User talk:Realist2/Archive 9

RE

Hello. Thank you for the barnstar, that was kind of you. I've replied to your comment. Cheers! APK ^{yada yada} 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Why is this http://www.hitemup.com/tupac/lawsuit-agnant.html not a reliable source....?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DjDoubleR (talk • contribs) 09:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate Micheal Jackson and for that reason I stay far away from anything related to him. I know it was reverted out of Good Faith and I reverted back out of Good Faith. I had also left a note on the user who reverted it telling them I reverted it and stating I considered the user's answers legit and if he wants to revert back..I would not contest. Rgoodermote 16:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O and for the very thing you said. If this user is indeed not a sock it would be in the user's best interest. If all the editors said they were guilty and it was proven wrong no amount of sorry will bring that user back. So if this is indeed false..well I do not want to see new user get scared away. If it is indeed true..well..I am glad I didn't defend the user. I actually kept those comment pretty neutral..or tried to. I actually...think..the user is guilty. Rgoodermote 16:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above was a comment for the communication thing by the way. I am trying to do like 6 things right now at the same time and all my thoughts are scattered. Right now I really hope whatever good faith I have pumped into this is was for not. Because I already feel like a fool. Though I do see a guilty I do indeed feel this user wants to help. Rgoodermote 16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O in case you didn't get what I meant when I said I disliked Jackson I was trying to tell you that I was not going to defend the user because the subject is something that could potentially drive me off the deep end. Rgoodermote 16:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Timbaland

I am willing to go forward and fix the issues at hand. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Timbaland#On_LHold Gary King (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to, feel free to review one of my other nominations and be confident that you will get an equally quick response from me. The music articles that I've nominated for GAN include Coldplay, Beck, and Death Cab for Cutie. My other nominations can be found at User:Gary_King#Future_featured_items. Gary King (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done at Talk:Timbaland Gary King (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested, I have nominated the following articles for GAN review: Beck and Death Cab for Cutie. Feel free to take a look if you want to review an article :) Gary King (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey, do you need some help with anything? I fixed up A Day in the Life per IvoShandor's PR. I think it's pretty good now. I want to get it to FA, but that will take a while. :) Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I finished the Career section. I'll work on the rest now. Why are you confused, is it okay? Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 21:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, everything in the Career section and the Influence section, which I just CE'd, is okay. I have to go, the battery on my laptop is extremely low. I'll be back when I get home and I can charge my computer. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 22:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See you later. (Really, I'm testing my new signature). Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I couldn't help with anything. I was copyediting Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, and it took a few hours. Also, I need a copyedit for Like a Rolling Stone. Do you know anyone who could do it (not me, because I can't)?

P.S., I appreciate you putting me on "Wikipedia's Greatest Assets" list. I do my best to try to make quality information available to everybody with the Internet, and it's nice to know that somebody acknowledges that. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Stone House (Washington, D.C.)

I see you're a GA reviewer. I know this article isn't ready yet for GA review (I just finished it 2 days ago), but what kind of things would need to be added? I've yet to write a GA and want to have one of those under my belt. The only thing I can think of that the article doesn't mention is the list of owners between 1875 and 1953. I've looked and looked but can only find what type of businesses were operated out of the house. If you get time to look it over, I'd appreciate it. Gracias. APK ^{yada yada} 02:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: J5

Hmm, you got any suggestions? LOL I saw you mention you wanna take the personnel page out. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well just talk about their solo careers only in that section, lol. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson pictures

Well, I had a spot of bad news yesterday (a stupid part in my van that my dog chewed up is going to cost over $1800 to replace!) and so I didn't feel much up for working on Wikipedia, heh. :) I did ask around about recent pictures of living but semi-reclusive celebrities, and it sounds like the answer is no. If Jackson were so reclusive that not even paparazzi were getting pictures of him in recent years, then we might be able to make a case. But basically, if a person is living they always start with the presumption that it is possible to get a new picture, and the onus is on us to argue that it's not. And I don't think we can make that case when paparazzi are still getting pictures of him.

