User talk:Realist2/Archive 27

Madonna

Please see the definition of aka according to wiki. It DOES NOT mean "only legal names." The name "Madge" is ubiquitously used in the mass media and most people immediately know they are talking about Madonna. Astroboyretro (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia does not use Wikipedia as a source. Second, Template:Infobox Musical artist makes it clear what type of information is meant for the infobox. If you believe policy on this should change, then bring up a discussion here: Template talk:Infobox Musical artist. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what Bookkeeper said. — Realist² 17:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I didn't want to say too much on ANI, however I am really rather disappointed with your handling of this. I know you've been around long enough to know what a 4im warning is for, and that a small spat of edit warring and an irritated edit summary isn't it. I know it takes a bit of time, but trying to explain some things would have been a great help here. Even though Legolas seems to have been around for a couple months, I get the impression he's still a bit shaky on his feet. Should this happen again, please slow down a bit and try not to snap at people too hard. In the meantime, I am trying to work with Legolas to sort things out on his end, trying to find a source for the information he was adding. I do agree with you that it needs one, it seems to directly contradict the information just above where he was adding it. Anyway, please go easy on the newbies in the future. Happy editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in handing him a 4im warning (note that twinkle automatically labels a 4im warning for unsourced information as vandalism, seems harsh, but I didn't create twinkle). You only need to scroll through his talk page history to see how many warnings he has had for adding unsourced information to articles. He hasn't listened to me or other admins. I can't keep handing out level 3 warnings for ever and ever, at some point you go to level 4 and then 4im. He had been warned enough times, he speaks english, it's quite easy. — Realist² 14:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, Twinkle does not give a 4im warning unless you specifically tell it to, and I just checked and {{uw-unsourced1}} is on the list of level 1 warnings. Looking at his talk page, I can see only two instances where he was confronted about adding unsourced information, one of which was last night. If there have been other cases, I would appreciate your help in finding records of them. In any event, I did take about an hour last night to sit down and explain things to Legolas; you can read our whole conversation here. It appears he was under a few misconceptions about how sourcing was done, all of which have been corrected as a result of our conversation. Saying someone doesn't listen to you or other admins isn't saying a whole lot when there is little to no evidence to indicate that anyone has even attempted to do so, which was my point in contacting you in the first place. I'm not asking you to use lower warnings, I'm asking you to drop the warnings altogether and try to explain things when the situation warrants. Those templates do an extremely poor job of helping people understand what they're doing wrong, particularly if they've already read the policy or guideline and misinterpreted something. You're right, he does speak English, so taking some time to talk with him would be a very Good Thing. Lo and behold, it worked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There are 6 in the space of a relatively short period of time. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I can see many more in the history, just click on the links and read some of the messages. I'm very happy that you sorted the issue out, but at 4am in the morning, or what ever it was, I didn't have such time. I'm not dropping the template warnings, when he learns to source correctly, he won't receive them. — Realist² 18:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sales info

Wow, nice link. Thanks Realist. BTW, I think this could be useful for Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Charts. --Efe (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 7

I noticed that you both deleted the above archive and redirected it to Archive 6. Your given reason was "redirect - archive 6 and archive 7 are identical only archive 7 still has undeleted BLP violations. Archive 6 is at least clean of these". I am assuming you did the right thing and even put the navbar for Arc 7 on Arc 6. Please do me a favour and explain why I made the right assumption. I do see that both are similar and that Arc 7 has more comments but why were they near-identical in the first place? I thought BLP only applied to articles, not talk pages. Is it right for us to totally remove other's comments on talk pages if they are not illegal? I have never seen an article talk archive deletion or internal re-direct before and thought we were only meant to do that on our own user pages or usertalk pages.

I want to know I made the right assumption because this seems like a big issue. Please boost my confidence. :)--Thecurran (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well this was a long time ago so it's a bit hard for me to remember what I was doing. I sent a report to ANI saying that there were BLP violations on the Jackson archives. I was told by the admins that I could remove the comments. While doing that I noticed that archive 6 and 7 were identical (apart from one of them had a few extra paragraphs at the bottom). If my memory serves me right, I redirected the smaller archive into the slightly larger one, with the permission of a separate admin. To clarify, BLP violations are never allowed on Wikipedia, anywhere. These days we have a lot of people keeping the Jackson talk page clean, but in the old day's nothing was being removed. Remember we have WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM as well. — Realist² 14:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A favor?

