User talk:Realist2/Archive 20

GA Review

Hey, R2, would you mind reviewing Big Stick Ideology for GA? I kinda put my heart and soul into... :P Leonard^(Bloom) 01:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sure, will do. It's late at night for me to start now, but I will review it tomorrow for you. — Realist² 01:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Leonard^(Bloom) 01:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

/headdesk/ Why didn't I think of that? I loaded the page, questioning how I was going to do this, and then it turns out you just swapped the titles, which works because I used those books as references... heheh. Thanks.

I started moving the books across to the references section, then I realized they could all go across. So it was just a case of changing the title. — Realist² 02:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed the review, and I've already covered the last three bits, and I'm working on the first one (the refs at the end of the sentence) right now. Leonard^(Bloom) 18:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing ref #14, but I face a problem: the reference is "backing up" a quote, and the quote is quite important. That's not the big problem though. The bigger issue is that the only other reference for the quite I can find is this: "Collin, Richard H. Theodore Roosevelt's Caribbean: The Panama Canal, the Monroe Doctrine, and the Latin American Context. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1990", which is referenced on the Answers.com page. What should I do? Use it? Do further research and connect the quote to the book, or just abandon the quote all together? (The latter is not my first choice, and I really don't want to follow that route.) Leonard^(Bloom) 18:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say you need to have read or have access to the book(s) to understand the context in which the quote was used. I wouldn't just use the book off the cuff, because we don't really know Answer.com used the book correctly (They are a terrible source and make mistakes). We can't prove they aren't just making up the fact they used the book. Ultimately we need the page number of this book too. It's going to involve some research I imagine, but I can put the review "on hold" as long as it takes don't worry. It won't fail, it's more of a case of "when will it pass". We should also do a scan of google books for this. — Realist² 18:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I <3 Google Books, so I have already gone ahead and searched the for the book. It exists, but I've only seen it referenced (#8; here is the note in question.) The book exists, but I can't find a copy of it. Answer.com also mentions "Munro, Dana G. Intervention and Dollar Diplomacy in the Caribbean, 1900–1921. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1964.", which doesn't show up either. I know my library doesn't have it (I have already used most of their sources). Hm... I'm stuck. The only solution I can think of is to remove the quote; looking onto it, it's not as important as I previously stated. The letter is the unofficial announcement of his corollary, while I have valid references for the official announcement. I'll remove it, if you don't mind. Leonard^(Bloom) 18:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you can always re add it at a later date if you find it. — Realist² 18:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hahahah.... yes! GA! GA!... oh... excuse my excitement. I'll stay humble. :P Leonard^(Bloom) 03:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done, keep up the good work, make sure you add it to your user page, something to be proud of. — Realist² 03:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK nom

On 28 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Merle Norman, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me, this was all Masterpiece's work, I just nominated it for him. — Realist² 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No. You nominated the article for DYK. Therefore, you will also get the credit for the DYK. The main page of Wikipedia is very important. It is very important to put quality articles on the main page. Therefore, nominating other people's articles for DYK is also important. You can put the following on your page:

{{User Did You Know3|1}}

That will put you on Category:Wikipedia Did you know contributors. I will be very glad to see a fine editor like you on that category. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't say no to that, cheers buddy. — Realist² 13:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

excessive bail

Thanks for the edits; I hope we don't cause edit conflicts. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Edit warrior

Re your message: It took me a moment to find it, but he actually did start a discussion on the Talk page, but it's labeled Neutrality. The article is going to be a hotbed of activity for the next few days I imagine, so edits (and tempers) are going to be flying. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The original thread was in regard to neutrality. As a review of that thread shows, I compromised and changed the tag to advertisement, hence the lack of a thread that specifically designates that. --Winger84 (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thriller

I'll post suggestions as I read it; busy working one some Nirvana song articles right now because I have some library books I have to return on Monday. The comment by Brian Banks about Jackson's interactions with everyone else seems pretty notable, for starters. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, the article already gives details about Jackson's interaction (unless it was removed recently), look forward to hearing soon. — Realist² 02:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why I accidentally posted that on your user page. Sorry. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry for not commenting on the FAC page. So busy and have to take care with my GAN reviews. Maybe I'll visit there soon. --Efe (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. I've been busy/tired this week. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow. If not then, then Monday. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure OK. — Realist² 15:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Making a noble effort to format that massive wall of text into something legible. Please read the edit comments before you just undo changes..... Veriss (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually you did not provide an edit summary when you removed thousands of bytes of info, get it right. It doesn't look good when it shows up on my watchlist in red with no edit summary. Cheers — Realist² 03:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

