User talk:Keegan/July09-October09

Charles Whitman

That wording works for me. There was previously a lot of disagreement and discussion about this section and finally, it seems a consensus was determined for what was said about the book and what was included. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday!

Hey, Keegan/July09-October09. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- I dream of horses (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Block log

Hmm well, yes, you did stain my block log. I've never been blocked before and I always discussed everything. On the article talk page or on user talk pages.

But since you did what was done and there's nothing we can do to change it, I was wondering if you could spare some time to investigate the actions of one user who was blocked several times (never unblocked, like myself) and is continuing with his POV pushing, even though he is banned from Kosovo related articles. This user is so persistent that it's starting to become a pain editing any Kosovo related article because he suddenly turns every discussion into 'who Kosovo really belongs to'...

Well, if you'd like, take a look for yourself: User:Interestedinfairness

All the best,

--Cinéma C 16:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no hard feelings I guess :-) I'm sure I've gone a bit too far with my edits in the past, nobody's perfect.. One thing I was wondering though.. concerning Kosovo-related articles, it seems there are a couple of users who are really restless when it comes to pushing their own POV. Every short while they fail at pushing their own POV and then, without letting the topic even cool down, they start discussing the same thing over and over again. For example, the map at the Serbia article has been agreed upon several times before, and in 3 days a consensus was reached to change it. Not only did none of the users who were active in previous discussions have a chance to say anything because it was done so fast, but any attempts at showing that there actually isn't a consensus to change that is ignored. Another example is the Kosovska Mitrovica article, where the above mentioned user kept insisting, and keeps insisting on a name change, even though there is no consensus to do so. What is this supposed to mean? If I'm just persistent enough, no arguments matter, I just have to keep on pushing, pushing, pushing, until people get tired of my pushing and I get what I want? Is that how it works here? Because I'd sure like to know as I'm tired of explaining the same things over and over again. --Cinéma C 03:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't get a reply from you, but maybe you'd like to take some action against the blatant removal of referenced text and references themselves in the Kosovo: Can You Imagine? article by User:Interestedinfairness. It's all in the history. He has not left a single comment on the talk page, despite my invitation in the edit summary to discuss on the talk page. He is just removing references and referenced text. Help? --Cinéma C 05:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand, I just wanted to bring your attention to the problem - how you act on it is up to you, of course, as you have more experiences with issues such as these. One of my last comments on the Kosovo talk page pretty much sum up my frustration with the above mentioned user, since it's like talking to the wind, he takes no arguments into consideration and repeats the same thing over and over again. Well, I don't wanna be the same in repeating what I already mentioned, but I just have no energy anymore and I'm worried that users who don't really care that much will give in to Interestedinfairness' POV pushing and he'll get what he wants - not because of his arguments, but because he was persistent enough... Sorry if I'm rambling a bit, it's quite late :P --Cinéma C 05:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You really are something Cinema. Now I see why user Keegan felt it necessary to intervene on my talk page;

Two points to consider Keegen;

My proposal at the Kosovoska Mitrovica page received no support initially. After conducting some research as per Wikipedia's naming convention, two users came round to the idea; one a Serb who has previously been the most vociferous critic against my proposal.

Secondly; the article about the Film mentioned above (third para by cinema) read like a real life story and [resented opinions of the director as facts. I added neutrality and always explained my edits. User:Cinema merely came onto the page and reverted everything because he wanted to. I'm not going to accuse him, have a look at all the discussions on Kosovo related talks where it is clear who the real menace is.

Thirdly, and to illiterate what sort of user Cinema is, have a look a this edit on 15th may where he tried to politicize the Euro Vision Song Contest with a Serbian POV? ? ?

Then the said user goes an tries to fool other admins/editors to work in his favor. Ridiculous. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).

