Hi, Realist. Your message had me scratching my head at first, because although I remember creating "Do What You Do" a while back (since it had gone #1 Adult Contemporary and I was populating that category), I had forgotten about the duet. But I did create it, and only used the fact that it went #1 Hot Dance Club Play, and I had just created the other Jermaine page, as my reasons for doing so. I'm still learning about properly sourcing articles, and so I went back and added a reference about #1 Dance to both the song page as well as Jermaine's album page. As far as release date, I couldn't find any chart listings other than #1 Dance, so it may have just been released to dance clubs in the US. I guess it was the B-side to "Do What You Do", at least in some countries. Anyway, I don't know if that qualifies it to be kept or deleted. I'll leave it up to your judgement -- either way is fine with me. I guess it might not be notable enough for wikipedia, even if I remember hearing the song back in the 80s. Anyway, thanks for noticing that. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give that a try in the next few days (gotta get to bed soon!) but I'm not sure where I'd look for that. I tried discogs.com, and found different track listings for 7" vs. 12" and for different countries. In some locations the instrumental duet seemed to be the B-side, in others the vocal version was, and to compound the challenge Jermaine's album had two titles, depending on country. If you want to redirect the duet to either the album or "Do What You Do", I won't object. Just Do What You (gotta) Do (sorry, couldn't resist!) Sometimes songs are released to the clubs that aren't technically singles, right? But I don't know if going #1 Dance Club Play warrants enough notability for a page. I'll see what I can find and get back to you in the near future. Thanks, dude. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would too. I noticed you're quite an MJ fan (or active in many of those pages, at least), maybe you know of another person who might be able to confirm this? By the way, I was just on the MJ singles discography page, and "Tell Me..." wasn't listed, even under collaborations. But then that page had a few other issues as well, like "Scream" was listed under MJ solo, as was "We Are the World". But I'm not taking on that task right now. "Tell Me..." should count as an MJ #1 Dance, since he is a featured artist. I'll check back tomorrow. Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stay well away from that article, I think I know someone on wiki who can clarify it, he's good with old school MJ/Jackson 5 music. If we can clarify that it was a single, not just some song that charted off mysteries airplay we can add it to the discography and MJ singles template. — Realist207:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Tell Me I'm Not Dreamin'", if I'm not mistaken, was released as the b-side to "Do What You Do". I think there was contention to release the song as a single but Epic Records apparently didn't wanna release it though it did hit the dance clubs so in essence it was a dance hit but it was never released as a single. BrothaTimothy (talk·contribs) 17:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BT, not sure what to do, if it's a b-side then it probably doesn't warrant it's own page (notability issues). Unless it was particularly critically acclaimed (need proof). That said I lean slightly towards deletionism, if I were to nominate it for deletion the community could very well vote keep. I think we should do a similar think to "Scream/Childhood", although that was a definite double A-side. Thoughts? — Realist217:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what is the best course of action here, since I don't know how to prove any of a number of claims about this song. Whether it was a double A-side or not, whether going #1 Club Play is notable enough for a page to remain, etc. I'm pretty sure that if a song or its remix appeared on a 12" single, it could chart on the Club Play chart, at least that used to be the rule. If it turns out it was a B-side and you want to add a paragraph about "Tell Me..." to the "Do What You Do" page and delete "Tell Me...", that's OK with me. I'd do it, but I should ask for your feedback first. I've been spending too much time on here anyway, I'm starting to get frustrated by little things (not you, Realist, it's been pleasant corresponding with you), and I think I need a bit of a wiki-break. I'll check back later. Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well no rush, I don't want it deleted even if it is a b-side, i think the #1 position on the dance chart warrants a page. Hope you return soon. — Realist206:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there (I'm back!) and I made a few additions to the article. At discogs, all the listings for "Tell Me..." had the vocal version as the B-side to "Do What You Do" (both 7" and 12"), and the instrumental version as the B-side to "Dynamite" (again, both 7" and 12"). Except for one in Australia that didn't mention if it was vocal or instrumental. I feel pretty confident that it was a B-side only, which I hope answers that part well enough. Also, I added a quote I found from a book that speaks to why it wasn't released itself despite the airplay it got. The only problem is, I don't own the book: I searched on google and came upon a viewing of a page from the book at books.google.com. I tried to cite it as best I could, including ISBN, but I'm a bit concerned I may not have done this "officially" right. But hopefully the article is now good enough to withstand scrutiny (and I've got a few people who seem to enjoy following me around wikipedia, something I guess I just have to get used to). On a side note, I'd like to create a page for the #2 pop / #1 AC song "Yes, I'm Ready" by Teri DeSario and KC, but there is a page for a song of that title by LaToya Jackson that doesn't seem notable to me. How do you go about requesting a delete if it's