User talk:Realist2/Archive 1

Stay cool 2

Deathphonix is a dear friend of mine ( he doen't even know that, but that was why I spoke to him) and I accepted whatever he said. and about you: you will have time to think about what you did. T2345 04:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Right

I respect Wikipedia and it's supporters. You didn't even exist in 1983; You have years in front of you to learn how to respct people, and why. I'm not gonna add the article again. Stay cool.T2345 17:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind What You Do

You with only 3 A level and being only 19, deleted the articl that I added! I cannot compare your ignorance with anything else but yourself! T2345 13:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of length

Hey, I'm glad that you've started editing! I just want to remind you of some important issues that were particularly prevalent in the last Good Article review. The main one among these was length. Try not to add whole new paragraphs and look instead to replace information that you think is unsuitable. And as always, bring up major changes in the lead first. Please also keep in mind Wikipedia style guidelines and citations.UberCryxic 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: help me

I think that when UberCryxic deleted your paragraph, it was mainly due to the prose. Also, I think that he doesn't want the eras to get too large and would rather that information be integrated. This is a valid point, however I would say that since the top section is about his recording career that information such as hits is indeed needed. I would go about trying to establish a consensus to list the hits in an album, as I do believe that it is relevant. Also, use correct citations etc. If you improved the prose, and justified your reasoning on the talk page, such as that it makes the information more accessible (one of the key reasons why personal life stuff was separated, to make it more accessible), and also that hits information has the UTMOST bearing on Michael's recording career. If you justify yourself, clean up the prose a bit, and provide clear citations, I don't see the problem. Wait for people to respond on the talk page, and work from there. --Paaerduag 09:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

per physical appearance

In regards to your question about adding more pictures, one of the main concerns of editors on the MJ page is that the pictures are cluttering up the text and making it more difficult to read. I would have to agree with this concern: as nice as pictures are, wikipedia is about information and this is conveyed through text and to-the-point pictures. I think that putting pictures documenting the change in Michael's appearance would draw undue attention to that facet of his life. Sure, a few pictures are good, but these show him in some important light, whether in a record-breaking video, or on the cover of one of his record-breaking albums, or during a popular performance. That leads me on to your other query, about using images from live, recent events. The only problem there is that, IMO, the picture quality decreases and that brings recentism to the article. Basically, it's focussing too much on the present, whereas wikipedia is meant to equally document MJ's entire life. Finally, regards the 80s picture, I was actually against it a while back, and tried to replace it with a then-recent picture of his acceptance of a 'Legend Award' in Japan. I didn't manage this successfully, but then I realized that the current picture is probably the best one to be there. It is the perfect representation of MJ, in the prime of his career, epitomizing the success that he was, and IMO still is. To put a 2007 picture would bring recentism to the article, and most editors don't like that. Anyway, I hope that I've answered some of the queries you have. If you need to know anything else just contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Paaerduag 09:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To your question

A citation is just a source that you find to back up a claim made in Wikipedia. Preferrably these would be reliable sources. Also read the policies on verifiability, original research, and neutral point of view. For citing sources, visit this page and this one too.UberCryxic 18:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Hey, try not to create any more sections in my talk page. Just write under the ones you've already made. It's getting too long now. Thanks.UberCryxic 23:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music review source

Hey, you mentioned this in the talk page. Can you please post it there under the last section? Thanks.UberCryxic 18:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Hmm the link wasn't working for me.UberCryxic 19:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC) I've reverted your changes again because they need a citation. Directing me to a source is not good enough. I am busy at this moment and would advise you to contact Paaerduag about adding the citation. Thank you.UberCryxic 23:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC) I have seen the review and have concluded that it's largely irrelevant. The information you want to include is not appropriate in that particular place, which should feature much more generalized details about the album. Additionally, the caption of the Dangerous album cover explains roughly the same things in a laconic fashion.UberCryxic 17:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC) I've responded to your concerns in the talk page. Right now that review is irrelevant in the context of the section. I trust you will make the right decision and remove it from the article yourself.UberCryxic 18:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Also, please stop creating new sections in my talk page for the same topic.UberCryxic 18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC) The statement you want to include is too specific and can be generalized to "Some have argued that the Dangerous album represented Jackson at a "near peak" in terms of musical quality and creativity"......this is what I have put in the Themes and genres section, which is where belongs since it discusses musical quality.UberCryxic 18:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC) The citation is now fixed.UberCryxic 18:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

citations

adding citations can be difficult at first, and I must admit that at first I sort of did a trial and error thing. But I would suggest that you refer to WP:CITE, which explains how to do citations. If you are still unsure, refer to a page I made, Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne, and copy and paste citations from there. Be sure to take only the earlier citations, as they are written in full. The later ones use multicite, so they won't mean anything. Hope this helps. I know it's confusing, but it's pretty easy once you get the hang of it. --Paaerduag 07:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dangerous