Keep an eye on New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh)? I'm dealing with a user who is adding unsourced information here and — although I assumed good faith at first because the user has not been editing for very long — I was unimpressed with the attitude left on my Talk Page. I'm not getting into an edit war over this, but I also don't want anything thrown in there just because s/he feels like it. Thanks in advance. - eo (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do. — Realist² 21:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you keep User:Ericorbit from making personal attacks on my talk page. Also, User:Ericorbit has continued to try in engage in an edit war. S/he edits are a little reckless. I have look at his past edits and have seen a lot of reverted edits. Tarysky (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have also notice that you have changed fifth to sixth about the studio album. According to the last article New Amerykah Part One (4th World War), Part Two is the sixth studio album. Tarysky (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Max Liron

This user is a vandal in "Christina Aguilera Discography". Look his edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christina_Aguilera_discography&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone Jackson (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Eo

Well, his attitude and edits are not welcome to my talk page. I do not want to have anything to do with him or her. So any new edits that are not dealing with business will be deleted. I have seen some of the admins pages. They say the same thing. Tarysky (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Obscure Jackson question

Neither Jackson 5 discography nor the {{The Jackson 5 singles}} template mention "Big Boy"; either the original release or the 1995 reissue. Has it just slipped through the net somewhere, or has it been deliberately omitted for some reason? – iridescent 23:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't see any article created on it. Well, maybe we should create an article on it? Or just add it to the template? — Realist² 23:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

IIRC it was Michael Jackson's first release, so even though it technically fails WP:NSONGS (failed to make the Billboard charts and released on Steeltown Records and Atco Records rather than a major label), this seems as clear a case for IAR as I can imagine. There must be sources for it somewhere! – iridescent 23:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My Taraborrelli book dedicates a few sentences to it. We can work on it here if you like. — Realist² 23:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any relevant books, so am limited to what I can find on Google. In the first 100 pages of ghits, the only things even vaguely approximating a RS are a couple of lines at MTV, and a verbatim cut-and-paste copyvio good faith remarkable coincidence in the All Music Guide To Soul. This, this, this and this look like bona fide RSs, but don't say very much. If you haven't by tomorrow, I'll rustle up a stub from what little's there. (I can only assume this song really sucks – it seems to me this ought to be the Motown equivalent of The Sun Sessions.) It also occurs to me that if you want a star for your userpage, "DYK... was MJ's first ever release" pretty much guarantees you top spot on DYK. – iridescent 23:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Added some info. DYK sounds like a plan, so long as it's not deleted like biscuit sex was :-( — Realist² 00:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me started on that one… All those parroting "no-one ever thought there was a link between biscuits and sexuality, you must have made that up" needs to go read Graham cracker, John Harvey Kellogg, Sylvester Graham and pretty much everything linked to from them. – iridescent 00:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If I get a DYK I'm eligible for that "triple crown" thing or something? I was quite surprised to see that article get deleted. How could they come to that conclusion, we even had an image to back it up *rolls eyes*. Great day's. Oh and apparently warning newbies with templates is a no-no (see atop). What gives? — Realist² 00:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it's appropriate to warn anyone with templates – I think WP:DTTR is total BS. I don't think there's a single line in TTR that I disagree with. And you're quite right; according to the Userspace Template Message grid the "correct" warning for level 4 unsourced is the generic vandalism message. – iridescent 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also been working on this, a rather famous track. Plan to go into the critical analysis of his live performances of this song, since he performed it live so many times. — Realist² 01:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Have added a one-liner to Big Boy about the 1994 reissue; for the debut release of one of the most influential singers of all time, it has a remarkable lack of coverage. The song itself is awful and sounds like cats mating, it has to be said. – iridescent 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Bling bling

WikiThanks

Thanks very much for the shiny new barnstar! - eo (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

January 09

The source I used for Britney´s fourth week sales in Canada is not the same that was used for the third week sales. They have simmilar titles, but they are different. Thanks--Albes29 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I see that now. However I swear, at first, when I read them both, they said exactly the same thing about Britney Spears. Anyway, it's OK now. Sorry (you don't hear me say that often). — Realist² 18:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the first time it was the same, I made a mistake. I have not source for third week sales, that is why I put fourth + Fifth week sales. Third week sales should be around 30K but CANOE did not report the sales for that week.--Albes29 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe CANOE will give a full sales figure some time in the future. I'll strike the comment on your talk page, there was an innocent mistake on both our parts. — Realist² 18:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you help me please? I saw that you delete Japan sales, I made a mistake there too, I think so. Now I fixed but I would like to know first if it is ok. Firts link is for third week sales, but they put next total sales until that week. Circus is #9. http://jbbs.livedoor.jp/bbs/read.cgi/music/3914/1044805378/582 The second link is fourth and fifth week together, that is because Japan do not give last week sales, they put together the last week of 2008 and first week of 2009 in the same chart. Circus is #17. http://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/ja/w/more/2/ --Albes29 (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understand.--Albes29 (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