not? I've never done that. Wow, long message, I'll try to be less wordy next time. Thanks! Zephyrnthesky (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you sourced google books fine, no problem there. I had to remove one source and fact tag it since it was a fan site. I agree it might be worth nominating Latoya's song for deletion, at the moment it lacks notability. If you don't want to get into all that your best bet is to make the new article for Teri KC here. — Realist214:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking that out, Realist. I'm glad the book reference is right. What's a bit frustrating is that I can't seem to find the set list for the tour anywhere that's reliable. It's on the article page here at wikipedia, but I know wiki can't cite itself. More frustrating is that I saw the tour at Mile High Stadium and still have the program, but the set list isn't in there, just a bunch of 80s pictures of the brothers. Well, the article is much improved now, which is what's most important. And I'll probably create the "Yes I'm Ready" page where you suggested, so thanks for that too. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For AfDs, I would think around a month or so should pass before any re-nom. Ones that are quickly re-nommed are generally frowned upon. Wizardman17:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re: The Supremes.
Very nice work! Two things I noticed, though:
The "New Supremes" were never officially known as the "New Supremes." It was a marketing term more than anything; the official group name was just "The Supremes" you might want to slide an "unofficially" into that relevant sentence in the lead.
I don't know that Jean Terrell left the group because of "Bad Weather"; according to Mary Wilson's book, it was more because the two of them were becoming estranged, and Terrell disagreed with Wilson's leadership for the group.
Cheers, feel free to make these minor corrections, I don't own any books or anything, still, glad to see it stay as FA. — Realist217:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changes to the Marvin Gaye introduction and subsequent sections
I've proposed a change to the entire introduction of Marvin Gaye's "about" section of the Wikipedia article, so to speak.
Notable for fighting the hit-making, but creatively restrictive, Motown record-making process, in which performers and songwriters and record producers were generally kept in separate camps[1], Marvin was able to prove with albums like his groundbreaking 1971 album, What's Going On and his 1973 album, Let's Get It On, that he was able to produce his own form of musical expression without relying on the Motown system inspiring fellow Motown artists such as Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson to do the same.
Then I'll add these things in the "Legacy" section:
Gaye's career has been described as one that "spanned the entire history of rhythm and blues from fifties doo-wop to eighties contemporary soul."[2] Critics have also stated that Gaye's musical output "signified the development of black music from raw rhythm and blues, through sophisticated soul to the political awareness of the 1970s and increased concentration on personal and sexual politics thereafter."[3]
We could do more but I'll start with that, and then figure out how to make the other sections look as if they weren't written by a high school student, lol. Also if you wanna add more discussion to the page, go here: Talk:Marvin Gaye. BrothaTimothy (talk·contribs) 18:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK made a few corrections/ pov changes, as long as its all sourced in the content of the main article body it's fine. — Realist218:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can do that, I could also add sources online if I can find it so the intro would look alright. But I'm nervous though because if I put this information up, it'll be reverted back, lol. BrothaTimothy (talk·contribs) 19:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you make sure everything you add is reliably sourced (you know what sources are good by now) either in the lead itself or the content of the article, no-one has a right to revert you. If they do they can be dealt with. Personally I source all the info in the content of the article itself and don't source the lead. Michael Jackson and the Thriller album have leads that are almost all unsourced because it's sourced in the article. Allmusic.com, Rolling Stone.com, TIME.com, etc etc are all very good sources and you will find lots of info. If people revert your sourced material let me know. — Realist219:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not happy about what you did on Michael Jackson. I was simply correcting many errors that were in that article. Please revert them, for I did nothing wrong. Thank you - --SwisterTwister (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the placing of one comma, the rest of your work was absolutely fine, I most certainly did not break a law. I was keeping it consistent with the rest of the article. It should be "Scream", not "Scream," . Please don't take it personally and try to assume good faith. Sorry if I offended you. — Realist223:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't respond swiftly yesterday (with studies and all). It'd be good if you could show me the exact IPs before blocking. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry for a delayed response - yes, sure we can work on this - we just need to be careful with the language we use. Some articles are specific to the Hot 100 and I also don't want to create confusion with any of Billboard's other charts, i.e. the Pop 100. - eo (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 are 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 (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
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
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July 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!
