I noticed you reverted (several times) changes made to sales of Janet's "Disclipline" album. I'm wondering why as Billboard just reported on up to date sales in this week's online issue. If Billboard isn't official, then I don't know what is!
Regarding your concern of the link being "irrelevant", those questions are up on a weekly basis and then archived (the archive link is the right side of the billboard page). Anyway I hope we got this sorted. PatrickJ83 (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the archive works that's fine by me, but if it can't be found in the archive we go back to the old figure. And yes I'm fine, I'm having a wonderful day actually :-). — Realist221:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm still gonna reassess it, I was too busy yesterday dealing with multiple sock puppets of User:Jamalar and protecting Womanizer to do anything serious. I'm busy most of today, will start looking at it tonight. — Realist211:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jamalar's IPs are 1) 86.25.51.x to 86.25.54.x and 2) 86.29.241.x to 86.29.255.x. The problem with these British IPs is they're pretty dynamic, so I want to avoid a rangeblock if possible. I'll keep an eye out and if there's still substantial socking, I'll do a rangeblock. His edits are usually reverted quickly anyway. Spellcast (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know! I need to update the Discipline album info. Need to expand the info on the tour then below that do a section on the label split. Feel free to help if you want. We could take it to FA since we will have quite a lot of info now. — Realist221:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LMP & MJ
every single sentece in that article has a source. just because you SAY that is in the book, doesnt mean its actually in there. all the yahoo facts are the same, but its worded in a better form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ-x3 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually know what the dispute is about (honestly I don't), I've just noticed some animosity between you guys/gals in recent weeks. At first I thought it was all joking around but obviously it is a proper dispute about something serious (in wiki relative terms). I'm generally not the nosy type to go looking for gossip, but since I see good editors upset, I should look at it. We are all here for the enjoyment stuff I guess. — Realist202:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And when the evidence is wholly otherwise? 03:12, 23 September 2008
I have no reason--none--to assume anything good from editors that attempt to strongarm others. My experience with you in particular has been decidedly detracting from wiki. I will reference it to my students at each possible juncture.
Dr. America has also tried to start an arbitration case against me, and accused me of bigotry. It's all a bit too surreal right now. — Realist203:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please stop with the personal attacks. I have zero problem with conservative's. Some of my closest associates on wikipedia are conservative and I have not once uttered a bigoted comment their way. You should really review my edits to the Obama talk page (archives now), you will see that I am a neutral editor. The fact that I show the world my biases openly on my user page is a good thing, it makes me more accountable for my actions. I do not however expect to be called a bigot, to be accused of making personal attacks, to be accused of editorial bias, or to have an arbitration set on me. Also, please do not come over here (probably from conservapedia) and lampoon our community as leftist the minute you arrive. — Realist204:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of conservapedia, I thought "your" (sic) community was supposed to be all of us, and will allow wiki's reputation to talk for me. Further, when one posts his positions in the manner in which you do, it is the farthest thing from bias awareness, it is provocation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. America (talk • contribs) 04:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite clear that all the comments I make on my user page, about politics or not, should be taken with a pinch of salt. They are a little tongue in cheek certainly, my whole user page is tongue in cheek. It's rarely serious. — Realist204:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had you simply taken the time to read the entry unprejudicially, you would have seen that I did not. The point, let me spell it out for you, is that wiki poses itself as if it is for "all" people, but "Realist2" betrayed that when he said, "...our..." community. I.e., he tipped his hand and, may I infer quite plainly from the interjection, yours. ~Doc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. America (talk • contribs) 21:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I (knowing nothing about the album) can't see what he's removing. I gave him a 3rr warning, which now I am not so sure I should have done. Please don't you revert either, then you would be in violation as well. Did you try engaging him on the talk page? J.delanoygabsadds03:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trolls and smear merchants
I wasn't actually calling anyone a troll or smear merchant...but did claim that someone was "trolling" (as in the fishing term) my history page to dig up correspondences I had with another user...and I accused someone of "smearing" me by linking to the correspondence and trying to attach unfounded meaning to my actions.