You'll have to provide me with the citation that it was 'better than BAD'. Also, perhaps find more citations to aid in your point of view. Other than that, send me a copy of the paragraph and I'll review it and see if it's worthy of the article. Also, remain NPOV. Try to state who actually said that Dangerous was better than Bad as well. And then we'll see about getting it onto the talk page. --Paaerduag 09:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: dangerous

that web address doesn't work. please refer to WP:CITE to learn how to write citations. Also, find a working web address and give that to me. thanks. --Paaerduag 09:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mp3.com

it doesn't work. please find an appropriate citation, and then post your paragraph on the article, and tell me and I'll have a look at it. --Paaerduag 09:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dangerous

just write the paragraph, with correct citations per wikipedia's citation guidelines, and put it on the MJ article, and when you've done that (after thoroughly cleaning up the prose and correctly citing it) tell me and I'll review it. I'm rather busy so perhaps you could stop contacting me for a bit? thanks. --Paaerduag 09:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dangerous

so go and write the paragraph! obviously you're very devoted to this, but I would stress that Bad and Dangerous are both incredibly good albums, despite what the so-called 'critics' say (more likely just out to get tabloid stories). Be careful what you write. --Paaerduag 10:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

incorrectly cited maybe???

Im not sure but I dont think you cited it well because when you clike on 101 it doesnt take take you to the reviewRealist2 18:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

There are a number of ways to deal with this. The first is to just edit the article and delete the vandal's remarks. If he or she has done something like blanked the article, however, then you will need to revert the changes to an earlier, more appropriate version. To revert to an earlier version, follow these steps:

Click on the "history" tab of the given article.
Once there, click on the "cur" link, which can be found next to the usernames, as can the "last" link.
Once you've clicked on the "cur" link, you will be taken to a page that shows two different versions. At the top, there are going to be two main headers, one that reads something like "Revision as of [certain time]" and the other will say "Current version." Click on the "Revision as of..." part and then click edit page. Finally, save the changes and the article will now have been taken back to the version that you wanted.

The above is usually done if you want to revert several changes. If you only want to revert one change, then click on the "history" tab, then the "cur" link, taking you to the version that you want, and then click the "undo" link next to the username or the IP address of the person who changed/vandalized the article. Then just hit the "save" button and you've reverted that change. If you want, you can practice this in the Michael Jackson article, although a much better place would be your own userpage. Let me know how it goes if you run into trouble.UberCryxic 19:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC) I should note, however, that serious forms of vandalism, like deleting an entire article, are handled by automated bots that revert the changes immediately (within seconds). The bothersome part is when people add annoying comments here and there.UberCryxic 19:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Yes there are a lot of people like that on Wikipedia. Try to (mostly) ignore them.UberCryxic 20:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject

The project hasn't been created yet. Right now we're in the proposal phase; I threw it out there to see how many people would be interested in joining if a project was made on the subject. The response is good. 5-10 is all that's needed for creating a wikiproject. I'll create this one towards the end of June. After that, I'll let you know what to do in more detail.UberCryxic 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Dangerousera102.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dangerousera102.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well. For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daveyjones

The user's comments were inappropriate, but so were yours when responding. You called the user a "smart ass" and a "crapface." Those are personal attacks and they prohibited, so please be careful in the future.UberCryxic 00:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Yes I will try to deal with this.UberCryxic 17:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC) As far as I can see, all of this user's homophobic comments are on article talk pages. Certainly if applied to article pages or to userpages they would give rise to serious consideration of blocking, but more latitude is allowed on talk pages. I see that you have receieved comments fro one or two other editors. May I suggest that you take your problem to WP:AN/I and seek a consensus? And can I also suggest that do not reply to his edits, as this merely generated further dabate.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC) If he post any insulting reference on your own talk or user page let me know immediately. And if he posts anything offensive in an articlecpage flag it for {{speedy}} immediately.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Daveyjones has been rightly banned. The user's behavior was beyond inappropriate; it bordered on the disruptive. I wouldn't put it past Davey, however, to create a few sockpuppets. I think one of them even wrote on my talk page.UberCryxic 20:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions recently