GA Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
No, It is not a joke. The album has sold 108 million. A diamond record in the US is 10 million sales. meaning that an 11X Diamond Record is 110 million sales. and as I said before: if all the sales where in the U.S. alone, the record would be certified 11X Diamond. does that answer your question? Altenhofen (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfA thank you
Realist2/Archive 19, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me. — JGHowestalk - 19 August 2008
Hi! I actually wasn't the person who contacted the Star-Bulletin about the Tim Ryan plagiarism case; I was just the first one to report it on-wiki. My advice would be to not worry too much about whatever you say, as long as you write politely and clearly. Don't be overly accusatory, but stick up for yourself—I gather that a lot of the writing that was lifted from Michael Jackson was yours.
You should probably start with an email to one of the contacts for the Times Online; of the listed contacts their Editor-in-Chief (online.editor@timesonline.co.uk) seems the logical choice. Provide the article title, publication date, byline, and online URL, and give a permanent link to the Michael Jackson article on the date before the Times article appeared. Include a couple of examples of the apparent overlap, and (perhaps) point to a URL where a more detailed comparison is available. (See a fairly pretty example at User:TenOfAllTrades/Aloha Dupe.) Indicate that you're one of the major contributors to our article, and note that you were pleased to share your work, but only within the terms of the GFDL. Offer to help with any questions about understanding our article histories and other Wikipedia-specific issues.
A good person from whom you might seek further guidance is User:Michael Snow. In the Tim Ryan kerfuffle Michael was the one who wrote the letter to the Star-Bulletin; Michael is also a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, and just generally a good guy.
I don't mind having a look, but I've never been the most brilliant at public relations. Ask nicely; don't make threats; be helpful; that's all you'll probably need. It's your work, and you've got a right to be acknowledged for it. If the editor's any good, he'll be mortified that one of his writers did something like this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you've done that. You've nominated the article Alfred Merle Norman for DYK. You can create an article that has more than 1,500 characters (around 1.5 kilobytes) in main body text (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables) and nominate it for DYK. Please follow Template_talk:Did_you_know#Instructions. I've to leave my computer now. I hope this will help you. :) Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A really interesting article. I've read about half of it so far, and it wouldn't look out of place in an article by The Times (ouch! :) I'm seriously considering reviewing it, believe it or not, which would be a first for me.--andreasegde (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, definitive proof that his plastic surgery had improved and the fact that he isn't in a wheelchair (tabloid bitch's) and it's been deleted as a copy vio. Fu*king great. — Realist219:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LMP
Hey I corrected a misprint the #16 cannot be right since the Chart quoted is The Bubbling under the Hot 100. It was 116 . I woudld love to say LMP had two Top 20s but she didn't Lights Out went to 34 and In The Ghetto never mad it to the top 100. Think about it don't get lost in the letter of the law. Follow my logic, think about it, I do not want a conflict or let us ask another editor.66.108.111.112 (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we leave Lights Out at # 34 since that was just changed in the last week then we can find a source for #34. I do care and don't want the article to be misleading about her career and chart success.66.108.111.112 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked about this before, I asked if we would be allowed to just show and enlarge MJ on that poster the fans were holding. Apparently that would be a derivative which we can't do. Your more than welcome to hold up a poster of MJ and get someone to take a photo. But you can't focus in on the poster specifically. — Realist213:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean actually formatting your sources so they are displayed nice and neat, using web templates. All the references on the Michael Jackson article are displayed very nicely and gives all the important info on the writer, title, date, publisher etc etc. All the references in the article you just pointed out above have nicely displayed references at the bottom of the page. Can you do it like that? If not I don't mind teaching you. :0 — Realist221:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I guess I don't know how to do that, I always copy it, lol. How do you do it? LOL I usually just put the reference symbols on whatever I get the info from. LOL :-) BrothaTimothy (talk·contribs) 21:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK you use this template <ref>{{cite web |first= |last= |url= |title= |publisher= |date=[[2008-08-23]] |accessdate=2008-08-18 }}</ref>
You must fill in each category. If you don't have the details just don't fill it in after the = sign.
