User talk:Realist2/Archive 22

Infobox debate
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music. Thanks -- Klein zach  23:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

can you just
leave taurus please thats all i want :) cheers.
 * No User:Jamalar, no. — Realist  2  18:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Freedom
The track listing posted on Rap-Up is reliable. Rap-Up has been used in many past articles and has never been reverted, what makes this one different? SE KinG (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because no-one removed it that doesn't mean it's reliable. Some people don't follow policy, I do. Please wait for a reliable entity to report on the tracklist, not some obscure website. An official tracklist will be released within days, I'm sure you can wait. — Realist  2  23:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Scream/Childhood
Hey Realist, it is indeed nice to be back in touch. I've just finished checking the intro and made a few small changes. I'll get to the rest sometime tomorrow, most likely in the evening. If you're very unlucky, I'll do it on Sunday.

Kind regards,

—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oww, thank you very much. ;-) — Realist  2  12:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Realist2/RfA Criteria
Do you still use this page when !voting in an RfA?  iMa tth ew (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really know where I stand with RfA currently. There is such a terrible need for admins at the moment that voting oppose is almost considered disruptive. Simply put, the current climate does not favor those who are usually on the neutral/oppose side of things. Not that the climate ever favored such people. Currently going neutral or opposing isn't worth the hassle. — Realist  2  13:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless of course there is good reason? If you have a very valid oppose, it's always worth mentioning. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that you can leave just your signature in the support section, with no questions asked, yet doing the same on the oppose side could result in a mad war, that ends with it all being sent to the talk page speaks volumes. You only have to read the talk page of WP:RFA to see that there is a slight anger over opposers. Yet the is no such anger over chronic supports. I understand the frustration though, we really do need more admins. — Realist  2  14:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright - because you're recent vote in an RfA was supporting somebody with absolutely no featured or good content. I as well feel the candidate is ready for adminship - but I find it a little un-fair that you've opposed people for having no article work, and just support this candidate - with no article work. But if you're saying you won't use that criteria in the future - it's fine.  iMa tth ew (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that I'm not using it currently because the RfA climate is such that it's impossible to oppose without getting heckled or accused of bad faith actions. I will, as soon as possible, return to my usual pattern of voting. — Realist  2  15:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Musical genres
Sorry, looking at it, my edit seems to have overwritten yours- shit happens from time to time. However, it's a fucking mess, not helped by the various personality conflicts that have arisen. Some period of reflection would be welcome, which is why I suggested waiting for Wesley to bring forth his proposals. He is good at getting music articles to GA and FA, and has a good grasp of the requirements. His proposals may not be universally acceptable, but they will represent a reasoned starting point. I'd rather spend some time to get it right than repeatedly argue the details. -- Rodhull andemu  02:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm taking out my frustration on this. I'm seeing them back on my watchlist and it's doing my nut in already. ;-/ — Realist  2  02:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Powell
First of all, the information is not unsourced. The footnote simply refers to a source that isn't available for you to read immediately on the Internet. Second, you're right about the policies, however much I disagree with emulating a print encyclopedia. Wikipedia should be more mutable and not afraid of the possibility of being temporary. Professionally-written encyclopedias themselves do inevitably end up being dated and ridiculous with what turns out to be misplaced emphasis. But that's none of your business. You just enforce the policies. Aratuk (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell
Hey, please see my conversation with Classicfilms on his talk page. I think that the article gives the false impression that Powell endorsed Obama mostly because of McCain's VP pick. How about we say firstly that Powell said, "because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president"? I'm not sure whether you think this is too long or not. Khoikhoi 20:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think all the extra info about Muslims is unnecessary, just say that he didn't like the anti Muslim stuff and leave it at that. — Realist  2  20:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the bit about Palin? If you listen to the full endorsement you will see that this was only a minor reason. Khoikhoi 21:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree it was minor, he was talking more about the direction of his part or the campaign as a whole. — Realist  2  21:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stop it!!
Ive already said the situation on my talk page!. 86.29.250.4 (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not co-operate with sock puppeting genre warriors. There is no situation, sorry Jamalar. — Realist  2  16:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think if we just let it rest, we'll all have a quiet life, and I've told Jamalar that was his/her last edit. Since it's obviously a personal IP address, I don't have a problem blocking it if there's any more edit-warring. Chill time. -- Rodhull andemu  16:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, OK, guess so. — Realist  2  17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information on my TalkPage
First of all, I'm sorry for my bad english (English grammar is not my strong side).