I haven't checked for the formatting of attribution info, I'll try to do that today. I do think we can make a case for at least two older pictures of Jackson, if they show the change in appearance. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I gave it a shot: [1]

Can you add it to the article, possibly in a section that talks about the costumes and crotch-grabbing? I wish we had a free recent image, and then we could add both to Michael Jackson#Physical appearance and I think we'd be in good shape, but we aren't there yet. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at some other images that are currently being vetted to see whether they are replaceable (and therefore not valid fair use), and holy crap, our reasoning is way better. Most people don't even bother to give a reason, probably because they don't understand the policy. A few people are like, "Well, it illustrates the subject, so that's fair." I saw one guy who had taken a picture of a local attraction, and his rationale was, "I don't have time to go take a picture of it," ha ha ha....

That doesn't mean this will get let go, but at least we are in waaaaay better shape than most of the images that are tagged like this. So we'll see... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can add it to the article at any time, but it may end up getting deleted ;) Actually, I think it would be better if you added it to the article, because otherwise someone might complain that the image is orphaned and try to delete it on that basis (Non-free images that are not used in any article can be speedy-deleted, even if they otherwise would meet Fair use).

In theory, we should know within 48 hours whether the fair use rationale is accepted or not. However, taking a look at the normal quality of fair use justifications that people do, it might end up in limbo for awhile. Most of the images in this category, an admin can take one look at it and say, "Yeah right, DELETE!" This one, it will take some time and consideration.

So, it might be gone tomorrow, it might be approved in a few days, or it might hang around with people arguing about it for weeks, ha ha ha... In any case, go ahead and add it to the article, so that at least it is not orphaned, and we will keep our fingers crossed! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was already editing the caption before I got your message ;) It looks pretty good. I think we have a shot; I just wish we had a recent free picture of him.

I know it is an unflattering photo, but it looks like this image is pretty ubiquitous in places that talk about "free" Jackson images. Do you have any idea where it comes from? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's the mugshot, lol. I'm sorry, I hope I didn't offend. Hmnmm, well... I know you aren't going to like this, but AFAIK mugshots are public domain, and it does show a recent photo of him....... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a mugshot? Hmm, some websites said it was... Also, I am pretty sure mugshots are allowed to illustrate an arrest... But anyhow, we should try to get a better pic anyway. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re, the smooth criminal pic: I could be wrong, by my understanding is you could probably just add it to the section that discusses the moves, since it is already accepted on Wikipedia... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just about to say, I am definitely wrong. I think if the image was used in substantially the same way, you could get away from it; but the fair use rationale for using it in Smooth Criminal definitely does not apply here.

We could try it, but my impression is that you are going to have a hard time because they will say that it is more appropriate in the article about the video (critical commentary and all that). It doesn't show Jackson's appearance as well as the one we already uploaded. I think we will have trouble getting more than one non-free image of Jackson's earlier career and performances.. I'd be inclined to wait and see what happens with the one we just tried. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source for album sales

I think so. Have you gotten any objections? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would definitely consider Reuters a reliable source. - eo (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back

As I said here, I'm now back to the wiki after the technical wikibreak I gave myself expired. I was watching the MJ FAC, sad to see it didn't work out. I'd be glad to do some copy editing if you'd like the assistance—since it's semi-protected, I couldn't do anything while still editing as an IP. --Kakofonous (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a fairly large copy edit on MJ, but when I tried to make the edit, it never appeared! Do you have any idea what happened? --Kakofonous (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through and do the section-by-section c.e. later, as I'm a little wiped out from doing the full c.e. which unfortunately didn't work. Maybe it was that the article is so large that changing so many parts of it overloads the servers. Sorry for the delay. --Kakofonous (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After some formatting, nitpicking, and copy editing, I think it looks great! --Kakofonous (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have no idea. The nomination I put up today I am completely unsure about, so my guess as to whether it would pass is as good as yours. You might want to consult another copy editor, either in or out of the PR, and then give it a go! --Kakofonous (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your rollback request

