User talk:Bookkeeperoftheoccult/Archive 2

Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 Peer review
You are very welcome - it was an interesting read. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know a few Janet Jackson song's from the radio and like them, but don't own any albums. Not sure if that makes me a fan or not ;-) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll respond here. Sorry I'm so late to respond, I'm extraordinarily busy. Anyway, I like to believe that I'm good at copyediting, and I've done a few for Realist2, so I'll be glad to help. Not today, unfortunately, but expect me to be on at around 14:00 UTC (Wikipedia time).
 * Hey, sorry I'm a little late, but I'll get to work on the copyedits right now. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo ) (Me did that ) 15:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers, Kodster (heLLo ) (Me did that ) 15:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the archiving (the template has to be removed) and the bot has removed it from the WP:PR page. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Control (Janet Jackson album)
wow! great expansion! It's looking good. I re-rated the album and gave a bit of suggetion in the talk page of the article. Very impressive work! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedian Survey
'''Hello,

My name is Brenton Stewart. I am an African American, doctoral student at the University of Wisconsin- Madison in Library & Information Studies. Currently I am conducting a study on the motivational factors of African American Wikipedians. I am asking for your help by participating in this short online survey which will take take approximately 5 minutes to complete. Please feel free to distribute to other Black Wikipedians. The survey will be available from Tuesday July 1, 2008 until Tuesday August 5, 2008. Thank you so much for your participation.'''

Survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=HlzQGQIRUjncj7O09zgy4g_3d_3d —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emelian1977 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind
I need to do some prose cleanup, and someone was going to help me cite the chart positions. It takes me forever before I feel any articles I work on are ready for a GA or FAC nom. Slow and steady is best, I feel. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and regarding Batgirl: I have my editing priorities, so I unfortunately wasn't able to address the FAC properly. However, I will do work on it in the coming weeks, and I will let you know when I feel it is ready for another nomination. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviews
Hi there, I just thought I would remind you, recently there has been a change in policy regarding peer reviews. Make sure you don't have too many running at once, I believe you cant have more than 3 at one time. Just a heads up, I saw someone get warned about it. — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 14:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks very much for getting in touch. Personally, I think you'd be better advised to concentrate on one specific article, and raise that to either GA or FA status. Once you've chosen a specific article, I will be more than happy to review it. LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

HI
AIM me :-) — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 00:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I made your day. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 07:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for correcting a fault on the List of best-selling albums in the United States i'm goin to look at this today to see more fake certifications. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment
I just saw your comment on a user's talk page regarding rape and I want to applaud you for it. I did not know how to respond to the user's disturbing admission, and I'm glad that someone did. You put your condolences much more eloquently than I could have. Thanks again for providing a sympathetic response in contrast to the largely neutral ones (including mine), and much respect. -kotra (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a difficult situation and I meant every word of what I said. Given the user's situation, bias is understandable, but at the same time should not be tolerated when editing articles. I hope things work out for the best, more so for the user's well-being than anything on wikipedia. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  23:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -kotra (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox
I didn't want to correct your post without your consent first, but the proper formatting for a user sandbox is User:CadenS/Sandbox or User:CadenS/sandbox (with / instead of :). With the : Wikipedia thinks the username is CadenS:sandbox. -16:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * lol, oops. by all means, correct it. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  22:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cherwillgrace.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Cherwillgrace.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 09:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:198.78.163.63
No problem. Doczilla STOMP! 19:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anita
Reply to your query: She was on TONS of Valium while here husband was giving blow jobs to all and sundry Independence Park. Jeffpw (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonder Woman
I've taken note of the great work you've done with Batwoman, Batgirl and Barbara Gordan. Wonder Woman is an article that could definately use the thorough and experienced work you contributed to those pages. Such an iconic character has languished in poor article quality for the duration of the existence of the article. Any consideration you could give to making Wonder Woman your next big project would be appreciated, as it appears you're one of the few who could do the job well. No need to respond simply and invitiation. -Sharp962 (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC).

