User talk:Realist2/Archive 8

Thriller and MJ

I mean using that source to add more to the Thriller article; especially to the Recording section. indopug (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, the FAC was started just five days ago, give it some time. An FAC is promoted once there is consensus that the article is FA-quality. Just a suggestion: why don't you indent your comments (by placing a ":" at the start of the comment and more ":"s for further indentation)? It makes it easier for others to read :) indopug (talk) 04:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thriller review

Having major problems with computer today. Spyware and viruses galore. I'm going to dump the harddrive and reinstall tomorrow. I'll take a look sometime in the afternoon, Pacific time. By the way, is it the album, single, or music video article you're wanting me to look at? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Running (No Doubt song) GA

Thank you so much for reviewing the article. I am very very sorry for getting the release date wrong, i have fixed that. According to me, i have catered to all the requirements and issues. You can scrutinize the work i have done. I have finished fixing. If there is anything more, you can let me know. Thank you very much. Indianescence (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. Firstly, the source i had used for the release countries said German IMPORT single copy which made me confused. Now, i trust the Billboard source which says it was released worldwide. As far as charting positions are concerned, U.S and German Charts are top 100, while UWC is top 40. The song had minimal success, which makes its number 38 position justified. Indianescence (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as the official charts go, which are displayed by ACharts.com, it charted only in those two countries. What i feel, and i am sure of, is that maybe there were some weeks, when the single sold fairly well, thus making is chart at very low numbers. Also, if it was a week of "Sales depression", the less amount of singles sold would have been enough to make it chart at least number 38 worldwide. There can be many possibilities. For Example, Early Winter has charted in so many countries, but none of them a major one, thus, it never made it to UWC. U.S and Germany are big markets, see World music market. If the song charted on any other Official chart, then the ACharts site does not know of it. Indianescence (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And yes, i have finished working on whatever i could do. You can have a look at the Talk page. Indianescence (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you so much. I can't describe how important it was. Now Rock Steady can become a featured topic. Thank you so much. Indianescence (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Because of your valueable help, i have nominated Rock Steady for Featured topic.[1] I could not help thanking you once more for helping these group of articles to reach this stage. Cheers! :) Indianescence (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For helping a lot with Running (No Doubt song) to become GA, which ultimately helped Rock Steady to get nominated for Featured Topic. Thanks. Indianescence (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou , very much. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 18:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Andreasegde speaks

<<You guys are having fun. Keep up the work... :) --Sand, deckchair and sun (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)>>

Copied from my web page. I'm glad to hear from him. Oh, and your signature looks great too. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 16:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, is there anything you'd like me to help you with at all? I got a Peer Review for A Day in the Life, which I'm almost done with. After that, I think I'm going to take up Rubber Soul, an album by the Beatles. But before I do that, I just thought that I'd ask you if you need me for anything. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 16:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'll get right to it. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I really wish that you people had been here a year ago. You are having so much fun, and are working together on such varying subjects. I still drop in, just to watch your wonderful progress. "A Day In The Life" will be the 30th Beatles' GA article, and "Michael Jackson" looks like it will be an FA. How wonderful. :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for copyedit

I noticed you have two requests in the copy edit section. I used to do this type of work on my college newspaper and am more than hay to copyedit for you so expect to see me around.--DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 16:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing a sort-of copyedit of Thriller (album). I'm not going to put an {{inuse}}, unless I'm allowed. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 17:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm done. I checked for wording in the prose, grammar, spelling, and references in the middle of sentences (which I moved to the ends). I just have to check that words such as "favour" and "colour" are spelled "favor" and "color", respectively (the American version for an American album). I changed one instance, but I think there may be more. I'll get back to you when I'm done. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No feedback yet besides the above mentioned PR. I asked Dihydrogen Monoxide to do a PR, but no response to my knowledge. I just finished fixing the prose of the lead and "Recording" of Thriller (album), but don't change anything because I'm still working on it. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 17:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't get it. Please just list on my talk page how many copies were sold in each country, and I'll word it. The way it's written is confusing. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 18:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's much better now. Remember, references go at the ends of sentences (unless it's a quote). Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So, how's Michael Jackson article going? Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to tell you that I supported Michael Jackson becoming a featured article on the article's FA page. So that's two supports to no opposes. :) Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 18:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Make that three supports. Yeap, you managed to please me enough to get that support vote!--DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 19:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