People Magazine is a reliable source to support celebrity feuds? Renanx3 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. They tend to lie, exaggerate or report "claims". I imagine it would be covered in Rolling Stone (a very reliable source) or something? Try to avoid anything remotely tabloidy. — Realist² 19:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Because here is listed a feud between Carey and Aguilera wich is supported by People Magazine, according with you it should be deleted, right? Renanx3 (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. — Realist² 19:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that People is not a "reliable source" and Stone is? Renanx3 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's like asking, what's more reliable, The Sun or the BBC. You just come to learn these things from experience. People magazine would be OK for some things, but nothing controversial about living people. — Realist² 19:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So until then I keep receiving these messages like "your edits were reverted" or "stop with this edits"? Renanx3 (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Stay away from fan sites, blogs, forums and anything remotely tabloidy. That is a very good start and will cut down on warnings and reverts dramatically. Feel free to ask experienced editors for advise on a reference you have. Within a few months you should have a strong understanding of what we allow. Note, that it's not always clear cut. Sometimes very experienced editors will argue over the reliability of the source, but that's not common. — Realist² 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

But if that happens? What I will gonna do? Renanx3 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If people can't reach an agreement on the suitability of a source, take the issue here. They will help you. — Realist² 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the information and don't forgive to delete that what I listed before. Renanx3 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I can see about People magazine is that they paid Christina for the baby photos. However this is reported by Forbes, which is a reliable source. Am I missing something?

I was talking about the fact that Aguilera said that Carey "was really drunk and had really derogatory things to say to her in a party." Renanx3 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Juts revert your santogold edit. Youve made a mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.55.75 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why GaGa's official website is not a reliable source? Renanx3 (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for facts such as tour dates etc, however, it's not reliable as a source if its giving an opinion, such as "Lady GaGa is the new Madonna". Coming from her own website, doesn't really count. — Realist² 22:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And The New York Post is really unreliable? Renanx3 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie to you. Sorry :-( — Realist² 22:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything in this world in unreliable! Just kidding, but actually it is really discouraging me to edit, but there's nothing I can do. Thank you for the explanation again. Renanx3 (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

US Magazine is the same case that People Magazine? Renanx3 (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

US Weekly isn't great, but it's a little bit better I think. — Realist² 15:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Times/The Sunday Times? Renanx3 (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Both very good sources. I was thinking, my not make a list somewhere of sources you know are good and bad. — Realist² 15:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you dear God! And it's a good idea.
Well, I found a article wich they related the feud between Aguilera and GaGa:

"GaGa is apparently already influencing other artists, with numerous blogs gleefully pointing out the similarity of Christina Aguilera’s styling, hair and make-up in recent months. “I’m not sure who this person is, to be honest,” Aguilera sniffed when asked whether she was a fan. “I don’t know if it is a man or a woman.” GaGa, for her part, is unbothered by the backbiting.

“I think she’s very talented and, anyway, look at me: I might as well be a gay man. When I hear comments like that, I’m like, ‘She’s dead on’, because she saw the Warhol in me. Of course it bears a resemblance, but nobody can copy me, because I can’t be copied.”

You can see the full article right here. Renanx3 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, feel free to add it with that source. — Realist² 15:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I promise that this will be the last time I bother you, but and the Digital Spy? Renanx3 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally not a good source. — Realist² 16:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

One question: read this example – Digital Spy post a article wich features a interview with Lady GaGa talking about the feud with Christina Aguilera. Even they saying "GaGa told to us that (...)" it continues as a unreliable source? Renanx3 (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think so, I very much doubt that Lady GaGa would really give some obscure website an interview. — Realist² 19:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK! Magazine is the same case with the other magazine that I listed, right? Renanx3 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If she gave an interview to OK Magazine, and OK Magazine say there was an interview, you can trust OK Magazine for that piece of information. OK Magazine wouldn't lie about having an interview. — Realist² 19:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

