issues are taking up 60% of review space. It might be better to long for foreign language reviews which would give the music a detailed fair shake. — Realist² 15:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh darn, I'm quite sure Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix would be within the scope of the topic too? — Realist² 18:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Scream" and "You Are Not Alone" have definite potential to be FAs. Even if the only criticism available is negative, that's what you'll have to use. I always thought Blood on the Dance Floor was a separate release, but if it's still considered part of HIStory, work on that one first, since I assume there'd be more commentary available on it. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Blood is not a studio album, it is a remix of 8 HIStory songs and 5 brand new songs. It being a studio album is a common myth, but no reliable sources call it a studio album and it certainly wasn't promoted as one either. I think my FA potential articles will be HIStory, Blood, "Scream" (with or without "childhood" we don't know) and possibly "You Are Not Alone" at a squeeze. Actually from reading about 15 reviews I've found that the singles from HIStory were all well received, it is the filler album tracks that dented the over all review. It's to be expected though, when he was doing Off the Wall, Thriller and Bad these albums were only 45-50 mins long. Dangerous, HIStory and Invincible are into the mid 70 minutes. I think that has been his big error with recent albums, just way too long. That said, Dangerous is my person favourite MJ album. Do you have any of his records Wesley? A favorite? — Realist² 20:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off the Wall was the first album I ever owned (on cassette; didn't start getting CDs until 1997). I do like Thriller a lot and Bad quite a bit; I think Bad gets a bad rap sometimes for not being as good as Thriller, but it's still really good. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:La Pianista

You know the user? I'd like to contact him about an RfA, and you mentioned looking to nominate people. Check him out. iMatthew 01:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to co-nom. iMatthew 01:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoptian

Sure D$ 01:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Being burned as a witch

It's not so bad being burned as a witch, you get to be famous. Although it's not as good as having another quality admin. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

		The RfA Barnstar
		Realist2, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Good luck! — Realist² 22:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image help

Which videos do you want images from? - Aphasia83 (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood, Earth Song and Stranger in Moscow for now. Is that possible, PLEEEEEAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSEEEEEE. :-) — Realist² 19:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some images here:

Could you add the rationale stuff to those images? - Aphasia83 (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I will do. You need to fill in the source section, say where you got the images from, a website etc. — Realist² 20:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took screenshots from the HIStory on Film, Vol.2 DVD. - Aphasia83 (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can fix that. Cheers! :-) — Realist² 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. - Aphasia83 (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Circus Tour

I'm sorry, the edit that I did wasn't vandalism. I was just trying to do it like the rest of her albums. I'm really sorry if you thought it was vandalism. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enanoj1111 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a sizable portion of the article that was sourced, without even so much as an edit summary. If it's not vandalism fair enough, it just looked like it. Why do you want to remove the content? I don't see any problem with it. — Realist² 23:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to do it like her Britney album. Enanoj1111 (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I would actually argue that the Britney article is wrong, it's usually good to write a summary (2 paragraphs) on the tour, leaving the bulk of the details in the tour article. Check out Discipline (Janet Jackson album). It has about 2 paragraphs on the tour. This is a good thing. — Realist² 00:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Well thank you for pointing that out! :) I'm very sorry again! Enanoj1111 (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem, just remember to use edit summaries when removing sourced content, otherwise it looks bad. Happy editing. — Realist² 00:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the Circus album. How dare you threaten me? I'm goin to speak to an administrator. It seems like you're the genre warrior. TheWoogie (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm issuing you with template warnings, I'm allowed to do that. You have been warned in the past. — Realist² 03:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. When your ready

I've been thinking about your comment on my talk. Do you really think I'm ready? Bear in mind, I only registered in late July, so I'm only just about four months experience. I've had a look at a lot of RFAs, and no one has passed with fewer than six months for ages. Still, adminship would be useful to me, and the more I think about it, the more inclined I am to accept your offer. What do you think? – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And whilst I'm on the topic, I'm surprised you haven't run yet. Do you intend to? – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yo yo