Ay-o, there we go, you two are finally semi-talking to each other. Well, at least threaded and on one talk page, unfortunately, it's my talk page. I'm not "fooled" by CinemaC, as you might tell I did block him in haste when I should have just sternly warned. You haven't been the cats meow yourself, Interestedinfairness. You two go find a sandbox and have it out and you'll both probably feel a little better and perhaps even tolerate each other enough to work on building the encyclopedia. By all means, you two really should. The thing is, don't do it on my talk page, please :) You two have a good day. Keegan (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As this edit shows, Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) has changed the description of Kosovo to a country, despite the fact that there was NO consensus about it in previous discussions and that people were already getting tired of his continuous POV pushing. Since there is zero tolerance on this article, I propose a permanent Kosovo-related topic ban to the above mentioned user. There is just no use discussing with someone who refuses to take all different POVs into account and, in the end, just edits how he wants on this article that is under probation. --Cinéma C 02:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You should voice your concerns at the appropriate noticeboard if you wish to register a complaint. My talk page does not have any function for that purpose. Keegan (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you so much for your post in response to our problem with the Fashion Bomb page. My ulcer breathed a sigh of relief that someone in authority understands the issue, and hopefully end my webmaster's headache. Truly, I appreciate your prompt response and help... I don't know if you like our style of music, but if you see us in a town near you and want to see a show... use my email address (val@fashionbomb.net), I will gladly take care of you! Thanks so much again!! ----Val Valerusmaximus (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Serbia

This is probably an issue for ANI or Talk:Serbia, but since you already put your admin hat on that page...

I tried to make the lead of article Serbia neutral and conforming to MOS [1]; perhaps the end result was imperfect, but I don't think anyone could seriously doubt NPOV, or at least an attempt to it. Then, last night the

May I humbly suggest that User:Rex Dominator [2], User:Interestedinfairness [3] and User:Cinéma C [4] be sanctioned per Kosovo Arbcom and/or edit warring and/or banned from the article? No such user (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I saw the debate above just after I posted the request. No such user (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Keegan...

I am sorry to bother you again....Mortalgreyhound is continuing his war of edits. He has incorrectly edited the dates again. Can you please guide me as to our next step? Thanks very much! Valerusmaximus (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bless Your Heart for Setting Such a Good Example

Thank you for your gracious question.

Your response to the thought I might have stepped on your line

is worthy of a prize for grace and diplomacy.

If they have them, you've earned them, already I'm sure.

My grateful reply to your gracious request stands right there below it, on my talk page.

~ ~ Wortschätzer (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Truth

--MZMcBride (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles Whitman and Carrt81 talk page

Hello Keenan, I rarely ask admins for anything, but seeing as to how I reverted one of your edits on Charles Whitman, you may have some familiarity with my issues. First, there is an AN/I now brought by User:Carrt81 involving my blanking a portion of his/her talk page. I did it after asking Carrt81 to please blank a certain section containing previous material from a war we had in the past. This was done after noticing an error in spelling to a contribution on the Houston McCoy page. There had been a few months absense by Carrt81 and I hoped the anamosities we had with each other was over, thus the requests to blank certain material. After a few requests were made, Carrt81 refused to answer my requests in any form. At that point, I broke policy and blanked the requested sections myself, only dealing with my user name. Was I justified in doing so? Not according to policy, which led to a flurry of other editors who only saw the violation and not the reasons behind it. Which is my segway into explaining why the policy, though well intended, may need a tweek to help others not respond in a manner that is disruptive to all, and help eliminate some AN/I issues. The suggestion is this: the user pages are set-up now to reflect only one thread of a two party conversation or response. This leaves each editor with the choice of blanking or not blanking their own page or any portion thereof. I had blanked all of Carrt81's negative and abusive material from my page and expected an in kind response. He refused and I Idid blank the portions requested. It would appear that a more adequate policy would be to have the conversation threads follow each other to both user pages. That way, if there is any desire for one to blank their own page, the other will still have the threads intact and any conflicts that arise, like with my actions, an admin and contributors can see and follow the conversation in its entirety, rather than the individual diffs and contribution histories that appear and require a tedious process of verification, which most contributors don't do, they just react. This would eliminate edit wars and policy wars that have arisen from my actions. Mind you, I expected this reaction to a certain degree, but there is one user who has used the policy to start his own war, and that can be eliminated by the threads following each other. Also, it would allow any complaints to be looked at in an instant, and remove assumptions and accusations of inappropriate behavior. I have used this as a watershed issue and not as a mean spirited action. In other words, I purposely broke policy to show why the change needs to be made. It is my hope that you will review the AN/I and all the activity it has brought. Hopefully this will lead to a revamp of the talk page issues and allow the policy to be more effective. In return, administrators jobs will be easier and everyone will be able to follow the history of the thread and not just one users actions. Hope this helps. Advise or ban me. Either way, this issue needs to be addressed. Thanks for your patience and good work.--Victor9876 (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