On here, the OK Magazine cites a little piece of the Digital Spy interview, so I don't know if the interview with Spy become reliable. Renanx3 (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I dunno...I think it is OK to use the OK Magazine source. — Realist² 19:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Assistance needed

I semi-protected "Circus (song)" for 2 weeks and full-protected "If U Seek Amy" until further notice (once a source is released it can be removed). Keep an eye out, however, for "If You Seek Amy (song)" or "If U Seek Amy (Britney Spears song)". If you see either one created, let me know. - eo (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thriller

"Please don't alter a direct quote" Please don't baselessly accuse me of altering it, I was correcting it. Those were MJ's words verbatim. Iggy402 (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not according to the book I'm using. — Realist² 01:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My book says differently. But okay. That's a better reason than telling me to "stop altering it."Iggy402 (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If U Seek Amy next single...

I didn't put this, but how come Britney's official site isn't a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enanoj1111 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the sources being sited is a blog, the other was published by "lead bitch". Doesn't comply with WP:RS. — Realist² 02:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Womanizer

Um how did i disrupt this article? Saying that it sold 300,000 copies in Christmas sales and is the highest it has haver sold??? okregreen 07:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okredgreen (talk • contribs)

You added this piece of unsourced information, despite multiple warnings on your talk page to source everything you add. When you continually add unsourced stats to articles, after being told to stop, things have to escalate. — Realist² 03:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If U Seek Amy

The single is confirmed by the official Britney website. Don't dwell on the fact that "Britney's bitch" posted it -- it doesn't matter what she likes to call herself, she's not just some fan who is blogging, she is in charge of her official blog and she can't make shit up about it. CloversMallRat (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on your page, currently there is strong concern that the source is not reliable, creation of the single is currently banned until we have better sources. Please help find some, but please, don't keep reverting. — Realist² 03:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert again, because you will revert it back. Explain how an artist's official website's news releases are considered "non-reliable"? If that official website isn't reliable, then why is the confirmation of the 2nd single "Circus" referenced with her official website? CloversMallRat (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately fanboys have been using it as a source when they shouldn't be. However due to the various inaccuracies coming out of these Britney sites as of late (they've been claiming Circus is certified platinum when it's not) they are becoming a joke. — Realist² 04:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Poker Face

Hi Realist, i see you are continuously reverting my changes to Poker Face (Lady GaGa song). Will you kindly explain why do you feel the need to make those reverts when i explained that thsoe section changes are done according to WP:Single? "Legolas" (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my apology if I reverted some of your good edits in amongst the sea of crap spread by the other editors. Your recent edit is very good. — Realist² 04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Realist. And i apologize for the previous edit war that we had. I am quite new to Wikipedia. Just trying to learn all things that i can. But sometimes still make mistakes. "Legolas" (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is about my edits to Poker Face that you reverted. The website I linked to is actually the official Finnish chart page. The website is owned by the TV and radio company that the chart is published by. Poker Face charted at number one this week but this information is not yet available on other sites. YuckieDuck (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please wait for other sources to report it. You've and others have been trying to change it to #1 for quite some time, the only people saying it has gone to #1 are those people. If it has gone to number one, other sources will report it soon. — Realist² 17:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Lady GaGa page

I'm really sorry about my edits, I was editing and even before I finish I saved and I didn't saw what I did, It was not intentional just a big mistake. Really sorry about this. Renanx3 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, keep up the good work. Like I said, try to make smaller edits, less chance of you making a mistake, and easier for others to revert any mistakes you do make, without losing the good material. — Realist² 18:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's true, thanks for the information. However, I think that this part, in particular, is really supported by good sources:

In the fall of 2008 Haus of GaGa turned their focus upon the USA market, with Lady GaGa going on tour with fellow Interscope pop group, the reformed New Kids on the Block. Collaborating with New Kids on the Block, Lady GaGa is a featured guest on the song "Big Girl Now" from their new album, The Block. To coincide with her newest releases, ABC commissioned a video promo uniting GaGa's song "Beautiful, Dirty, Rich" with their similarly-titled hit show Dirty Sexy Money.