Hello, Realist2. You have new messages at Closedmouth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BSB

Kevin back to the group ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3t8Fti67lg 28 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemoo2009 (talk • contribs)

I don't know, you tube cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia, try google news. — Realist² 10:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson become muslim ? realy ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q_RoK_wrDw&feature=related .28 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemoo2009 (talk • contribs)

their debut album "Backstreet Back" have sold over 51 million albums world-wide. http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Backstreet-Boys-Biography/73228D6CEDAF10624825686D0006ECD8 29 November 2008 (UTC) Please one comment about album ( Backstreet's Back ) 30 November 2008

Oh actually

I was just thinking. Because Wind it up is obviously not a rock song anyway. Wouldnt it be more accurate to just have it as pop? I was thinking pop and rock would confuse people...???Valentine-Lets (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we report what the sources say. Sorry, it's that clear cut. — Realist² 17:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But isnt "So Fresh" CD reffering Rock to songs by Fall Out Boy, The Killers etc.. and Pop to songs by Scissor Sisters, Gwen Stefani, Pink etc...Valentine-Lets (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson case

Yep, I'm glad that's settled. :) BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens RfA

Jclemens' RfA Thankspam

		JClemens' RfA Thanks
		Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Images

Image:BRITNEY VMA08.jpg and Image:BRITNEY SPEARS VMA08.JPG appear to be copyright violations to me. I could be wrong but I tend to have bad faith with anything britney-related. I don't know how to dispute the copyright claim, but I'm guessing you do. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Britney Spears VMA 2008.jpg <=I have my doubts about this one too. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the 1st and 3rd image are on commons, we have to leave that up to the commons people. Only the second image could be dealt with here. Personally I don't know, the only way we can prove it is a copy vio is if we can find an identical image elsewhere on the web. If it were a magazine cover/poster or something it would be easy to spot. If anyone can find a near identical image I can pass on the relevant info to the relevant people. If it is a copy vio it will get deleted eventually, remember that Michael Jackson image from 2008. — Realist² 10:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music Samples

I switched the janet articles to have {{sound sample box align right|Music sample:}} {{listen| (sample){{sample box end}} as opposed to the multi-listen format. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crash

How come Im not allowed to edit Crash? There isnt a source to back up "influenced by old school hip hop". But 80s Dance/Pop is sourced.Valentine-Lets (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well, here http://www.popmatters.com/music/reviews/s/stefanigwen-love.shtml. They call it mainstream pop. There are numerous of sources that quote Stefani saying the songs on the Love.Angel.Music.Baby are dance-oriented. Plus Old school hip hop influence is not sourced. Im taking it out.

Drawer B Media said that the track "revisits Stefani's blatant fondness for 80's pop aswell. :)Valentine-Lets (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide me with a source that specifically calls "Crash" "Dance-Pop" please. — Realist² 13:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there isnt any sources calling this song a particular genre. Apart from popmatters calling it mainstream Pop. And then theres drawer B "80s pop". And then quotes from Gwen calling it "dance-oriented". Valentine-Lets (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we have sources, it won't be happening. You can use the Popmatters source to call it mainstream pop if you like. — Realist² 13:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah ok then. :) Valentine-Lets (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and this? " was just thinking. Because Wind it up is obviously not a rock song anyway. Wouldnt it be more accurate to just have it as pop? I was thinking pop and rock would confuse people...???Valentine-Lets (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, we report what the sources say. Sorry, it's that clear cut. — Realist2 17:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC) But isnt "So Fresh" CD reffering Rock to songs by Fall Out Boy, The Killers etc.. and Pop to songs by Scissor Sisters, Gwen Stefani, Pink etc...Valentine-Lets (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)" Valentine-Lets (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We just report what the sources say, no if's, no but's Jamalar. — Realist² 13:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but for the Wind it up source. It says theres Pop and Rock songs on So Fresh. Rock is refering to the obvious. Its not like we're *not* reporting what it says Valentine-Lets (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is confusion your best bet is to find a source that specifically talks about the song "Wind it up". — Realist² 13:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I probrably will try to improve by adding more content to articles more soon. But one thing, And..I dont want there be an edit war over Rock having a capital (wind it up page). I know that its only the first genre that starts with capital but I didnt think that was the case for that song. Because the source is not specific on pop or rock. Shouldnt it be Pop/Rock? like the source and with capitals for both?Valentine-Lets (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the genres should ideally be split out into there individual elements and thus only the first should have a capital. I'm not sure having "/" is allowed. — Realist² 14:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Maddyfan name changing