There seems to be a concerted attempt on some blogs to attack Wikipedia; the MJ article, I suspect, is part of that. It's been a busy day for vandals generally, and I've lost count of the number of indefinite blocks I've issued. It will quieten down tomorrow when school starts again. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get to it. I might even consider joining the League of Copyeditors, that wouldn't be a bad idea. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 00:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, what time is it there now? Here in the States it's nearing midnight, I'm not really sure what time it is where you are. Hope you don't mind me asking, though, I'm not a stalker or anything. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 02:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done with Janet Jackson, I'm working on Thriller, following the PR. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 02:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't really understand why I'd be mad. Anyway, I'm a good way through the PR, probably did around half of it. I just did the basic ones, like flipping references around ([11][12][13], not [13][11][12]) and taking out commas and so on. I might need your help for some of the more in-detail parts, but that doesn't have to be done now. I'm going to finish up what I can and go to bed. BTW, have you ever taken the Wikiholic test? It measures how much you're addicted to Wikipedia. It's pretty funny, but it takes an hour or so to finish having 619+ questions. Your score is a pretty good thing to put on your user page. :) Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 02:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it might be past midnight (I really don't know), and after a while of (unsuccessfully) searching for references for Thriller, as the PR says, I think I'm going to call it a night. I'll help with Thriller tomorrow, and after Thriller and Michael Jackson make it to FAs, I'm going to start with Rubber Soul. Catch you tomorrow. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 03:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

Not a single useful edit. Blocked indefinitely. Thanks for letting me know. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:GA

Thanks for the review. You really belong to the new generation of GA reviewers. Keep it up. --Efe (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Block

Well, don't I look like a fool now. Too bad for him that the block was appealed to a group of a dozen admins, and he was unblocked with the caveat that if he ever misbehaved again, I'd be filing an abuse report with his ISP - which I fully intend on doing now. east.718 at 04:46, April 22, 2008

Billie Jean

Your assistance would be appreciated here! Mike H. Fierce! 11:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: MJ

Hmm, that's interesting, I wonder who objects. I was just at his talk page just a second ago. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 19:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK, I'll check it out. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That removal needs consensus to go, but remember the FA reviewers will be looking for NPOV, not a hagiography. If they think the article's unbalanced (and certainly "Wacko Jacko" is a notable phenomenon), they'll fail it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that is interesting. It's hard to come up with a "fair" article on someone who's been as controversial and polarizing a figure as Michael Jackson has been in his career. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Realist, I'm glad you did, I just added discussion on Michael's talk page about those sections I've edited and have since been reverted back. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Realist, Michael joined the Jackson Brothers in 1964 as a background instrumentalist. He didn't make his singing debut with his brothers until sometime around 1966, in which afterwards the boys' father Joe decided to train them for a professional career. I don't know if Michael became the "lead singer" of the group, I'm guessing in some levels the Jackson brothers all shared lead, especially Michael and Jermaine, so it's safe to say that while early Jackson 5 material have had separate leads, Michael took the bulk of it and by the end of 1970, Michael was the lead singer, this is probably the most controversial side of the article. Michael's professional career didn't even start at FIVE, that's where confusion abounds especially when the media - and Michael himself - mentions how long he's been in show business. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also you have to realize Motown Records really run a game on the Jacksons' public relations promotional blitz. The same time that Berry Gordy and Suzanne de Passe run a rumor that Gordy and Diana Ross discovered them when in fact that wasn't true. Also Michael's age went from eleven to eight and that he made his professional debut at five. Michael himself has continued to say "I've been performing in front of millions of people since the age of five" when he wasn't really singing professionally until...eleven even though you can make a case after the Jacksons signed their first record contract with Steeltown Records that he made his debut at nine, ten years old. He was nine on the Jackson 5's legendary audition tape. Plus though Michael has confirmed he began singing at five during school recitals (and he possibly could've been singing in the Kingdom Hall too at the same time) but he was playing in the background of his brothers' group alongside Marlon. Michael Jackson has been performing professionally for FORTY years (1968- ), not forty-five as erroneously stated in the past. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL

Yeah I see it. LOL BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I saw what you said and by what you said, I see your point but hold up, I'm about to respond back. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Micheal Jackson copyedit

I am sorry, but I mostly work on Geography articles (creeks, state parks), so I am not the best person to do a biography / entertainment copyedit. Have you tried asking at WP:PRV - several people there list themselves as copyeditors? The other option would be to ask the League of Copyeditors for help. Sorry again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Feedback stuff

Haven't got a strong feeling about it yet. Right now I'm dealing with what the references actually say; when I've tidied that up (and dealt with the flack), I'll think about positioning before doing all the template reference stuff. Gusworld (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, will look into the MJ FA nomination. With the peak positions, the possible disadvantage of your suggested approach is that I think it's harder to read the chart positions themselves if there's a superscripted number next to them. Given that more than half of them are cited from one site, though, it might be possible to link that from the column header, and then just add notes for the ones which are exceptions, which would be less disruptive.

