User talk:The Elfoid/Archive 1

Van Halen - Mark Stone

I saw you removed the comments, does this mean we are surrendering Mark Stone to the Trolls?
Axcess 05:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, Im wrong.... I was reading this wrong. lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Van_Halen&diff=151097468&oldid=151097338

Axcess 13:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

history

no if you look at the best selling album page you will see they are both in the 15 mil mark. [[1]] this has been discussed endlessly in the talk page so you should check it out. Furthermore I looked at the edit history of this page to find that an unsigned user had just put "the wall" up the list and I cant help but feel you might have been involved as the wall or History havent been moved in quite some time according to the edit history. Realist2 10:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

but why should history be treated like this? if we have a reliable source saying it is the best selling (trust me there are tons of them) then why do we have to say ""is claimed to be the best selling" take thriller as an example we dont have to say "thriller is claimed to be the best selling"" we just say thriller is the best selling. there are enough reliable sources saying it is the best selling to ushume it is. This whole double album business is always confusing because people dont realise that the RIAA sales are based on units not copies. take HIStory as an example again the RIAA gives it 7 million units so its sold 3.5 million copies. worldwide history has sold 36 million unis or 18 million copies. The wall has sold 15 milllion copies or 30 mil units. Please dont get confused if you think it has sold 30 mil copies/60 mil units that would make it the second top money grossing album after thriller (which trust me it is not). There seems no reason to dispute in the article that it is not the top selling double disk album when there are reliable sources to say it is.Realist2 15:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Van Halen tours

Your best chance is to find posters for the tour; they can be put on tour articles as fair use. See the articles in Category:U2 tours as an example. Putting up photographs is impossible unless you took them yourself; Popmart Tour and Vertigo Tour are examples of where editors have done that.

Also, please put messages on people's Talk pages, not their User pages. Wasted Time R 17:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Get Happy Tour

Hey, I saw what you did with the Get Happy Tour page. That looks great! Thanks for that. Chrissypan 10:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Chrissypan

Response to you

Thanks! It took me some time to get used to the whole idea of random people being allowed to jump in and change my work, but that's the nature of Wikipedia.  :) I hope we can work together on that page. Did you go see the tour? I like the way the page for the Good to Go Tour. Do you think we could make it look like that? I have a graphic that we can plug in as well, a logo for the Get Happy Tour. Just a thought.  :::shrug::: Chrissypan 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Chrissypan

OK...

You sound kinda new :P. I'm going to do my best to not be offended by that.

I do know some information on the tour. I went to their show in Hartford and the lead singer of Freshmen is an acquiaintance of mine. I agree that we need to find pages we can cite, but I haven't found much, other than their official page.  :/

There is a lot of info on the AOF page (I know, because I put it there) about bands they've toured with in the past, so that would be a good place to jump off from. Feel free to grab any of that. I know it's all true. Got it from the horse's mouth!

I'll work on figuring out how to get the photos up there so they won't get ripped down. You're right, it's very confusing, but I found some fair use stuff last night when I was working on the AOF page, and I think the idea is that if it's promotional material (promo photos, concert posters, etc) you can use it, but you need to put the right tags in there to justify it. I still need to figure out what those right tags are, though! I think they make it confusing on purpose, honestly, just so people won't go crazy uploading photos everywhere! Chrissypan 18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Chrissypan

leave me alone (that wasnt ment to be related to a michael jackson song)

• Stop filling my talk page I really dont want to communicate with you.
• I didn`t delete your writing to stop others seeing it, my user page was getting to long and I dont no how to archive anything.
• Im not going around reverting your edits, we happen to watch the same pages, if you look at the edit history of some of these pages you will find that I have contributed to them for longer and with more frequency than you so maybe you are following me.
• Stop going around researching my edits.
• stop using article talk pages to grab other peoples attention to our debate, dont tell others of my edit history.
• Do not go around signing off like I do, I dont find it funny.
• Dont threaten me with administration.
• Dont call my edits invalid because of an association to the michael jackson wikiproject, you dont know me. Yours with little gratitude Realist2 17:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

there is no debate to make, you are the first and only person I have come across to make this specific argument, there has already been a well structured debate on double albums on "the best selling albums" talk page. The consensus was that both History and the wall were in the 15 million section (History selling 18 million/36 million units and the wall selling something less, there are people who keep moving the wall up the list but these tend to be IP adresses who haven`t cared to read the consensus already reached. In addition I changed the part on the history album from "History is the best selling double album of all time" to "History is widely regarded as the best selling double disk album of all time" if you still have a problem with that alteration, if this still does not satisfy you then we will never come to an agreement I am afraid. Realist2 10:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Van Halen GA

Hi, the work on Van Halen has been very positive and encouraging. I like where the page is going. It also seems like more eyes are on it now - vandalism doesn't last very long. A year ago, I might catch vandalism that had been on the page for a full week. Maybe we can take a look at the Good Article Criteria and see how it stacks up right now? --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 05:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Slash

Hi I have just read your paragraph on slash`s involvement with Jackson. While it IS all completely true it is completely unsourced. The process for such a respected article like that of Michael Jackson dictates that anything unsourced must be deleted. As the article is already so large this precedent is even more important to maintain. I have NOT yet deleted your paragraph as I would like to give you the opportunity to provide sources on it. Therefore I am willing to give you 48 hours (from the time of this message) to source it otherwise I will have to intervene on this issue. Yours Realist2 12:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats ok. YoursRealist2 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi I have made a few edits to the paragraphs to cut it down in an attempt to keep just the essentuals, the edits are minor however, I would appreciate your views on these edits and if they are ok with you? Please note however 1 of the edits to slash is not by me (someone removed the part that he might appear on Jackson`s next album, check article History to see.) Its well sourced and as the the Fact tag I might try and find a source. Let me no. Yours Realist2 17:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

sure thats cool. np. Realist2 18:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