we had edit conflicts so the comments, as well as the changes were lost, since we apparently posted edits at nearly the same time. I normally make edit comments even when I fix a comma. I've finished with the reformatting effort so have at it. I think we have something to run with for fleshing out now. Thanks for holding off for a few minutes, I'm not the most proficient at wiki markup and formatting. =) Veriss (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Who was this warning in an edit summary [1] directed to? If it was intended for me, what are you talking about re: edit warring, with the one-time insertion of text sourced to the Washington Post? Thanks. Edison2 (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, not you, an IP removed the source three times because he thought it was "partisan". That was communication with the IP. — Realist² 13:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Blocked for two days. This seems to have been going on for a long time after the last unblock, so s/he's lucky to have avoided a block earlier. If you see others, drop me a note. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a different person. Jamalar's IPs are from Britain and start with 86.25 or 86.29, but that one is from France. Spellcast (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh lawd, I pity the sockpuppet that travels to different countries to avoid blocks. Spellcast (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

86.29.252.0/22 wasn't wide enough, so let's see if 86.29.240.0/20 works. Let me know if this continues after a week. Spellcast (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson photos

Copyright depends on who took the picture. Any photo taken by a federal government employee as a part of his/her official duties is {{PD-USGov}}. Do you have any particular pictures in mind? A good way to search for other photos of Michael Jackson would be to look at NARA and any of the websites of the presidential libraries of the presidents you think he visited (these sites often have photo archives too). You could also try searching

"michael jackson" site:.gov

or something like that on google to see what you turn up. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a document about him meeting President Bush in 1990 ish. I've seen pictures of this with them standing together, I'm trying to find an image on it on the internet to give you an idea of what to look out for. He was definately at the white house in 1989/1990 and I've seen pictures of them standing outside the building (in a similar fashion to the 1984 visit). A photo must have been taken by a federal employee. The image, and I've seen it a few times, is an absolute gem. — Realist² 21:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Video, you can even hear the cameras going off in the background. There must be a picture somewhere. — Realist² 21:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Video of Jackson at Clinton 1992 inaugural
• Video of Jackson at some state building with the Clintons (1993 ish). — Realist² 21:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is just to give you an idea of what we are looking for, I have seen still pictures of these events and it seems likely that there must be some government employees who have taken pictures too. — Realist² 21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin/Gallup Poll

I must object to (part of) your reasoning for striking my edit. It was fully sourced, obviously all from the same poll (link). I just didn't see the need to source every line seperately to the same article (perhaps this way an error on my part). In any case, someone just killed the ENTIRE reaction section, so I guess it is a moot point. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason the section was tagged was because it was WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, which comes under the neutrality criteria. By expanding the section, you were unintentionally making the situation worse. It's been scrubbed now anyway because it was so long it was silly. — Realist² 02:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

You appear to have made some reverts lately on Janet Jackson discography. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in blocking of accounts. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, actually I was reverted unsourced inclusions, sourced sales figures were being inflated without new sources. I reported it to the page protection noticeboard and the page has been successfully protected. Would you please remove this warning. I did nothing wrong and took the correct action to resolve the issue. — Realist² 13:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That message was not a warning, merely informing you of the three-revert rule. Reverting unsourced material remains subject to the three-revert rule in articles that are not biographies of living persons. Feel free to remove it at your discretion. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a joke, if an IP adds rubbish to an article that is clearly incorrect... He was inflating the sales of the Discipline album, yet I'm the one who got the Discipline album to GA, I know enough about the album to know that it has not sold 1 million copies and is thus one of those crazy fan site things that can't be sourced. If we have IPS inflating things with no sources how on earth are us good editor ever meant to get article to GA or FA if we can't revert without fear of a 3RR accusation? If I hadn't reverted the IP continually then there would have been no evidence to support page protection. Can't win can you, cheers. — Realist² 13:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Removing unsourced material that is challenged is acceptable on any articles, not just living people. WP:BURDEN is pretty clear on this. Spellcast (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, that message was a warning ("uw" = "user warning", if I remember correctly). Despite WP:3RR not listing reversion of unsourced content under #Exceptions, I think it's clear that Realist did not violate 3RR, nor would have had he continued to revert. $0.02. · AndonicO ^Engage. 14:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as a passing observer here, I concur with everyone here. This is a templated user warning, quite clearly. Removing unsourced material is of course exempt from 3RR, especially when the figures added are nonsensical. I suggest Stifle strike the warning as a gesture of good will for this honest mistake. how do you turn this on 15:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I did ask him to remove (I'm open to striking) the warning on his talk page but he seemingly doesn't want to. — Realist² 15:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Realist² is not in violation of 3RR and Stifle should remember WP:DTTR. Also, Realist², kindly put new messages for me at the bottom of my talk page, it makes it easier on me. Useight (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to WP:DTTR, but as the consensus is that the message was inappropriate, I have struck it out. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 47 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't lose face, study the advise and reapply in 3-4 months. I'm sure you will be successful. Good luck for the future. — Realist² 19:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