BTW, I also don't agree that the date for the release of the second video doesn't need a cite -- it's a very specific claim for which there's currently no evidence. But it's perhaps not worth an argument on that point, because on reflection all the link actually does is demonstrate that there's a copy of the video online -- it doesn't support the claim that it's different from the standard video (or the date it was available). It's the usual "verifiability, not truth" problem, but I suspect the whole sentence could probably go. But I won't act in haste on it. Gusworld (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On a quick tour of the MJ article, the major issue that sticks out are a few sentences which still aren't complete (e.g. "His revolutionary transformation of the music video as an art form and as a promotional tool." in the lead. Happy to go through and tidy those I can spot (I appreciate that when you have to continually edit something as long as that, you get Wiki-blindness after a while!) Gusworld (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

reference

You need to close the reference with </ref> --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike

Hi, Realist, thanks for msg. I think you have done great work here, but I am still reading the page before I weigh in on FAC. Ceoil (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

MJ vandalism

heh, no kidding. That's how it ended up in my Watchlist in the first place, in fact, was because I kept spotting vandalism there. heh... Ah well. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson copy-edit

You got it. I don't really have the time to check sources and such, but I can definitely give it a copy-edit. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I see why this can be difficult.. it is hard to cover all of the analysis regarding themes and also still make it sound encyclopedic.

I have to say, I have gained more respect for Jackson's work from having to read all this stuff :D I remember Dangerous when it came out, but it didn't really strike me either way at the time. I might have to give it another try one of these days... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Question in regards to this sentence: While this preoccupation would continue in his future work, it would also be colored by various shifts and improvisations.

When you say "colored by various shifts and improvisations", are you referring to the more serious thematic/lyrical material of the later works, or are you talking about musical improvisations? Could you clarify this a bit for me? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I might not finish this all today, heh.. It's taking longer than I thought. On the plus side, I'm kinda getting into it now, heh. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I am going to leave the HIStory paragraph alone. It looks pretty good to me. Were there any sentences in particular that you thought need work? I was going to change it because I didn't think "conflictive" was a word, but it turns out I am wrong!  :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I almost asked you about the $125 million, because it wasn't immediately clear to me if it was a single year, or if that was a "tally so far." I will fix it so it is more clear.

Oh man, this stuff about the financial status of his music catalog is really complicated. heh.. That's not going to be fun! heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

When you come back, I need you to clarify what exactly happened with the music catalog and the loan.. So, Jackson owed Back of America $200 million, right? And then Fortress bought the loans from BoA, and jacked the interest rates up to 20%... and then Sony negotiated with Fortress? And what was the deal exactly? I know Jackson got the interest rate on the original $200 mil cranked down to a reasonable rate, and got a new loan for $300 million, but what did he give up? Sony has a conditional option to buy 25% of the catalog, and what, if Jackson doesn't pay, Sony buys 25% of the catalog and pays off Fortress? Or do I have this backwards? I am very confused about the whole thing, heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cool, I won't worry about it. Let me know if there's anything else I can take a look at!  :) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've only ever once uploaded an image to Wikipedia, and it was one that I took myself so the copyright info was pretty easy. I think I have a pretty good understanding of what constitutes fair use (it was ever-so-tangentially relevant to my Master's thesis), so I could sure try! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... that image is highly problematic, for a number of reasons. First of all, where did the individual images come from? Secondly, who put them all together like that? (putting them together is intellectual property in and of itself, although the copyright would most likely be void as it is likely a derivative work, without permission from the copyright holders of the original images) So we have no idea at all where it came from or what's in it, which makes it difficult to assert Fair Use -- you need to at least have good attribution info. Saying "It came from Flickr" is probably not sufficient, since most likely the person who uploaded it violated copyright when they did that.

I also have some concerns about the photo from an integrity standpoint. Since we don't know where these images came from, and since they've all been transformed to black and white, who knows what kind of chicanery was used on the images?

I definitely see why you want to include it in the article, though. I just don't see that it would pass Fair Use without at least having some attribution information, you know? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a little reading on the Wikipedia fair use guidelines, and I think I can make a case if we can get all the attribution info.