68.39.159.231

I think you made a little mistake here. :D Make sure you add it to the userpage next time. Cheers! --Mark (Mschel) 18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

consensus reached

hi there it seems there has been a consensus reached to change at least the main picture to that from the dangerous era. I was wondering if therefore you wood mind uploading a free use picture for it, unfortunatelty i am unaware of the process of pictures, but if you feel like you can do it then please do. it might be good to leave links on the talk page sp people can vote on the best 1. input? yours Realist2 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanx like I said if you provide links to some that would be excellent for a debate, to keep things simplistic its probably best to stick to the dangerous era only, that is where the consensus seems to be. thanx again. Realist2 19:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Michael Jackson. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as the text has been restored from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. It's sourced now, so it should be left. Nburden 17:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My bad, just noticed there's two of these sections. Nburden 17:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

sure thing

sure your right, i never noticed it was being moved into the personal life stuff it defo shouldn`t be there. keep up the work . Realist2 20:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

new pictures

I just added some new pictures to the talk page and have also added to the discussion. Check them out. Realist2 20:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

hi there i noticed that you have been on the michael jackson talk page but have not made any further contributions to the discussion, this is a very imortant issue and i hope you still take a keen interest in it. Realist2 19:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Saxon

Hi, I noticed you reinserted information about O/D Saxon in the Saxon article. I removed this infomation some time ago because of the legal struggles and controversy between these two bands (for example they can't call themselved O/D Saxon anymore after the court decision), and think it shouldn't be in the article about Saxon at all (only maybe mentioning that the previous members of Saxon formed this band). I strongly suggest that it should be removed from the article, maybe creating an article only for them, but I doubt it would fulfil the notability criteria for musicians. Grinder0-0 22:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thought I remembered better, can't believe it's four years since that court decision. Now, even if they can have Saxon in their name does not mean they should be integrated into the article about Saxon, a different band (though there's still a connection, yes). The info should be removed and be moved into a separate article (a good example are the articles you mentioned: Wishbone Ash and Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash). Grinder0-0 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Van Halen genre

While true that Van Halen's hit "Jump" had a more poppier side to it than most of the bands material, it is still a hard rock song. And while you've posted the links that certainly back up many critic's notice of their more pop-influenced sound, I noticed that allmusic.com credited 1984 as a "synthpop" album, which is definitely incorrect. Sure they used synth, and sure they've used pop hooks, but haven't countless other hard rock and heavy metal bands done so? Having a couple pop-influenced songs isn't enough to make it their genre. Like Iron Maiden has some songs that could qualify as power metal, progressive metal, hard rock, ect. But are any of those listed as one of their signature genres? No. They don't have enough songs with that style of music. Same would apply to Van Halen, in this case. They're a hard rock band through and through. If we were to point out every hard rock/metal band that has been labeled as "pop/rock", then we'd have a very, very long list. Many popular bands created hook-filled hard rock songs to release as singles. Van Halen is no different.

If you walk into a store, you'll probably notice that most of the time there's a section called "pop/rock." In this section, you'll find anything that's rock, pop, or both. Rock and pop (and metal too) are so broad terms of music, that it's easier sometimes to just put them together into one section.

And I've noticed that in the references you gave me, the only song that was accused of being "pop rock" was Jump. One song, or even a few, isn't enough to make pop rock part of their genre. I'm sorry if I'm being redundant here, but I can't accept having Van Halen labeled as pop rock, when really, they only use pop hooks or synths to appeal to both a hard rock and pop audience from time to time. It's not something that constantly shows up in their music. Keep in mind that even these professional music sites aren't always correct either. Allmusic.com also says that Guns N' Roses, Bon Jovi, AC/DC, and Kiss are heavy metal... - Grim —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Touche. Well, I don't have much knowledge of the Hagar era days or anything with Cherone, so I can't speak for that. Genres are too hard to just simply call one or the other. It's complicated because one band that plays hard rock can use so many different elements of music, including metal and pop, to create their signature sound, making some bands harder than others to strictly classify.

Keep pop rock if you wish, but could I suggest to make note that it's only their post-DLR albums that incorporate pop heavily? Anything before that is just Jump, which basically combines synth rock with hard rock. I don't agree with calling DLR era pop rock at all.

One thing I also never knew was that ballads were considered pop rock. I just thought they were emotional songs that could belong to any genre of rock music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'd try. Genre classifications shouldn't be this complicated, but when a hard rock band recieves airplay on pop radio, it makes people wonder about what genre they really should be labeled as. I agree with you on the glam part though, Van Halen never really did much with glam metal, even if Ozzy, Aerosmith, Alice Cooper, and others did. I'd disagree with calling Dream On a power ballad though.

