User talk:Bookkeeperoftheoccult/Archive 3

Bats
Hmm, I need to watch more of the 60s Batman series. Adam West was totally coming on to that entire library. I take it you've seen The Dark Knight already? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'm getting the urge to clean this up. I'm almost done trimming the fancruft out of the "other media" article so it can be merged back into the main article. Thoughts? WesleyDodds (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review/Janet Jackson/archive1
I've reviewed the article according to FA criteria. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that I would oppose the article's promotion in its current state. Thanks for considering my opinion to be of merit though, which is much appreciated. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See my latest comment in the peer review about chart peaks. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did some work on it before; I'll do another pass. It seems pretty alright right now frankly, but I suppose it isn't "brilliant". The Legacy section is the one I feel needs to be stronger and have more focus. Look at the sections at Joy Division and R.E.M. for ideas. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Put in the cover itself. Qualifies as fair use since the cover itself is discussed in the prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a strong enough rationale for including a Rhythm Nation image yet. Hold off on it. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't need to link to the Google Book Search when citing books. It's odd that that field exists in the first place. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes certain sections of a book are not viewable, as I have found when trying to do research. You can do without adding it to the cite book template. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I hope you're not antsy about how long this process is taking. I myself was thinking we'd be done around this point, but realistically we've probably got another week's worth of work to go, at least. The article's definitely A-class and it's fully comprehensive, so this is all just fine-tuning. It does take time, but I personally see no harm in that. My view is that we have all the time in the world to write the best article possible. I've had people push me to submit articles to FAC, but I never do so until I am absolutely sure the article I am working on is the best it can be. At the end of this, I hope you'll definitely be able to say this is the best article you can write on the subject, and that it will be the definitive resource for the neophyte and the hardcore Janet fan. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I grew up listening to R&B radio stations, so I'm pretty knowledgeable about "urban music" (God, I hate music industry terms) up through the late 90s. I prefer Michael over Janet (my first album was Off the Wall on tape), but her music is fine. Honestly, I have "If" stuck in my head right now, along with Blur's "Bank Holiday", which is a bit of an odd mix. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When reviewing I always save the lead for last, so I really haven't looked at it yet. Don't worry about it for the moment. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You do have a Janet bio listed in the references. How reliable is it? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a quick Amazon.com search and the results are quite poor. I don't think a decent bio book of Janet exists. If one does, it's out of print. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Try and find some reviews first. It looks like it might be a piece of sensationalism. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I should point out that like with Janet Jackson, I put off critiquing the lead of Michael Jackson last and thus never got around to editing it, so it's probable some work should be done to it. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am currently trying to tend to my own wiki-interests after neglecting them for a bit, but I'll go over the rest of the article soon. If you have any specific questions, go ahead and ask. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty close, but there's plenty of tedious fine-tuning to take care of. If I can get around to helping out a bit more, you can probably put it up at FAC at the end of the week. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article looks mostly ready, though I would consult Tony1 - if the article doesn't meet 1a, it will incur his wrath so to speak. You'd be advised to consult him as concerns the article's writing. LuciferMorgan (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at the lead if you watch this first. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it tomorrow night. The first paragraph is fine, as is the first sentence in the fourth paragraph. The second and third paragraphs should be completely reworked, and some of the details in the rest of the fourth paragraph probably aren't necessary for the lead. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I'll get to it late tomorrow night. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My first pass at the lead isn't perfect (it never is; it takes a couple of revisions), but the basic idea is there. Fiddle around with it a bit. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm unfortunately useless when it comes to editing media files. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you can just ask for help at the FAC. That's what I did at the Smashing Pumpkins FAC. I still need to go over the musical style and legacy sections again; I'll do that tomorrow. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; quite exhausted. I'll go over the article again a few times this weekend. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to take another run-through of the musical style section. Something's come up for me, so give me a day or two. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The main thing the musical style section needs is more effective summary of quotes. For example, look at what I did with Janet's quote about the Velvet Rope tour. Cut out the extraneous bits out of quotes, or if possible, summarize the point the speaker is conveying in your own words. It'll help the prose flow better. I'll leave that mainly to you since you have all the sources. Once that's done I'll do some more rearranging in the section. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Going back to this: "The contract established her as the then-highest paid recording artist in contemporary music, surpassing the recording industry's then-unparalleled $60 million dollar contracts earned by her brother, Michael Jackson, and Madonna.[51][65][66][67]" I understand why cites 65, 66, and 67 are there, but why is 51 needed? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We should be ready by the end of tonight. Have faith. In the meantime, as I'm focused on the prose you might want to ask someone else to go over the sources again to see if there's any last-minute issues. I don't expect there to be any, but it wouldn't hurt (and it helps avoid those moments in FAC when an editor points out some flaw that we should have caught earlier). WesleyDodds (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Last major thing I want to mention regards one of your msot recent edits. You don't really need to mention award nominations, unless the number of nominations is notable or if it's a major category like Album of the Year or Best Song for the Grammys (even then, that detail can go to the album or song articles).  Just stick to awards won.  Speaking of which, why are there all those lists for Janet's award nominations?  I say combine them or delete them. Still doing some cleanup on the article before FAC . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: "The Denver Post reported Britney Spears's first solo performance in 1999 paid tribute to a number of her musical influences, including "Janet Jackson's 'Black Cat' and 'Nasty.' (No, her first name ain't 'Baby.' It's 'Britney.' 'Miss Spears,' if you're nasty." I can do without it if the article in question is only referring to Britney covering Janet songs live. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'd say it's about ready now. Make sure all the categories and links to the page in other languages are alphabetized. It's not a major thing, but you might as well get it done now. Good luck! WesleyDodds (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit worn out from all the work on this article, but if you need help with another article you're working on, ask me in about a month and I'll be glad to commit as fully as I have to this one. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As time passes after Janet Jackson gets to FA status, what you want to be mindful of is how to integrate new material in properly and keep the article from expanding unnecessarily, because recentism is always a big problem. It's something I've run into with The Smashing Pumpkins; editors love to add every little new bit of info, regardless if is that important in the grand scheme of things or even if it meshes with the existing prose. Once this gets to FA status, remember to look at the bigger picture, and that way you'll be able to judge how new material should be properly integrated. It'll also help to reread the article periodically; I do this with the Smashing Pumpkisn article, and oftetimes I realize something that seemed important before could have details trimmed, or I realize how I can rephrase and improve bits of prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the fulfillment of all your hard work. I'll give you a barnstar when I find an appropriate one. On the topic of the genres in the Gwen Stefani infobox, it's not a guideline that subgenres are excluded. There's been discussion about this before, and it's been settled that it's more a recommendation. In fact, most of the band articles I write for list rock subgenres, because often they are more relevant for context. However, it helps to keep it broad with working with an artists that performs music in multiple genres, like say Janet Jackson for instance. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You are woman
Alright, so I was correct when I called you a woman. I bet Helen Reddy would be proud. By the way that link that was on your talk page was quite helpful. I learned something new. Caden S ( talk ) 10:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Guilty as charged. "Dude looks like a Lady" starts playing in my head... and now its stuck! Lol. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  10:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I was born yet when that song was popular. It's a good song though. Caden S  ( talk ) 12:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We're the same age, so probably not. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  02:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers
Thank you for all you help improving & promoting the Michael Jackson article to WP:FA states. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 01:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with music sources
Hi there. I am writing an article, and what I've done so far is here: Book of Love (album). Unfortunately, since it's an old album, I am having a real hard time finding good sources. There's no 'limited preview' books listed in Google Books which mention the album or its singles, nothing substantial comes up when searching on Thomson Gale's databases, and dozens of web searches have not yielded much either. Searches on Rolling Stone and NME did not bring up anything. Do you know of where I can look to find some sources for this? I'd be most grateful if you have any ideas. Thanks, — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 06:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. Sure, you can use User:Wackymacs/Book of Love (album). Out of interest, which college database are you using? I have access to Thomson Gale Infotrac and EBSCOhost and didn't come up with anything. Thanks, — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 06:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the second one is already used in the article. No worries though. Since this album was popular in the clubscene, I guess I'll have to go hunting for obscure magazines from all that time ago... I really know how to choose an easy article to work on, don't I? :P — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 07:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Bling Bling