These decisions are best kept in the appropriate public forums. Keegan (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My talk page

In the past, you have raised a concern about my talk page "wizard" system. I have changed this to an FAQ-based system (User talk:Stifle/FAQs), and would appreciate your feedback at User talk:Stifle/FAQs/feedback or elsewhere. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I said I liked your system :) Keegan (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted pages

Hi, Keegan! My name is Ralnon, of wikia and several of its wiki, though not of Wikipedia itself recently. I was wondering if you could possibly provide me with the contents of the following pages (though, make no mistake, do not restore them, as their points for deletion are quite valid, I simply wish to use the information for myself as a source elsewhere): Moon Medallion, Red Eye of Dawn and The Chariot of Queen Zara (see: [5] for the deleted version). I promise that I will not use their information on Wikipedia at all, yet I am simply intrigued by their subject. If you still are uneasy with this request, please contact me on my talk so I can provide an email address. Please, Keegan, if this one legitimate request is granted, no more shall I ever trouble you. Thank you! Ralnon (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Keegan, I have sent my message. Please contact me through email as soon as possible! Thank you! Ralnon (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, Keegan? Not to be annoying or anything, but could you send me: [6] as well? I promise nothing of the text will appear on Wikipedia; have no fear, this shall be my truly last request if you grant it. Or, if it is too much trouble, could you please recommend some other sysop for me to contact? Thanks! Ralnon (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Renewed fighting on the eastern front

Hi Keegan. As documented by this update history, the weekend armistice didn't last. DIMA285 got himself sent off, but may be making a reappearance as 194.78.23.251. Looks to me as if the situation calls for a "calm, civil, communicative" (sorry, couldn't resist the temptation) administrator, and since you have previously taken an interest in this debacle, I wonder if you could maybe facilitate a truce. Best regards, Favonian (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article: The Fire This Time

I found that an article I wished to reference, The Fire This Time, was deleted by you for "blatant copyright violation." No source of the allegedly copyrighted text was given. I do not feel a speedy deletion was appropriate here, as the article could have been corrected (even if turned into a stub in the process) rather than deleting it correctly. Can this article be restored so that I may edit out the copyright violation material? It was deleted on 01:14, 25 August 2008. Another article has since been created with the same title, so I would recommend restoring this one to "The Fire This Time (audio documentary)" or something like it.

Is this possible? Do you wish to discuss this further?

-Dayv (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk page. I was unaware of the need to purge copyrighted material from the article's history as well as the current version. What is done in cases where copyrighted text is added to an already comprehensive and well-established article? -Dayv (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Patchy1

Can you please delete the user page associated with talk page:User talk:Patchy1/vector.js. Thanks Patchy1Talk To Me! 06:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Keegan (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I am taking a wikibreak due to travel and will be back by 20^th of this month. --Srinivas (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Done

YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, YM. Keegan (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

AbuseFilter

Please see Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#Filter Cleanup, a filter/filters which you were the last to edit is/are on the list of filters that I identified to disable. Please comment there if you do not want this/these filter/filters disabled. Prodego ^talk 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Christian Stephen

This page has been created since to inform to the community about the trajectory of Christian Stephen its popularity it grows day by day in the Ecuador, Christian also this always connected to the net modernizing its last data on its career, it is please asked not to erase since difficultly he was somebody that follows its career transparently or with a neuter approach we are attentive to the requirements that Wikipedia proposes for the correct elaboration of documents those that we will continue to the foot of the letter and any error that it is opposing we request that it is reported by means of this page for its immediate correction we continue looking for the common sense to be able to publish this page and power to give to know in a better way the artist's trajectory without any autopromoción end but of writing its history neutrally.

