User talk:Realist2/Archive 37

Dangerous sales

You have wrongly reverted appropriately sourced information about the sales of the Dangerous album. The BBC stated (on the day of Jackson's death) that the album had sold 29m worldwide. This source is far more impartial than Jackson's biographer, and is also a source that can readily be seen by linking. The information should be restored. Kookoo Star (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this source is being used for the claimed sales, an Italian newspaper. — Please comment R ² 14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian newspaper also claims that Thriller sold 104m, which we all know is not true. The BBC source therefore overrides this in terms of unbiased accuracy.Kookoo Star (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, millions of sources now cite Thriller as 104 million copies. Please read WP:V, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. — Please comment R ² 14:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 104m figure has long since been laughed off the face of the planet as hype. No respectable publication has used it. And yes about verifiability: a reliable source (the BBC) has stated that Dangerous sold 29m. You can't just pick the sources you want just because they make your idol look more impressive. Revert the information back please.Kookoo Star (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a multitude of respectable sources have stated it is 104, regardless, I'm not getting into an argument over the sales of Thriller. Per WP:NPOV both figures should be presented, which is what I will do. — Please comment R ² 15:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem if you wish to present both sales figures, and quote the sources they came from so readers can make up their own minds about which is more reliable. Furthermore, your roll-back edit reverted information about the album's UK sales. There is no evidence that Dangerous has sold over 2m million copies in the UK alone and the source that was provided for that is now invalid. Its current certification is for 1.8 million (6xPlatinum), but everyhit.com have not included it in their list of albums that have sold over 2m. Therefore, this information will need to be removed again. Kookoo Star (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added between 29 and 32 million for the sales figures. In the lead I've said "as much as 32 million". Per WP:LEAD we only need to speak broadly, the specific details should be handled in the sales section. I also removed the 2.1 million sales in the UK, since it's unsourced. Happy editing. — Please comment R ² 15:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm also not convinced the detail about Freddy Mercury dying is relevant to the article, but it was restored during your roll-back edit. Mercury died the day before Dangerous was released in the UK, and the way the article is written implies that Queen's Greatest Hits Vol 2 only outsold Dangerous because he died. As you may already know, Queen's first Greatest Hits is the biggest selling album of all time in the UK, and Vol.2 is also one of the all-time top 10 sellers. The chances are Queen would have knocked Dangerous off the top spot regardless of Mercury's death. So as not to get into a POV debate, the comment about Mercury's death should be removed. Kookoo Star (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, that's pure speculation, consider it gone. — Please comment R ² 15:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just as an aside, you just reverted an edit on "Off The Wall" about Frank Sinatra's "My Way" and replaced it with "My Life". The song Sinatra was famous for was actually "My Way". Kookoo Star (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the book I used was made by a respected music critic, perhaps it was a printing error? — Please comment R ² 16:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to say if it was a printing error or if the journalist simply isnt as knowledgeable as you think (which also has implications for its inclusion in the article at all). Sinatra has never done a song called "My Life" (though he has done one called "For Once In My Life" but it was never as famous as "My Way"). Kookoo Star (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1991 EW source

Feel free to comment at Talk:King of Pop (album)#1991 EW source instead of reverting. Thanks. 72.244.200.106 (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

King of Pop

Did some restructuring to King of Pop album (alphabetical order seemed necessary). Also added refs for Greek release after your revert. There are a still a handful of other versions, would you be interested in adding them? They are Argentina, India, Portugal, Russia and Thailand, from what I gather. See [1] Imperatore (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they have third party coverage, they lack notability to be included. — Please comment R ² 21:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we go with that logic, then there's a few that need to be removed from the current setup. Imperatore (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree. — Please comment R ² 22:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what makes this article special and meriting a track listing for each country is the fan determinism. If this was just another album, different track listings would just be presented as collapsibles. But this is a different story and I kind of like the country and track listing approach. Also the third party coverage argument is fine, but keep in mind the majority of the releases are in non English-speaking countries (official lang), implying that the majority of notable third party coverage would be in the native tongue of that country. So a simple google search (on english google) to verify the notability of the release won't cut it. Imperatore (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messages at Lady Gaga

Hello, Realist2. You have new messages at Talk:Lady Gaga.
Message added 23:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Michael Jackson's health and appearance

From the Childhood and mental health section:

From a young age, Jackson and other family members state that they were physically and mentally abused by his father Joseph through incessant rehearsals, whippings and derogatory names such as "big nose".