Item 9 from the Unacceptable Images section forbids "an image with an unknown or unverifiable origin." So that's out.

But, although Item 12 prohibits "pictures of people still alive," this only applies if "taking a new free picture as a replacement...would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image," and in this case I think you can make a strong case that no picture of Jackson taken now would serve the same purpose. Since there are no shortage of sources rambling on about Jackson's apparent changes in appearance, it should be an easy case to make.

So...We need the attribution information, and then I think we can make it happen. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me do a little more research... My current impression is we need to know either the names of the copyright holders of each image, or the names of the people who took it. Also, it's going to be sketchy as far as the derivative work thing, because the images were altered. I dunno, hmm... This is a tricky one! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I posed the question here. I am pretty sure it doesn't stand a chance if we don't have attribution information, and I am not sure for this image what the attribution info would be... If we can get that straight, though, then I think the outlook is good. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can do a little copy-editing. Which sections again in particular? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ha ha ha, nice job with the userbox. Okay, I'll poke at the copyedit, but I might not get a lot done today since I am busy with work stuff. I should be able to get some stuff done while I wait for code to compile, tests to run, etc. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a bunch of progress, yeah. Dunno where exactly it needs to be though. I noticed the guy below said something about it needing to be "structured like other biographies", do you know what he means? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

MJ redux

Hi, I appreciate that you are trying to fix items quickly, but the article still needs a lot of work. Unless the article gets a thorough copyedit, there is really no point in my looking at it again. I'm not going to strike my oppose until the organization has been changed to match other biographies and the prose has been massaged by an excellent writer. When both of these have taken place, then let me know and I'll revisit my comments. Karanacs (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you might want to take another look at Mariah Carey. It is organized in a chronological manner, and the biographical information is interspersed with information about her albums and their reception. This would be a fine way of reorganizing the Michael Jackson article. Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Even if the article fails this time, that doesn't mean that it can't be nominated again. Continue working on it (I know it is more difficult for you as a non-native speaker) and the article will get there. You've already got the content, which is often the hardest point, now it's just a method of organization and prose. Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I certainly didn't mean to ignore a question! Yes, go ahead and integrate; that would make the article a lot stronger. Karanacs (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Spammer

I wouldn't normally block without warning but this could be a serious BLP issue, and I've asked her to seek help if she needs it. Watching her page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well she's stopped for now, but I will keep an eye on her edits. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm too well-tired at present to c/e MJ, but I may have the energy tomorrow. I'll put it on my todo list. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just timing. Yours was marginally before mine, so I reverted you rather than him. Page is protected, however. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

MJ

Yeah, it's been a busy Wiki day. I'm going to do some more work on copy-editing the MJ article now. Gusworld (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

See you're going through the edits, which should give us plenty to chat about. As you've taken out the expand tag, I hope you're planning on adding some copy regarding the LWMJ doco, as that is clearly something that would need to be in there. Taking out a tag purely because you don't want the article to fail isn't addressing the problem. I'd like to see the article get FA too, but that means dealing with the issues that come up.

Regarding the Grammy ratings, which year has since outrated the show? (I can't find anything in my copy of Taraborrelli about the ratings at all, let alone saying which show ultimately beat the 1984 broadcast.) Gusworld (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the 2003 UK edition, which I don't think is markedly different to the 2004 US edition (if at all). The section on the Grammys appears the same as the original 1991 version though. In any event, mentioning which broadcast beat 1984 would be a good idea for precision's sake. Gusworld (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing a nomination

Hi Realist2. There is actually a process you should follow to withdraw an FA nomination. In the future if this happens, just make a statement in bold at the top of the nomination page (but below where you put your nomination statement) saying that you would like to withdraw the nomination. Then don't do anything else - there is a process that a few of the regulars have to run that will actually withdraw it. I'll take care of this for now, but wanted to warn you for the future. Good luck on improving the article, and I hope we see it back at FAC in a few months in a bit better shape. Karanacs (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Article status and fair-use pictures

Thanks for informing me of the article's status, I'll try to improve it when I'm next on Wiki. ;) And I don't mean to sound lazy, but I'm not really good with pictures on Wiki; I've never uploaded a picture (pretty sad, I know; I've been a member on Wikipedia for two years this month), and I have done a couple things to do with pictures, and I know a little about fair-use and copyright laws to do with them, but I don't think that I'm the right person to do that. I would have to read up on it more first to actually do it. Pictures on the MJ article right now are in shortage (it seems they keep getting removed; once upon a time it actually didn't look so bare), so I could try to search around for some. :) Ss112 (Talk here!) 09:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use and Michael Jackson pictures

I've done a bit of reading up and asking around, and here's what I think:

For a picture of Jackson since about 2000-ish, I think we are out of luck if we cannot find a free one. On the other hand, we might be able to make a case for older pictures, based on his change in appearance. To quote from the guidelines on non-free content:

Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing [are not acceptable fair use images]; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career.