Renanx3 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Barrys Tickets isn't the best source in the world. However I see no problem adding that to the article. — Realist² 18:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Reuters have a article that I can use as a source to support it, much better, right? Renanx3 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah :) — Realist² 18:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Pop 100

Hi realist could you explain to me in what order the sequence of the Billboard charts are mentioned in the WP:CHARTS. As per Billboard, Pop 100 is the second most important chart after Hot 100. Do you think that the sequence needs to be changed so that we have a standard? "Legolas" (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a reply at WP:CHARTS for you. :) — Realist² 04:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Saw the reply by DiverseMentality. I think we have a lot of work to do for the singles because most of them donot have the charts in order. I am at present updating all the Madonna singles to comply as a good WP:SINGLE. Will you keep an eye for them? I will order the Lady GaGa, Britney Spears and Rihanna singles also, according to guideline. But i hoped that Hot Dance Airplay was not a component chart. :-( It just increases your work by deleting them from single pages. "Legolas" (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit busy in real life over the next few weeks. I've taken a few articles off my watchlist. — Realist² 15:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh shoots, can you reference another fellow editor who can help me out in this case... like an administrater who can keep an eye on the Madonna pages? Regards "Legolas" (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:DiverseMentality, User:Ericorbit or User:Kww should be able to help you, if they are not busy. — Realist² 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

re: New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh)

Yes, I'm still watching it. I'm beginning to think all of these edits (IP and user names) are the same individual. I'll semi-protect if this continues. - eo (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Erykah Badu

I have noticed that you and User:JC STARR729 have engage in an edit war over the page, New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh). Please discontinue this action, because this will result in the page being fully-protected. By the way, In Essence Magazine she mentioned the upcoming releases of "New Amerykah Pt. 2", "Lowdown Loretta Brown", and "Mama's Deuce Deuce" coming in 2009. She also mentioned some of the tracklisting for "New Amerykah Pt. 1 and 2 (individually paged)" in the magazine to.Erykah Badu on the cover of Essence So if you have not read this magazine, you do not have the privilege of reverting back and forth. Tarysky (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually myself and an administrator are reverting the editor and his likely sock puppets. I have read the essence magazine piece and no such info was mentioned. — Realist² 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

For Tarysky's full history of (now-removed) warnings regarding the editing of New Amerykah Part Two, please be sure to check Tarysky's Talk Page history. The continued insertion of unsourced information and disruption (blanket reverts which restore errors, such as this edit [1] ) will lead to a block sooner than later. Thanks R²! - eo (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Eo. — Realist² 00:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I will not be block. But I strongly believe that you two are sock puppets. Your aways collaborating, following another, asking each other for help on reverting, and when makes an edit the other back him up. I think this calls for a checkuser. Because you two are definitely in on something. Tarysky (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're free to request a check; be my guest. - eo (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Things get weirder by the day. We can't possibly be sock puppets, I love Michael Jackson, to my knowledge, Eo doesn't. Conclusive evidence :D — Realist² 17:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson has nothing to do with this and clearly is not proof. But I am sure sockpuppets know what the other likes considering they are the same person. Tarysky (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hi R2, yes its been a long time. I've only been editing sporadically for the past six months, 'cause I have a job now and no Internet at home. So what've you been up to on Wikipedia? indopug (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Mostly writing some GA's, I haven't been to FAC since the Thriller album passed, I'll get around to it though, probably another MJ album :D. These days I do a lot of vandal fighting aswelland try to enforce WP:CHARTS. Glad to see you here when you can be. Good editor. :) — Realist² 04:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Lady GaGa and Lady Starlight

Hi. No, I am not connected to Lady GaGa or Lady Starlight (I wish). I am just a HUGE fan of theirs. :) I live in NYC and was lucky enough to be able to attend some of their early performances and parties such as New York Street Revival and Trash Dance. Why don't think that a weekly party that Lady GaGa not only hosted but also performed at is not at all notable? Just curious. You have SO MUCH more experience with writing and editing Wikipedia than me, I truly value your opinions. I just want to make Lady GaGa's profile as accurate as possible. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemgrrrl (talk • contribs) 09:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Just remember to write in a neutral manner and you will be ok. :D. The party thing is not notable in my opinion. What you wrote was overly long, containing a lot of unnecessary details about "their love of art" etc. Once you take all that out, you are left with one sentence of encyclopedic information. I still don't feel performing at a party is important to her biography, not when she's having number one singles all around the world. Still, you can bring the issue up on the article talk page. If others believe it's noteworthy then I'm happy to go with consensus. As a side not, when starting new discussions on article talk pages or user talk pages, please start new sections at the bottom of the page. Cheers ;-) — Realist² 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, right. A #1 single definitely outweights a dance party on the Lower East Side. I just felt it was an interesting tidbit of information about her pre-stardom NYC career. Thanks again! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemgrrrl (talk • contribs) 22:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What is your opinion on this information? It keeps getting deleted.