Hello, thank you for the explication of the referencing and citing information that I someday added (for example "Dance-pop artists", I know, AMG is not inadequate source |in fact, I've just copied that list of dance-pop artists|). Sincerely, RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC).
 * I'm sorry I had to remove your material but it was unsourced. However, if you can show me the AMG source you used I can add it and source it for you. I just need to see where you got the information from. :-) — Realist  2  16:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I apprehend it. :-)

So my "inspiration" is from this AMG listing http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:8~T1 ... RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well looking at the list you originally added, you included artists like Michael Jackson. However the AMG like does not call him a dance-pop artist. If you want to use this source you can only use it for artists that AMG specifically call dance-pop. If you want to find other sources instead I can help. — Realist  2  16:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhm, well, thank you for offering to help :-) so I would like to add ONLY artists (with AMG reference) that have dance-pop origins, you know, *NSYNC or Britney Spears, and so on. And i would try get dance-pop references on official web (blogs, and other)... RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I added some using a slightly different AMG link. By the way, blogs are generally not allowed on Wikipedia as they are considered unreliable (see WP:RS), please avoid blogs and fan sites. :-) Another thought, are you quite new to Wikipedia? Have you considered looking at our adoption program? If you like I can adopt you and teach you what I know about Wikipedia? :-) — Realist  2  17:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * thank you very much. Hmm, I see .. blogs = it can have an Original research materal. Adoption program? No, but it sounds good! :-D. Yes, it'll be fine... little tour across the wikipedia, it sounds good :-) RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, I have officially adopted you. Basically I'm hear to help you, explain any concerns you have etc. I will also browse through your edits now and then, giving you feedback etc. We both seem to have passion for music too so we edit in a similar manner. I will set up our adoption center at User:RockandDiscoFanCZ/Adoption with Realist2. From now on we can communicate there instead of at our talk pages. I will watchlist our center page so anything you say or ask over there I will find out straight away. You should also watchlist so that anything I write will be read by you as soon as you check your watchlist. — Realist  2  19:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's sounds great :-). Thank you. and I by-the-way have one option (but I don't want to worry you) about the references. In Disco article is an infobox with Classical influences without any reference. Yes, classical music & big band music influenced disco in the background (you know, that horns and strings that sounds jazzy & classical) but in fact, there is no site (within discosavvy.com) but this source is so short and this is the problem - how to confirm that really classical element is in the disco music without deleting this interesting fact? Because wikipedia needs references (wikipedia have been builded on facts & references). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will reply to this on our adoption page. :-) — Realist  2  21:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. :-) RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

help me
the backstreet boys album's ( Black and blue ) sale 20 million albums worldwide http://limferdi.blogspot.com/2007/12/tribute-to-backstreet-boys.html please help me in List of best-selling albums worldwide, I Can't doing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.96.110.3 (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but personally I do not believe the source meets the communities requirements regarding reliable sources. If I were ever to take that article to WP:FL I can say with certainty that I would be required to remove it and the claim. If you can find more reliable sources for the claim please let me know and I will help you. You should try sources by BBC, CNN, The New York Times, Fox News (so long as it's not for politics), ABC News, MSNBC, Rolling Stone, All music. — Realist  2  19:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

is this reliable source ? http://www.last.fm/music/Backstreet+Boys/+wiki. (Millennium) sale 43 million & (Black and Blue) sale 25 million.
 * No sorry, notice at the bottom, it's edited by some random woman. Not reliable, I'll take a look for sources as well. — Realist  2  12:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re. Honorific titles
I replied on my talk page.--Michig (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Scream
Hey man, I finally added the sound file. Sorry about the delay, it was surprisingly hard to track down an mp3 copy. Anyway. Ceoil sláinte 16:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers Ceoil, will fix it up. Merci. — Realist  2  16:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you are ready for a copy edit....but not this weekend! Ceoil  sláinte 16:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, I'm ready when you are :-) It's been at GAN a while now, they have a huge backlog though (nothing chances). — Realist  2  16:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dylan FAR
Realist, Thanks for your comment today. Marskell is now inviting votes in Dylan FAR. Mick gold (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Hi Realist2! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, weak or strong, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Your deleting my comment from discussion
I was serious about my comment. I have many thousands of edits in Wikipedia, and much experience with the guidelines. You are not free to delete comments from discussion, as you did in List of best-selling albums worldwide. If you do this again, I will take you to arbitration. 24.130.12.229 (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm free to remove any comment from talk pages that breaches WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM. Please have the guts to actually sign in, rather than use your IP to make threats. Since your updated comment actually suggests ways to improve the article there is no need for me to remove it this time. I would also remind you about WP:CIVIL Mr IP. Whenever you have the guts to sign in, like a grown up, I will happily communicate with you further. If you feel uncomfortable discussing this on wiki then please E-mail me. Cheers. — Realist  2  00:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I made that edit by chance, while I was not signed in. I've been in Wikipedia for several years, and have 10,000s of edits. I understand Wikipedia guidelines very well indeed. I don't appreciate your tone that an editor doesn't have a right to an opinion, if they are not signed in, and the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't, either.