If I ever get time to, I'll try to work on the band member's specific pages. I'm not THAT knowledgable of the band, but I'll try to contribute anything that might be useful. Thanks pal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Van Halen

I guess we can leave the Roth era as is, maybe add a few more pertinent details as needed. But yeah, the Hagar era is seriously lacking. What really needs to be trimmed down is the Van Halen era since 2000 or so. Sure, there's been turmoil, tours, and lineup changes, but can't this be said in fewer words? That section is bloated beyond belief. Take a look at Aerosmith for example. I'm heavily active with that project, and the decades (70s, 80s, 90s, 00s) are roughly equal in size. I thank Van Halen has suffered from recentism. It's tempting to add every single detail as it happens, but this needs to be consistently maintained, condensed, and the less important stuff taken out. Abog 02:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that would definitely be a good idea. I think we can leave the Gary Cherone era as is for the most part...maybe just a little trimming. If you can try editing the reunion sections when you get a chance, I'll try and see about expanding the Hagar 1985-96 era a little bit. Abog 16:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Altering cited text to match your POV

Be careful not to vandalise cited text to match your personal POV and alter the meaning away from what the reference is actually saying. The AC/DC reference meets all Wikipedia criteria for verification and citation. Please do not change it to suit your personal opinions. Wikipedia content is built on verifiable references. If you have a personal opinion... it has no place. here. If you alter cited text again you will be reported to an Administrator which could result in a possible block from editing. 156.34.224.2 (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be more careful

Quote from AC/DC talk page: "Oh, and don't assume because someone's edits have been reverted they are a total idiot - they just might not know their way around Wikipedia yet. Don't assume teenagers know nothing. Don't assume anyone makikng edits you disagree with are soapboxing and know nothing about music. Stop being an elitist. I find your behaviour immature, offensive and not nearly open ended enough for a community like this" - I understand that you are angry about what that user wrote but please: "Comment on content, not the contributor". It saves a load of hassle if we can just stick to the subject. Scarian^Talk 13:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ja, I can understand that. But that's just the way he works. He's been here a long time and he's probably pretty bitter [about some of the users that edit Wikipedia]. I recommend that you strike your comments about him (Or whomever) and, if you have to, just rise above and ignore it. Scarian^Talk 16:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. And no worries. Btw, I'm not against you in the debate, I can honestly say that I've never heard an AC/DC record in my life so I cannot offer anything for or against. I just wanted to make sure the sources were reliable and "safe". Have a good day, friend. Scarian^Talk 16:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Archiving

Sure.. 2 minutes :) Sai2020 01:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Be more careful

You cannot alter discussion pages as you did with the AC/DC talk page. You moved No-Bullets comments away from the text that he has agreeing to and thus changed the "flow of thought" on the discussion. I won't issue any talk page vandalism warnings as I am guessing you did not know that altering talk page discussion was considered vandalism. Just be more careful next time. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He built it into an FA. He is a vet editor with some good writing skills. He agrees with Wiki's policies on citations and reliable sources and on how to edit an article appropriately. You learn these things over time. You are still working on the Van Halen article so I won't comment right now on it(you're right... it's pretty bad). WAY too many sections and subsections. 5 Sections with NO subsections is all any good article needs. Broken prose all over the place.I gave up counting the instances where 3 and 4 separate (poorly worded) sentences could be combined into one short and concise sentence. Keep at it. It needs some TLC. Your hard work will pay off. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed

I agree with you as far as those newer thrash albums go, done by "classic" thrash acts. I think that user was stuck on the word "classic," which is unworthy of attention, and as far as I'm concerned those three bands: Megadeth, Overkill and Kreator are classic thrash bands. I changed it to "older" thrash bands though and the user seemed to like that more and left it in. Navnløs (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, agreed. Navnløs (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

I responded to your request for comment on the VH talk page. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Michael Anthony

Hey man, I will have time to look at Michael Anthony tomorrow. I'm trying to stay away from Van Halen for now because it seems like you are doing a really good job at it. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 01:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I do check it. I have had almost no free time because I am in grad school. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 17:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thriller 25

Hey I think we really need to make a page of its own for the Thriller 25 special addition which would follow the singles rereleases of 2006. People dont want it added to the "forthcoming new studio album" page. It will need its own page when it is released anyway but i see no problem with starting it now. Would you help? Yours Realist2 (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I see but this might be a little different. Apparently there will be new single release`s and promotion, there are collaborations and chart postitions that will need including as well as the info on the inclusion of music videos. At some point i think the might be too much info to keep adding to the Thriller page. I dont think this will be a case of "on february 8th Thriller was re-released and it sold 6 million copies." I think this might be different to your average rerelease. Also Think about it... it surely has too have a page of its own because ... HIStory 1995 has its own page as does the re-release of HIStory volume 1 in 2001. Therefore this has to have its own page, every Jackson release even the singles rereleases of 2006 have a page. Your argument makes little sense therefore you have to agree. Realist2 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok elfoid i respect your view, me and paaerduag are going to at least attempt it and see where it goes, i think the over riding concern for us is that there will eventually become a time where theres so much info on it that on the Thriler article it would look silly. Also if HIstory volume1 has a page this should as well, it is more important and will certainly sell more than the 3 million copies of HIstory volume 1. Realist2 (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Im glad your being supportive, you might be plesantly supprised sony has already started advertising it. Remember he is working with kanye west a man who was just nominated for 8 grammys for this years awards. He has a lot of people supporting him, this could do well. Paeerduag is setting up the page, when its ready ill let you no. yours Realist2 (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The source I have read says theres 8 new tracks. It workds out at like 3 cd`s i think. Realist2 (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey its up and running tap in thriller 25 in the search box and it will send you right to it. Realist2 (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it your hatred of MJ that makes you want to know every single editing update on all pages related to him, just so you can scan them to make sure that they aren't too positive towards MJ? Why do you edit MJ pages? I mean, normally on wiki (well, in my experience anyway), people edit articles on subjects which they have a passion for. So, I ask again, why do you edit MJ pages? --Paaerduag (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sense of humour I have and im not your enemy its all tougue in cheek i promise. Still this certification thing for Thriller 25 could get confusing non the less. You still havent said though PYT or Stranger in Moscow? Realist2 (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

On The MJ talk page under the topic of Invincible review I think it was I asked you if you believed PYT was better than Stranger in Moscow. Take a look. Realist2 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Of course not!