I have made an inquiry as to what "almost always" means in the above text; after all, Jackson is pretty reclusive, so the odds of getting a new free picture are pretty slim. I don't think this will be an exception, but I want to understand this criterion better anyway, so it never hurts to ask.

The last sentence might give us some hope. While it doesn't strictly fit the definition (Jackson is not retired, nor is his notability primarily limited to his earlier work), it is difficult to dispute that a) Jackson looks hella different now than he did twenty years ago, and b) a picture taken today would not illustrate the public image that drove his career during the early eighties. I think we can make a case based on that.

Now, before we go to bat and try to convince the community of this point (which I am sure will be pretty controversial), we need to handle another issue: Attribution. With very few exceptions (and trust me, this is not one of them), an image that otherwise meets all of the fair use criteria will not be accepted if you cannot cite the proper attribution information. I think we have a shot with this one, because it says at the bottom who took the photo so we might be able to turn that into proper attribution. I imagine there may be ways to get the info for others, but we would need to do that first.

Unfortunately, I have to work on opening my pool today, so I won't be able to help with this. I am not sure what attribution looks like for a fair use photo -- I figure the easiest way is to just find one and look, so that might be the place to start.

Heh, I don't suppose you know anybody who lives in Bahrain who could take a free picture?? ha ha ha... Ah well, we'll figure this out. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking ME for fair use pictures....

I'm the LAST person you need to ask. LOL Wikipedia be getting on my nerves with that! LOL BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that, lol. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I guess. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's alright. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's good, I don't have to look at all that junk! BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I think I know what to do now, thanks. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jackson 5

Yeah, the article is all out of place IMO. I'll see about it when I get back from watching my niece play soccer. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what I can do with the article. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 21:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Kodster returns

Oh wow, thanks for fixing up A Day in the Life. My computer was messed up, so I had to go get it fixed, which accounts for my 3 day (?) absence. Anyway, thanks for doing the GA stuff while I was away, I appreciate it. Just wanted to let you know that I'm back and I'll be editing normally. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 21:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, let me just add "A Day in the Life" to WP:TB (Beatles) GA list. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 19:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone already added it to the list. OK, to Michael Jackson I go. I see that you've taken Thriller off the FA list. I'll work on that too, if you like. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 19:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a line from the MJ article:

In November 1982, the storybook for E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial was released and included the Jacksons Grammy-winning song "Someone in the Dark", which latter featured on the 2001 re-issue and won a Grammy for "Best Album for Children".

(Emphasis added for question)

First, when it says "the Jacksons" does it mean the band "The Jacksons" or Michael Jackson? Is "Someone in the Dark" Michael Jackson's song, or The Jacksons' song?

Secondly, "which latter featured..." What does "latter" refer to? Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's supposed to say "later", not "latter". I got it, but I don't think I can finish the whole article today. I'll do the best that I can, and I'll tell you when I have to go. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 20:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I finished the "Career" section, but I have to go for now. I might be back in an hour or two to finish the article. It's really good, and I think is almost FA-worthy, if not already. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 21:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Samples - Jackson 5

I think that one sample from the J5 days would be justifiable to illustrate MJ's role in that band - and "I want you back", to show his lead vocal ability, would probably be the the best. You'd have to update the download page for the sample to provide a fair-use rationale for using the clip. I would be wary of using more than one clip, because it would be harder to justify fair-use. Hope that helps. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The blessings of allah

		The Islamic Barnstar Award
		For being great in everything, I give you the most coveted barnstar of them all! Keep it up. 70.234.110.141 (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, very random, im not muslim though? Lol, this is still so great, lightened up my day. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither am I. I just picked the most random (and therefore humorous) barnstar and gave it to some people I came across that I thought were doing a good job lately. 70.234.110.141 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

MJ

Have added some more minor thoughts on the talk page, but will bring together some new ideas and add them when I get a chance. (Next section I'll look at will probably be Influence.) Gusworld (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)