I can see why some might consider this harsh language, so I will try to avoid using those terms in the future. I just tend to get annoyed and therefore a little hot-headed when someone posts a private correspondence I had (although I realize edit histories make nothing truly private). Ynot4tony2 (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caden
I know nothing about Caden himself, as is normal here, but as you can tell, I would prefer him to realise on his own that "returning to the scene of the crime", as it were, for a victim, ain't going to solve anything. He may have unresolved issues but this is not the place for their resolution. I hate to imagine that he's winding us all up, but to be honest, if he's really seeking therapy here, that's a misplaced mission, as it is on any website. As regards WP, I really hope he'll try to concentrate on something that takes his interest. --Rodhullandemu22:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caden has spoken publicaly about his real life problems, I'm not sure I should repeat them without his blessing. It's clear in my opinion that Caden shouldn't edit sexuality articles and probably has a serious CoI. Thus I thing he should stay away from sexuality articles, be it enforced or not. Still he is a very good editor on other issues. — Realist222:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the past and work together
I know you probably think i deserved to be blocked rght now but we need to put that behind us and work together to help keep womanizer junk and copyright vio free! Ogioh (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will try, I'm staying away from that RfA now, you can't change or rationalize with people when they feel or believe things so strongly. Probably doesn't help that I'm a liberal nut. — Realist204:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please Stop
Realist, please do not speak for me on my behalf. You have no business to put words into my mouth. I mean no offense to you, but I never agreed to any type of agreement in terms of avoiding any sexuality articles. All I said to you, was that I understood your suggestion, but I did not agree to any terms. Although I believe your intentions are good, I'd appreciate that you refrain from speaking on my behalf. At this point I have not been contacted by any admin, therefore I have no clue what options are available to me. CadenS (talk)12:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caden has asked me to ask you not to speak on his behalf. I see he already asked you, and you agreed, so I trust this is resolved? Just a note of clarification. -kotra (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...leave it. Some fights are worth fighting; content-warring over an article that will be rewritten top-to-bottom in a few days when the single's released is not one of them. Sometimes, you just have to stop trying to nail jello to the wall. – iridescent00:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I give up. Besides, it wasn't me handing out all those warnings. I only handed out one, and I was watchlisting the article, not stalking him. I'm going offline, if you admins want to believe that bull shit over at ANI, thats fine. I await my block in the morning. — Realist200:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone doubts who's in the right - I can see for myself that he's treating blogs as a reliable source - but an article that by definition is about to be rewritten really isn't worth the hassle. I dare say anyone who cares will be looking on her website, not Wikipedia, anyway. – iridescent00:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem, I've removed myself from that situation anyway, after he accused me of stalking him, making him feel uncomfortable, calling him a sock/troll. None of which I did, and I know how trigger happy the folks over at AN can be. Unfortunately bull shit can stick (to your name) so it was best that I removed myself before anyone actually believed that shit. *Note to self, If I don't like someone, make up a load of bullshit allegations, make everyone feel I'm a victim, add in a few random links that prove nothing, and hope some of the crap sticks to my opponent*. — Realist213:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's all died down now anyway. I used Huggle for the first in a while last night and I didn't realise that there were talk pages listed in the feed hence the inappropriate reversions and vandal tagging I did. Phft. —— RyanLupin • (talk)13:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I've noticed that you've been reverting edits citing britney.com as a fansite. Please be aware that Britney.com is a SonyBMG/Jive/Zomba Records operated official website and is not a fansite. Zomba Label Group lists britney.com as Spears's Official Website. [1] Thanks! Save-Me-Oprah(talk)02:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was reverting on the grounds that the "fan blog" section of the cite was being used as the source, not the main reputable part. Since I've left that article for a few hours I already see huge unsourced additions and terrible MoS faults. Oh well, enjoy, it's all yours. :-) — Realist203:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust it me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone18:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oww, when you originally showed me the category these didn't appear, soory. They are excellant images though. We shall use them, cheers!! — Realist220:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect can be motioned to be semi-protected in the same way n article can, yes. Granted, one IP edit isn't enough to justify it. Wizardman15:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New connection
You never know your luck. As long as you have a wireless enabled PC or laptop it is always worth trying a connection. I recently spent two weeks visiting an elderly aunt and was aghast at the concept of two weeks without the internet. On the first night I switched on and prayed....and damn me I picked up the open wi-fi broadband from a Wetherspoon's pub half a mile away. It was a tad flaky during the daytime, drifting in and out occasionally, but in the evenings and early mornings it was fine....and didn't cost me a thing 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your post about admin-editor disconnect
