User talk:Realist2/Archive 28

re: Sales Source
I'll look around for a sales source - perhaps Billboard has a listing or article somewhere. It actually kinda sucks that the Paul Grein link you sent me kinda has a "blog" setup — Grein is actually very reputable and reliable - he was a Billboard reporter and editor for years... I think he may have even written the "Chart Beat" column before Fred Bronson took over. Grein is obviously a professional music journalist I would think this column could potentially be a reliable source even though it has the word "blog" at the top of it. - eo (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

One question
If I think that one old revision of a article is better than the current, in terms of style and organization of images, what I should do? Renanx3 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just got online, I need to catch up on some stuff, but I'll reply here in the next hour or so. Best. — Realist  2  14:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not very much, if there is accurately sourced, neutral, relevant information in the article, you cant remove it. By all means shuffle the information about. However you cant remove text or images because you don't like it. If reverting to an older version removed valid info you shouldn't do it. Personally, I think the article has improved in recent days. What are you concerned about, aside from that one image? — Realist  2  15:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you know that I was talking about the Lady GaGa page? LoL Well, I don't know how to explain, just look to this revision; I think that, to date, is the best revision of the article – the images are correctly aligned to the text, the texts are well-written (...) And I really want it back. :(
 * I know that in that image is GaGa now, but there is something wrong with it, and I don't know how to explain. Renanx3 (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, but it's not that different is it? There is an extra images (I know you don't like it, but that's not a reason to remove), the images have been shuffled around, and a small amount of text is missing? If you don't think the current version is well written you can clean it up. I wouldn't let it get you down. The article is much better now than it was a week ago. — Realist  2  16:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But you think that this current revision is better than that I listed above? Renanx3 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they are the same quality, no don't see a problem with the current version, and I wouldn't say it's "worse" than the version you highlighted. — Realist  2  16:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If I could find a proof that this user didn't took this photo, it will be removed from the article and deleted, right? Renanx3 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you could prove it's a copyright violation then yes it could be removed. — Realist  2  16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There is other thing that I could do to this image be deleted? Renanx3 (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If and when we get more free images we can choose from the best. The image you don't like is quite useful, it shows her persona and personality. If we get other, better images that do the same, it could be swapped. — Realist  2  17:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's disproportionate – big and thin –, ugly, doesn't align with the text and bad quality! >:( Just kidding, I know that it doesn't work. Renanx3 (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Britney Spears
The source for the #24 position of "Circus" is still The Official Charts Company, the position has been announced by the official presenter of the UK charts, BBC Radio 1. However, the chart has not yet been published physically anywhere but will be on that web site amongst others from 7pm today. So the source was official and it will be published there in due course. You can listen to the chart live at this link BBC Radio 1 Chart Show TopopMAC1 (talk)
 * You have to wait until it's published in sources. — Realist  2  17:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I already put the link for BBC Radio 1.--Albes29 (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Jonah Falcon
I would suggest that you just ignore the IP. He is unquestionably wrong, and he will unquestionably never figure this fact out. So you would be simply wasting your time to try to argue with him. J.delanoy gabs adds 19:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted, cheers. — Realist  2  19:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

BlassFamily
Looking at things, it wouldn't surprise me if BlassFamily and Unwrittendrew7000 are the same editor. We'll know after my checkuser is processed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ekk, talking of checkuser, I've been bad :). — Realist  2  21:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that one made me chuckle a bit. I'm relatively confident that you are two separate people.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem so certain :D — Realist  2  21:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