I understand what you mean about there being fans who would blindly follow/worship MJ and that those fans on wikipedia can have a destabalizing effect on any given article. But I also think that the sheer amount of people who seem to be 'haters' also have the ability to destabalize an article. I think, although I am strongly loyal to MJ, that because of my time on wikipedia (which was a bit wild at the beginning, to say the least ;D) I have come to appreciate that that kind of bias should not be present here. So I think that as long as, personal opinions aside, we each respect and slave for the 'greater glory' of wikipedia, things should be fine. --Paaerduag (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

fair enough. let's see how this latest collaboration on Thriller 25 will play out. --Paaerduag (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

discussion?

ok, I agree the logo is kind of lame. but still, I think it'd be nice if we could actually discuss things using that wonderful tool, the discussion page. just a though. anyway, check the bottom of the talk page now.--Paaerduag (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

latest appearance

issues with the picture being on Thriller 25 aside, that is NOT his latest appearance. That interview occured in November 2006. He's been in two photoshoots, been seen at recording studios, shopping in Beverley Hills, and a whole myriad of other appearances since then. He's back. He's back in a big way. He is no longer in hiding. He's back in the US, and he's ready to get his career back on the right foot. --Paaerduag (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I conceeded the logo. can you at least let me keep the photo in?--Paaerduag (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

GA removal

Do you like doing things without telling people? I mean you could have at least NOTIFIED me as to your removal of the GA nomination. I don't agree that nine is 'far too few' as there are FEATURE ARTICLES with 16 refernces, only seven more references, and as we all know, the leap from GA to FA is big. I am also NOT a believer in just whacking in references to make the page look pretty, which is a sad but true trend currently on wikipedia. I'm considering renominating it. Perhaps in a few weeks when more info comes out and the article can be lengthened. --Paaerduag (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That track list cant be correct!!!

He just noticed you edit the track list but the following have been removed.

Outtakes featured on the special edition of Thriller

1. Someone in the Dark (Jackson)
2. Carousel (Michael Sembello, D. Freeman)
3. Billie Jean (demo recording) (Jackson) . Is that track list correct?Realist2 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

		The Template Barnstar
		For Making some Useful recent Changes Coolmoose (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thriller 25

some of the things I've been doing, like using 'flowery' language as you say, adding the photo... they're being done to beef up the article a bit, because right now there is little information. sure there's lots of sources, but it's all the same information. I'm just trying to make it look a bit better before the next wave of information. Yes, maybe not the most 'wikipedic' thing to do, but it's been done before, and when all is said and done, a picture does not detract from an article. at least keep it until more text can be added.--Paaerduag (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hi I sent you an Email. Did You get it? Realist2 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol

You make me laugh some times. :-) Realist2 (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your 'essay'

I'm not going to bother to read what you posted on my talk page. I think I know exactly what you're on about. Basically, I should just let you do what you want, right? well sorry, but that's not exactly how I operate. I think there's a word called 'concensus' which you should add to your vocabulary. reverting all my edits without justification don't exactly count as reaching concensus. sure, I've done it, but only after you've done it to me first. --Paaerduag (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

archive

Hey could you do me a massive favour and archive my talk page? I dont no how to do it and I dont want to simply delete it. Its Quite big so it might be better to split it in half and archive to sections? Yours Realist2 (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also Elfoid my friend i hope your not on a campaign to purge wiki of every michael jackson fan lol ! You say he bought his way out of a trial is that a reference to 1993 i hope you dont have the same feeling about 2005 which he won with every right. A decline 15 years ago? His decline began with HIStory although i wouldn`t class that as a decline, i wound safely argue his decline was after the HIStory world tour of 1997, so i wound say 10 years. Also you say that his artistic peak was with Off The Wall and Thriller, but according to who? Only America and The UK!!! Outside of America and the UK nobody cares about Off The Wall. In Places like Europe and Asia Dangerous is considered his best next to Thriller.Realist2 (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[[2]] looking at this source which we have used in the past because of its reliability and accuracy I have calculated the single sales of each album.

• Thriller 19.55 mil
• HIStory 10.45 mil
• Bad 10.03 mil
• Dangerous 8.36 mil
• off the wall 6.8 mil

As I suspected HIStory was his most successful singles album after thriller and did exceptionally well considering it only released 5 singles as opossed to `bad 8` and `Dangerous 9`. This means the likes of Scream, You are not alone and Earthsong were HUGE internationally. Michael Jackson singles sales were Higher for HIStory than the bad and dangerous album even though there were viewer single releases. So singles sales didnt drop off until 1997, just as i would argue his decline wasn`t until the same period.

Furthermore I will still stand by my stance that really the whole Thriller/off the wall thing is a very America opinion that doesn`t really go beyond that continent. Als would you resend your last email it was blank. Yours Realist2 (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I managed to archive it myself after some trouble. Please resend your last email it came to me completely blank (I also sent 1 email asking you to resend it). Are you having difficulty recieveing my emails , i recieved a few blanks today not just off you so it might be something wrong with my computer?Realist2 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So 80`s were albums and 90`s were singles ok ill take your word for it. That is the exact same trend Jacksons sales took. His album sales slipt and his singles sales became increasingly significant. It wasn`t Jacksons fault albums went down it was the Market. That is what your saying. His sales with albums and singles followed the trends exactly for the 80`s and 90`s. Infact he was at the hight of these trends with HIstory. He stuck at the top of the market until 1997. Realist2 (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

...