Shouldn't we specify that these family members are Jackson's siblings? That is the main reason I previously changed that part to "Jackson and some of his siblings," like the lead (intro) does. Even though "some" is not a word Wikipedia favors. If we are trying to point out that even family members who are not his siblings stated that, it still does not go right with "state that they were physically and mentally abused by his father Joseph through incessant rehearsals, whippings and derogatory names such as 'big nose" unless he did that to those other family members as well. And if we do only mean his siblings, the word "their" should be in place right before "father." I also put "state" in past tense due to Jackson now being deceased and due passage of time regarding family members being deceased in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Is It (Michael Jackson concerts)

Why did you restored the article? It is already cancelled after his fatal death last week. [2]. Could you re-add the cancelled dates, TY. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article makes it perfectly clear that the tour is canceled. How much more clarity s needed? — Please comment R ² 01:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is indefinite edit protected (autoconfirmed) by user Acalamari dated June 28, 2009. See the last full edit. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you would like me to do. I cleaned up the article because the was a lot of unsourced content added and sourced content was removed. The article clearly states the concert is canceled. — Please comment R ² 01:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the "cancelled" event was a sourced content? Suggestion, the tribute concert would replace his cancelled comeback concert? ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson articles

I don't really understand what you're doing at the Jackson articles. You're removing well-sourced material and reverting to versions where the citations are formatted incorrectly (e.g. p. 20–22, instead of pp.), and with odd writing, e.g. "Jackson's abuse as a child has affected him throughout his grown life." [3] You're removing good references, then adding the fact tag. In the death article, you removed a link to the tape of the emergency call, and a lot of well-sourced paragraphs. [4] I appreciate the need to use good sources, but we're not here to protect his reputation (or denigrate it). All we do is repeat what the sources are saying, and when they're mainstream news organizations, it's not up to use to say their sources aren't good enough. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the fair-use image in the tour article, you could try it, but it might be tricky. If you do add it, you'll need to add a fair-use rationale for that article on the image page. I've added one for the death article, so basically just copy that; if it's not written out separately, someone will propose it for deletion, though they might do that anyway. One thing to bear in mind is that the more articles it's used on, the more likely someone is to suggest deleting it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in, but my gut instinct is that any FU rationale for a picture of MJ is likely to be turned down in the current climate unless it's to illustrate a particular style of clothing, for example, precisely because everyone already knows what he looks like.

I'd recommend asking Jappalang again; anything he tells you about valid/invalid fair use rationales, you can take as gospel. – iride scent 16:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Realist2 has gone out of control! (The Elfoid (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Realist, just a note about sources in the lead. The lead does need sources for anything likely to be challenged, just as the body does. See here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've started to add sources to the lead instead of removing them, I don't like the clutter but it's not the end of the world. Cheers. — Please comment R ² 18:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dangerous

Hello, the source is the article of the song itself, Give In To Me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.214.81 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, OK, I'm not sure we can use that as a source because most of the reviews from that site are not professional, anyone can write an article on that website. Do you have a better source, by a notable music publication? — Please comment R ² 21:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Stone review of Dangerous also talk about this song as "a powerful rock track". Moreover Slash is a hard rock guitarist (he played in the Guns N' Rses).

Note

Note for you on Talk:Death of Michael Jackson. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. — Please comment R ² 23:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Friend

How are you? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little better thanks, you? — Please comment R ² 13:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im fine. Going to Sticky & Sweet Tour tonight. Are you coming to the memorial service tomorrow? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing survey

Hi Realist2. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main page

I saw your request to avoid putting MJ on the main page as the featured article on the day of his funeral. I'm think I'm going to use, at your suggestion, the Thriller article. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Raul654 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm sorry, I just don't believe the MJ article is in good enough shape, it's taken quite a battering and it'll take me a week or so to get it good again. Thriller on the other hand has remained pretty much the same. — Please comment R ² 21:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson Template

I'm sorry, I just thought because things like Miss Cast Away and Stark Raving Dad were up there, in which he has as much or even less significance in as the articles I put on there, that they would be acceptable to include. From what I've gathered his appearance in Miss Cast Away, a film nowhere near as big as Men In Black II, was just as brief, maybe slightly longer in a matter of a few seconds or so. Stark Raving Dad does focus on him, so I can understand it being up there despite having only a degree of notability, but from what I have seen he does have a pretty huge role in Space Channel 5, bigger than either of those two films at least. I don't know, tell me what you think. --schavira (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hey Realist

Hey man, I have a quick question. Btw, I'm sorry if anybody views this as inappropriate as it's not related to Wikipedia at all. But I was just wondering, as I'm sure you've hear the rumors that MJ's death is a hoax. What's your take on it? iMatthew ^talk at 01:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People will believe anything if it's printed. — Please comment R ² 01:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson articles

I'm thinking for the future it might be a good idea to create a Life of Michael Jackson article, or even Life and death of Michael Jackson, and to keep all the personal, autobiographical details in there, and move all the professional stuff (album sales, tours, etc) to a separate article, say Career of Michael Jackson. With summary-style sections in each that link to the other.