 * You have NO right to remove a new, legitimate topic from a discussion page. It may be that my views conflict with yours. Deleting mine, which were well-founded, and not an attack on any person, editor, or even political stance, and which could lead to improving the article isn't appropriate. 24.130.12.229 (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your original post some days ago added nothing to improving the article and was your opinionated piece. I had every right to remove it, really I did. I don't appreciate your tone their, since you want to take me to arbitration over the removal of a talk page comment, lol, your funny. You have every right to your opinion, just not on my talk page when your using your IP to hide behind your true identity. Please do not communicate with me further until you have signed in, I will remove further IP posts by you. — Realist  2  00:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:DFTT ;) – Toon (talk)  01:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. — Realist  2  01:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No youtube?
I am interested to know where on Wikipedia guideline say we can't cite youtube videos as a reference. The Royal Channel is the official channel of the Crown. Copyright Holder (in this case, the Crown) has complete right to upload their videos to youtube. Citing the video as reference does not constitute copyright violation in any way. Since it is an official channel, it is considered a reliable source. --Da Vynci (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:YOUTUBE. There is no blanket ban on YouTube, it just rarely meets the requirements of a reliable source. Useight (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, everything has its first time. Now you see one that actually meets the requirement. The account of The Royal Channel is on the Youtube Parners' list, meaning the account holder is ACTUALLY who they are, in this case the Crown. The Crown is arguably the most reliable publisher on earth. This complies with Reliable source examples. Youtube isn't a place for unauthorized videos only, there are now many official channels of sovereign, governments, organization and corporations. Good day.--Da Vynci (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll notice I wasn't arguing with you, nor discrediting YouTube, but merely relaying information. Useight (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My response
Well this is a first, a Youtube site that probably does comply with WP:YOUTUBE. Let's cherish this moment folks! In all seriousness, I apologies for removing it. I see people add terrible Youtube links so often, as you can imagine, I've become a little robotic in my Youtube removals since I'm right about 99% of the time. You will also notice that I didn't remove the article content as I knew it could be easily sourced again. Sorry Da Vynci. — Realist  2  18:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, Realist2, lol, someone else still removed that reference. Looks like a lot of people are still unfamilar with the difference between official channels and average channels on youtube. I opened a discussion on the article's talk page in which our discussion is quoted. Check it out if you like ^^. --Da Vynci (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This Time Around (Michael Jackson song)
You could try a merge and redirect. I doubt that anyone would argue for deletion of a song that charted, even if it didn't do so well (of course, there are occasional exceptions). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BADCHARTS
I've noticed that you are deleting charts that are not on the list at WP:BADCHARTS. If you think there are charts that need to be deleted from articles, please start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Record charts explaining why. If we can get a consensus, then we can update the bad chart list and you'll get help keeping the charts out of articles.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oww, which one's did you notice? I might have made a mistake?. Cheers. — Realist  2  15:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Los 40 Principales for Spain.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see it, my bad. I'll reinstate that chart. Thanks for the catch. I believe that is a legit chart. — Realist  2  16:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for restoring the mention to the Spanish Los 40 Principales Chart I had reinserted at I Kissed a Girl. However, I see that, in your zeal, you also reverted my restoration of the U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Airplay position for that song. Both charts had been previously removed by a vandal. Am I missing something here? Thanks. 84.123.128.24 (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Those were not sourced, thus they were removed. If you can provide sources you are more than welcome to re-add them. — Realist  2  20:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say this, buddy, but you actually expect me to source the legitimacy of the U.S. Billboard Hot Dance Airplay Chart, no less?? And here I was, believing Billboard was the best known Chart in the world... Now I'm sure I'm really missing something here.
 * Yes, just because Billboard comes from America you still have to provide a source for you claim, a web link to the chart itself, so readers can easily verify the claim. — Realist  2  21:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, after reading your astonishing response, I think I'll just spare myself from losing more time debating here and restore mention to Billboard Hot Dance Airplay at I Kissed a Girl without further ado.