once again I won't read your post, as I'm sure it's going to be filled with twisted policies and guideline etc. There's one rule I like to follow, and it's called IGNORING ALL THE RULES. and I do it because I try to make wikipedia a better place, but sometimes there are people like you who just want everything to be done your way, and you REFUSE to discuss, you REFUSE to use the talk page (I don't care what fucking system you and realist have going, I like to discuss things on the talk page), and you REFUSE to even consider some of my edits. seriously, I'm not going to read your propaganda.--Paaerduag (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

and since when did 'elfoid' become the community?--Paaerduag (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Van Halen

Hey look at my edits here [[3]] . My concerns are:-

• The intro is far too small
• There are a serious lack of citations expecially on sales figutes and critical reaction to material. Most of it that is unsourced I have removed.
• The childhood section is terrible and is nothing more than a bunch of quotes on his music tastes etc. Really irrelevant. Yours Realist2 (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ebony

Hey thanx for smoothing out the details on the picture it was the first time I had uploaded 1 so im quite happy. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hum it is a little sharp on the eye at the moment but i think as more info imerges it`l fit quite nicely. Just give it time. I will begin the 1993 page tomorrow. I looked at the Eddie Van Halen page per your request and it makes the michael Jackson page look FA lol. I think with Thriller 25 at the moment its important to keep every1 together, as ever compromise is the key. Yours Realist2 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

number of cd`s

Oh I agree completely it will be 2 cds and 1 dvd. Realist2 (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol. The bonus songs will fit exactly. How come YOU ever think a second CD would be needed? A CD has space for 80 min of default audio and the few bonus songs do not even reach this frontier.

Just read this --> [4]

AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.44.130 (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your User Page

>cancel a lot of concerts at short notice
what does canclelling concerts have anything to do with his music?

>had a decline in commercial value that has lasted the last 15 years or so
how does his commercial value affect his music?

>stopped touring
same here.. what if he tours or not?

> and never release work as consistent as his first two Epic albums.
who cares when the album came as long as it sounds good?

Sai2020 05:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is not a god but he sure is an extraordinary human.. and as far as i know he has not done any crimes.. if you take a good look at the background of the people who accused him you'll see that they were really after money.. and nothing else Sai2020 05:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

He was trying to help the underpriviliged kids and got stuck.. Sai2020 03:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends on your personality and how well i know you.. i think i know enough abt MJ and the accusers to say that he's completely innocent and fell prey to probably a conspiracySai2020 17:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

nah i think i know Jackson i think i know his personality.. and he would never want to get publicity by telling bad things abt himself.. yeah the world is full of lies but i can just feel it you know that MJ doesn't lie.. this may sem wierd to you but most of the things do i trust my gut feeling and it's never been quite wrong.. Sai2020 06:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fergie fucking licious and MJ

Hey an IP address as added Fergie & MJ doing "Beat It" to the track list on the Thriller 25 article. Its actually sourced but im still not convinced it will happen. I haven`t removed it because I only have my intuition to go on but would you take a look please. Yours Realist2 (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

the track has been leaked. there's no doubt that Fergie is on it. It's all on SonyBMG's official MJ-site --> [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.12.224 (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to your concerns

Hey man - yes I am an administrator. I understand your concerns - anyone who edits articles on contentious topics experiences things like what you describe. I'm glad to hear you are able to work out most of the issues with discussion as that is obviously the best way. There are really two answers to your question depending on whether you are talking about a "content dispute" or a problem with a user's behavior.

For a content dispute - like you said, try to talk it out and not edit war. Edit warring is useless because it usually gets all parties blocked and the article protected, which hurts the article because no one can improve it. If there is a serious disagreement that cannot be worked out, try the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There are a lot of great suggestions there for solving content disputes starting with Requests for Comment, Third Opinion, and other things.

If an editor is breaking our policies on civility or personal attacks, they need to be warned and then blocked if they keep it up. Calling people names, insulting editors, claiming ownership over articles, and stating intention to ignore policies are all unacceptable here. If you feel comfortable warning the editor yourself, you can do so. A simple message is usually best: "Personal attacks are not acceptable here. If you continue making them, you may be blocked." If they keep it up, you can leave a message for me or at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents asking that the user's behavior be reviewed. If an admin thinks a block is justified, the user can be blocked to prevent further disruptions.

Hope this helps. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elfoid I have read your comments on spike Wilburys talk page, im quite upset about some of your comments. You said I was the lord of michael Jackson fans and had called you a "Hater". I am or did neither and I think you are getting me confused with some1 else.. Realist2 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats a tricky 1

Im not sure really I think they should be separete articles. Forget the History remix part and you would still have a an article on the original HIStory song and another article on Ghosts. The fact that there is also a remix of History on it is irrelevant because its not really the important part. The important part is the Ghosts single. Realist2 (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

re: We Are Here to Change the World

Done. Take a look when you get a moment and add/subtract anything that I may have missed. - eo (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

2007 Tour

I would be happy to redo the tour article if you are looking to take a break. I replied to your message on the project page regarding the name, but once we get the name decided, I will get to work. Saget53 (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mwc01 logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Mwc01 logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mwc06 logo.gifBetacommandBot (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Elfoid, the problem with these images is the {{logo}} tag, which needs to be accompanied by a fair use rationale. Could these (and similar images) be licensed with {{cc-by-sa}} instead? Gimmetrow 00:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If the licensing isn't fixed for *all* of these, you're going to get more β-bot notices. If you're sure a cc-by-sa would work, you can change those. Otherwise you or I will draft up a fair use rationale for the whole bunch. These are logos for various entities and this is the only article discussing those entities, so using them should be reasonable. Gimmetrow 00:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Gilr Is Mine 2008

