I see your building an MJ FAQ (nice idea), but "Finally, the article on Bob Dylan is 140kb and is considered one of the communities greatest pieces." is incorrect. I just recently went through the article and saw that it goes into very unnecessary detail (esp. the 2000s section) and still manages to be uncomprehensive (lacks sections like Musical Style, Influences, Legacy etc); I am considering FAR-ing it. Generally, it may not be a good idea to point to other articles for justification—apart from the fact that people may disagree with that article (as I am doing now)—since Wikipedia is always changing, the article you refer to may considerably change. Just quote relevant WikiPolicy that justifies the MJ article. indopug (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, jikes, cheers, ill take note. I was pointed to the Bob Dylan article myself my someone working on the elvis article. I took it at face value, saw the star and ashumed it was good. I should know better than that having just put the Supremes article up for FAR lol. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is quite large already, I'm not sure if it should be further expanded. But yeah, the fact that there is controversy involved isn't conveyed at all through that sentence. indopug (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you'd need PhotoShop (or something similar) for that; sadly, I don't have a clue. I'm not sure blackening that green shirt will work though, it'll as though MJ is leaning forward for no apparent reason. indopug (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well there always a chance she might become his vice president, after all she still hasn't made a decision on the matter. However I doubt after all these years being behind Bill she'll accept nearly the same role twice. Although it be great to have the supporters have Hillary Clinton on Obama's side and there's no doubt in my mind Clinton wouldn't be able to campaign successfully for Barack. K.H (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we can only hope. Hopefully Clinton realizes that so many of her supporters would love to see her with the title "President", even if there is a "vice" before it. :) Cheers, Kodster(heLLo) (Me did that)17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please change my retire templates to wikibreak till June 27th,2008.That's when I grad the 7th grade. I've thought it over.There's no reason for me to leave.Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs)00:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TMZ - Beatles
I wouldn't get too het up about it. If Snopes is not reliable, there is a ton of stuff about The Beatles out there, it just needs someone with access to the books to come along and sort it out. I'd do it myself, but I already have a ton of backlog. It should be a featured article, yes, but one of the problems with such a widely-read topic, everyone's got their viewpoint, and trying to keep it in check is nearly impossible. What I've done with similar articles in the past is to copy them to userspace, work on them there, then merge them back to mainspace. But as soon as the article gets FA, you can bet someone will come along and change it; that's life as we know it, Jim. There is an upcoming proposal for sort of "authorised versions" which is being trialled on the German WP and will soon start here; that will at least mean that readers don't get to see mangled versions. I'd chill a little. --Rodhullandemu00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've just looked at snopes - they cite their sources so are a valid tertiary source, like ourselves, as long as they don't misinterpret. They are not a Wiki, so presumably have some quality control. You can always go to the originals, as we do here. If in doubt, WP:RS/N is the place to go. If FA reviewers don't like it, trace & cite the sources snopes use. That would solve all the problems. WP:V doesn't imply the sources must be online, merely that the facts are checkable, even if you have to fly from Cardiff to the US Library of Congress to check a book- that's good enough. --Rodhullandemu00:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the hurdles for FA are intentionally high since FAs are supposed to represent the very best that we have. I've recently had Criminal damage in English law passed as a GA, and that was draining enough; I asked the reviewer if he thought it could go for FA (since in my view, it's not far off) and he pointed me to his own FA candidates- and you know how picky it can get. If I had the time, OK, I'd go for it. But at present I have other stuff to do. --Rodhullandemu00:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get stressed about it; there are few things that can't wait, and after my GAR, I'm not even thinking about tackling anoher major project at present. Too many vandals, still, although at present the worst pests all seem to be blocked, heh! --Rodhullandemu00:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've advised that he should not be treading on other editors' toes as he appears to be doing, and that