KoP Reviews

Nope, haven't found anything. - Aphasia83 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. :-) — Realist² 22:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request

As a fellow music article editor, if you've got time, could you please take a look at the peer review for What's It Gonna Be (Beyoncé Knowles song) at Wikipedia:Peer review/What's It Gonna Be (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive1? Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an improvement. People usually describe me as a Michael and Janet Jackson editor. Nice to know some sections of the community have given me the broader title of general music editor. :-) Sure I will take a look soon (It's a bit late at night for me to read it know). — Realist² 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Users Jamalar and Charmed36.

Thanks for the note on my talkpage. If the former above editor is evading the block, note it with the concerned ip address to User:Spellcast who has already extended the block once for the same reason. They should be able to sort it from there. As for the latter above editor, incivility is not dependant on who you are dealing with - it is a constant to be maintained whatever. Without knowing the background, which is almost everyone else, viewing such comments have an unsettling effect, which is why they are frowned upon. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I adapted the level4 vandalism template for Charmed36's template. If they transgress in the next 24 hours take it to AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not been disruptive. Can you all fill me in on what's goin on? Charmed36 (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if you make one more disruptive or incivil remark you will be blocked. Easy. — Realist² 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Realist

Hi, thanks for correcting my mistake. It was kind of you to help me out.Cheers.--jeanne (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — Realist² 12:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

edit wars

I know all bout the user. The user has vandalized Gwen Stefani's and other articles for months. This user must be stopped. Charmed36 (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello! I just wanted to pass along my thanks for your support in my RfA from earlier this week. I hope I did not disappoint you. I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thriller audio samples

I can look after these if you wish. Just let me know which bits you'd prefer. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

um, not that I have any ml. jackson in my collection you understand....;) Ceoil ^sláinte 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get how you can do anything if you don't have the music. I don't mind what we use, Human Nature would be nice to sample, but I'm not picky. *Realist is pulling his hair out*. — Realist² 21:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang onto your hair, I was just being a bit sarcastic there. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, my bad. :-) — Realist² 21:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my contribs I added two, but would you mind doing the honour of transferring them to the article. All that html in the sample boxes makes me dizzy. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I did notice, I'm trying to set them up, I'm getting there slowly, cheers very much. :-) — Realist² 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, best of luck putting them up. If you ever need similar, I'm just down the hall, second door on the left. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I will do. I recently got Off the Wall (album) to GA. If I ever want to get that to FA it will need samples, but I'm really not in a rush to get any more articles through FA. After Michael Jackson and Thriller I'm done lol. Cheers. — Realist² 22:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, although I was looking forward to MJ's health being nomed! Anyway, I left two comments on the FAC page; small things only; its a fine page. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't be nominating his health and appearance, it's too controversial for the opinionated masses. A shame, about 50% of it was taken from the main article, a lot of good material there. But no, too controversial. — Realist² 22:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah shame; I really enjopyed reading it, but a BLP nightmare. Best not spend the rest of you life defending it in FAR and AN. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I responded on the project page. Thanks for trying to address my issues. The article dealt more with production and less with the music by itself (if that makes sense). But it's fine. You can only work with what you have, and I think you've done great on the article. Just see my closing comments. Orane (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at this. I have a funny feeling the operative words here are "Jesse Greer". But I'm not sure. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would revert the whole thing. He added 1000 bytes of text without a single source. — Realist² 22:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Did, although they were complex edits with more than a few good ce contribs. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The last thing we want in that article back at reassessment anytime soon. — Realist² 23:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

M'kay. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dont have it. Could you email me the mp3? Ceoil ^sláinte 20:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do that. If you need audio of the song it would be readily available on youtube? — Realist² 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long, but I found it eventually . Ceoil ^sláinte 13:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thank you very much! Since I nominated it for GA yesterday this will be very helpful. Cheers. — Realist² 19:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan reference

Hi, I'm trying to improve Bob Dylan article. Could you please explain why this: "CBS have announced the price of the two CD set will be $18.99, while the three CD version will cost $129.99. This has led to criticism of the 'rip-off pricing' of the extra CD from Michael Gray and other Dylan critics." ...is not given adequate reference by this. [[2]]. This the blog of the Dylan critic, Michael Gray. In his blog he criticises the 'rip-off' pricing of this release.