I feel the man is getting lost among all the details of "Thriller recorded in this year, sold X many copies" etc. There is so much detail that we lose sight of the biographical chronology, which as I see it was that a child star and musical genius was basically hounded to his death by the child-abuse allegations, because they caused so much stress, he became an addict. That's not NPOV, of course, and I'm not suggesting we slant anything that way, but I think we need to create an infrastructure in which the impact of the child-abuse allegations (true or false) becomes clearer, as more information emerges about what killed him.

It would be a lot of work, and a longer-term project. We couldn't do it until the dust has started to settle. But is it something you would support in principle? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea myself, they main biography is featured, it's a very good article as it is. — Please comment R ² 13:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to write a timeline, but there are some key dates I can't find anywhere. Do you happen to know them? Date of the 1993 strip search; date that La Toya accused him; date of third child's birth; date he moved out of Neverland (or the last time he is known to have stayed there, or the date he said he was leaving); the date he left for Bahrain and when he returned; date of the 60 Minute interview; date of divorce from Debbie Rowe; month or year that newspapers first started commenting on his appearance changes. No worries if you don't have them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can start looking into such stuff, our main job at the moment is to keep the articles we do have in tip top condition. Once the dust has settled... — Please comment R ² 13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

There is very little mention of his musical career; only where it directly impacts on personal life. I wrote it up because it's extremely difficult to construct a timeline otherwise. It tooks me hours to find those dates. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thriller (album)

There are citation needed tags in the lead. As this is today's FA, you may want to address these. I might have done this myself, but I figure you have the highest-quality sources to do this. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MJ tribute

Hey REalist. Yesterday I went ot the Sticky & Sweet Tour. The show was fascinating and epic!! We were almost near to MAdge. There was a MJ tribute also where a dancer dressed as MJ does the moonwalk. The ending wsa so awesome. I am having difficulty in talking coz I screamed so loud. Just wanted to tell you. Maybe you'll feel better. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way would you like to join Madonna wikiproject? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs

First, sorry about earlier. I wasn't assuming bad-faith, just ownership, which isn't always bad-faith, just compulsive. You're also straddling the 3RR at this point...actually, you're over it at this point. Nothing to really report (as a featured article, all sorts of nonsense that's borderline vandalism apears), but just step carefully!

~~As for the actual reason for this thread: what is the objection to Discogs? Seems fairly thorough to me.~~

Nevermind, I just realized it's a user-submitted database after looking at the Marilyn Manson discography; it was filled with shit, half of which is probably made-up. I understand now. DKqwerty (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mj faq

well, of course it doesn't work, I wonder why there is always constantly some asking about his religion. The faq needs to be precise, it needs to have it's source directly cited. Among other things, it needs to give the proper links to all that arguments hidden in that vast archive. Asking some to hunt it in the archives, is as you would say burn calories. Thank you hope we can work together. Talk to Magibon 07:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Body

It is called disposal. Please don't keep reverting my edits. It's getting to be too much. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I did not revert you. You inserted a reasonably large paragraph, all I did was alter a word. I've praised the majority of your work to the death article. With the exception of the sales data, I pretty much leave you to it. — Please comment R ² 13:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such expression as "resting ground." One of the usual terms is "disposal." I can't understand why (a) that had to be reverted and more to the point (b) with the edit summary "oh please." Editing that article is a nuisance because the length makes it hard to load. Seeing the work immediately undone for no reason is no fun. Also, while I'm here, when you're editing the Death article, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use bare URLs as references, because it creates extra work. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll use templates. — Please comment R ² 14:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please just write them out; there's no need for templates either. I asked you to explain your "oh please" edit summary, and I'd appreciate a reply. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my culture terms like that are considered disrespectful, but if that is the correct term in America then that is fine. — Please comment R ² 15:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the correct English-language term; not specific to the U.S. Realist, I feel you need to stop imposing your POV on these articles, because it's getting in the way of the editing. I respect the work you've done on them, and I don't for a minute want to take away your right and need to oversee what happens to them, but I think you're taking it too far. In future, if someone makes a copy edit, perhaps you could wait a few hours and read it carefully, rather than reverting quickly, because you might come to agree that it's an improvement; or if it's a word you're not familiar with, perhaps look it up rather than remove it. The articles have to reflect what the better sources are saying, not the POV of individual editors. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your entitled to your opinion, but let's continue discussion on the relevant talk page. I'm really not getting in the way of editing, just trying to keep in the articles in good condition. I got the article featured, so I can write neutrally, good day. — Please comment R ² 16:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't let people fix the article, it's likely to be nominated for an FA review at some point. Also, you're still adding references using bare URLS. [5] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Infobox

Yesterday you removed the reference tag regarding MJ tenor voice and replaced it with a book citation. The reason why I removed the book citation in the first place was because the citation was already in the article and did not need two separate note entries.