We need to give it its own page so that it can be part of his singles discography . Realist2 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont no the policy on it but if thats what it is fair enough It stinks but its policy, we can agree to disagree on weither it is a remix or cover. I think your mad if you think its a cover as Jackson is working on it as well. It would only be a cover if Jackson had no part to play in it. It is a remix and he happened to collaborate on it with some1 else. As for the Financial merger dont get involved with that argument you are missing the point entirely, I wasn`t disapproving its inclusion. Realist2 (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

oh you make it sound like a date. Yours Realist2 (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It already says on Thriller 25 that the first single will be The Girl Is Mine 2008 in January. I did that a while when I first found out. We could expand on this on the Thriller 25 article if you wish? AS for any other singles im not sure yet? I think For All Time might be released but thats just a guess. --Realist2 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

yes the single means promotion begins in jan. do you wanna copy the info fron the firl is mine article across to thriller 25?Realist2 (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: a hand?

I didn't realize what you wrote warranted a response. Ill take a look... but I cant say ill do much... I'm only a college student, and I don't always have that much time. Axcess (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

re: give me your e-mail address please?

On my user or talk page there is a link to email me directly on the lefthand side of the page, with the links underneath the search button. - eo (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What you have looks really good - that would be ideal in its own section. Whether or not that will ever happen remains to be seen. Don't understand why its such a difficult decision for some people. Can't help but think we're dealing with super-fans who just don't want to give up an extra page. Ah well. - eo (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

decade

yes it was ment to be released, yes it was goimg to happen but is it releveant, well i doubt it. Not many people no about it really. Realist2 (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with the HIStory album so i dont see your logic on that 1. It was ment to come out instead of Dangerous (Thank the lord he decided to go ahead with dangerous) . Also im really interested to hear of your master plan on the whole Thriller 25 thing. Realist2 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

thriller

Hi I have just reverted your 54 edits on the Thriller article, if you would like to make major changes the article please bring it to the talk page.Realist2 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

hi i would like you to continue with you edits to thriller but could you please keep it to a handful of edits a day. I would like to go through it properly and consider all your edits. Furthermore the merger discussion has gone on long enough now and you did not get the consensus you needed, I would ask you now to end this merger thing and be fair to the wikipedias who have overwelmingly stood against it. We have had long debates like this in the past such as on the mugshot discussion for MJ and i rightly let it go, please do the same now . Realist2 (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

ok the tag is dropped, yes i noticed that its written in the past tense which comes to my next point exactly, if we do merge Thriller 25 the only way it can logically be done is when it dies down, only then will we truely no what we are left with. I have no problem with the neatening of thriller providing it is done slowly. That said in truth Thriller does need expanding which im sure even you would agree on? I think Thriller 25 wont die down for about 12 weeks which gives us plently of time to get Thriller at a peak, get all the new Thriller 25 info together neatly and then reach a consensus EATHER way when we really know what we are up against. Why are we even discussing merger when Thriller is messy and the buzz of Thriller 25 hasnt even set off yet. We need to wait. On to Thriller Special , yes I own it, but is it just the interviews you want to discuss? Realist2 (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

yes go ahead and make those edits to thriller . I will check them out and let you know although they sound fine from here. I want to merge or copy some info from the michael jackson page to the Thriller page for a start. Your supporter on the thriller 25 debate will not let me remove the merger tag even though he has only 1 other person who believes it should stay up(even you believe it should be removed for now), I have the consensus that for at least now the tag should be removed, will you please support me on this principled part?Realist2 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi your edits so far have been fine but i put the word stardom back in as i think ts really ok. Keep it to a few a day. Ive decided that instead of us both making are contributions together, i will let you make your edits first while i monitor then when you have completed your work i will add my stuff with you monitoring it. Thanx for contributing on the merger aspect, i think we really need to push to get the tag removed for now. What is the point even talking about merger at this point when thriller and thriller 25 will both look different in a few week. most comments made in between will be made irrelavant surely.Realist2 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as you pace yourself and explain what your doing it should be ok. As for your Thriller 25 thing its pleasing, it still should include fergie and Akon in the content. Yes i think big areas for it will be sales, charts and critical response. I think you should also go ibto detail on the promotional part when we no more about it, for example explaining what the TV ads and posters shoe exactly. The possibility of music videos and tours is not out of the question either.Realist2 (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

He might do nothin he might do a lot, if you believe the stories about his money problems then he might just do a lot. Whatever promotionally stuff he does it should be documented, its been a very long time since people were talking about him for his music lol. If he does any show it will be a major thing to document as its been ages. Lets just wait and see, im already tired of debating over things when they havent happened yet lol.Realist2 (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Very true, could you do me a favour, could you sort out my user page for my, the boxes are all messed up and I dont no how to arrange them neatly. I realy need it done soon because i want my page fully protected ASAP. Realist2 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

thiller article update

all your edits were fine i made 2 minor adjustments nothing major. You left a message on my talk page but I coundnt understand it, can you send it again but be a little clearer for me. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

info box

im not sure thriller 2001 needes an info box to be honest. Realist2 (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Also on the Thriller article I think you`ve taken the credit thing a little too far. I think its best to leave them alone now.Realist2 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

hey i made a few edits to your project , if you dont like them just revert them no problem , I also sorted out your margin problem :-) . i checked the single chart positions with the ultimate collection booklet and they are correct. Do you wanna source the booklet. Realist2 (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