I just want to say that, since joining wikipedia, you have really been working hard to make the MJ page better. I just want to extend that we all really appreciate your dedication to the article, which is especially good considering how new you are. As UberCryxic has said, please refrain from answering back to people like DaveyJones, as you will undoubtedly run into people like that on wikipedia. I think the best way to go is to hold your head high, treat everyone with respect, and know that you are better than those who would say spiteful things. Thanks again for your dedication to the MJ page.--Paaerduag 09:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pics

reorganized yours. a bit busy right now but will add later. add descriptions after "Image 1" or whatever. hope this helps. --Paaerduag 10:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx but it didnt help it doesn`t take you to the picture any more Just a wierd site If never seen. HaHa no stress but can you sort it out please. Realist2 10:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pics

add description after each... --Paaerduag 10:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

I've added Britain in the list of countries, but there's no need to list out the number ones in Britain. The ones for the US are just fine.UberCryxic 18:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV editors

I'll keep an eye on it, but the response has to be to make the article(s) neutral - can't be pro or anti MJ. A controversial figure like him will always attract people whose edits suggest they are not interested in building an encyclopedia, but are interested in promoting their own viewpoints. That's unfortunate, but there are a lot of disinterested editors out here ready to revert the POV material both pro and anti. So, just stick to reliably sourced, verifiable information - not opinion - and you'll be fine. If a particular editor becomes a problem, there are administrative steps that can be taken.Tvoz |talk 15:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - there are people watching who will put an end to it - I'm not an administrator, but anyone can report problems. Good that you're taking the high road now - there's no reason for you to get down in the gutter with a bigot. But if someone is uncivil to you, it will be stopped. Just bring it to people's attention. Tvoz |talk 17:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson Wikiproject

Hello, I have just created this. You can visit the project page here and join here.UberCryxic 03:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him for WP:NPA, which calling him a "homophobic monster" would also fall under. Please comment on edits, not editors.--Isotope23 20:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are upset, but please don't compound the incivility. He's blocked for now; there is no reason to further fuel the flame. If he promises to adhere to our policies and is unblocked, future personal attacks by that account will be grounds for a permanent block.

If you feel this editor is the same as the previous ones you've had an issue with, if might be helpful to request a checkuser.--Isotope23 20:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- ::...and if you can provide diffs to those statements you posted on my page and an checkuser confirms the account that made those statements = the one I just blocked, that would be something to consider.--Isotope23 20:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tags on Eminem

Hi, It was not my intention to remove that many tags. I was just going through citing all of the sources and when I came across a tag I just removed it; I wasnt concentrating fully. Thanks --The-G-Unit-Boss 09:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. . ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 14:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

contributions on "most expensive music videos ever made"

I received your email about my changes in the pages The links you directed do not work on my browser, which I have reasons to believe, no longer exists. Also the fact you removed MOST of the other artists' most expensive videos off the list just to add Michael Jackson's videos show your biased views and idolism towards Michael Jackson. Maybe you should learn to respect other artists and other people's contributions than just simply add your own idol, and realize that your behavior is extremely immature, misleading, and is also an act of vandalism. they are ok now.it might have been my connections —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravenshield936 (talk • contribs) 19:33:57, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

my reply

i shall continue contribute what i know in the near future —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravenshield936 (talk • contribs) 00:04:07, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Michael Jackson - HIStory sales compared to Pink Floyd - The Wall

As you can see on the following link: The Wall sales The Wall has 30 million SALES. That's 60 million actual CDs. HIStory has sold 18 million roughly, 36 million CDs. See List of Best Selling albums and let me make my edit. Please allow me to make my correction. (The Elfoid 01:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Not me - I'm not really that interested in MJ or The Wall, just the history of the music industry. It's a topic that frequently bubbles to the top of debate, and I think at best we could only say "HIStory is often claimed to be the best selling double album in the world" - but it's not a confirmed fact, since Wikipedia opinion is not entirely firm. (The Elfoid 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

MoritzB

It appears you're harassing MoritzB on his user page. Please stop. --Golbez 10:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T2345's attempts to put something on Talk:Michael Jackson