Also I restored this link which you deleted [[3]] because it is a reprint of an article from The Wall Street Journal. I added the link to the WSJ web-site in the next footnote [[4]] but WSJ will not let you read entire article without payment, so I thought copy of article was a valid WP:RS. Please let me know if you think this is not valid. thanks Mick gold (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For the first one, the blog, I've used sources like that before and they were removed at FA (just working on my past experiences). For the web link that copies the Wall Street Journal piece, I really don't think that can be used. However since you added it to the footnote, maybe you can. This all said, I have suggested on the Review page that one of the link checkers give it all a good look. Feel free to restore any decisions you dispute. I'm sure we can get the links checked by a pro at a later date. — Realist² 14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm interested in your advice. One of the most significant Dylan critic, Michael Gray, has called the price of Dylan's forthcoming new release a 'rip-off'. This seems noteworthy to me. But the only place where Gray has expressed his opinion is on his own blog. What is to be done? Mick gold (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say, keep it in for now and see what, if anything, the link checking pro's say later. — Realist² 18:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan & IMDb Sorry to make you delete IMDb twice, but I'm genuinely surprised it's no longer considered a WP:RS, esp since we're talking a major Hollywood film (I'm Not There) which was nominated for Oscars and not obscure art house experiment. How long has IMDb been suspect? Anyway, I replaced with Variety & The New York Times (both feature printed cast lists & technical credits). Is this OK? Mick gold (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Those are good sources I believe. IMDd has been out for a while, I would say I was told about 6-8 months ago? Something along those lines. — Realist² 13:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: RfA

The idea has been kicked around a few times before, but I don't think I need the tools at the moment. Gary King (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: edits

Is this about "Umbrella"? Charmed36 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I will report any problems with the user. Charmed36 (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen an user with the name MrPerfect. Maybe I haven't yet. Charmed36 (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember now. Thank you. Charmed36 (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The user is back and with a new IP adress. Charmed36 (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Milestone

I saw this edit and wanted to congratulate you on the milestone. Your work is appreciated. Useight (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

'Second'. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers guys. I remember passing 10,000 what seemed like 3 months ago. Scary. — Realist² 13:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Third! Well done. Shaping up for an RfA...? ;) – Toon^(talk) 13:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oww, I like your new signature! Hmm, not yet. Maybe at 50,000 edits lol! It will still be a while before I enter that realm, more articles to build. — Realist² 13:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fancy, huh? Well, by the rate your support list is growing, by then you should have it in the bag! – Toon^(talk) 13:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. Well maybe, first I want to get a featured topic on you know who. — Realist² 13:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your welcome, I would love to join the Michael Jackson project. I'm not on Wikipedia a lot but do enjoy making some edits here and there. How do I join the group? Pyrrhus16 (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I added your name here and I put the project userbox on your user page. Your officially in. :-). If you need any help with anything to do with MJ either contact me or better yet leave a message on the talk page of WP:MJJ. — Realist² 16:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much :) Pyrrhus16 (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — Realist² 16:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thriller

Well done! Giggy (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

YAY! Another FA! I'll try to dig up more sources for Scream when I can. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers people. — Realist² 11:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Orane (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. — Realist² 16:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nice one. Its a very fine article and a good example of how to get it right, well done. Ceoil ^sláinte 10:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Merci :-) — Realist² 17:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey R2! Long time no see! Congratulations on the FA, I can't believe I missed it! Sorry I wasn't there, it's a LONG story. I won't be on Wikipedia as actively as before, but I'll try to get on instead of making ridiculously long breaks like I have been doing. Anyway, congrats on Thriller. Cheers!! Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 23:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Ready

Ah okay. So you're a law graduate? Nice!