I've gone ahead and granted your rollback request. You say that you understand it's only for reverting vandalism/spam, and that it's not for use in revert wars or to revert good-faith edits, and that you understand rollback can be removed easily. I decided to grant you rollback on these factors, and some others, see here. For practice, I do suggest visiting Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; just take it slow, and you'll be all right. Best wishes. Acalamari 17:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Cooper

Hi, as far as the article goes it just says that others have outed him, and there are reliable sources for that. To be balanced, I suppose if sources existed saying that he'd denied it, they'd be there. It's not a BLP issue as it is. As regards Adminship (I'm just catching up, BTW), you need to know policy pretty thoroughly although the RfA questions are pretty standard. Have a look here and here for some pointers. You would do worse than put your name down for coaching since there is usually a bit of a backlog of requests. Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 17:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Coaching

Hey there Realist2, I saw your question over on dihydrogen monoxide's page about admin coaching. Dihydrogen will tell you that I one of the tougher Admin Coaches and tougher reviewers at the RfA process. Right now I don't have the time for another coachee, but thought I'd give you a quick look and perhaps some thoughts on the RfA process:

Review you user boxes. User boxes that state a position of belief "I'm an agnostic" or "I'm a Democrat" are much better than "Opposes George Bush" or "I don't believe in God" or "reasons the Iraq war is wrong." These types of user boxes often generate opposes as they aren't a statement of position, rather one of advocacy. Heck, right now there is a user who is being opposed because he has a "Christian Fish" symbol on his page
You need to diversify your edits. Right now, just looking at the major articles you worked on, I can tell that about 7000 of your edits are connected to Michael/Janet Jackson. This is too silo'd for an editor who is primarily an article builder. Also, while it is clear you love the Jackson's remember that a fair portion of the population finds Michael to be a little weird. I mention this because you don't want to come across as somebody obsessed with somebody others may see as warped, you want to come across as somebody who is balanced with wide ranging interests. I hope you understand what I am trying to say?
You need to make more constructive edits with each edit. Making 25 edits in 25 minutes on a page, is often seen as a symptom of editcountitis---which is frowned upon in RfA's.
You need to get more involved with "admin like" activities. In other words, you want people to start to see you as an admin. Many people mistakingly see Dihydrogen Monoxide as an admin (including myself---which is why I am currently his coach!) GA/FA/PR are not generally places where you develop a reputation as an admin (although you can gain great credentials as an editor there.) Places to consider are, anyplace where !voting occurs, ANI, Help Desk, any of the boards monitored by admins, etc.
A place that is almost required to have a footprint are XfD's. If you participate there, make sure to give complete---policy driven answers.

One last thing, take a look at my essay User:Balloonman/How to pass an RfA Balloonman (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