First and Last are the first and last name of the person who wrote the wen source.
URL is the actual web link link you are using
Title is the name of the story eg "Jacko on his Backo"
Publisher eg BBC, CNN, ABC News etc etc
Date is the date the source was written on.
Access date is the date you found the source and first used it in a wikipedia article.
It's best to do it in your sandbox, when you have filled out all the details you send it over to the article and add it after the full stop of what ever line your sourcing it with. Try it on one of the web links in the Marvin Gaye article and we will see how you do. Once you get it, it's easy. Make sure you keep a copy of that template safe somewhere, it will go in my archive soon. — Realist221:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
← Or to save you both a lot of wasted time messing round with raw wikicoding; go to Special:Preferences, select the "Gadgets" tab and check the box for "refTools". From then on, when you want to add a reference just click the "cite" button on the toolbar above the edit box and fill in the relevant boxes. Trust me, you'll be glad you did. – iridescent21:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try giving it a go, the article is gunna need sourcing, we might as well do it right, that way you can get it to GA! :-) — Realist222:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title isn't majorly important, use the book title as the title. The main thing is you have a relable source :-) — Realist222:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go check the page, I've cited the web sites for SOME of the sources, it all came from the same site, but I wanted to let you see the bottom, lol. I can cite from All Music once I get the addresses to the pages right there. ;) BrothaTimothy (talk·contribs) 22:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. I removed the first name of that guy. It will only display in the source if you include the first and second name of the writer. If you only fill in one part it remains invisible on the article. As they don't appear to give a full name I just removed it as the reader can't see the first name anyway. Great otherwise. Try the others then we can start sourcing the other stuff. — Realist222:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that list is starting to neaten out, now do the other web links. If the web link doesn't provide the info just leave that detail out. — Realist222:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha yeah, it's always been an unofficial part of my criteria (I've only 'officially' had one less than a week) so I thought I'd make my thoughts clear on a user subpage :) I don't think my article building is quite as stringent as yours though ;) But tbh, I really like your article criteria, it encourages potential admins who can also write decent articles! —Cyclonenim (talk·contribs) 23:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What use is an admin who can't format a reference :0. But seriously, I think it is a very important issue. Hope your criteria isn't bloodied to death like mine. — Realist223:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily I'm still at the stage on Wikipedia where people know of me but rarely care what I do. Things like my RfA criteria don't get much look in ;) Fancy collaborating on an article sometime? I'm sure we can find something that interests us both. —Cyclonenim (talk·contribs) 23:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not, sounds fun. At the moment I have Thriller (album) at FAC, I've begun a couching process with an Admin and I'm moving home soon. So I'm VERY busy. I'm literally going to have to schedule you in, lol, I need to slow down. I'll look at your contributions and see if anything catches my eye as interesting and you do likewise. — Realist223:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know the feeling, sounds like a good idea to me. Feel free to get in touch if you find something you like, if I do I'll comment again here. Your page has made in onto my watchlist, congratulations! Haha. —Cyclonenim (talk·contribs) 23:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. If you want I'll help a little at FAC and do some copyediting here and there to speed up getting Thriller to FAC. After that, vitilgo sounds like a good idea to me. :) —Cyclonenim (talk·contribs) 08:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, will give you a bell if I need any help with Thriller. I think I can handle most issues for now. Get back to you about vitiligo soon. Cheers — Realist215:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little bizarre, yes, it needs a clean up but it's still a legitimate category. Fix the category itself if you have an issue with it. — Realist223:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems you got a little backlash at ANI. Are you familar with WP:AN/K? I don't use it to report anything, but it can sometimes be used to notify admins of something, usually without the drama that occurs at ANI. Just making sure you know of all possible options. Useight (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you need some pages short-term semi-protected feel free to ask me. I'll be around for the rest of the day. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, editors creating usernames to flame you. Let me know if it happens again and/or if I need to block or protect someone/something. I'll be available pretty consistently for the next 3 hours and then a bit more sporadically for the 5 after that (mostly due to Super Smash Bros Brawl). Useight (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
animum (talk·contribs) created a script to delete revisions. Problem is, there's a small bug in it and it's causing me to automatically reset protection on your userpage every time I restore a page. This will be fixed and I apologize for completely messing with your userpage protection log and history. --Maxim (☎)02:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, when this /b/ mess is over can you ensure my userpage is unprotected? I don't know what off wiki stuff is going on or whatnot but I'm just looking forward to things calming down again. Cheers. — Realist202:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If or when I ever get access to the unblock button I will happily trout slap an Admin, until then I'll just grumble in silence. ;-) — Realist202:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep a close watch on the page and will issue a 3RR block if necessary. For now it seems he has stopped after the warning placed on his talk page. Thanks for the heads up. Useight (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Realist. I read your RfA Criteria, and I think you should make two changes:
Many people have become admins after contributing for only six months. Therefore, a candidate should be allowed to reapply for adminship after three months.