Hi Realist2, T2345 referred this matter to me for some reason, so I'd like to ask you for your input. First of all, I'd like to say that I do find what he said on your talk page regarding your age to be insulting. That being said, he is trying to make some sort of point on the talk page. I haven't looked too much beyond the first few reverts, and as someone who doesn't contribute much to Michael Jackson or the Wikiproject, I wouldn't know if this is something you guys always see, but if he wants to make a point on the Talk page, is there nothing wrong with simply leaving it on the Talk page and simply replying to it (pointing out why it won't belong on the main article) rather than deleting it? Consensus may be that what he says is either incorrect or too detailed, but so far, I haven't seen the consensus. Leaving it in the talk page and generating discussion might satisfy T2345 in that he made his point and didn't see it deleted without further discussion. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this matter. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's right wing mentality (I'm a right wing myself), I think it's mostly his English. People whose English is not their native language can sometimes miss the subtle nuances... something that is a mild retort or a funny quip in their native language can be highly insulting in English... and vice versa. It happens. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- ::It doesn't really matter, I'm on no-one's side here. I just wanted to mention this to try and soften the blow. I've been involved in some dispute resolution in my time, and what you've been saying about him is almost as harsh as what he's been saying about you. I'm not doing anything close to a formal dispute resolution here, I'm just giving you some friendly comments that you can take however you want. He's not being very friendly, sure, but neither are you. Do I understand why you're not feeling too happy about this guy? Yep, but if you're courteous to him even if he's not, you end up smelling like roses. Just a suggestion, I don't really care what you do with it. I'm on no-one's side here. Oh, and with English not being a second language for you could be a reason why what you say about him could be as harsh as what he says about you... it goes both ways, I suppose. Cheers, Deathphoenix ʕ 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC) - :::Thanks, I'll take it as such. I've seen how you sign off to other people. ;-) Cheers, Deathphoenix ʕ 18:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of best selling albums worldwide

Yes, know the link is dead. I also know that 'somewhere' on one of the Janet Jackson sites is a copy of the list too, which I tracked down yesterday, but did not have the time to replace all the references. The bad news is that it is a forum, so should not be used anyway. The alternative is to go through one by one and find alternative sources ... again tried for several, and never found anything. Will add the forum link today (in approx 12 hours after this message), but it maybe rejected by others. Maggott2000 20:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson vandal

Left a comment on JzG's userpage as you did as well. x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection?

Silly vandals...want me to protect your userpage?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie, all taken care of.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Realist, no need to worry. Rather than posting play-by-play action of sockpuppet abuse at ANI you just need to sit back and relax. I'm watching your talk page carefully. If you like I can also instate semi-protection on your talk page so you won't have to deal with that nonsense. ANI doesn't need to be cluttered with a repeat report when nothing new has happened. Allow them to trudge off ;)...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've semi-protected your talk page for 1 week. If you need me to increase it after 1 week I will do so. I've left your userpage semi-protected indefinitely however (I can lift the protection at any time if you wish).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Sorry I couldn't respond earlier, that guy is blocked now with the message "Thanks for playing, but Wikipedia is at least trying to be a serious encyclopaedia, and we really don't need people whose username and actions indicate that they don't get our fundamental policy on living people. Please find another playground." He got what he deserved, and I'm also watching your pages as hard as I can, although I'm busy at the moment, but I'll try my best. You're in great helping hands with Persian Poet Gal, she's an amazing admin who amazes me with how hard she works on making Wikipedia a better place and how she manages to do so many things at once! Anyway, in conclusion, I'm watching for sock puppets of that user! Peace! → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. I'm always here if you need anything (as much as I can give) and I'm sure Persian Poet Gal is too. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 18:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Michael Jackson protection

Well, I took a look through the history, and there is indeed series after series of minor edit war reverts. Though edit war reverting is never productive, I still think its a bit hasty to consider full protecting yet. I think the article is still retaining its GA status despite some of the strife that has risen occasionally. If the edit warring starts to elevate to a rampant state and reverts are happening by the hour or practically every single day; then might be the time that this article should be opted for full protection. As far your handling this situation, I believe you have been very responsible about your reverts and it is good you have not tried to push 3rr. So the only advice I could give you is to continue to edit or choose to revert in the same constructive way. I'll start keeping the article on my watchlist to keep a track record of the edit history. Whenever you feel the situation is starting to reach critical mass, feel free to contact me again or try an WP:RFPP request. Keep up the good work.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may view my response, here.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I'm still keeping watch for you and I blocked this obvious sock who is extremely likely to be the same person trolling your userpage sometime ago.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC