User talk:Realist2/Archive 5

re: Discipline CHARTING

All gone! Yeah, trajectories were removed from all song/album articles a long time ago. - eo (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob, if trajectory gets added back just remove it per WP:CHARTS and WP:NOT#IINFO. Later. - eo (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Discipline

All taken care of. DiverseMentality (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure of those. I visited the sites, and I can't read Japanese, so it's impossible for me to tell whether or not those should be as they are or combined. DiverseMentality (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:IP edits on Thriller

The protection expired earlier today. It was only set to be protected for a week. I've removed the tag now. --Onorem♠Dil 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There are bots that remove the protection tags from unprotected pages, but I'm not sure what kind of schedule they're on, or how they decide which pages to look at. --Onorem♠Dil 20:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

other wiki pages we can work on?

Part of why I'm not so heavy on editing this week has been over-working on the MJ stuff. I can't handle too much in one go, I need a break! Did make me think though...sometime we should work on some other stuff. I was reading over the Destiny's Child page today, and that and everything related to it is a hideous mess. So's Dio. Sometime you reckon we could branch out a bit? There's no one I'd rather tackle stuff with than you. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Swang/The Lady in My Life

I've added Swang to the Thriller sample list two times, and you've reverted it twice. Though my edit might not be sourced as it should, you, being a Michael Jackson fan, should recognize the sample right away. Once more, you can listen to the track here: youtube.com/watch?v=IFCY1RIZ-WA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.133.146 (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson

It is true that Janet and Michael are close, but it is a VERY real fact that she has made extreme efforts to distance herself professionally from Michael as seen in a wide variety of news interviews throughout her career. The personal life section right now isn't "complete" so feel free to add more sources as you see fit. I'll keep adding more as I find them. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I may do so by the end of today, I just want to make some final tweeks to the article. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for GA. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"AGAIN" "DOESN'T REALLY MATTER" "TOGETHER AGAIN" "SO EXCITED" "CALL ON ME" AND "FEEDBACK" should all be added to the article, unfortunately I don't have access to most of those songs, so if you do and you know how to upload them- please do. I'll work them into the layout of the article. As for the lists of number ones, the section isnt that large compared to other sections of the article, so I'd leave it alone unless a reviewer says something. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw you trying to get "just a little while". I got it working. As long as you can find or upload the audio samples and can easily get them into the article. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The sections aren't that huge and it keeps the article condensed. Plus if we are able to add more audio samples, it will smoooth out the sections further. If anything, there may be some "superficial" stuff we can remove from the section to condense it. Even with the word "era"- its a "maybe maybe not" kinda thing. I'd leave both up to a reviwer in either GA or FAC when the time comes. I definately don't support a split, but if you want to remove the word "era" i won't revert it.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

the review will probably take forever, but once I get to GA I'll go straight for FA. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 'Discipline', there are 8 sourced negative reviews and 8 sourced positive reviews, why is it that you've decided that there are 8 positive and 6 negative reviews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reqluce (talk • contribs) 17:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD its fine as is.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Jacko

I don't think it is appropriate for the lead, although within the article I think its ok, if properly sourced. If it was a nickname he assigned to himself without negative connotations (kinda like "J.Lo" for Jennifer Lopez) I think it would be different. - eo (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad you agree that all 6 videos were revolutionary, but I read both sources on that sentence and each refer only to Billie Jean and Beat It. It was those 2 songs that put MTV on the map back at a time when cable had to be commercial-free to attract viewers. Those started the MTV generation along with Thriller and I'm Bad, which happen to not be in the sources, which BTW specifically note the '80s. Scream, Remember the Time, and Black or White, all came later, in the '90s once the MTV generation had already caught on. Please trust an old MJ fan or look up those specific sources yourself.

I also added a news blurb from The West Australian, the biggest newspaper, here in Perth, Western Australia. It's like our Washington Post or New York Times. The source is very current and draws more attention to his lawyers, than him. It goes so far as to repeat that MJ was acquitted of the accusations of heinous crime he hired those lawyers for. Now that celebrity goss and especially dark stuff make it into the papers much more than simple music success, I think that's about as NPOV as we might be able to get for a while. :)--Thecurran (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

re:merger

It looks really good. I made a couple of very minor edits to it - hope they are ok. The Thriller 25 charts section doesn't bother me too much - maybe split it into two columns? I guess there is no charts section for the original Thriller? - eo (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you could split it into 2 that would be great, the reissue has been so successful it seems a shame to remove smaller countries especially as they are the ones that have made it sell so well. Spliting it in 2 would really make it look smaller which would help tons. Your minor edits are fine. As for the original chart positions for thriller it seemed pointless as its gone to #1 almost everywhere lol. Realist2 (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

True. No need for Thriller charts table. I split the 25 charts section in two. Hopefully that looks better to you guys. - eo (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any new nomination is needed as the ongoing conversation has been happening for a while now. If you *really* want to, maybe a note to say "I'm merging this at the end of the day"... but I dont think that is really necessary - the consensus at this point is to merge. I don't think a semi-protect is needed immediately. Chances are, once it is merged people will let it be. If it runs into a bunch of vandalism then I will definitely do a semi-prot. Before redirecting the old Thriller 25 to Thriller, it would be a good idea to archive the conversation again so it is not lost. - eo (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oooooh yes, its definitely worthy of at least a GA nom.... go for it, see what other editors have to say! - eo (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, give me a few minutes to get it sorted. - eo (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Done!. Next job: Check all links here: Pages that link to Thriller 25 and update everything that used to link to Thriller 25 and make them all instead link to Thriller. Should probably get the Michael Jackson template first. - eo (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of those are probably because of the Michael Jackson template. Do that first and then wait about a half hour for the servers to catch up - then all of the articles linked only in the template will disappear from the list. - eo (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No unfortunately there's no speedier way. At least now if it takes a week or two it will give editors a chance to find any minor mistakes that were missed. I've updated the Michael Jackson template, so hopefully the "link to's" will get shorter in a bit. - eo (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Not a problem. I'm not a MJ fan, although I do appreciate his music. And pretty much everyone from Generation X and Generation Y know for a fact that he is the undisputed King of Pop, regardless of his personal life or hiatus from public eye. I'd suggest working in the books i listed into the article. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a video image from Thriller, but thats it so far. I wish I had video editing software, since I own HIStory on dvd. that way i could just make clips myself.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Discipline

This is a singles chart. Otherwise "Feedback" would not have been mentioned at all. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. after looking at it again, I'm not entirely sure either way. It IS clearly listed under International Album Chat...the singles it mentions MAY only indicate the LEAD single for that album. Its really confusing. I'd ask someone on one of the Music project or an admin. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah. and the lead single from thriller 25 is "The Girl Is Mine 2008", not "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' 2008" so I'm going to assume it is a singles chart. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea, but a scanned image is NOT suitable for a verifiable reference on wikipedia and should not be included until it is mentioned officially. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

GA

See my talk page.--andreasegde (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Have no fear of edit-wars with me, because I am only here to write about music I like. I don't like animosity, because it makes me feel ill, and although I am a fan of The Beatles' music, I also learned how to dance to music by The Jackson 5, and later had an argument with a DJ in a London club because he refused to play Beat It, which was my favourite song at the time. Great music makes everybody feel good, so we are both working together on the same things. Have fun. :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

I was forced to undo most of the changes over the last few hours due to a large number of undiscussed POV edits. Please discuss changes to the article on the talk page, as I have done. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, your own actions regarding the article Barack Obama are far worse than anything I did. All I did was go over my reversion limit when trying to eradicate the usual lies, nonsense, vandalism and blatant POV stuff that people have been adding recently. You, on the other hand, have taken it upon yourself to add stuff which doesn't belong in the article because it is unsuitable for WP:BLP. I wouldn't have made a 3RR violation if people like you hadn't added this inaccurate and misleading crap in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Moron

Sorry about that. I am frustrated and angry, and I should not have used that word in my talk page edit summary. I also thank you for your support regarding WP:SOCK. In point of fact, I find the use of sock puppets to be appalling so I found it particularly vexing to be so accused. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thriller

I'll look at the article in-depth soon, but the main problem is that you need to properly format the references. If you don't that'll be an automatic GA fail. There's a variety of ways to do this depending on what you prefer to use. Look at R.E.M. and "Hey Jude" for different ways to format footnotes. See Surfer Rosa, Blood Sugar Sex Magik, and In Rainbows for examples of well-done Featured Articles on albums. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Michael Jackson, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. I normally don't bug people about this, because I am guilty of it myself from time to time =) But I notice that a large number of your edits are self-undos. You might want to be a little more devout about using the preview button if you are having to self-revert almost daily... Thanks! Jaysweet (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I am not Wikistalking you by any means; I just have a Watch on the Michael Jackson page (which I am sure you are well aware, gets a lot of vandalism!) and I noticed quite a few self-undos just watching for normal vandalism. I also noticed you are doing a lot of great work to keep that page vandal-free, too. Keep it up, and thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WARNING

WARNING ;- Your edits to the michael jackson article were vandalism. Continue and you will be blocked. Realist2 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That was my brother trying to be funny, hence why I self-reverted. Should I have said that on the talk page? Taric25 (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It would have been best to have said it in the edit summary. We have a lot of people who vandalise then revert but it does still count as vandalism. Its not an issue for you though, you have a clean slate so far so your word is taken. Dont let your brother on it again. You might want to change your passward. Realist2 (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! Taric25 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sales of Michael Jackson's Dangerous vs. Bad

I don't understand. Are you trying to argue that it is a statistical tie between the two albums? I can assure you that the margin for error for album sales does not go into the millions! SubSeven (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Go their is percentage wise almost no difference. Thats why i added "Near" in a previous edit which you reverted. Realist2 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why go on about near-ties when we have concrete numbers that we can determine an order from? There's a significant gap here, not a near-tie. It's not like Bad sold 1,000 more copies. Then I could agree with you. SubSeven (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats your pov, together they have sold over 60 million copies worldwide with 1.5 million difference at most, its not much at all, nfact many sources do say dangerous is higher, its a happy compromise, Realist2 (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're saying I have 'pov', yet on your user page you list Dangerous as one of your favorite albums. Interesting! Maybe it would strengthen your case to produce some of these other sources. --SubSeven (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

here it actually says dangerous has outsold bad. Im not sure which has sold more but its very close. Dont get too court up in the American story. Realist2 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just going by the cites in the article, which are not even in English?? American story? --SubSeven (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol the american story that jackson never ever sold another album after 1988. Realist2 (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Moron

Would you block this moron please. He's doing my head in. Realist2 02:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

He is a problem, but I'm not an admin. I don't know that he has done anything blockable at this point. But he seems to be headed that way. Ward3001 (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Ward is an admin, so can't block. You may want to try WP:AIV if it's blatant, but judging by his contribs, there's some useful stuff in there. WLU (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, you may want to have a look at WP:WARN - there is a set of warnings for spamming, {{subst:uw-spam1}} through {{subst:uw-spam4}}, and if you hit spam four, I'd say you're justified at moving to WP:AIV, where any admin will be willing to block. WLU (talk)

Re: FA/GA review

Nope, never done anything like that before. I'm guessing you're asking because MJ used to be a good article but is pretty bloated now?  :) The problem I have is that a lot of my Wikipedia time is at work while I am waiting for some code to compile, so I have enough time to revert a vandal edit or fix a spelling mistake or make a quick comment, etc., but I don't often have time to do major copy-editing, and I almost never have time to track down citations, etc. (unless it's something I can do with a quick Google News search)

The first thing that jumps out to me on the MJ article is that the intro is HUGE. That's like two or three times the size most people like to see for an intro paragraph. The second thing that jumps out to me is that the article appears at first glance to be very well cited. Almost over-cited, which is hard to avoid with a controversial figure like Jackson. But I can tell you, I did peruse a bit of the GA discussion regarding Intelligent design, and one of the concerns was that the copious footnotes made the article difficult to read (and on the other hand, with a topic so controversial, copious footnotes were often needed to fend off the pov warriors -- so it's a bit of a Catch 22).

I'd have to read the article more carefully to be sure, but the level of detail seems really uneven. As you might recall, I initially became involved in this article because of the fact that Blanket was not even mentioned by name in the entire behemoth of an article. My wife and I were trying to remember how many children MJ had, and we said, hey, that's the type of info Wikipedia can usually be trusted to get right -- and then we just ended up being more confused than when we started! ;)

This should make you happy: I think the section about the child molestation charges can be trimmed a fair bit because it already has its own separate article. There is no need to replicate everything that is said there; a quick summary will suffice.

The same thing goes for the articles about his albums. There's already a huge article on HiStory, there is no need to have a huge section about it on this article too. Also, the Thriller 25 section is very cluttered with a lot of numbers and citations to basically make the point that the record sold well. It seems like that point could be made in a much less tedious way...

Anyway, those are my thoughts on a quick glance through the article. Not that I really know anything, heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll put Thriller on my Watchlist and I'll read it when I get a chance. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

re. GA

That would go under music. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, no it wouldn't. It's a list, so GA doesn't apply...instead you go to FLC. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review

"homosexual transexual" should remain on the list since it's on hold. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok i wont take it off the top pink banner. Realist2 (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Review of Natural family planning

This is a difficult one to answer. They're not exactly having an edit war, but they are unsure about what is the right thing to go in. User Chardish seems to be reverting/controlling a lot of viewpoints, so I would fail it and suggest they put it up for review again when they have reached concensus. Hope that helps. :) --andreasegde (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Realist2 (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is basically the same as it was six weeks ago diff. It gets a fair amount of unconstructive edits from anonymous IPs and new users with narrow edit histories, but that's just the nature of the topic. There's nothing those of us who work on the article can do aside from semi-protection, and I hardly think unconstructive edits a few times a week justifies semi-protection.

Among the regular contributers to the article, I do not believe there is any recent problem with stability or consensus. If you disagree, would you provide more specific examples than just pointing to the entire edit history? Or, are you looking for stability over a longer time period? Two months? Four months? Even over that time period, I don't believe there has been edit warring, just uncontroversial additions and copyediting. Just curious what the guidelines are regarding that kind of thing.

To close, though, I really appreciate you spending your time on GA reviews. I hope you don't mind answering my questions on the failed review. Lyrl^Talk _C 13:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm understanding the judging criteria, but assuming the next two weeks go fairly smoothly I'll try contacting you again. Thanks very much for your quick reply. Lyrl^Talk _C 13:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I was supposed to be taking a serious break, but you've got me interested in the above article. I'm only doing it because you are a good (but tough) reviewer, and you need some support. Have fun. :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"we won't be bullied into passing the article". Yeah! You are good. You're definitely getting a Barnstar now... :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just FAIL IT and get out. These people will keep you hanging on for aeons. Leave it to the next (poor guy/woman) reviewer to deal with (which will have the same result). I have had experience with people like this before, and they never give up. Use your skills elsewhere, and where they will be appreciated. It's a black hole, so don't get lost in it.--andreasegde (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice one.--andreasegde (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My messages to Lyrl

[1]

Rory Storm

Any thoughts? :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ill take a look in a mo. Bussy a sec. Realist2 (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work - and fine with me.--andreasegde (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Just got to sort out a destroyed link, something went wrong when i deleted stuff i think. Realist2 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This will make you laugh, but "Bussy" means 'kiss' in Austrian. (I know you meant "busy", but it's still nice... :) --andreasegde (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha thats my terrible english for you. :0 Realist2 (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Daara J

The {{fact}} tags you've been putting on Daara J are unnecessary—the statements are cited at the end of the sentences on which you have put them. --Kakofonous (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? It works, at least in my browser... --Kakofonous (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it may have been an odd character in the URL (|) that screwed it up. --Kakofonous (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah some wierd error. Realist2 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the article per your suggestions. However I don't think I will be able to expand it any more, as my references have been truly exhausted. --Kakofonous (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Added reviews of Boomerang, couldn't find any for other albums. --Kakofonous (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the article ready for a pass? Anything else needed? --Kakofonous (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is the byte size of the article relevant? The good article criteria state only that the article should address the major aspects of the topic, not what its size in bytes happens to be. If there is more content you would like me to add, please give specific suggestions. --Kakofonous (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated before, the amount of material that can be added at this point is very small. If you still believe the article has issues with comprehensiveness, please either specifically explain what aspects of the article need to be improved, compared with the good article criteria, or fail the article. I can't read your mind :). --Kakofonous (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Realist should look at this. You know the rest, but 3a and 3b is what you're looking for. I know you're a good reviewer, but GA is not as precisely definite as FA (which is like having your entrails ripped out - they are so exact). GA is a guideline to stop fan articles, badly written prose, and stuff that is not cited. If you like how it reads, it's well-cited, and is stable (no edit wars) then you should let it pass. There are always some things that will strike you as odd, but these can be fixed (if there are not too many). I will leave some notes on the Daara J talk page to help you out.--andreasegde (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you may err on the side of being too tough (ouch! for Rory Storm, even though I agreed with you, and GA articles are getting harder to get, as they should be).

GA reviewers usually look for double-links, sloppy writing, unreferenced topics, and broken/disambiguation links. Check dihydrogen monoxide's reviews, because he's right on the button, and is a very clear, precise and friendly reviewer. Have fun. :) This is just one of his many examples.--andreasegde (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(Kakofonous on wikibreak, ostensibly): I've taken care of the other points noted on talk; anything else? --24.218.182.169 (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A Hard Day's Night (film) GA

I think A Hard Day's Night (film) deserves a GA, and I saw you on Andreasegde's talk page. I know you're pretty busy, but I was just wondering if you could check this out. The last person who gave it a B said that the only thing wrong with it was references, or lack thereof. I added references sometime near the end of February, so I think it's GA status now. Feel free to leave comments on my talk page about this. Thanks! Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 22:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that's only fair. I have it nominated. I can't see anything wrong with it, but trained eyes probably can. Hopefully someone'll have the time to review it soon. :) Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 22:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Michael Jackson

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner! The Jackson article does look improved from the last time it was at FAC, but it may be a better bet to bring it to Good Article status and through a Peer Review first before going for Featured. María (habla conmigo) 17:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. The point is is that it's such a high profile article that it will be difficult to get it through FAC without a lot of work. It received a PR earlier this year but it did not garner much attention. I suggest giving it some time and contacting trustworthy users from the volunteer page in order to get more opinions.

On a side note, I see you're reviewing and copy-editing Pattie Boyd for GAC. I can't help but notice that you have made some errors during your c-e that may need to be reverted; for example, singular years are never linked per WP:DATE and some of your grammar and punctuation improvements are actually incorrect (this, for instance, is not how you use a semicolon). When I review articles for GAC, I usually only leave comments and/or suggestions on the talk page; some contributors would rather ask specific users for help copy-editing. So be careful in the future and don't be alarmed if people correct your "corrections". Just FYI. :) María (habla conmigo) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, we all make mistakes; I know I do. ;) Hey, if articles like Islam can become Featured, there's hope for the King of Pop yet. As long as the article fulfills the FA criteria, reviewers can hate the guy all they want, but they can't stop the promotion if they have no actionable concerns. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 17:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou for reviewing and passing our article. I doubt it will ever be a FA. The idea of having a picture their is just so contentious.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I gladly give this Barnstar to Realist2, for being a member of the new generation of GA reviewers who are precise, friendly, and actually work on articles while reviewing them, because they don't want to depress people, but help them. Truly well-deserved. Enjoy.--andreasegde (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou so much. Realist2 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Daara J

Looking at the talk page, I see that you felt the article was near GA level. You said at the time, "finish off the list and it will be GA". An editor questioned whether you were biased, and you failed the article less than two hours later. This was one day after you placed it on hold for one week, so there were six days left in the hold. I can't see any other reason for the sudden change of heart.

Your words when failing the article were: "OK it fails, come back to the nomination board when the above issues are resolved, hopefully with a cooled tougue, maybe if you didnt attack reviewers more of your articles would pass, take you well deserved wiki break and come back in a better mood." This seems to tell me that the failure was a direct result of "attacking" the reviewer. I had meant to bring this up with you, but then I saw that you were also involved in an angry debate over another review. In my mind, these two red flags warranted bringing it up in a relevant discussion that was already taking place. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

JJ

Yes, with the subsequent singles not appearing to catch on at radio, the whole article could definitely do with some perspective editing and probably a little trimming. Waiting until it actually falls out of the top 40 to make changes will probably avoid a lot of random IP edits though. Gusworld (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I liked Feedback, but have held off on buying the album on the perhaps uncharitable assumption it'll be a lot cheaper soon. Though with the planned tour, there might conceivably be a reissue with new tracks, I suppose. Gusworld (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's talk of a tour plan here, though no specifics, and she might want to tour off the back of a bigger hit. Gusworld (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Things

Don't thank me for the Barnstar; you well deserved it. I have to apologise to you, because I thought you might be a problem editor (remember Jackson and all that stuff?) but I have realised you are a decent, hard-working, intelligent, and very nice person. You don't meet a lot on these pages, y'know... :)

Don't feel at all bad about that Family article, because you will get more of the same someday. There are certain editors who just love to play politics and scream the house down if someone disagrees with them. They'll engage you in reams of nonsense, and then ask you to clarify (all they want to do is push their own view) when all you did was a really good job. Never let it get you down, because I agreed with you, and two others on the assessment page also have. Forget it, and move on, because you're good. Have fun. :)--andreasegde (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers and that Jackson stuff is way in the past. Realist2 (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and the next time you see that DJ that wouldn't play MJ, slap him for me. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will (but I'll bet he wasn't that successful) :))--212.241.67.98 (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)