A candidate must have 2,000 mainspace edits, and contributed to 9 DYKs (create/expand), 3 GAs, and 1 FA. Here you can be flexible: 6 DYKs + 1 GAs or 3 DYKs + 2 GAs.
I don't understand why people keep canvassing you to change your criteria. It may be stringent but it's your choice. It's not like you're going around telling people to heighten their standards.. —Cyclonenim (talk·contribs) 10:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My criteria already says that I would accept a mix and match of DYK's and GA's, like a pick and mix almost hehe. I don't thing my criteria is grossly stringent anymore. — Realist212:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to go with this ratio 9 DYK's or 3 GAs or 1 FA. I think all three have equal value and I'm prepared to do a mathematical pick and mix of DYK's and GA's. I still think these are high article writing standards, thougths? — Realist222:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are two ways one can get credit for a DYK. One can nominate other people's article for DYK or one can create/expand an article and nominated it for DYK. Please don't give credit for nomination. It should be 9 DYK's (create/expand) or 3 GAs or 1 FA. :) Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just come across some nasty attacks against you. Not much I can say or do about it except to offer you moral support - Don't let them get you down! It's not you personally they're getting at - it's their own personal frustration that they are unable to find an healthy outlet for. --Technopat (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not finished yet, but will finish up later this morning. It's a no-life racist 15-year-old from England. Don't let him get you down. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm going out for a few hours anyway, this is doing my nut in a little, I'm trying to work ya no. Can't we like move protect me and the article the articles I work on or something. — Realist213:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, including my two sandboxes (yes I have two it's sad) and their corresponding talk pages please (I use the sandbox talk pages as sandboxes too). Cheers. — Realist221:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. Hopefully, now that he has an admin right on his tail, it will be a little less profitable for him to try this. (Muahahahaha) Anyways, if you need something, you can ask me or, if you want a really fast response, try WP:AN/K, an "informal" admins' noticeboard. I know this has to be annoying for you, but I appreciate that you are not throwing in the towel. Cheers, and keep your head up! J.delanoygabsadds22:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note. I'm proud of the article, but I'm not sure what's worse... getting it to FA, or keeping it that way. My guess is the latter. Anyway, I guess congratulations are also in order for your Michael Jackson FA. :-) Hope all is well. Best, epicAdam (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to pre-empt any WTF from you: I wasn't singling the MJ article out here as any kind of dig at you; I tend to use the comparing-her-to-more-famous-people example quite a lot as an illustration of how Wikipedia differs from other encyclopedia sites, none of whom would consider her notable. Because MJ was being discussed in the thread above he was the first name to spring to mind. – iridescent16:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to an extend, although I don't think you will find many articles of a comparable neutrality, The Times cherry picked our article to give it a slight anti-Jackson feel for example. When it comes to neutrality, which is probably the most important thing when dealing with Mr.Jackson, we do it better than most mainstream publications. — Realist216:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are the odds?
I was just looking at your wannabe_kate stats and I realized that I have exactly 3 more edits to the mainspace than you. What are the chances that two editors with 20,000+ edits be that close right when I happen to check? Just thought that was a bit of fun trivia for the morning. Useight (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