I gave her another warning, although she certainly deserves a block. If you want to make a report that's fine with me. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hi Stifle, I noticed you've been tagging some Britney Spears related articles (I watchlist them because of the fancraft). I was wondering if you could spare me your thoughts on images of "Special edition" album/single covers that look almost identical to the standard cover image already displayed in articles. I would like to see if we share the same view and if we both deal with them in a similar fashion. I know your an images Wiz and I'm branching in that direction myself. Wisdom appreciated. — Realist² 11:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that those would almost certainly fail NFCC#3a (using multiple images where one would suffice).

Do note that I'm heavily biased towards deleting the entire encyclopedia, though :) Stifle (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, OK. I've been using "disputed fair use" and inserting a copy and paste monologue on why the image is unnecessary. The image does get deleted eventually (it takes 7 days I think). Glad to see we have a very similar viewpoint on it. Would it be possible to consult you if I have any questions in the future? Most the admins I regularly communicate with are not image buffs and obviously aren't keen on handing out advise that might be slightly off. I'm generally up to scratch with images, but there is something new that leaves you confused. — Realist² 12:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to drop by at any stage.

{{subst:dnfcc|3a=yes}} is probably less monologous than what you're currently using. Stifle (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed half a dozen or so album covers on IFD after the uploader removed the semi-speedy nominations. You might drop by when you have a chance. (Just search for my name.) Stifle (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Top 100/Mexican Pop 40

I noticed you nailing a ton of those charts last night. Something specific about those charts, or did they not check out?—Kww(talk) 12:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this IP's edits? (it's just that you said last night, just checking we are talking about the same thing). I reverted the IP because his edits were unsourced. I didn't even need to consider the validity of the charts themselves. When I reverted the first one I did say "unsourced", I was just too lazy to give an edit summary for every revert. I left a warning on his talk page just in case he's confused. I have to go for a few hours now. Later. — Realist² 12:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My round

Have a beer on me.

Let the amber nectar flow all day and night. Let it run down the mountains and through the caverns and across the rich lawns to swamp the streets. Let it rain beer. Let the heavens open and shine forth beer. Let it all be beer. Wonderful beer. And let it be as deep as the heart of a lion.

This is an acknowledgment of your participation in the RfA of: SilkTork *^YES!. 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem! — Realist² 23:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA

I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a lot of these today, looks like the RfA system might be healing afterall. Great to see you as an admin. — Realist² 23:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I did not mean to take out your stuff. I was trying to fix the singles section. Sorry again.Spears154 (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. Try to explain such things in your edit summary in the future, if all you say is "revert" and a huge chunk of text goes missing I'm inclined to think it's disruption. If you be a little more descriptive I will notice that it's an honest mistake. Edit summaries are you friend. :-) — Realist² 23:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:help please

True that Spears is planning a tour and having read some reliable sources, she did state she'll probably be performing songs off the album Blackout, but not necessarily a promotion. Watchlisted now. Thanks for dropping by. --Efe (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is all about Circus. Hopes the album breaks a new record in Billboard history. Good luck on your essay. --Efe (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of 'Brit Award' section of Earth Song article

I've got to protest your reverting of an edit I made to the above. The current section is inexact over what took place, and imprecise in the subsequent statements of the involved parties, and so gives an ultimately inaccurate view of the matter- plus the linked article I cited, Brits Behaving Badly, is unquestionably comical, and anyone can see it to be misleading. I was just trying to paint a clearer picture.