Just a note of cheer
I noticed your frustrations on the Gay Icon article, which you have improved dramatically. Please don't let minor squabbles get you down. You're doing wonders, and are truly appreciated. Best, Jeffpw (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FA
I wanna take MJ to FA tomorrow, you ready with your article? Is Ms Jackson ready? ;-) — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 01:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, wait. Bookkeeper, are you taking gay icon to FAC? Will you let me give it a very in-depth review before you do that? I want to do the proverbial pre-FAC rip shred to point out the most obvious things that are going to come up at FAC. It's meant to help, not hinder. You may find it inconvenient, but my comments will be better than multiple opposes if the article needs huge amounts of work. Let me know if this is in fact the article you're taking and I'll try to review it tomorrow. --Moni3 (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sorting out the Themes section last night, appreciated. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 19:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar!
Thanks very much for the Content Review Medal of Merit, which I appreciate very much. It is nice to know my efforts are noticed and appreciated. Keep up the good work and thanks again, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Tips
See. This site has all canadian chart positions from the 60s. i'm saying cause your nominating janet, the source is reliable.--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Acrhiving E.O. Green talk page
Hi, Bookkeeper. I'm a little uncomfortable with your decision to archive the entire talk page. While the several new comments on the page were placed in older threads, their placement was topically logical and effectively reopened the discussions. It seems to me that only inactive sections should be archived and that archiving new discussions is not a good idea, but I want to know your take on it instead of simply restoring. Rivertorch (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Various topics
No; from it quick glance it looks pretty good and is definitely acceptable for a general reader who doesn't know anything about Janet. It just needs some tweaking. I'll try to help out in the immediate future (I still need to help with Batgirl). I'm mainly working on Michael Jackson because Realist nominated it prematurely; there's a lot of heavy work that needs to be done, but it's already at FAC so we might as well try and get it into shape. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's way too much detail for "Scream" in the Michael Jackson article. I get you two really like the video, but you need to consider what people reading the article who aren't too familiar with Jackson need to know. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could work with Realist to try and get the music videos section to say . . . three paragraphs? I think that might be a reasonable goal. I wrote the first "music video" section over at The Smashing Pumpkins which you can use as a rough template. Obviously there'll be more to cover, but succinctness is the key. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing the Michael Jackson article has become frustrating, so I think I'd rather switch tracks. Which of your articles would you like me to look at first? WesleyDodds (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An aside: some of this Comic-Con news is not reaffirming my faith in the comics industry. Flash: Rebirth? Kevin Smith on a Batman mini? My God . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm done editing for now; still have to get through the "Artistry" section (by the way, mind renaming that to "Musical style and performance"?) which I'll take care of tomorrow. Go ahead and take care of what I've listed so far. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, what do you listen to besides Janet? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Recommendation I think you'd like: Depeche Mode. If you've never really heard them, I have some songs to suggest. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My favorite Depeche Mode songs: "Strangelove", "Shake the Disease", "Enjoy the Silence". WesleyDodds (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do your sources for Janet Jackson's 1996 contract for $80 million dollars have any qualifiers like "solo artist" or anything else that might clear things up, because according to the sources I cited in R.E.M. that band was re-signed in the same year for the same record-breaking amount. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the sources I've found that compare their contracts to one another say Janet got paid 70 million and R.E.M. got 80 million:, , , so it's possible Janet's numbers got adjusted later in the year. Then again, The New York Times repeats the $80 million again a year later. Unfortunately for both of us, these numbers have never been officially confirmed; it's always "reportedly" in the instance of both artists, so we may never know for certain. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you may want to note in the article (via the footnotes; seems like the best way) that the estimated total varies from 70 to 80 million. The total given for R.E.M. has always been 80 million in every source I've seen, although I think I'll remove the bit about it being a record amount from the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, better way: say in the prose that the contract reportedly ranged from 70 to 80 dollars, and include one source for each total. I'm not sure how to work in the bit about the high-end estimate being the most expensive contract ever. It's definite that her contract broke previous records regardless of the exact total, so you could probably say that. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but even The New York Times is reporting later that R.E.M. had the highest-paid recording contract at the time. The problem really lies with the editors and fact-checkers at these various publications. I hate it when sources contradict one another . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Scream
I replied on Wesleys page regarding scream, lets swop the picture to the one you saw and write some more info on it, right now, before Mr Meany comes back! — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 00:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

E.O. Green School shooting‎
I've done a bit of editing on E.O. Green School shooting‎, not out of a desire to fix POV problems (which I knew you wanted to fix yourself), but for basic copyediting and to fix the wording of one sentence so it conformed more to the reference it cites (though I think this edit of mine incidentally eliminated part of the POV problem). If you're having trouble with your NPOVing work on the article, I'd be willing to take a stab at NPOVing the rest if you like. Basically I would just be changing the unsourced statement 'It was reported that King was shot because he was openly gay and sometimes dressed in a "feminine" manner.' to a brief mention of every reliably sourced motivation for the murder, with at least one citation for each. -kotra (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to you can start on it. I really do plan to get to it at some point, it's just hard for me to get the motor running when I start editing articles that have MOS or subject-matter I'm not accustomed to editing. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  03:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Unless you get to it before me, I'll take a stab at it sometime today or tomorrow when I get some time. -kotra (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A note of thanks
Booker, I want to thank you for removing the personal attack that was left on my talk page. I truly appreciate you having done that. Caden S (talk ) 01:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  03:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops
Booker, please accept my apology for having referred to you as a "woman", in a past comment. Forgive me please for I truly meant no offense. Caden S (talk ) 18:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Offense?! Ha! He should be honored. --Moni3 (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with Moni3, since I identify as a transwoman. *blush* The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  00:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

hello?
whyd u delete my section on mikeal jackson? Luke12345abcd (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC) i dont appriciate your tone,all im saying is that the article on him being a sex offender,should be seperate from his bio,and thus eaiser to see,Luke12345abcd (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Britney
I was wrong; you were correct. Horsemen4life (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Horsemen4life