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

Like A Rolling Stone: Kodster

See talk page. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 20:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a tip, on the "List of Best-selling albums" article, I noticed a reference that linked to Google Books. When you use Google Books, you don't reference the website, you reference the book (because you're using the book). However, if you're looking at an excerpt of a book on a regular website, you cite the website. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 20:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you don't have to remove them, you just source the book. When you're done with the talk page, put the link back and I'll show you how to do it. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 20:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed some of the references. Look at the templates I used if you need any help, or ask me. Andreasegde taught me well about references, and I wouldn't mind parting some knowlegde to you. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 21:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I spelled knowledge wrong. That's a funny story. Before, I thought Andreasegde's user name was spelled AndreasEDGE, like "Andrea's edge" without the apostrophe. Then I realized that whenever I tried to link to his page, it would come up with a red link. Finally, I realized that his name was "Andreas EGDE", not EDGE. So now I have it hardwired in my brain to type "egde" instead of "edge", which accounts for me spelling the word "knowlegde" instead of "knowledge", which is how it's really spelled. Just thought I'd tell you that... Back to referencing. :) Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 21:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that just about counts as my most random message, it comes close to beating that random islamic barnstar i got last week. Lol that still confuses me. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 21:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I know. Anyway, I fixed 16 of the references now on the list of best-selling albums, but I have to go (laptop battery only gets 2 hours). Be back in an hour or two. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 21:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, catch you later. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 21:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 22:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did all of the referencing up to 26. I'll finish it now, and when I'm done, I'll let you know. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 23:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done with all of the refs. There's one ref that I didn't do (Phantom of the Opera), but that's because the link to the site doesn't work (at least, for me it doesn't). See if it works for you, and reference it (or give me the info and I'll reference it). Thanks. By the way, the list will has a snowball's chance in hell of passing Featured List with all those <citation needed> tags. Hopefully, we can get them sorted out and pass this. I'll help you with the lead, which needs some work. It always helps, when you're trying to pass a featured article or list, to compare it to a featured article or list. Find a featured list and compare it, and see if that helps. Anyway, the lead can be done last. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 23:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I got the same thing from Rodhullandemu, it's pretty neat. Oh, when you said that I had only 480 edits and I'm a pro on Rodhullandemu's page, that means I have 480 MAINSPACE (article) edits. I have over 1000 edits in all. I've been here for two months, so I'm not that much of a "prodigy". Plus, I had Andreasegde to help me. I can't tell you how much he's helped. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 23:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, how long have you been on Wikipedia? I just wanted to get an idea, so if I want to request adminship, then I'll have a basic range of how long I should be here. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 23:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my links on my user page. I think it's comprehensive. LOL, I love your "My Edit HIStory". Clever. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 23:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I already put it on my watchlist. I also added a ref to "Let's Talk About Love". It's not hard to find figures for these albums, it's hard to find RELIABLE and ACCURATE figures. :) Well, we have to do it. Oh, BTW, are you normally editing at 12 UTC (I'm assuming that's your time)?

We need about 75 refs total for the Best-selling albums list. We have 33, so that's around 42 more to do. Not trying to disappoint you, just telling you that we need 42 more refs, and if anything, that we should hop to it. I think that mediatraffic site could help, I'll check it in a bit. For now, I have to go. I'll see you in a while. And by the end of the day, if everything goes well, I'll have that Bob Dylan book. (Cross your fingers). Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your new userbox. Now I know it's almost 9 where you live, and that I shouldn't follow the time that Wikipedia uses. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only library in this area that has the "Like A Rolling Stone" book is closed for construction, and won't open again until Saturday. So, I guess I'll have to wait until then and do with the Internet. In the meantime, I'll help you with that lead for the best-selling albums article. The only thing that's going to change is the addition of references, so I can change the lead now. I'll post here when it's done. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 21:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've done all I can do with the lead, and it's not much. See if you can get someone who actually reviews FL's to fix the lead up. Because, honestly, I really never even heard of Featured Lists until you told me about this. :) Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 21:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yeah. I would have done more, but Andreasegde asked me (as he asked you) to help him with Death of John Lennon. I'll be back with that in a bit, it seems I've got a lot of work on my plate. :) See ya in a bit. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 20:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THE PRESSURE!!! LOL, even three articles is "busy" for me, only being here two months. Pop career, eh? Interesting, keep me posted on that. (Giving up on law already?) :) Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll help with the refs. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I'm going to work on all of the refs that need fixing at once, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't work on it until I'm done. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 19:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I fixed all the refs up to 36. I only looked at the ones without citation templates, and fixed them (though I didn't use citing templates myself, I followed the same format as them). I still have a lot more to go. The only problem with most of the refs are the dates are put in the wrong place, so that's I have to fix really. It should go a bit smoother. About your message, when you get that edit conflict page, it has YOUR changes on the bottom of the page, so you can just save that and copy it to the first edit box. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been nearly an hour, and I've finally done 60 refs. 45 more to go. But now, I have to go, so I'll see you in an hour or so. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, finally done with all the refs. There's three that I couldn't do: numbers 48, 86, and 103. 48 just says, "Music Week, June 17, 2006". 86 and 103 are dead links that don't work, so that's no help. Anyway, they probably have to be replaced. Besides, I caught a few citation tags in the article that need sorting. Anyway, I've done all the refs. And all I can say is that it's been a hard day's night. :) Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is being infected with lime and yellow! Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so there's no more reference problems with Loose? Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 02:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking because I want to move on on your list. Yes, I'm going to help you with every one until Saturday, when I can go to the library and get my "Rolling Stone" book. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 02:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, burning the midnight oil, huh? (Or should I say, the 2:43 A.M. oil?) Sure, though I have still some work to do, so I won't be here long. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 02:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, and to think that I had just put that userbox on my user page. Well, when it stops working, I'll take it off. Anyway, see the Thriller talk page. I copyedited the Themes section, and have a few issues that will (I'm sure) be fixed as the section is revamped. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 02:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! I'll help you with some of your other articles once I'm done with Death of John Lennon. I'm going to see if Andreasegde picked up on it since I left. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 19:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's usually when I get back and get settled. Anyway, I see Andreasegde and you have both worked on the article. I'm just looking at the edit HIStory (LOL) now to see what changes they made. It does look good so far, and I think it'll pass very soon. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 19:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got a few sources for the albums list, and now every album that sold at least 30 million copies is sourced. We have 28 more albums to source, and 22 of them are in the "20 and 24 million" section. After that, we have to work on the lead, fix up the refs (which aren't too bad), and then we put it up for FL. But still...28 references. Definitely long-term, and we're going to need some help. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I formatted the new Thriller source on the albums list. It HAS been a good day for you, with Loose, Discipline, and now this. I'm going to list what good happened in my day.