There was nothing comical about it, the BBC doesn't lie...very often. Please back up your claims with sources. I've told you this already at least three times now. — Realist² 13:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've told me "three times"? What are you talking about? But anyway, Cocker explained in BBC interview that it was the messianic healing-allegories he objected to, not some kind of abuse of power, as the article suggests. And I'll quote the BBC article that I claim is comical: "This was also the year Pulp singer Jarvis Cocker - somewhat fuelled by drink - stormed the stage with a friend during Michael Jackson's performance of Earth Song and pretended to break wind on stage." There is no substantiated suggestion of drink, Peter Mansell was the bassist of Pulp, not "a friend", and there was no pretense of farting... I think the article is intended to be humorous, not helpful. A better source would be more accurate, and my edits were likewise more accurate, and detailed on events.

People v. Jackson

I have been reading through it. There seems to be quite a few sentences that were written while events progressed. Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't they be now put into past tense? Give me the go-ahead and I will fly through the article and catch what I can.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want my honest opinion? The whole article should be bombed and written from scratch. I really wouldn't even bother changing the tense. The whole thing really needs gutting. :-( — Realist² 14:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want my uninvited opinion, not only should it be gutted, but you (R2) should ask WikiProject Law if there's anyone there would be willing to rewrite it as the "significant legal case" article it should be, rather than the "Oh noez they dared to arrest Saint Michael/zOMG they let this evil man go" opinion piece it permanently teeters on the brink of degenerating into. (Note: WP:LAW attracts a lot of JeanLatore socks, so if you see a new account editing the article, be very careful about double-checking what they add.) – iride scent 15:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a courteous blank, for the dignity of Wikipedia more than anything. Of course I could never do such a thing, I'm way to biased. I would be trying to cover up the truth or something. Note to haters everywhere, if it wasn't for me we wouldn't have an article on this or this. — Realist² 15:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errrr, I'm going to respectfully bail on this one. Motion withdrawn.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Stranger in Moscow

No, I haven't forgotten. The past few days have been very busy, and today will be busy as well! Christmas season and all. But don't worry, I'll be able to take a look tomorrow, or today if I have more than a hour or so to spare. :) Have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! :) The article is on hold, see the talkpage for details! Good job and good luck! CarpetCrawler (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the article passes! You can see the talkpage for details (Especially about that odd type by RS!) and have a nice day! :) Another wonderful job! CarpetCrawler (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: What plan?

Ha, I have absolutely no idea. The user name is familiar tho - I probably reverted one of his edits or something. No clue. - eo (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I looked at his talk page - apparently I removed some WP:BADCHARTS stuff that he added. I guess that's my BIG MASTER PLAN. - eo (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check this?

Can I get your opinion on something? Honestly, tell me if I'm overstepping here... I'm kind of in a disagreement with User:Alextwa because s/he feels that an album review from The Times does not belong in the Keeps Gettin' Better: A Decade of Hits article. Basically, he keeps removing it; I keep putting it back. His claim is that the album review is "too short" and "not detailed enough". I realize it's not a pages-long review, but my argument is that The Times is a very reputable publication and the review's length should not matter — this is not a blog we're talking about here. There is a discussion on the album's Talk Page, if you want to chime in. This is not a huge deal, I just want some fresh eyes on it in case I'm being ridiculous. Thanks. - eo (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duffy

Hi Realist2, You have edited out my good faith addition to her 'Early Career' paragraph due to not having a proper source. Being new to Wikipedia, what would you suggest to validate my update, other that the fact that I am related to said guitarist Tom Mitchell, and attended a few of their gigs together in Cheltenham during 2006/7. I know how much time and effort he put into the music with Duffy, and they performed and recorded together for about 12 months - I think he deserves a mention in this legitimate context. Chascollett. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.30.59 (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to cite a reliable source from a third party, check out this link for details. If you are related to Tom Mitchell please consider our policy on conflict of interest and take extra care to write in a manner that conforms with our neutrality policy. If you feel the need to add that piece of information please use an external source, be it a newspaper report or BBC web links etc. If you have a reliable source but do not know how to add them to articles give me a bell. — Realist² 13:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islam