 * However, I'd really appreciate a clarification, if you indulge me. I'm truly puzzled about your position here. Are you're discussing the notability of the Billboard Hot Dance Airplay chart itself (as it appears from your reply above); or the truthfulness of the claim that the song peaked #1 at said chart? If option 1, then your next edit after reading this should be, submitting its Wikipedia entry to WP:AfD (with quite predictable results, I bet; then again, other contributions of yours like those expressed at the debate surrounding Ask for More lead me to suggest you a thorough read of WP's rules on Notability). If #2, you did quite a poor research before simply removing that information; a mere read of Number-one dance airplay hits of 2008 (U.S.) would suffice (not to mention that, as I said, I was merely restoring information previously removed by a vandal, not actually inserting it myself). So, what's gonna be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.123.128.24 (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's number 2, and a quick look at Number-one dance airplay hits of 2008 (U.S.) would be wrong since Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source. If you want to use Billboard charts please provide direct links to the charts at the Billboard website. If you continually reinstate the Billboard chart, without a reliable source, your account will be blocked. That is our policy, sorry. — Realist  2  02:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You must have noticed that I didn't reinsert it until I finish here, so keep your threats at bay, thank you very much. And your reasoning is horribly flawed for several reasons, namely: #1 Why did you limit yourself to remove one of the four Billboard charts from I Kissed a Girl, when all of them are "unsourced"? #2, I never said Number-one dance airplay hits of 2008 (U.S.) should be used as a reference by itself, but that it proves the fact it peaked nr. 1 at said chart because it happens to have a general reference at the bottom (did you even take the time to read it and check its "References" section, my friend?) What's next then, submitting all the Billboard Chart Lists by Year for lack of "sources"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.123.128.24 (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Every figure in every chart should have a citation that allows that figure to be verified. Do they all? No. Should they all? Absolutely. Reinserting them without providing the citations isn't a good idea, nor would it be a particularly good idea for Realist2 to go on a noble rampage of deleting every unsourced figure in Wikipedia.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want I can happily remove all the unsourced Billboard charts on that article, I just noticed your edit though. Feel free to remove the others if you like, you should, it's our policy after all :-). I would not trust Number-one dance airplay hits of 2008 (U.S.) unless there were sources to back up it's claims, any troll can inflate/decrease figures according to which side of the Britney/Christina bitch war they support. Yes, I fully support wiping Wikipedia clean of all unsourced info. — Realist  2  03:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I'm not very fond of removing true, easy to check facts from either that or any other article. Unlike you, I take the time to read and doublecheck them before indiscriminately removing them; especially when they happen to be sourced at other portions of the same article. Bingo! Yes in-deeeeed: next time, I friendly suggest you actually take some time reading an article before happily chopping info off it. That, and no other, was the idea I was trying to convey to you, young editor: the difference between an "ok" Wikipedian and a truly "great" one lies in your capacity to research, appreciate the whole picture, and solve troubles by yourself, instead of judging and discarding info in limine without the slightest piece of evidence. It'll take me less than 60 seconds to provide the sources that seem to be continously avoiding you; think all the trouble you'll save yourself, and especially others, by investing a few seconds to research before removing an easily provable fact. And next time, before saying you "trust" and article or not, read it! (Number-one dance airplay hits of 2008 (U.S.) happens to have sources - it really does! No, seriously, I mean it - it actually does!) Peace. 84.123.128.24 (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I watchlist over 100 articles, I don't have time to find sources after every IP.
 * I have got 12 articles to WP:GA and 2 to WP:FA, I've added my fair share of sourced content to Wikipedia.
 * I always read the articles, I still remove unsourced info though, I'm well within my right.
 * With my 12 articles to WP:GA and 2 to WP:FA I can "research, appreciate the whole picture, and solve troubles [myself]".
 * Oh and Peace. — Realist  2  14:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In general, I've found it a better idea to move unsourced info to the talk page. That way it is out of the article, but still available to put back for people who want to source it. - Mgm|(talk) 15:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been know to do that once in a while, when I'm in a good mood. :-) — Realist  2  18:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Cacarlo92
Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't too worried about his edits to the images since the discussions are still there, and there's no way there'll be consensus to keep the images. But it looks like this has been going on for awhile looking at the talk page's history. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ask For More
Your link to your supposed reasons for deletion of the article does not work. Reqluce (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * here. The twinkle thing must have an error. — Realist  2  19:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for notifying me. I'm afraid I don't agree with you that it should be deleted. The WP:MUSIC guideline says that promo-only work is generally considered non-notable, but that it might be notable if enough reliable sources exist. Taken together with the fact that it is not just a track listing and the work of a highly notable artist, I simply can't agree. Anyway, the speculation should be over. :)