Lady GaGa credits Lady Starlight for her interest in performance as art. "I actually never really thought of it like that [performance art] until I started working with Lady Starlight" Lady GaGa admits of her career beginnings. "One day she [Lady Starlight] was like 'It’s not really a concert and it’s not really a show. It’s performance art. What you’re doing is not just singing…it’s art.' And once she pointed out to me what I was already doing I just started analyzing that more and researching to try to take it in a different direction. And that’s really what we did."

There is nothing wrong with text itself, but I don't think the actual source is very reliable reliable. I did come close to removing it myself. — Realist² 22:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Boo! :( I hear what you are saying. It might not be TIME Magazine but I don't think the source is unreliable. Lady GaGa has done some pretty dodgy interviews......this phone interview with some chick on YouTube springs to mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ooqp2vKo5s I think that information is extremely valid to Lady GaGa's career beginnings and inspiration. Jemgrrrl (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well we can't use youtube as a source. Don't worry about it for now, I image that as Lady GaGa becomes more famous, her history will be reported in more prominent sources. — Realist² 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! It's me again....sorry to keep bugging you. God, I can't believe how much drama there was over that photo. I realize it may not be the most flattering shot of the two of them but I took it after they performed, late into the night and believe she was pretty wasted. LOL She did write a #1 song about doing that! You would think that true Lady GaGa fans would be super excited to see pre-stardom pics of her. I'm also a huge Madonna fan and love to read articles and see photos of her early days in Lower East Side rock'n roll bands in the late 70's/ early 80's. Anyway, do you think it would be okay to add to the caption of my photo that they are in fact at New York Street Revival and Trash Dance? I did find a ref for the party http://www.seattleweekly.com/2008-11-19/music/lady-gaga-some-like-it-pop/ I know we can't use myspace but Lady Starlight does have a flyer they used to promote the party on her myspace. I'm not making it up. Again, sorry to bother you. Thanks! :) Jemgrrrl (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can add that to the caption, and source the caption using the Seattle Weekly source. No myspace stuff. I'm also a Madonna fan of sorts, but my favorite artist is Michael Jackson. I love Lady GaGa's song "Let's Dance", but I haven't warmed to "Poker Face" yet. Also, please create a user page (your name shows up in red and I hate it ;D). — Realist² 05:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Janet (Jackson)

Hey. I reverted your edit on Number-one albums of 2008 (U.S.) because she has been listed on Billboard charts as just "Janet" since around 1998 or so... coincidentally there is a similar conversation on Talk:Hot 100 number-one hits of 2009 (United States) about Beyoncé (charts list her first name only without the Knowles). - eo (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough, I assumed it was some fan boy thing. No problem at all. — Realist² 20:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Big Boy (The Jackson 5 song)

Hey, that is very interesting. And thanks for the article, I had originally posted but someone deleted it. I'm glad it was brought back up (and with more information). "Big Boy" was an important recording for the Jackson family and very important in the career of Michael Jackson since he was only nine here. So that's great. Thanks! :) BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 23:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I knew you would like that old school article. :D — Realist² 23:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Harol Pinter Mediation

Would welcome your input at Talk:Harold Pinter#Mediation. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I might chip in, although I haven't been keeping up with the discussion. — Realist² 02:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Stalking, then?

I hadn't noticed such a pattern, but you may have looked more closely than I. I see no evidence that JAF has ever edited Voice stress analysis, but then again a diff wouldn't terribly surprise me either. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, my gut tells me that he is either a sock puppet of a blocked account or he'd been disrupting that article as an IP for ages and then decided to get an account. The fact that a newbie would set up an account and zoom straight over to that obscure article strikes me as unlikely. I'm not sure he's harassing, but he's coming close to being labeled a single purpose account. — Realist² 05:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I see what you mean that the anonymous edits to Talk:Jonah Falcon seem to follow a disruptive pattern. That isn't what I was referring to, though. I meant that the new account Bomberdude'02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has done nothing in the mainspace so far but remove sourced material. Either way it amounts to a pattern of disruptive editing. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there is disruption however you look a it. In my opinion, the IP edits to that article would trace back to Bomberdude. But let's assume that Bomberdude is a brand new editor to the Wiki, his edits are disruptive. Now that the article is watchlisted by several people, his fun time is coming to an end. :) Anything else? I was planning on archiving me talk page just before you contacted me. My page is so busy, I can never find a break in the discussions to archive. I like to archive the whole lot you see. — Realist² 05:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)