New Lady GaGa singles
Hey Realust, can you please take a look at the new Lady GaGa single pages created after Poker Face? I'm not sure whether they are authenticable sources. I'm in the middle of editing all the single pages according to WP:SINGLE and don't have much time. Please will you? Pretty please? :) &quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I redirected the article on LoveGame. Personally I think there probably are enough sources to have an article on that third single. I've taken the album and singles off my wathlist, they are too hard to maintain. I'm only watching Lady GaGa at the moment. — Realist  2  04:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok don't worry, i'll look after the albums and singles. &quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Harry
In regard to Harry and how you attributed the description to a newspaper, a Google News search for Harry and racist yields 3,000+ results. So this is not simply one paper describing the term this way. I think the version before you attributed it would be best. Thoughts? KnightLago (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because Google news pulls up 3000 results for racism, that means very little. These news papers might just be reporting the perception of the public/the accusations. The Daily Telegraph blows causation to the wind and comes out labeling them racist, no if's, no buts. That's what we are looking for. Claims such as this must be attributed, we are dealing with a BLP, we have no idea what Harry's motivations were. All we can say for sure is publication X,Y and Z believe them to be racist. — Realist  2  21:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. We should let the facts speak for themselves. If we are providing the exact words that caused the brouhaha (and we are), then why do we also need to offer an opinion of the meaning of it? Its fine to note that various people, media, groups then criticized him for using "racist language" but we should avoid labeling his words ourself. He said what he said, our readers can make up their own mind about it without our moralizing. Rockpock  e  t  21:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Once you've got Michael Jackson to featured statues, BLP issues kind of become ingrained in your skull. :) — Realist  2  21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Charts
Then Explain Gimme More for the past half year...--Moairguard (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Go Fix It. — Realist  2  21:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No thanks if you have time to fix If U Seek Amy, You Have Time to Fix Gimme More. --Moairguard (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because I have time to fix every article on Wikipedia, right? *Rolls eyes*. — Realist  2  23:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"If U Seek Amy"
"F-U-C-K-me". I can't access MTV today. Please read this: Britney Spears' 'If U Seek Amy' Poses Censorship Problems For Radio. --Efe (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it's an interesting read, but there's no substance to it. The article is full of word like "possibly sensor", "might not play it". Clearly MTV is jumping ahead of it's self, let's wait and see what radio stations actually do, rather than add MTV spin. I'm really getting to the song though :D — Realist  2  01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for giving me a hint not to read it at all once my connection here is fine. Hehe. --Efe (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination
Hey, I know you're very familiar with the GA/FA process, so just a quick question for you. I submitted an article for GA consideration (my first one, after two years of editing) last night, and I was just wondering what the average turnaround time was before it would be reviewed. Thanks. Useight (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What article did you nominate? Turn around depends on interest in subject. Nice to see you BTW :D — Realist  2  04:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I nominated Nintendo 64. And, thanks, it's nice to see you around, too. Useight (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, games are reviewed rather quickly, however longer articles tend to take longer to get reviewed, no-one wants to do them. At a quick glace at the article, the lead is not long enough, you need 3-4 heavy paragraphs for an article of that size. Leads are very easy though, just write an overview of your article, you don't even need to source the lead (so long as it's sourced in the body). Just take the main points of each section of your article. There are a few formatting inconsistencies with the references. You need to sort out those citation requests. If you can't find a source just remove the information. In terms of time, I would say you have 2-3 weeks before a viewer looks at you article. — Realist  2  04:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, just try your best to get those sections sourced. Hey, your a great admin and editor, it's not an easy topic to start off on, don't worry about it. If you want me to review it before your resubmit it, just call me. Best. — Realist  2  05:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the plus side, I didn't have to wait two weeks to find out result. I'm going to try to pound out a whole bunch of sources tomorrow (it's after 1AM here), but I can't get started until I finish editing a bunch of documents for a friend. At least it's some side work while I look for a job. Perhaps I will take you up on that offer and let you know when I think I've sourced enough and get your opinion on it. Thanks again for both the assistance and the compliments. Useight (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Useight. Just want to butt in. I observe there are paragraphs that have one or no sources. I suggest adding sources to them. It would be highlighted in the GA review. --Efe (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips, guys. I think I'm getting close to my first GA. Realist, can I take you up on that offer to skim Nintendo 64 before I resubmit it? If you get a chance, could you compare it with Talk:Nintendo 64/GA1? Thanks. Useight (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll look through it and give you a full review within the next 18 hours. :) — Realist  2  01:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet, thanks. Useight (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you had a chance to look at the article yet? Or should I just go ahead and put it back up for GA review? Useight (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nearly, I'll get back you you in the next hour with the review. — Realist  2  23:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think nominating it for GA is a good step now. Unfortunately i wasn't able to consider the referencing, one of my strong points, because I don't know enough about RS in relation to video games. — Realist  2  00:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just pretty much did my best to avoid forums and blogs, of which there are many related to video games. I'll nominate it for GA and see what happens. Thanks for your help. Useight (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