Some say notability is not inherited, but I think of it more in the manner of making Janet's discography complete. It's simply ugly to give every release their own article and leave one out or have it be the only merged entry. Did she do more promo-only work? If she did, you can merge all those entries in one article together. - Mgm|(talk) 15:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarifications, appreciated. I will go ahead and nominate those other article for AfD, I agree they should go. — Realist  2  15:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry
Hey, i'm very sorry for that i did on Radar (song). Sorry that was because i'm stressed out. I can't get out of this. Nice user page. Pedrovip (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Pedrovip
 * My reply. — Realist  2  19:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Reqluce
Thanks for the heads-up, I will be keeping a very close eye on him. His incivility is over the line, but he really hadn't been warned for it. I don't want to sound like I'm threatening a block, but his edits are heading in that direction. Useight (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my block log isn't clean either. Useight (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad Charts
Oh, ok. I'm sorry I didn't see that. I hope it's ok. :) Enanoj1111 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a notice though Realist, you are way past 3RR on Womanizer. I'll try adding a hidden notice into the article, maybe it'll at least slow the crazyness down a little. Cheers, Amalthea Talk 20:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fully aware, but the removal of info that clearly violates policy shouldn't get me into any trouble. If I had others to help me this wouldn't be a problem. Would you like to see the article deteriorate into a piece of poo? :-) I thought not, most admins have some common sense and can see I'm doing the correct thing. Since when did an army of trolls win by using 3RR as their weapon? I think not. — Realist  2  20:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't count on it that every admin sees those chart additions as "obvious vandalism". And I guess I'm just not checking my watchlist as often as you do, I only beat you to it once. :) -- Amalthea Talk 20:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I absolutely would not count on a listing in BADCHARTS as a wonder drug against 3RR.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well seeming as WP:BADCHARTS has been the topic of the last few days, would you folks help me enforce it? You wouldn't want to see me blocked would you? I've had a clean slate for some time. Maybe I should sit this one out. :-) — Realist  2  21:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do. I'll check the article every hour or two for a while. Hopefully a few other editors will as well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Review Homosexual Transsexual
Homosexual transsexual has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Hello Since you are the person who assesssed and passed this article in the first place I am notifying you of this reassesment. Due to the outcome of a failed featured article nomination I have greatly rewritten, expanded, and simplified this article. I would like to know what you think now. Is it still good? --Hfarmer (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reviews
The review for Off the Wall is written by a member of The Roots, as I assume most of the others are. As he is not notable for being a music critic, you can remove them. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Your Page
u must be pretty devoted to wiki, cuz i would not even know where 2 begin making my page look like urs. Kudos, man.MaJic (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why thank you! — Realist  2  00:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