 * Thankyou! yay me! The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  04:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit
The focus of WPP:COPY is to clear the backlog of articles that are tagged. You will get a quicker response by contacting individuals listed at WP:PRV. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 05:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy Edit - 48 Hours
Sure, I will take a look. If you can hang in there though, as I am currently away from home. Give me about 48 hours, as I am back home all day on Tuesday, and I will have time then to go over it. Hopefully I don't mess up your article too much. :) Silverwolf85 (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started going through the article, and should be done by midnight Pacific time. I'll let ya know as soon as I am finished. By the way, although I don't usually listen to her music, the article seems very well written, and I've learned a lot! Thank you for all the hard work! Silverwolf85 (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol. that was cool. :) My sister is a Janet fan, so I'll have to pass it along...Silverwolf85 (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, but I am done. I'll keep an eye on it throughout the rest of the process too. Hopefully I didn't butcher your fine work too much. :) Silverwolf85 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Any time! :) Pax85 (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Janet
Oh my god, that's dedication! I hope the semi-true part was related to the number of broken bones and that you didn't end up in traction!! You all better now? :-) Rossrs (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed. I'm not going to be online for long, but if I see you need help, I'll jump in.  You seem to coping though :-)  Janet's looking good, by the way.  WesleyDodds has done some nice work today.  Rossrs (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's great, isn't it? I just can NOT believe that attitude.   She's a Jackson for goodness sake, not an Osmond; her art is full of sexuality.   So her breast said "hi" to the crowd for a tenth of a nanosecond.....  It's nice to see someone with some common sense stand up for her so effectively.  Rossrs (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's an ugly attitude.  I think that the Superbowl Incident will eventually fade away, the way controversy does, and the positive things will be remembered.  It's just a matter of time, and I think it's already starting to happen, but the immediate reaction is to take that badly behaved celebrity and kick 'em, kick 'em, kick 'em.   Some people take a certain kind of satisfaction in seeing a distressed celebrity, and it was inevitable that sooner or later Janet would be in the firing line.   Think how many celebrities in the last few years have been vilified for something or other; it's become part of our culture.   Maybe it was just Janet's turn.   Rossrs (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't been hiding... never far away. :-) Rossrs (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Harsh Reality
Ok. I re-read the article. The person who states of the Jacksons having Native American bloodlines is an expert. That has had numerous publications and has been a great contribution to getting people with native blood to become interested again and explore their family roots. It's going to be hard finding more information on any of the Jacksons' heritage because people don't want to ask, are not interested, or assume that they are only African American when they clearly aren't by their physical characteristics alone. Which are not Caucasian nor African how can we ignore an expert in the field of genetics and history??Mcelite (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand. It's difficult getting any kind of information like that. There was one editor that kept trying to remove Halle Berry's heritage a little while ago when it is widely publicized that she's mixed. Sometimes I wish I went into journalism and ask questions people are too ignorant not to ask or just plain scared. Took me forever to find citation of Beyonce' Knowles native heritage.Mcelite (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply
It is not vandalism. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiArtifact (talk • contribs) 11:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Britney headings
Since you are a protector of Britney Spears too, do you find the headings to the paragraphs in her article appropriate?? It seems too wordy. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiArtifact (talk • contribs) 15:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