I couldn't agree more with your post here. I've got a barnstar for saving an article after it had been deleted (DRV and SNOW keep 2nd AfD). The admin was still adamant it should have been deleted after 5-6 sources had already been added. VG☎00:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you, I would have liked to expand upon my answer some more, however it's late, my head hurts and my connection is slow. Also I have to explain this same thing over and over in every RfA I comment on. I might write an essay on it and simply direct people to that instead. — Realist200:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also read [2]. I don't completely agree with that assessment. There are a few islands of "higher-order" in Wikipedia. For instance in WikiProject Mathematics. If you want to see 3-4 PhD holders calming someone taking "Math 12", looky here. VG☎00:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up about Jamalars attempted trickery. I was trying my best to assume good faith, but I guess the time for that has been over for a long time. Happy editing! Templarion (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i edited the song a lot of times ago with the helps of the billboard magazine, so of course it is updated now like all the billboard charts, so do NOT undo my edit cos i edit the truth - do not mix up my edits with the vandalist edits! --Triancula (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supporters
You really should nominate yourself for adminship, cos more people look at WP:RFA than your user page. I'm sure that you'd have a lot more supporters if you had an RFA going cos you're such a great editor and could benefit from the tools. But not many people are ging to support your RFA on your user page if there isn't one! SpecialK(KoЯn flakes)15:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Realist; note that all this adminship canvasing will likely work against you in the event of an actual RFa. Just saying; dont shoot me (or, jesus, block me 6 months down the line!). Ceoilsláinte21:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I disagree with the above. It's not canvassing to discuss a prospective RFA on his own page, and he's not advertised it in any way anywhere else. – iridescent22:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never drawn peoples attention to it. It's on my user page and there's a link at the top of my talk page, that's it. I don't/haven't discuss it elsewhere. As I see it, I would be wasting the communities time by running a RfA if it had 0 chance of success. Infact this might be a great way for potential admins to way up their prospects just a little. If trying something different works against me, oh well, I appreciate that Wikipedia is quite conservative in the way that it doesn't like change. It recently occurred to me that I actually have too much of my own editing to do and only have limited time to help others with their problems. There are so many articles I need to write, so many socks to burn out, so many vandals to fight. Also I'm back at uni now. The last thing I can handle right now is a talk page like Iridescents. While I like helping people when they need my help, I have a lot of my own Wiki commitments. — Realist201:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear; I have no problem with it at all, and have already signed your book, and indicated that I would trust you with the tools. I'm just mindful the way some RFA'a have gone recently, and maybe thinking out loud. I have a lot of respect for you article work, and yeah, a page like Iridescents would be distracting from that. However, you have the temprement ideally suited to an admin, and would I'm sure do a great job. Either way; no offence meant, Realist. Ceoilsláinte02:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...Oh and another thing, there is too much incivility, RfA is not a "get out of jail free" card for nasty, bitter, hormonal criticism."
While I agree with the substance of the statement, unfortunately the word "hormonal" has a very strong negative connotation toward women. (Put it this way: have you ever seen anyone refer to a male as being "hormonal" for having a loud, shrill, poorly-stated, or unpopular opinion?) Based on your userboxen, you and I seem to be on the same (extremely-left) edge of the sociopolitical spectrum, so I'm assuming that wasn't how you meant it when you chose that word. Any chance you might rethink it?
(The quote itself, BTW, is 100% accurate. I've read some of those flamefests--Malleus', Giggy's, Oreo's--and I went into RfA trembling, to be honest. At least your oppose--and most of the rest, with a couple of exceptions--have been reasonable and well-supported. I appreciate your input (even though I STILL think you've got me all wrong--but then again, it would be stranger if I didn't think that).)
Wow...thanks! That was easy...jeez, if I'd known you were THAT agreeable I'd have asked you if I could persuade you to change your oppose on my RfA!! (I'm kidding, I'm kidding!) Seriously, though--thanks. Lots of people would have made that into a huge "my page, my rules, screw you politically correct hormonal female" hooraw--I'm highly-impressed by the fact that you didn't. Gladys J Cortez19:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I don't trust him, that's a nasty word, seems like a decent guy/gal to me. But if he were an admin I would only want to see him in the AfD area. There is nothing that makes me feel safe that he can work correctly elsewhere. — Realist215:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the reply (and if you feel badgered, please just reply "badgered" or something and I'll discontinue this thread). You seem a very reasonable editor and you clearly give a lot of thought to your RfA contibs. I've looked at your contribs and read some of your thoughts on the process.
As I see it, and I'm not sure there's another way it can be seen, RfA is about whether we trust someone to use the tools wisely or not. Editors have a wide variety of means they use to weigh this decision of trust, but that's essentially it. Almost no candidates come through that have experience in all admin areas, so we have to assess the likelihood of them getting up to speed on policy before stepping in with their size nines, so we look for experience in AfD, CSD, AIV and the like. But at the end of the day, no candidate can really be truly judged because they don't have access to the tools, erm, until we give them access to the tools, so it's always a leap of faith with even the most qualified of candidates.
This particular candidate has avoided some of the worst editing habits you've been vocal against (eg incivility) and I believe he's shown he can read, apply and even work on adapting policy. Your oppose implied you'd only trust him with deletion (I know, trust is my word not yours <grins>) but I think his work in AfD and elsewhere shows he can indeed be trusted to read and apply policy. With civility to-boot.
And, I don't know if you read my kerfuffle-inducing post at WT:RFA, but we're short on good admin candidates and we're short on admins fullstop.
Even more crucially, and honestly too, I see that actually you could have opposed this candidate on other grounds (number 7 I think in your list) so I'd like to widen this discussion from one about this RfA to RfA more generally - would you consider relaxing your criteria, to allow yourself to support otherwise trustworthy candidates that don't neatly fit into square holes, but the round pegs too?
(And no, I'm not asking you to support any old dross!)
Firstly, I'd like to agree with you that me most definitely do need more admins, I regularly moan about the serious backlogs at the various noticeboards. In all honesty though I don't see such a problem over at AfD, at least not on the same level. That said, I don't particularly feel the current lot we have are any good, rarely step up to the table when really needed.
I won't lower my requirements regarding DYK/GA/FA etc because I have already made some allowances for this and to be honest with you, it's not really that hard to achieve anyway. If the candidate had experience in dispute resolution I could have let him off the article writing thing (you learn many of the same skills from both), but he doesn't have that either. I generally never add all my opposing reasons together, I find it unnecessary to put the candidate down, thus one given reason is enough. — Realist217:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have made a few alterations to it, in theory it should allow more through the cattle ranch. I must be going soft. — Realist217:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Realist2, thank you so much for your words of support, kindness, and your trust in me. My request for Adminship has been closed, and the support the community has shown will be with me forever. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am, and all I can tell you is this: I shall try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, please tell me! :) If you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you are welcome to ask, and I shall do my very best.
Realist2, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, SpencerT♦C02:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than use a template, i considered a small personal message would be more appropriate. To put in simple your behaviour on this page has fallen a long way short of the civil behaviour expected of wikipedia editors. If you wish to continue the discussion properly you will need to tone down the rudeness, insults, general poor tone of some of your comments and stop the false claims of consensus. I hope this will allow the discussions to continue in a more productive manner. --neon whitetalk11:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not once directed an insult at any user, though some, over sensitive editors assume I was talking about them. Then we have others who just like to cry victim. You need to re-read civility if you think my comments have fallen "way short" of WP:Civility. Oh and I won't "stop the false claims of consensus" either, there was a consensus before the actual implementation. Please take your agenda elsewhere, no need to try and silence those you disagree with. Cheers. — Realist212:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfA thanks
Hello Realist2. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗00:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I started copy editing but thought I would leave the rest for the GA reviewer to pick over. I'm off to bed too. Night Rod. — Realist201:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Realist, thank you for your support in my RfA. It meant a lot, as I admire all of the work you've done in your chosen field (the Jackson articles). This an extremely well known subject, so bringing an article to FA status in that field is very hard work. Thanks again, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! I also noticed that you originally voted neutral. If any of the neutral-ness that made that happen can be avoided by a message from you, to me, at any time - please, let me know :). All the best, Ale_Jrbtalk20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Xymmax RfA
Thanks for taking the time to review my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciate the fact that you took the time to evaluate my contributions, and provide me with important feedback. Even though my RfA was successful, I intend to take your advice and do some significant article work as well. All the best, XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done05:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-_Good_pic.jpg)