no prob...btw, could someone explain why my "this time around" page was converted to a redirect? it took me about 3 days to fix it up (before, it was just a one sentence page saying it was a song with biggie). im not mad about it, im just weirded out that it wasnt brought to my attention until i was notified that the image i uploaded for it was orphaned AFTER the fact. thanks. MaJic (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I spent 4 hours searching for reliable information on the song in the hope that I could turn it into a WP:GA. I could only find a small amount of info that could be reliably sourced. The article was never likely to develop beyond a stub. I consulted an expert on WP:AfD's User:TenPoundHammer and he advised that redirecting the good info back to HIStory was for the best. If you can find and source more info you should add it to HIStory. If we ever get enough info on "This Time Around" be can merge it back out. — Realist  2  12:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

oh, ok then. no worries. i have about 2 articles i created (both stubs) and a category i created (which has blown up to include over 200 categories), so its no problem. MaJic (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If we find more reliable info on it we will recreate it. — Realist  2  22:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Stranger in Moscow
Yes, I think that could apply. Nice work. Cirt (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Stranger_in_Moscow
Finally remembered you asked me to look at this, I think I've tightened it up a bit, but feel free to make any changes you think fit. Cheers. -- Rodhull andemu  19:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that's great cheers. I wonder what the last part is meant to symbolize, when they allow themselves to get wet. Cleaning the soul?, starting a-fresh?, letting go of fear...something along those lines. — Realist  2  19:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

bot request
Bot requests/Archive 23&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Jamalar
Finally seems to be getting the message. If she agrees to provide sources and go with consensus, I was considering unblocking her provided she sticks with that account, on the basis that she isn't going to go away and at least then we can keep an eye on her. One instance of her going back to her old ways would result in reblocking, and IP socks blockable on sight. I'd welcome your thoughts. -- Rodhull andemu  19:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a ridiculous idea purely on the bases that Jamalar has not actually spent any time away from Wikipedia, and has managed to continue editing via socks. In effect Jamalar has not been punished one bit for breaching many of the communities most important rules. The only reason Jamalar is buckling is because 2 experienced editors (one with the banhammer) are hawking over her ever move. However, I trust your judgment. Conditions would be that Jamalar cannot edit war, make alternative accounts or use an IP. If we unblock Jamalar's account, she cannot use IP's. Must be signed in at all times so we can keep track of her. — Realist  2  21:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I take your point that she hasn't been away, but blocking is preventative, not punitive, and I think it's better to have her where we can see her. If she is prepared to follow the rules, I think a final chance (particularly as she knows she is being watched) might be less disruptive in the long run, but that would be up to her. Many blocked editors have come back and edited without any trouble, once they've got it; others have gone to other Wikis and flourished there. She may well beome a useful editor, as it's clear she's young, but too keen. -- Rodhull andemu  21:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I've just seen this, which I'm not too happy about at all. I can only suggest that she is restricted to one account, no IP's and put on a Genre restriction. She just can't help herself. — Realist  2  21:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that does it. Blocked 31 hours since she has thrown away the chance she was about to be given. -- Rodhull andemu  21:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's good that you want to give her another chance, but the minute she thinks we aren't looking she goes back to her usual self, couldn't even pretend to be a good editor for a few days even. I'm sorry, for now we are just going to have to continue blocking her. A range block would be great but unlikely to ever occur. — Realist  2  21:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My Place
I have been searching for my place on wikipedia and since I am a obsessive Mj fan & Collector I think my place on this website is within articles related to mike but i really don't know where to start.  Gaogier How can I help? 00:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, personally I think his singles are in terrible need of attention and need serious expansion using reliable sources (no fan sites or blogs). I'm currently working on the song's off the HIStory album: "Scream/Childhood", "Stranger in Moscow" and "D.S. (song)" are the ones I've worked hard on. Why not tackle some of these? We also really need fair use music video images. Your good with images, maybe you can help there? Nice to see you back by the way. — Realist  2  01:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

re: message
They can all go back. I've asked Scarian to roll back the blocked user's edits once he is back online. I can't revert them because I will be 3RR if I do. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

BLACK OR WHITE IS A ROCK SONG
I don't understand you, there are mistakes in the page(michael jackson), for example, one part says: "Predominately a pop track, it also contains elements of hard rock and R&B". Where does it say in the cite web???? In the cite web says Black or white" is a hard rock song. I WROTE: "Predominately a rock track, it also contains elements of hard rock and hip hop", because the cite web doesn't say R&B, IT SAYS HARD ROCK. READ ALSO THIS ONE(ABOUT ROCK SONG :BLACK OR WHITE):

MICHAEL JACKSON SAID IN THE OPRAH INTERVIEW(1993) THAT "GIVE IN TO ME", "BLACK OR WHITE" , AND "BEAT IT" ARE ROCK SONGS. READ THIS

--Alexanderfriend (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, next to the audio sample it says hard rock. I have removed all the other info on black or white because it's WP:UNDUE WEIGHT on the Dangerous album details. — Realist  2  23:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)