M.I.A./Bronfman connection
A little while ago, you quickly reverted an edit to M.I.A., where it was noted that her intended marriage partner is a member of the Bronfman family. Though it came from an anonymous IP - mine - it wasn't actually vandalism; the guy is a member of the Bronfman family. Would it be all right with you if I re-added the information?  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 05:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly. — Realist  2  05:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool; just wanted to check and make sure there wasn't some objection I hadn't thought of.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 05:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dutch Top 40
Hi there!

I noticed you reverting my edits on "Circus". And I do understand, your reasonings are understandable, but slightly incorrect. FMC & Top40web are sites that post the Dutch Top 40 upon leak. That always happens Monday evening/night in the Netherlands. Radio 538 is the site that officially posts it, but it always updates days later. So it's basically just a shortcut. But I will rest the case, 'cause you'll notice by the end of the week, that the info I wrote above is correct. In time, you might even use the site (for chart reference). -- Luigi-ish (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unlikely, I follow WP:RS. Chart positions should never be added until the official source has produced them. It's just a case of being patient. — Realist  2  22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to kiss me soon
I think I scored another hit, I'm just waiting for the author to get back to me. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha lol, you've got me curious now, I await with excitement, my potential new arrival. ;D — Realist  2  05:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dammit, she's being too slow and ruining my timing and making me look like a fool! Curses! (Hopefully will have another image for you by tomorrow, if the owner will hurry up and change the copyright. Grr.) --Closedmouth (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, no rush. — Realist  2  17:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Poker Face
Can you please come to the Poker Face (Lady GaGa song) page. There is some screwup with the Chart procession and i can't figure it out. Please help! &quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What's wrong exactly? Seems fine to me. — Realist  2  15:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well ultimately i figured it out ...yeahhhhhhhhhh !!!! Smile.png &quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Harry va
Do you think it's worth me filing a ANI report against Harry va for his upload history, seen here. He's turning into quite the net negative. BTW, another user I told you about, User:BlassFamily, was blocked indef for his image uploads amongst other things. — Realist  2  22:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think an ANI report would be very useful, but you could go through his upload log and tag images as no license/PUI/etc. as appropriate. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I went through and got a few, I've noticed most people at ANI aren't very keen on weighing in on the image thing ;( — Realist  2  22:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all of his uploads are useless or harmful though. File:What You Waiting For.png was in principle perfectly fine per our current NFCC policy, and is used in an FA. He didn't provide neither license nor FUR, but I'd rather those were fixed than blindly tagged for SD. Of course neither fixing nor deleting them seems to change his attitude. -- Amalthea 23:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:BlassFamily
Since I'm not a crat, I can't do that myself, but I'll try to find one. If that fails, I'll copy the request over to WP:CHU. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I like IRC. :-) Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fine. Keep an eye on 'em, but leave them a bit of slack. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 06:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dividing a chart
Hi Realist can you explain to me teh division of the chart table based on year? If a song enters a chart in 2008 but reaches its peak position in 2009. where shall we place the song? 2008 or 2009? There is a confusion in "Just Dance" regarding the singles positions. &quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2009 — Realist  2  05:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you come to "Just Dance" and see whether teh division is correct or not? &quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks goods. — Realist  2  06:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still not clear. Some users say that the year when the song entered a chart should be taken into account, some say the year when the song peaked. Can we have a discussion at WP:CHART, the guideline doesnot specifically say anything. Cheers &quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at WP:CHARTS. — Realist  2  17:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy
You might want to keep an eye on this one. –  iride scent  13:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh nooooo. — Realist  2  17:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed your user page