he is likely to be reverted. I made proposals for how the issues could be advanced, but he didn't seem to want to follow that. OK. I'll just unwatch The Beatles and let you all sort it out amongst yourselves. It's not you, but I have other plans and my patience is exhausted to the extent that I may well block him for disruption, for which I would rightly be criticised, if not de-sysopped. Tomorrow. --Rodhullandemu02:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hello there. I got your message. I went directly to the article and it seems not GA ready yet. The music and lyrics is somewhat short and the background section should state how the writing process went through. Any little information on this? --Efe (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Before, I searched for interviews of Janet's Discipline but there were no information regarding this song. More internet scouring. =) --Efe (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are third part sources? How did I vandalise? I gave the official source of Bodyguard sales, Whitney's own site, and MSN Music site, a very reliable source for Whitney's debut album. How was that vandalsim? The old source didn't even state worldwide Boduguard sales, but the sales in the US, so I got a reliable source and many albums on that page have unreliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5 octaves (talk • contribs) 01:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said we can't use 1st part sources, but Barbra Steisand's source on list of best-selling albums is her OFFICIAL SITE. So why have you allowed it on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5 octaves (talk • contribs) 20:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my tagging of the Janet Jackson articles, I assumed when you said "our current goal is to tag articles and encourage members to join" and added tags to Michael Jackson's article that you meant to begin. I'll remove any tags that have information contrary to our final standing on the matter. K.H (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me to take my issue to the talk page, well here I am. Why won't you let me edit Thriller 25, I was adding that the album reached number 2 on the US charts after your comments on reviews in the US, very to the point I thought...??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takka (talk • contribs) 06:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand you message for me go to T25 talk page consensus..pls explain what you mean, or let me know why you keep deleting my edit, thanks, T.
I feel better already looking at that, ive had a crazy day on wikipedia. I finished an article, nominated it for GA and started the Janet Jackson wikiproject lol. On top of that ive done my usual vandal fighting. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 09:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for your opinion
Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article
Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language
You previously !voted (here) on what language to use at the Barack Obama page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially here) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Wikipedia's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there's no real reason for deleting at present. Since it's been edited quite a bit this year, I suggest you put a merge tag on it and see what response you get. WP:MERGE tells you how to tag it & set up a discussion. You normally allow a week then merge if nobody objects. Even if you WP:AFD'd it, it would still take five days. --Rodhullandemu18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
Giggy (talk·contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
For being there when I needed it, and for having the courage to think of what's best for Wikipedia in the face of adversity, and for nominating articles for GA, and for stopping vandalism in Wikipedia...(you get the idea), I award unto thee this noble Original Barnstar. I know that your superior Wikipedia abilities transcends such a humble award, but here you go anyway. :) Cheers, Kodster(heLLo) (Me did that)18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello R2 Just noticed some vandalism and thought I'd report the user to you. Although her edits to Peace_Be_Upon_Him_(Islam) have been dutifully reverted by User:ClueBot, I thought you'd like to know of the event especially there's a block-warning from you on her talk page quite recently. Thanks Peace 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if there's anyone who knows Realist2 better than I; after initially falling out over his comments on Talk:The Beatles, we worked together to get [[A Hard Day's Night {film)]] to WP:GA status. In between all this, he was hideously abused himself and nearly left the project because of that. While I may not agree with everything he says and does, I doubt he has either the sophistication or the need to go sockpuppeting, and certainly User:Kodster he is not. To quote a famous decision in copyright law "the parties are advised to chill."