1.

Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right I guess. But some non-Wikipedia related stuff has been bumming me down. I don't know, maybe it's time for a Wikibreak.... Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's come to this. When I come back, I think I'll appreciate this place a heck of a lot more. See you then. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 23:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't laugh just because I can only attempt to keep away from Wikipedia for six days. :) Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 23:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll do that GA system your way. (Oh my Gosh! Kodster has come back!) I'm strictly here on business. But WHEN I COME BACK, I'll do the GA thing your way. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 01:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I couldn't help myself from finding refs for "Best-selling albums list". I found a couple, and I found something interesting. See the talk page for details. I don't really understand what you're saying about multiple genres. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 01:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hmm. Never had to deal with this one. Problem is, as you've found, that sources vary from country to country. What I'd be inclined to do is find a local charity shop where you can probably pick up a recent copy of the Guinness Book of Records for a couple of quid, and use that. It would actually be a useful source for other things too. As for certified sales, for the USA you could look at this site, the industry standard. Not sure about rest of the world, however. --Rodhull andemu 22:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Good Job

Thank you. With the help of InDeBiz1's copy editing, and other's help as well, we made it to GA. Now, for FA. --Efe (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loose (album)

If someone is willing to work on it, I can definitely extend the hold. I was planning on failing it after seven days if no progress had been made, but I'd much rather have it brought up to GA level than just fail it. Thanks for getting in touch, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would work for me. As long as progress is being made, I can keep the hold. In cases like that (where someone is actively addressing the concerns), a firm deadline isn't helpful to anyone. Thanks for your willingness to work on the article, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree. I ran into a similar problem with my review of Notre Dame Fighting Irish football under Tyrone Willingham. It was very close, but nobody would work on the concerns from the GA review. I ended up addressing most of them myself, but I had to fail it with only two small issues outstanding because nobody else was willing to help. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's probably a little more than I should have said. I've seen him with 19 articles nominated in the past, though, and he refuses to do any work on them or to review any articles at GAN. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For the completion of 10000 edits at the time of the giving of this Barnstar, you deserve this. Marlith (Talk) 00:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CHEERS!!! Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson photo

Hey, sorry I haven't been around to do much copy-editing. Getting behind at work... anyway, it looks like we might just fly under the radar with the Jackson photo! I am not convinced we have fully satisfied the Fair Use criteria, but as I suspected after I took a look at other images that were contested Fair Use, I think the fact that we have any sort of reasonable explanation at all makes it a pain in the ass for an admin to delete it. :D --Jaysweet (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I try to get some admin attention on it now then, thinking to fix the problem sooner rather than later? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got WilyD to weigh in, who I figured would be a good litmus test because just yesterday he was telling someone "Too bad" regarding their fair use rationale for a photo of a living person. This is encouraging, as he also did not reject the premise outright.