Noticed some errors on it. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Mate, that gave me a laugh :-) — Realist  2  17:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * However you missed the other edit I made at the top of your talk page. Bwahaha. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Lol. — Realist  2  19:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unheard song of Lady GaGa
Are you sure that it's not notable? I think that is important to know how GaGa is being recognized, being invited to record a new song for a movie soundtrack.  Sparks   Fly  22:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we can assert the notability then sure, the Amazon link doesn't assert it's notability. Are Time Magazine or Rolling Stone etc talking about it, if so, then sure. — Realist  2  22:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazon is not a good source?  Sparks   Fly  13:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not for asserting the notability of the track. All the Amazon source does is prove the track is really. It doesn't assert why it's worthy of mention in the biography. If news organizations talk about it, notability will be asserted. —  Realist  2  14:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sonic 3 and Stranger in Moscow
Sonicretro.org is a very well reputated Sonic related site on the net. If that is not reliable enough, take a look at the Sonic 3 ending credits which lists Brad Buxer, Bobby Brooks, Darryl Ross, Geoff Grace and Doug Grigsby which all also worked on HIStory. Also, a quick look at http://www.musicpowers.com/cirocco.html would reveal, that composer Cirocco was working with Michael Jackson on the Sonic 3 soundtrack. A quick search on youtube would also reveal that the songs are technically the same just at different pitch and pace. PabloGS (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No the sites you are linked are not reliable, there is no such thing as a "reputable Sonic site". Your other evidence is original research. Look for comments in newspapers etc. — Realist  2  00:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The profile page of Cirocco does not fall under the category "original research" nor "reputable site" but would qualify very well as a reliable source and clearly prooves MJ's involvement in Sonic 3 PabloGS (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't, trust me. — Realist  2  01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, then give me a hand? :) Don't be stubborn, try to help me here mate! Mention it as a controversy, a rumor, help me prove it, ... There are probably ways to make this happen that go by the wikipedia levels of standard PabloGS (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PabloGS, I will try and look into this for you. Realist, I know you won't put it in any article until proof is found but help the guy look - I can verify to you that his information is correct even if he is having trouble finding a source. I'm also more likely to know what gaming sites covering that era you can trust - 80s and 90s video games are my specialty. I'll ask some Sonic fanatics I know. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
 * I happen to believe it's true too, but no reliable sources I know of have discussed it. — Realist  2  01:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk moved to: Talk:Stranger_in_Moscow PabloGS (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI re sockpuppet operation
Leaving aside the difficulties of an HRC FAC for the moment, an FYI regarding a confirmed sockpuppet operation that has run on a lot of popular music articles and that I see you ran into on Rock Witchu Tour. Alkclark and Dancefloor royalty and KM*hearts*MC and 64.140.0.3 were all the same person, operating in conjunction. See Suspected sock puppets/Alkclark and User talk:Tiptoety. Don't know if you've encountered this person in other music articles you work on, but something to look at unwinding if you have and to watch out for in the future if he/she returns. Sigh ... it's never easy, good thing we get paid a lot for doing this! ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all the names are familiar, the possibility of socking went right over my head though lol. Will keep a sharp eye. Thanks. — Realist  2  00:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It happens. An editor with obsessive and ridiculous minor concerns drove me nuts on Joe Biden for a couple of weeks until someone else finally discovered they were a sock.  I should've seen it myself ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page redesign
Hey Realist. I don't think I'll be able to redesign your talk page right now since I'm rather busy these days. Though, when I do have the time, I'll be sure to notify you. Hope that's okay. &mdash; RyanCross  ( talk ) 02:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. :) — Realist  2  03:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Boy George
Hmm. Not sure that currentevent needs to be there, it's meant for ongoing events with multiple editors piling in, and this will be a dead duck by this time tomorrow. Remove? We can always protect if too many vandals start appearing. -- Rodhull andemu  16:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, feel free to remove it, trust your judgment. — Realist  2  16:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Trout