I need more time for edit this document please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.110.235.29 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what, the article can now be accessed at User:Christianstephen/Christian Stephen Proaño for some polishing. Please note that this is only a temporary measure as an attempt for you to get the article up to par with our standards for inclusion (please read this and this). The article may be deleted from the userspace if it is not properly modified and moved back to the article space. Happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OTRS check needed

Hi, Keegan. Could you do me a favor and verify that the specifics of this ticket matches Talk:J. John Mann? I have a contributor who is adding it a dozen articles created about NY Psychiatrists. Thanks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Checks out just fine, that is the proper account to add the tags. Keegan (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Grea. Thanks for the check. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:John Mann

Hey there! Ten books he helped edit; he didn't write them. As for the 400 paper bit, numbers like that are common in scientific fields (or at least, I've seen similar cases in every other seasoned professional's biography). There lies the reason why I don't quite believe the article asserts, or proves, notability in the field. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

re:

yes sir ... And all the men and women merely players. ;) — Ched :  ?  23:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(note: Just a thank you for the reminder - no disrespect intended. The edit summary caught me at a time of reflection ;)) — Ched :  ? 

Christopher X. Brodeur

re: [7]. The issue was that he was on the Primary Ballot, which is to say, he was on ballot to be on the ballot. Note how it is handled in John Edwards. It states "...was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 and 2008", not that he was a candidate for president. Brodeur appeared on the primary ballot, but did not appear on the general election ballot. So, yes, he was a write-in candidate for Mayor of New York, but a regular non write-in candidate for the Democratic and Green nominations for Mayor of New York. The board of elections results here and here are pretty clear. - Richfife (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oversighted image

FYI, [8]. howcheng {chat} 16:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Remind me next time to go with a cup of decaf. Keegan (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Williams School

Hi. I see you reverted vandalism at The Williams School. You might want to have a look further back in the edit history as the version you restored is still vandalized. I started trying to have a look at this myself but have given up in frustration as it's obviously a target for long-term vandalism and I could not see how to unravel the mess of good and bad edits. Indeed somewhere there it says (or said) that vandalizing this page is something like some kind of school tradition or regular prank. I wonder if it is possible to sort it out, and to consider some form of protection to try to cut down on this? Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact. looking at it again I see quite a lot of the article as a bit of a disaster area. Parts are more like, I don't know, the students' own page or something. It could really do with keeping an eye on, but I'm not the person to do it. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks, I'll go to have a look at it now. Keegan (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the message and for your decisive action! Cheers, DBaK (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback Request

I hope you remember this. I had requested rollback but you denied the request here and also advised me a few things. After that, as you advised, I did vandalism work manually using undo but I landed up in edit conflicts with people using twinkle and others. I came to know that manual way is slower so, I switched to twinkle. Now Huggle ones do it more faster and also I landed up into edit conflicts with Huggle ones. So, please grant me rollback rights on this wiki so that I can use Huggle.

And I watched the video you suggested at IRC. --Srinivas 13:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nashville

Good times, eh? Nice to meet you, keep on rocking in the free world. Pop into ##BathrobeCabal or ##wikipedia-wtf sometime if you're not too busy fighting off Nazi zombie sockpuppets or whatever it is you get paid for here. Bullzeye ^contribs 03:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say great times, and what I get paid for here is sooper sekrit. Need a hug? I give good hugs. Keegan (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If I were you, I wouldn't risk it. I'm not sure if ugly is contagious, but rouge probably is. Soon afterwards you'd surely be picking fights in IRC and pooping in Jimbo's mailbox. Bullzeye ^contribs 00:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

o.O Lara 13:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Get off my talk page and either A) Practice U-turns, or B) Set up RfA at Pornopedia. Keegan (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

All Hail John Chrysostom!

@harej 02:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT Keegan (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit

Hi Keegan, I undid a recent revert of yours on the Lewy article. The Baltimore Sun is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. On page 1A of the Feb. 14, 2004 final edition, there is an article wherein Lewy admits to not having that report, and not recalling if he had actually seen it, or had been briefed on it. I'm not sure if there is a "free" link to the article still available, but a copy from the archives is available, and I have confirmed the content from a hardcopy at my local library. I am curious as to why you have removed that content. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

note

Thank you for caring re: my loss. DS (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Saul Greenberg

Why have you not reverted any of the edits by User:Saul Greenberg? --Dog sprint (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim Pocock

I noticed you reverted the speedy deletion proposal on Tim Pocock by asserting notability. However, you didn't actually explain this assertion anywhere (on the Pocock discussion page, or my user talk page) this notability anywhere, so I'd like to discuss it here. WP:ENT would be the category most applicable to Pocock.