Do you think you'd be able to get a still from a concert video that would serve the same purpose? We might be in better shape to pass the non-free content criterion #2 with that, then we would from this press photo.. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant a non-free commercially-available concert video. Even though it is still not free (so we still need a Fair Use justification), it is easier to satisfy criterion #2, which is basically that you don't do any harm to the copyright holder.

The theory is that if we use a press photo, somebody might be like, "Ooo, I can download this from Wikipedia instead of buying the press photo!" So that person would lose money. But if we use a still from a concert video, nobody is going to be like, "Oh gee, I was going to buy the DVD of the concert video, but now that I can see one frame of it on Wikipedia, I guess I can save my money." hehehe :D --Jaysweet (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we are sure the stills are ACTUALLY from the concert video, that might work... we can't take a photo from the same concert, though, because then we are back where we started.

Does your computer have a DVD drive? If so, a simple way to do it might be to just play the movie on your computer and hit the PrntScrn button to do a screen cap, then crop it... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either one ought to be fine. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death of John Lennon

I am asking a special favour of Kodster and Realist2. Can you help me with the review of the above article? I will put you on my Xmas card list if you do. :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R v Bailey

Thanks for your message. To be honest, I am not having a great time. If you read the talk page of the above article, you'll get an idea why. I don't mind GA reviewers saying that an article needs improving; it's when they're too lazy to explain why that I get annoyed. The last-but-one reviewer even changed all the spelling into American English, which was a complete waste of time. Couple that with having to spend five hours pissing about with a computer that suddenly stops being able to burn DVDs and even thinks the F: drive is suddenly the C: drive, and you get some idea that it's not a good time. I may leave the project, as it's no longer even vaguely rewarding. --Rodhull andemu 01:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. As I see it there are three options: (a) forget it and do something else (b) try and fix it to ridiculous standards and renominate or (c) take it to WP:GAR. Certainly the latter will allow for community input as to what standards are expected with respect to these types of articles. It seems that GA is generally an exercise in ticking boxes, but there seems to be no thought whether the boxes are appropriate for every type of article. That's always a problem with rule-driven processes. In particular, it does seem that the reviewer seemed hell-bent on failing the article, given that his final comments on it were so very vague. Leave it with me, I've just got my PC going again and am having to spend most of today reinstalling and reconfiguring all the software. I'll get back to you. --Rodhull andemu 04:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Jackson

Yeah, I know. I'll do it either tonight or tomorrow. I just wanted to make sure it was updated. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Obama article

If you're going to be tetchy about Scjessey's use of SIC, perhaps you shouldn't be tossing around false accusations about the editors that choose to maintain Obama's article... You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that you don't go making personal attacks on editors as you did here and then expect them to be civil towards you in return. This is particularly true on articles in which people have strong opinions. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasnt a person attack on an editer, the other editer spoke about how it was unwise to allow neo-con journalists to use wikipedia as a soap box / platform. I just pointed at out there are a lot of instances where liberal sources were being used in the article. His loyal "click" of loyalists was a reference to how liberal sources had a platform on the obama page. Nothing to do with editers, it was about where the sources are coming from. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that im writing at 3am in the morning in my second language, ive altered the comment to clarify who the "click" is. I would appreciate it if you came back and resolved this issue, i wasnt being nasty and i hope you will acknowledge that now. Cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I have misinterpreted you intentions, I'm sorry, but it is extremely difficult to interpret that you were questioning the sources and not aiming that comment at the editors of Obama's article based on your wording. You made no reference to the sources used in the article in your comment and provided no evidence that the sources used in the article were from "Obama's clique of loyalists" that were using the Wikipedia article as a platform. FYI, just to save you some time, I've added your talk page to my watchlist temporarily, you don't need to repeat yourself on my talk page.;)--Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a point of view, he was talking about not giving air time to a neo-con jouranlist, i just said (imo) that the liberal "click" already has a platform within the article, there are lots of liberal associated sources in the article imo, they have a platform. I thought what i was saying made sense, maybe it didnt but he never complained about it. Maybe he understood what i was saying or just gave my edit the benefit of the doubt. He talked about conservative platforming i just stated that i already thought there was liberal platforming. It was a conversation on the sources used not editers. Cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, trust me. Scjessey's response to your comment was more inline with my interpretation than yours as his response here seems to indicate. Anywho, thanks for the update to your comment and sorry for the misinterpretation.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, glad thats clarified somewhat, cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AutoWikiBrowser