 * You can't trout slap be purely for being a Michael Jackson fan lol. — Realist  2  20:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find it's illegal. (The Elfoid (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Hi, For the horrific titles page. I just want to point on that their is no RELIABLE source that points Beyonce as the Queen of R&B. She isn't even considered a Icon.

Also, Beyonce hasn't sold 75 million albums with DC (including her solo career). DC has sold 30 million albums W.W. according the RIAA and Billboard and Beyonce has only sold 16 W.W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.202.129 (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith
Hello. Please forgive the spam but since Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith is heading toward a very close decision, I'm contacting all editors who were in the "Neutral" section in the hope that they can take a second look at the RfA and make a more explicit recommendation (either way). Thank you, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Brace yourself for a vandal onslaught
Being on a weekend is good in the sense that more people see it; unfortunately it also means the kids are out of school. Be prepared to get busy reverting. –  iride scent  16:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Undid revision 264691075 by Renanx3 you've removed some interesting info
Like...? Renanx3 (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a look again? I think that I did right editions. Renanx3 (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well you've definitely removed information that I think would be of interest to a reader, but I'm not bothered. — Realist  2  14:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But what is that information? That she "She remembers singing into a plastic tape recorder to the likes of Cyndi Lauper and Michael Jackson as a little girl" – Is this? Renanx3 (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And writing her first song. Some of that info is mentioned in the lead so it should also be mentioned in the article body. — Realist  2  14:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But about her writing the first song I mentioned: "GaGa went on to write her first piano ballad at thirteen". Renanx3 (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. — Realist  2  14:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice of you
Thanks for the backup with the anon.ip in the Taurus shakedown --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable?
You know music, yeah? This band aren't notable, right? – Toon (talk)  20:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and congrats on the DYK! :D – Toon (talk)  20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the article doesn't assert notability in my opinion. None of the individual members have articles, they aren't signed to a notable label, their albums apparently don't get reviewed. No singles? No chart info? I think you could AfD it, I don't think you could speedy it though. Thanx for the DYK comment. — Realist  2  21:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I'll stick a big fat PROD on it. Cheers. – Toon (talk)  22:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Smooth Criminal
Hey, just wondered if you could check out the edits at Smooth Criminal. Unsourced information keeps being added, as well as links and a password for a media sharing site. I’m sure it’s being added by sock accounts. Just thought I’d tell you, because I’ve no experience with socks. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted it, I'll keep an eye out. — Realist  2  15:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be great.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :)  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 17:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Steven Hoefflin
Sounds like a great idea, I'll go and nominate it now.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 19:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD for Britney Spears tour poster
Interested by your CSD tag on File:Bsct ad.jpg, the primary promotional image for the Britney Spears' tour The Circus Starring: Britney Spears.

Seems to me that use of the image on that page is analagous to use of the poster image for a movie, which we would accept.

Therefore I've removed the CSD tag, but feel free to take it to IfD if you don't agree. Jheald (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What?!?
Why did you revert my edit on Michael Jackson's Thriller? All I did was highlight Bruce Swedien so that people could go to his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh cavan (talk • contribs) 05:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Chill, life goes on. Since I wrote the article I thought the name was wikilinked elsewhere in the article, thus I reverted, thinking there was no need for it. On a closer inspection the name isn't linked elsewhere in the article. Thus I've reinstated the link for you. Happy editing, don't blow a fuse. — Realist  2  05:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Record_Charts
A concern has been raised on the project's talk page. Please have a look. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)