It suggests the following as a guideline for notability:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He's had an arguably insignificant role in a single notable film.
2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Again, he is only really known for his role in this film and there's nothing to suggest he's made a cult following from this film.
3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Does not apply either.

Given the points above I felt a speedy deletion was appropriate here. If you know of any of his other works that would make him notable under these guidelines please feel free to cite them.

Edit: Looking back I may have misunderstood the point of speedy deletion. I took article A7. as not proving notability, but after rereading it, it seems to apply only to articles that don't even attempt to assert the importance of a given article. If this was the reason for your removal of the speedy deletion tag, I'd like to place a normal deletion tag in it's place. FantajiFan (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct, it was about the CSD policy and not the notability guideline. By all means you are welcome to nominate the article for deletion, my decision does not preclude that option. Happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Deviant nerds...

"Imagine a world where hotel noise complaints come from four people with laptops."

The complaints didn't come from us. The complaints were called in against us! Also, s/people/nerds. :D Lara 22:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} Keegan (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Basket of Puppies 22:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Ani thread regarding CoM block at [[9]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for lifting that block

I thought it was just another random character jumbld of a username; thankfully, cooler heads prevailed. I appreciate the assist. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

AN/ANI Vandalism

Since you are deleting a couple posts, could you also lock down AN and ANI so anons can't edit. This IP hopping vandalism is getting annoying. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to remove the summaries from the history... you changed the revision visability, but the page historys of both AN/I and AN still show some of the summaries... - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Keegan's Day!

User:Keegan has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Keegan's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Keegan! Peace, Rlevse 00:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Gratz! - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well earned. Risker (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Kukhran

Hi User Keegan
You may consider taking a look at this article once again ...which has received a massive dose of unsubstantiated unreferenced additions and deletions as well as corruption of referenced content
Intothefire (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Apprecite your quick response .

Intothefire (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat confusing

FYI I found this sentence a bit confusing.

Not gently guiding spam, to which point I reiterate that Chzz has done more to help spammers keep their spam by making it into an article than you have edits

"Keep their spam" (like to themselves? or keep it on Wikipedia?) –xeno^talk 22:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As in keeping the spam on Wikipedia after working with the authors to scrap out crap and provide references. I've seen Chzz devote hours to articles that I would burn with fire. As such, opposing the user because s/he "bites newbies" and is too "quick on the draw" with CSD tagging is absolute bunk. Cherry picking to oppose, and paints absolute no proper portrait of how the user is an asset and instead takes xyeir most valuable trait and turns it on its head. Disgraceful. Keegan (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok. I get it now. Thanks =) –xeno^talk 12:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oversight

Sorry, I assumed that if Lar said it, it was public. Bad assumption on my part. Hipocrite (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Keegan (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

need clarification, OTRS ticket 2009103010041944, Illinois Railway Museum article

In regards to this edit, did the certification state "Reporting mark" (or "marks"), or did it state "FRA Code", "Railway Code" or something similar? This may seem trivial, but, the entire dispute was over the use of IRYM as a Reporting mark, as opposed to a "Code". WuhWuzDat 05:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a reporting mark. Happy editing, hope y'all get that mess worked out. Keegan (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you sir, I believe we had it mostly sorted out, but this was the icing on the cake (from my point of view). WuhWuzDat 06:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael jackson stuff

I've recently keep getting into a debate with a user named simone Jackson and we have different points of view and theres nothing wrong with that but the both of us are consistently reverting each other edits on a few pages as in Off The Wall, Thriller, History,List of best selling albums worldwide, and I want to know what to do. You see Michael jacksons worldwide sales for off the wall was 20 million it was just certified an extra million in the USA so that would bring the total to 21 million. I found on the offical website of JacKson the record sales for History and it didnt say 20 million (40 Million) units but 21 million and 42 million units which included the a different version one cd release. Lastly thriller was just certified an extra million as well by Riaa so now its 29 million which would make 110 million to 111 million. Me and this user talk briefly but it seems that we both cant find a agreement.So can you help the situation, I'm asking for a 3rd opinion by you. Should I just leave the worldwide figures alone or let it be changed because it was updated? A Star Is Here (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)