In case I am not making myself clear I have provided some pictures. The first picture shows the quote that came from the Rolling Stone Album Guide that states that MJ has a high tenor voice highlighted in yellow. Vocal Style Screenshot In that picture, you can see that there a citation link numbered 173. That link leads to the following in the Notes section: Citation 173. Now Brackett, pp 414 doesn't tell you much, but there is a reason why it is written like that. The reason why is this: References. The full book citation was in reference section. So there is no need for it to also be written out in the Notes section.

Now if you think that the book citation should only be in the Notes section and not in the References section, then feel free to change it, but we must at least agree that having two separate citations when referring to the same information is ridiculous and that the two citations should be combined into one. --JoyaOscura (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for drawing my attention to that, feel free to reert it if you haven't already. Best. — Please comment R ² 16:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commas

Commas are written inside quote marks, especially in American English. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article has them on the outside, I don't mind which method we use, so long as it's consistent. — Please comment R ² 18:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson and list of converts to Islam‎

Hey there Realist, hope you're doing well. I was wondering if you could keep an eye on list of converts to Islam‎. Users continually add Michael Jackson to the list, despite the note I left on the talk page which verifies that the claim of Jackson converting is false. Regards — Σ xplicit 18:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. — Please comment R ² 18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MADGE

Its started!! Please join if you want to. I have one question though, how can you get the articles assessed? Do I have to log a request somewhere? I have added the project tag to the talkpage of the Madonna articles, but the assessment hasnot come yet on the main article page. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a few days for the assessment's to come through, if you have added the tags it should work eventually. — Please comment R ² 18:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Alarm FAC

Hi there, Karanacs recommended asking you for an FA review.

The article I've linked hasn't gathered new comments in days and is also lacking supports/opposes. I would be grateful if you had a look and gave your verdict. I think it's worth the promotion, even though I'm totally biased, but I think that may be the reason people aren't commenting since most only like to write negative comments or things to improve.

Thanks in advance. Rafablu88 01:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and take a look. — Please comment R ² 18:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson

Hi, just a heads-up about the 3RR policy. This applies to any undoing of another editor's work (excluding vandalism, copyvios, and clear BLP violations), in whole or in part, not only to reverts of the same material. That is, if you revert different material each time, it still counts toward 3RR. No one would try to enforce this while so many people were trying to edit the article, because an awful lot of nonsense was being added, but now that it's out of the spotlight, I would say the policy kicks in again. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and that is why I have asked you kindly to use the talk page first. — Please comment R ² 20:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that means. I posted this here because you're reverting against multiple editors, and someone is bound to report it at some point. I wanted to make sure you know that every revert counts toward 3RR, not only reverts of the same material. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MADGE

Hey. Please comment here. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

This article (which is obviously important) is understaffed at the moment. Without yourself (and User:Iridescent who also seems to have vanished for the time being), it is becoming difficult to supervise the article. The input from User:Rodhullandemu and myself is confined mostly to removing nonsense rather than writing the text. All I can advise here is WP:SOFIXIT.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short of reverting it back to the condition it was in before the death (with an additional small section added on the death specifically), I wouldn't touch it. The article has changed so much since Jackson died, mostly for the worse. Most of the alterations made never gained consensus... it's too much energy. — Please comment R ² 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Realist said. Certain people are determined to have their way with it, and some battles just aren't worth fighting. – iride scent 17:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles always change over time. I have not written very much of this article, particularly since MJ's death. However, I do believe that a point will come when some serious copyediting could be done to create a tighter look at MJ's career. Please consider the possibility of doing this in the future even if you are retired.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help. I've seen all of you doing great work on the Jackson article. The only problem I have is the same as you guys, edits made are quickly edited (if not removed) beyond recognition. I'm still waiting for it to cool down before any major fixing, then I'll make some edits which may survive a little longer. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Hope all is OK with you. The MJ articles do need some TLC after all the brou-ha-ha of the last couple of weeks. Hopefully we've been able to resist the tide of nonsense that has ensued. Meanwhile, please consider un-retiring. Your work here is too dedicated to lose. Regards, Rodhull andemu 00:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might poke in here and there, I just noticed that no one was updating his chart info on the death article, since he's still breaking sales records six weeks on, thought I'd help out. :) — Please comment R ² 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are like the best editor man. Woooo! Your heaps aweeeesommme dooood. Do you like to talk to witches? I love htem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjp2515 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back =]. I have a lot of issues (especially with Simone Jackson and the handling of the album discography*, but I won't bother you with them right now. Take your time, you were missed greatly. MaJic (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]