interviews

• 1) Quincy Jones , discusses recording of "Someone in the Dark" and the first meeting of Jackson with Steven Spielburg.
• 2) Quincy Jones discusses his role in the production of "The Girl Is Mine". Jones discusses his understanding of what "Billie Jean" was about from Jacksons perspective.
• 3) Quincy discusses "Beat It" and why it was a cross over hit with rock music critics. Jones discusses his meeting with Van Halen, why MTV had no black artists, how modern artists are still copying Jacksons music videos and the impact of the "Thriller" music video.
• 4) Rod Temperton discusses writting the title track and getting vincent price to participate.
• 5) Quincy discusses Vincent Price involvement,
• 6) Rod Temperton discusses "Carousel" and why it was excluded from the original album.
• 7) Quincy discusses Carousel and why "Human Nature" was included over "Carousel" and the creation of "Human Nature".
• 8) The Narrator discusses the sales and records Thriller broke. --Realist2 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Music Barnstar
		For all your work on VH you deserve about five of these. ROCK ON! Snowfreak91287 (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Van halen logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Van halen logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

your personal attack

don't you dare threaten and harass me, as if you are somehow superior and can 'report' me whenever you want. YOU HAVE CONSTANTLY UNDONE, TRIED TO REMOVE AND GENERALLY RESISTED MY EDITS. All you did on Thriller 25 is continually change things I did. You work without concensus, and you think you're above the law. You personally attack me, even though you are in the wrong. I HATE WHAT YOU ARE DOING, and how you treat me. It is disgusting. I will NOT cooperate with an autocrat such as yourself, you despicable person.--Paaerduag (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Elfoid go to my talk page , ill send Paeerdaug over as well and we can debate this all together on my page. Realist2 (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

good keep it to my page, if both sides no they are being monitored they both tend to be civil . Realist2 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Get Happy Tour

A tag has been placed on Template:Get Happy Tour requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Iron Maiden tour history

While I know a bit about Van Halen, I don't know anything about Iron Maiden, so I can't really contribute to the discussion of those tour articles. If material is really copy-pasted from a website, then it's a copyvio and the material should be summarily deleted or whole articles shut down with a copyvio tag. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

thriller 25

hey i have made some alterations , this is all i think needs doing , take a look at the article. Yours Realist2 (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

thriller

hey , i got your message , i had to revert your edits because i couldnt make sense of it all , i would like us to do it together, if you fancy working on it today im well up for that, im on AIM all night. ;-)

thriller 2001

If your on about the special edition from 2001, ive found that many reviews are of the 2001 edition although its hard to tell reading it. ill have a look around for some tho. Yours --Realist2 (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

thriller 2001

If your on about the special edition from 2001, ive found that many reviews are of the 2001 edition although its hard to tell reading it. ill have a look around for some tho. Yours --Realist2 (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

hey go on AIM

Go on AIM i need your advise . Realist2 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thriller 25

Hey elfoid I reverted your edits to thriller 25 for the following resonse.

• The List tag was wrong it didnt display like a tag warning should so i think it was a mistake.#
• You removed sources, which I agree with but when you did it it caused a citation error at the bottom of page. When removing a source check for RED errors at bottom.
• I didnt agree with the info on "For All Time" being moved up the page, it doesnt make sense in the history section , it should remain within the content.
• Your removal of sales figures is not particularly first week figures should be done and general watering down of this info. Realist2 (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Thriller 25 merge issue

Hi there. Well, in my opinion, and based on other discussions I've seen and been involved with (Talk Pages, WP:AfD, WP:RfA, etc., etc.), it looks to me as if the consensus now is to merge the two. Personally my opinion has been that Wikipedia style guidelines and WP:ALBUMS called for a merge from the very beginning, but that's neither here nor there at this point. You and Realist have obviously spent a zillion hours hard at work to bring the two articles together, so I don't think that there is this immediate rush to merge them, although I think that if it is going to be done, it should happen relatively soon, i.e. in the next few weeks. I believe that the hype surrounding its release will die off rather quickly, now that it has made its initial splash on music charts, and I don't expect there to be huuuugely popular singles released from it, as they in no way can compare to the originals. If you and Realist have something put together and its starting to gel at this point then I say put things in motion to finalize it and merge the two. - eo (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

THriller 25 creds

yeah sure i like them , ill copy and past them over. Realist2 (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry actually i cant the thriller 25 track list is different as it includes the old songs and i cant then copy and paste. Realist2 (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thriller 104

hey because of edit waring last night , and generally on this issue I had to add an additional 6 sources to the l04 claim on the michaeljackson and thriller article. Therefore as a result ive also done the same for our project. Please dont remove them they need to be there to stop people vandalising it. Realist2 (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dont worry weve sorted that issue with the bad article now , im cutting through it lol just leave it to me, hes being insulting to me. Realist2 (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol he accused you of being my sock puppet. help. Realist2 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hum just want the bickering to end, i feel like im being bullied on this and every time i defend my position he uses the fact that im a fan against me, you know how hard ive worked on that page, this is terrible. Realist2 (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

hey

[6] see this comment. Realist2 (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Up to a nice little bit of shit-stirring now are we, Realist2? Claims of bullying, spying, sock-puppetry and tag-teaming just because you got into trouble last night? You aren't fit to edit Wikipedia.MassassiUK (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure ok ill sort out the singles today, we need to wait in the album chart, its still rising and is expected to reach number #1 in norway and argentina this week. Were not ready for that yet and theres still a while till the merger. Please be patient on this its not harming anything. Realist2 (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey ive sorted out the singles. My alterations have reduced the article by 750 bytes, so ive been very good to you on this. ;-) Additionally dont be concerned to much about the bytes of the article, no matter how large it is ill support the merger and actually dont think its that long considering its a joint article on the best selling album of all time and possibly soon the best selling reissue it is not too long. Realist2 (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Send me a list of the countries you want removed, i will look at them and consider. Realist2 (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a list of the essentual removals before you replied to compar5e each other. The results are quite similar. I didnt want to get ride of Irland as its spent 3 weeks in the top 3 but two i thought should go which you didnt mention are Italy and sweden. What do you think to this?Realist2 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