This really is a bunch of crap, boll*cks, you name it. At least Rodhullandemu has some sense here. Let's remember, if/when this is over, it's gonna have lasting effects, especially on any future RFAs. Damn, this is just...I don't know, I'm at the edge of my rocker here,, to put it lightly. Me and Xp think that if more of this continues, we'll go to ANI and report him. Agree? Cheers, Kodster(heLLo) (Me did that)00:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly. It's not worth getting angry and subsequently blocked for. Just take a break off-line and maybe come back in a half-hour or something. Let's the folks at ANI advise and see how things go ... - Alison❤23:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. You and I both know it's bollocks. It's plain you spend enough time on projects you are keen on without bothering to pretend to be someone else, and I think this is a misinterpretation of enthusiasm rather than anything else. It's unfortunate, but nothing to get uptight about. My integrity is important to me, too, but it's constantly impugned by vandals & sockpuppets. However, I've seen it all before and don;t get upset by it. relax. --Rodhullandemu00:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am relaxed. Don't worry about me. I'm not sure about R2 though. This is the 2nd or 3rd time he's faced a situation that would make most editors leave. Stay tough Realist2!!!Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs)00:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do the best that I can to stay relaxed (though I'm clearly not doing a good job). I'm not going to look at Iridescent's page anymore, so please, if anything happens concerning us, could you inform me? I'm going to go back to what we're supposed to do here in the first place: editing Wikipedia. Cheers, Kodster(heLLo) (Me did that)00:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get the above heading into you!(not incivility, rather "motivation")R2 I'm telling you don't be afraid of editing! Nothing will happen to you and if anything wrong happens to you, you know other editors won't let it stand!Get back to editing!<march,march,march!>:)--Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs)01:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userboxes
What's the error with copying them? and sure, you can use em. It's kind of difficult to copy the code across here, so if you can explain what the error is i'll try and solve it; it'd probably be faster :). Ironholds06:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly also, I hate people saying WikiPedia is a joke. =) If RfA is an embarassment, its the people behind it (those who support and oppose) and not WikiPedia. --Efe (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and signed up for a new account, since my old one was deleted in its entirety. Multiple times now I have attempted to add non-POV mention of the fact that Mark Levin works with Hannity to set up the Freedom Concerts (a charity for the children of fallen soldiers) and uses his show to promote them.
The user who had an issue with me has deleted any attempt to add this fact, regardless of how I try and source it. He keeps claiming it's "advertising", and has even reverted an edit and sourcing from another user who agrees that the fact belongs. He won't take the issue to the talk page (like so many of his other edits).
I did lose my cool with you, and for that I apologize. I felt you should have realized the IP-address user was stalking me and making bad-faith reverts because he falsely assumed I was a sock-puppet, and lashed out when I thought you were talking his side.
Please take a look at this user's edits again. Aside from a single example, he has done nothing but revert my edits...many with no real justification. He's a stalker, pure and simple. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IP user causing all the issues on the Mark Levin page isuser:Eleemosynary trying to circumvent a permanent ban. Note the pages he is editing, the feuds he has immediately inserted himself into, the obsession with user:Keetowah, and the fact that user:Thatcher ran a WP:RFCU on this IP and confirmed it was indeed Eleemosynary. At what point will administrators take action on this blatant circumvention of a permanent blocking (for trying to "out" two WP admins personal information and home address, if you weren't aware.)79.73.12.169 (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now What?
First off, what just happened in the hours I was gone for school and sleep? Did Iri respond? Did you of kod take anything over to ani? Should any of us leave? <sigh>--Xp54321 (Hello!,Contribs)21:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm at least staying until The Beatles gets to FA. That's my main goal. After that, it depends...the good news is, FA is a LONG process. :) I'm gonna let Iridescent do whatever he wants, it doesn't affect me directly. Best of luck, tell me if you go to ANI. Cheers, Kodster(heLLo) (Me did that)17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this discussion, which you were involved in, has been restarted. Please take another look and try and get this wrapped up sooner rather than later. :-) Cheers, giggy(:O)12:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I took so long getting back to you, I've been a little busy of late. The UWC cannot be blacklisted as such as it's not the sort of thing that we'd put on WP:BADSITES, you may want to ask at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam Talk page but they're more concerned with advertising. As for Feedback (song) I don't have the energy to look at it right now, may be able to do so next week but I can't promise. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu13:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've nuked the article per WP:BLP as it contained unsourced material about a minor. Also, it was a bunch of hogwash from start to finish but I couldn't delete it for that reason. I've left her some advice. Thanks for letting me know. --Rodhullandemu21:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Jackson
Howdy! I asploded an edit you made recently to Michael Jackson because the cited reference didn't back up the statement. On the off chance that I have induced a dramatic miscarriage of justice or that you have a ref that can bolster the sentence, I wanted to give you a heads up. BTW, the cast interview was a great read, thanks, but the closest I could find related to the 'he doesn't write on paper' bit was an off the cuff line about MJ memorizing a bunch of music someone else did before coming in to meet the producers. If I missed something more substantive in the linked article, feel free to zap me w/ a trout. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I DEMAND A CHICKEN
Some IP added this to my talk page. I think it was in response to the now imfamous/famous "I DEMAND A CHECKUSER" section over at AN. I dont find it funny. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 19:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