I don't mean to turn this into a battle ground, but please don't delete this without an answer, what do you have against Islam? You are denying so bad that MJ has converted to Islam that I actually think you must think Islam is a pretty bad thing ! Answer this as well, do you deny his brother is a Muslim too?

ps: Just a non-related question, wikipedia owner and his gang are about to cash in 6 million dollars while a few thousands bucks are more than enough to keep Wikipedia online for pretty much the rest of the eternity, how much exactly do you get to stay here 24h a day writing as much as you can about MJ and so on, well, I guess being top#500 Active Wikipedians is probably worth much more than 6 millions, oh wait, you're not even in the top#500, but keep going that's a very important work you're doing, you rule ! Don't take this offensively, I'm really complimenting you and asking this out of sheer curiosity I might want to get a job like yours in case you tell me you're really getting something out of those 6 millions which are not needed at all to keep WIkipedia going, thank's!

1) - Muslim's rock

2) - Jermaine is the best Muslim of them all, seriously.

3) - I get paid $8 an hour to write articles on Michael Jackson

4) - I plan to be within the top 50 very soon and overthrow Jimmy Wales, becoming Wikipedia's ultimate dictator, Yay me! — Realist² 13:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I good or what (turns out, no, I'm not)

File:Michael jackson and bubbles.jpg

Oh yeah. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is a derivative work... – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it. — Realist² 15:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crap D: --Closedmouth (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was nice while it lasted, but alas, copyright paranoia wins again...— Realist² 15:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I put so much effort into that, and I was so proud of myself for a brief moment there. I should've known it couldn't last long. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, don't beat yourself up about it, you've been very helpful. Some of these copyright laws are plain odd IMHO. — Realist² 15:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That really does suck. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news... :( – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tis OK, rather it be you than some smug... *Now now Realist, now now* — Realist² 15:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BADCHARTS

I think the new nominees at WP:Record charts can all be added (with links to the discussion). I have to be extremely careful, though ... since I'm cleaning out about 200 articles a day, it's important that people not be able to say that I'm adding charts without justification. If you agree that it's time to add them, please go ahead.—Kww(talk) 15:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left an update request on there, as long as there is no sudden opposition I'll add the sites in the next 48 hours. Is that OK? — Realist² 16:03, 5 December 2008

(UTC)

Sounds good. It's not like there aren't a few more UWC references for me to go after. I've gotten all the correctly formatted and referenced ones, and a lot of the bad ones. Finding the ones that are just labeled things like "WW" is a lot more difficult.—Kww(talk) 16:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your work. Let's wait and see what develops. Also, is there a reliable source that documents and archives chart positions in Canada. I would like to look at Canadian positions for past Michael Jackson songs. Cheers. — Realist² 16:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acharts archive is of the Billboard Canadian Hot 100, which makes it easy to search. They are a reliable enough archive, so long as the chart they are archiving is a good one. Otherwise, I think you have to buy a paid subscription to Billboard's website.—Kww(talk) 16:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with A-charts is they only started recording from around 2003-ish onward. Jackson hasn't released much material between 2003-2008 so all his prime music isn't documented at A-charts. Then there is this Canadian Hot 100, which is a new thing again. — Realist² 16:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know any sources for older charts, and I would like one, because I suspect my taste in music is a bit older than yours. I still think of the Jackson 5 when I hear Michael Jackson's name, and consider them to be a relatively recent group.—Kww(talk) 16:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, my taste in music isn't old really, I favor the music he was doing in the 1990's over the 70's-80's. It had a bit more grit to it and the music videos kicked ass. — Realist² 17:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Earth Song cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Earth Song cover.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers TaggingBot, fixed now, what would we do without you... — Realist² 17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]