ok and keep irland for know? Ill keep the full listings on my project and regulary update them, we need a complete record held save incase we want to change anything later when sales change or if we get sales figs on for certain countries. As long as i keep holf of a full list we can always go back to it if needs be. Ill make these changes and transfer them to your version of the project. Realist2 (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been going some hard reading and Here is a link to some work I have been doing. Im going to add it to the thriller album and projects. Feel free to improve on it any way you can before I add it. Yours Realist2 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok have a play with it and when youve finished let me know. Realist2 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you find out about the Jackson solo stuff done on the Victory tour? Songs like "Wannabe Startin' Somethin'" have backing vocals...useful to know how many of them he PERFORMED solo. (The Elfoid (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Hum ill try, the victory tour is not 1 of my specialities, it might require a youtube investigation lol. Realist2 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

lol ive been reported AGAIN. Realist2 (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Im butchering the Rihanna article right know. Lol Realist2 (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael jackson

Hi could you help me re write the lead on the michael jackson article. If we can work on it on your sandbox? I think its got worse in resent months and a complete re write might help. Realist2 (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

NWOBHM is a Music genre

If you agree, please see the page : Category:Wikipedians who believe NWOBHM is a music genre . Master Redyva ♠ 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people do. See Talk:Iron Maiden under "40 New Wave of British Heavy Metal 41 Heavy metal music." You should add Category:Wikipedians who believe NWOBHM is a music genre to the bottom of your user page, for solidarity. Master Redyva ♠

ROCK ON!

If you get a chance, please check out : Done. Funeral 14:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC) The catergory is under discussion for deletion. I think it should be renamed rather than deleted and the renaming supports NWOBHM as a genre. What do you think? Master Redyva ♠

Ivybridge Community College

Hi I know that this article is really bad, because it has no references and very little info. Why did you say it needs an "AFD"? I really need to improve it. I'd much rather see it start to improve (even if slowly) than be deleted. If you can help with the article then please do. Bsrboy 16:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added some references and some more information. Take a look and tell me what you think? Bsrboy 21:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs)

It doesn't need deleting... just a whole lot of referencing which I’m getting round to. Anyway I've put up a WikiProject schools portal in the discussion page, so at some point or another it will get rated on its importance and quality. Until then I'll try my best to get it up to scratch. Bsrboy 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs)

The coordinates for the article are inaccurate and I can't get it to work properly. Your help would be greatly appreciated. 50°23'35.51"N 3°55'4.65"W Bsrboy 21:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsrboy (talk • contribs)

"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(March 2008) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." As far as I'm aware it's not disputed and there is no "discussion" on the talk page and I haven't removed it, because I don't know if the "dispute" has been resolved, because there is no evidence of one... Bsrboy 17:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The emblem looks almost identical to the official emblem. I don't think that removing it would improve the article. It's quite an important image on the article. Bsrboy (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a shame, I'll try and look for any ways around it later. In the mean time do you know how I can get an official Ivybridge Community College emblem onto the article? Bsrboy (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanups should only be done once an article is at B-class. Ivybridge Community College is a start-class. For the Start-class section it says "an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage." - Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment Bsrboy (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done what you have requested on the bar chart. Bsrboy (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Although between me and you (and the rest of England) Ivybridge Community College is a "large secondary school". In other countries it might be seen as small or medium or large. That's why I put that it is large by England's standards. See here for the assessmen comments (it mentions the NPOV). Bsrboy (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

mornin

• -0 Realist2 (talk) 05

  20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow that screwed up. Realist2 (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection

I tried to get your user page semi protected (i knew you wouldnt mind). Its being vandalised and ip adresses are sticking nasty pictures on it. They said though that you must ask personally, if you want it semi protected but dont know how give me a bell. Adios. Realist2 (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I gladly give this Barnstar to The Elfoid, for being a member of the new generation of editers who are precise, friendly, and actually work on articles. Thankyou for helping me get the Thriller album up to GA, i couldnt have done it without you. Truly well-deserved. Enjoy. -- Realist2 (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ivybridge

Hello Elfoid! I know how much you enjoy adding "citation needed" to articles, so you might want to start doing so to this article. Have fun and if there is any other information you want to add please do so. Bsrboy (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

BSRboy

I reckon that he will be back in a month or so. I had a look at the history of your page and found out what he had done. Didnt he know that wikipedia can trace his ip address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimE742 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandboxing Thriller

Hello there. If you're still revamping the mother article using your sandbox, please remove those non-free images. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at me

BOO --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 04:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review

Although it has been a while since anyone has replied to your editor review I saw that you still have the banner up so I left comments.--DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yo

Hey grumpy, do you want me to mess with your user name yet, i cant wait to see it colourful!!!!!! Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Wikiproject

Wikipedia:WikiProject Michael Jackson/Barnstar Workshop - Take a look. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive your talk page

Just noticed your talk page was a bit long and dated. There are bots that will archive it for you. User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo is one. Just an FYI  :) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Monsters of Rock Tour (87-88)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Monsters of Rock Tour (87-88), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Monsters of Rock Tour (87-88) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Monsters of Rock Tour (87-88), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Too long friend

It has been too long since your were last on wiki, as is your talk page! It's bloody huge. Can I have the privilege of archiving it? — Realist² (Speak) 01:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)