 * Yay me! The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  01:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I appreciate your contributions. :)  Besides, too often does such work go unrecognized.  You deserve it.  Cliff smith  talk  01:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Britney music samples
Just curious, what are your thoughts on perhaps adding back one of the music samples? Maybe "My Prerogative", something between "...Baby One More Time" (start of her career) and "Gimme More" (present day). Cliff smith talk  17:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

janet. table
I fixed your janet. sales table eventually. You didn't have a separate bar for worldwide sales. You were citing the worldwide figure in the US coloumn. Not sure if you did the same for others, it's late here. — Realist  2  03:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Britney review
Hi BKOTO, thanks for your note. I'd be happy to review Britney, but since it's a long article, it may happen in parts. If it'd still be of use to you then I'll get on with it soon. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny
It's Britney bitch! — Realist  2  00:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Janet Jackson
I have left comments there. What I observe, firsthand, is the improper placement of quotation marks, against logical quotation, and missing punctuations. Thank you and good luck. --Efe (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback enabled on your account


Hello Bookkeeperoftheoccult,

I have noticed that you revert quite a bit of vandalism. Since you have demonstrated that you have a good grasp of what constitutes vandalism, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! WilliamH (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.

Dissapointed Newcomer
Hi, I'm User:SkylerSlywchuk, and I'm very dissapointed in the fact that my COMPLETELY TRUE information about Michael and Janet Jackson regarding MuchMoreMusic's Listed was deleted. I will be honest, I was really pleased with that, and I feel completely turned off to adding information now. I seriously don't understand citing sources and stuff, so sorry but I thought I was HELPING! —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dissapointed, but undertanding newcomer
Okay, I understand what your saying. Thank you for being understanding as well, and thank you for setting the record straight as to proper editing. As such, I will do my best to learn the properties of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is actually the only website I think I will still visit/add to/ be apart of in a few years, so I will do my best. BTW, the name Skyler is awesome! THANKS MOM! lol

Query
As an unfamiliar general reader, how does Disintegration look to you? We hope to get it to FA status by the end of the month. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Skyler Slywchuk
I now know how to add citations. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkylerSlywchuk (talk • contribs) 08:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

janet.
Could you please provide a source for your accusations? Noble12345 (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Control (Janet Jackson album)/GA1
Hello there. I put the article on hold. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar - I really appreciate it. It is nice to know we are not toiling away unnoticed. Awadewit (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Endashes on page ranges

 * Incorrect (hyphen): pages= 45-46
 * Correct (endash) :    pages= 45–46

G'night! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 07:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson
Hi, it should be "have", so I "have" changed it :-) I like the sentence.  It summarizes an important part of the article and completes the lead very effectively.   It's good. Rossrs (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! I'm glad to see all your hard work has been recognized. Rossrs (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations for your birthday too! Quite a nice birthday present for you :-) Rossrs (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
Chamal   Talk 00:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy birthday, and congratulations on improving Janet Jackson's article to FA status. LuciferMorgan (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, you get Janet to FA and it's your birthday, spooky. — Realist  2  14:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Belated. And congrats for the recently promoted JJ. --Efe (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome. --Efe (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a rap sheet
I'm not sure what you want me to say. I wrote that to explain why I was objecting to content on petty criminal arrests in a couple minor actor and musician articles, even though the events could be verified. Gimmetrow 03:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we have many articles using mugshots? They're free, which people like, but they're probably inappropriate for the lead image except perhaps for people known primarily for criminal convictions. But for others who might have a section detailing a notable legal incident, using the mugshot as a side image has a sort of tabloid feel. Even the Mel Gibson article doesn't have his mugshot in the main article - and that's not even an obvious mugshot. Gimmetrow 21:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson FAC
Congrats on the FAC! I just noticed that it was promoted... Pax85 (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:User Page
Hi there,

Just a quick tip re user pages, you can have a look at examples of them add the User Page Design Center.

Thanks, The  Helpful   One  (Review) 14:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wardrobe malfunction
All that had been reported by mainstream media as wardrobe malfunctions. And, I'd prefer to go by that, instead of making a personal judgment. I am working on the poor little article right now (the first step is a research), and that's why I have put that in use tag. I hope tomorrow you'll have all your clarifications right there as part of the article. Fair? Aditya (talk • contribs) 10:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But, you see, only one or two sources describe wardrobe malfunction in connection with a "a defect in an article of clothing" (the phrasing was provided in the earlier version, and it was very unsourced). From what I have found so far, the most appropriate definitions may be those of more credible sources - Chambers Dictionary (the temporary failure of an item of clothing to do its job in covering a part of the body that it would be advisable to keep covered) and the American Dialect Society (n unanticipated exposure of bodily parts). Neither says anything about a "defect", and I wouldn't bet anything on it. I haven't got around to work on the definition, but by tomorrow I am sure I would get a proper definition based on credible sources. Fair? Aditya (talk • contribs) 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Your message
I'll extend the block for block evasion, but I think those genres s/he added should be restored because of the discussion at Talk:Gwen Stefani. If you think they should be changed, feel free to bring it up at the talk page. Spellcast (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Control
Hi, are you still working on control, is it nearly done? Looks like we have both had our run in's with Jamalar, no comment. — Realist  2  20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)