Anyway, I'm off on the Duke of Edinburgh Award for the next three days so I can't start until saturday, perhaps sunday depending on how tired I am :) But I look forward to doing some work with you. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 06:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't graduated yet, still got a few years to go. I'm starting my second year at the end of September. Catch you soon. — Realist² 11:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)

Alright, but... I'm not really interested in that show :) Gary King (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: YouTube Janet Jackson posts

Ok I Am Sorry but I thought they were relevant posts since it was announced on her webiste. I mean jesus.. you don't have to block me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopergrover (talk • contribs) 20:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Can her YouTube be posted on her main article where the official website and imdb is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopergrover (talk • contribs) 22:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Britney Spears 2008.jpg

You need to place the Template:Di-no permission tag on Image:Britney Spears 2008.jpg and alert User talk:Ogioh that you've done so. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If they just uploaded pictures truthfully it would make our lives so much easier. Shrug's — Realist² 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

the permission e-mails have been sent in and all the neede info to the OTRS...and yes the picture is uploade truthfully Ogioh (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As seen here, the user removed the dispute in order to prevent the image from being deleted. It should have been deleted yesterday, Sept 19 2008 according to the tag. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

MTV article

I understand you're a Michael Jackson fan (I am as well), but it's really excessive to have four paragraphs about him when nearly every other artist only gets a single name mention. That section of the MTV article is meant to discuss how Jackson broke the color barrier on MTV; it is not supposed to be a summary of his entire music video career. Just look at the general chronology of the whole section and you'll see that. Do we really need to know specific details about "Black or White" and "Scream" in the MTV article, like estimated audiences, guest appearances, and how many VMAs they won? I say we don't. --Samvscat (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets remove the whole lot. I would rather that then for it to stop abruptly at 1984. — Realist² 16:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Britney Spears review

It is time the Britney Spears article is tidied up a bit. Would like to know if you can or recommend someone to give it a review as is stands at the moment. I only bring this up with you after reading on your user page that you review articles.--Theoneintraining (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I review articles for GA, but Britney S already is a GA so I'm not much help there. ;-) I guess you want to get it to WP:FA next? If so I would advise you start a peer review. This brings the communities attention to the article and you can get advise from many more people than just myself. If you were to set up a peer I would leave suggestions there too. I did leave a few suggests on the talk page the other day as I remember. Another good idea is to take a closer look at Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson which recently became featured articles. — Realist² 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I will go to peer review now. I commend you for getting the Michael Jackson article to FA status. Excellent work indeed.--Theoneintraining (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll comment at the peer review in the coming days. — Realist² 16:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Upon going though the peer review process I notice it had a PR in August as seen here so I might just work through that at the moment and request another at a later date. Sorry if I wasted your time I really am STILL getting used to Wikipedia's procedures as I have only been an active member for about 4 months.--Theoneintraining (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed it as well, since that peer review closed recently there should be some good info there. When you have got through that you can start another one. If you don't understand anything in the old PR let me know. — Realist² 17:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

jojo

Indeed the article Jojo looks bad. A lot of paragraphs have one to no sources, and there are lots of stubby paras. The sources are not well-formatted, etc. etc. So, reassessment time? --Efe (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Im afraid setting up a reassessment page. It would stress me a lot, probably. And I have lots of things to take care. The article really needs sourcing. Maybe we can just collaborate in salvaging its GA status? Or delist outrightly? --Efe (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this the way GAs were processed before? See how Jojo was passed to GA status. --Efe (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

King of Pop

Hmm. If it's just an international compilation album with no new content added, I would imagine that there really wouldn't be much of anything to say about it as far as critical acclaim is concerned. I'd probably let that part slide, myself. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, however other reissues by Jackson have received a critical review, maybe it's because they were released in the US... Usually his reissues are panned as "yet another reissue" or "wow his personal life is messed up" but don't actually talk about the music lol. — Realist² 16:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Name change notice

Hey there, long time no see. I just wanted to drop a quick note, my username has been changed from A Prodigy -> Blooded Edge. Just thought I'd update you with the current situation :). Regards, Blooded Edge ^Sign/_Talk 22:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiCup

Although you have not yet participated in a WikiCup, you are receiving this message because I believe it may be something that you might be interested in. Check out the page and sign up if you'd like. I look froward to your response! iMatthew (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Scream/Childhood

Hi, sadly I don't have access to my Q magazines anymore. But the Rolling Stone review is available online here, don't know if you've seen that. Incidentally I think Scream/Childhood should be split into two separate articles on the two different songs: that's that WP:Songs suggests. Regards, --Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I might split them, see how big it gets. Thanx anyways PK3. — Realist² 20:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Off the Wall (album)

I was considering taking this to FA at some point, but it still needs bulking up with more info. You don't happen to have any books or anything? — Realist² 00:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no books. I have access to an online database that gives me access to various newspapers and other print sources, though. I'll look through them and see what I can salvage. Orane (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I've been meaning to tell you. I perused the sources that I had today, but unfortunately came up short. Most of the sources only gives the album a passing mention (usually name, date, that kinda stuff). Nothing worthwhile at all. Sorry. I'll keep looking, though. Orane (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)