It's no big deal, just allows an editor to do many edits (like recategorising) in a shorter time. However, because it can do that, it is open to misuse (I haven't actually seen abuse). It's useful if you want to be an Admin because it shows you can use an automated tool responsibly. I spent a lot of time tagging new articles with WP:NPW, which is a useful way of learning the notability policies. As for R v Bailey, I may come back to that next week, but I've just about got my PC (since 03:17 yesterday morning) close to being fully usable. I can burn CDs now, but still not DVDs. I've also lost a ton of stuff which will take weeks to recover. Things are quiet on my Watchlist right now, so maybe I'll have the time to do that. Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 01:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your barnstar!!! How did you hear of me?Xp54321 (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uh could you help me with that transfer from talkpage to userpage?(check my userpage's history totally messed up)Xp54321 (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thank you very much!Xp54321 (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your confidence in me. Could you also give me an opinion of my recent edits? I'm a recent changes patroller. RyRy5 is also checking my recent edits. I like to have multiple opinions.Xp54321 (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Warning template

You suggest it, and I'll support it. :) Aleta ^Sing 16:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings instead of either of those? Aleta ^Sing 16:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really

Only developers can remove a block from a log, and they are unlikely to do so without a really compelling reason. When the block is just one among many, as here, they are very unlikely to do it. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit count

Looks OK to me, and your link is fine. The Toolserver is in Germany & can be flaky but I've not had trouble in the last three weeks. Page takes a while to load but that's nothing new. Sorry, can't suggest a reason here. --Rodhull andemu 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kodster

Hey. Tomorrow, I'm going to take the Wikibreak thing off my userpage. I finished everything I needed to do, so I'll be back either late tomorrow or on Monday. I have this seminar thing to go to tomorrow, and it's a 4 hour ride, so I won't be here most of the day. Anyway, I got the Rolling Stone book (YAY!), so once I finish it, probably by tomorrow, we can start working again on the article. The 80 pages I've read has some great info that would be really helpful. See ya. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 21:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MJ copyedit

I'd be happy to go over the article, although I'm not an expert when it comes to copyediting :( If you want a great copyeditor, I'd strongly recommend User:Outriggr. But I'll see what I can do :) Best, Happyme22 (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I'm starting to agree with you! But actually, coincidentally, I just performed a quick copyedit to the MJ article's lead, shortening it and hopefully providing a more concise summary per WP:LEAD. I'll get through the rest pretty soon, making little changes here and there. Just from a glance, it looks great, but make sure that all of the citations are in proper form (such as {{Cite web}}, {{Cite news}}, etc.). I can help out with this, too. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, I'm so sorry about the ref names in the lead. I thought I got them all, but I guess not. My appologies. Happyme22 (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think they will be annoyed or upset, because the edits were made in accordance with WP:LEAD. Happyme22 (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, my disputes seem to be winding down. I was actually just on the phone so that's why I was gone for a little while. And I will continue to go through the article piece by piece in a little bit :) Best, Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try! hahaha! Happyme22 (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE