Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Realist2 (talk | contribs) at 17:02, 7 March 2008 (→3RR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

. Archive 1 - Archive 2 - Archive 3.

Slash

I took it out. Thank you. :)

Also, what's happening with T25 page? it's kind of hard to make out what is going on behind the scenes.... Marnifrances (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thriller 25

Is looking good. The magazine covers thing is just a bit off. Have a read through the promotion section- you may need to edit that. Good stuff! Marnifrances (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Interviews

The interviews with Quincy Jones cover his involvement with Jackson and the album's success while Rod Temperton also goes into the writing of "Thriller". Both talk about the guest artists on Thriller and the stories behind songs, discussing the newly released tracks.

Brief, to the point, and explains everything. Most interviews discussed on Misplaced Pages are in this kind of detail; it fits in with the style.(The Elfoid (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'

track from Thriller 25 remix with Akon is out.. superb.. two of my fave artists on a single song.. just so good.. Σαι ( Talk ) 07:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. but if you want to listen to it, it's on Facebook. MJ released the whole song online.. yeah i do want it to become FA but I cant think of a good title for the music videos article.. Σαι ( Talk ) 09:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh i have heard it yes its very good, i just cant buy it yet, i hope ill be able to , i want to support mj as much as possible. How about ; MTV and the Music Video Realist2 (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't have MJ in it.. Σαι ( Talk ) 10:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But Legacy of Thriller has Thriller which the article is about.. the music videos are MJ's and you cant create a page without MJ's name in it.. I'm going for Michael Jackson's Music Videos. Ok with you?Σαι ( Talk ) 10:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. And is this User:Docbrownboy talking to you? Σαι ( Talk ) 10:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I see.. i kept them.. ive just copied and pasted..Σαι ( Talk ) 10:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I got to go now.. Il do the rest tomorrow :)Σαι ( Talk ) 10:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the original more Gaogier 14:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Userpage

I cleaned your page up a bit, i think you need to personalize it a bit. Gaogier 14:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would of done more but i dont understand the why you added the "This Page" link and the Citation Needed link.Gaogier 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The this link is ok its just the citation needed i really don't understand Gaogier 16:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

reply

I read the reply ages ago and left a message there on the bad picture we need to get back —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaogier (talk • contribs) 00:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

MJ

Go to Mj's page and read talk.

DUDE WE DONT HAVE THE PROOF ITS FAIR USE ANYMORE Gaogier 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nrjawards2008b.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Nrjawards2008b.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thriller, Thriller 25 and the Michael Jackson page

A lot of crap's creeping in now attention's on MJ again. I can't be bothered to deal with it, I will do later when the fuss has died down. For one, we still don't need a fucking photo of Jackson for Thriller 25. I can't think of ANY albums that have a photo of a music artist on them like that. It just doesn't teach the user anything useful. A picture of a person in their article is useful; it is about them. A picture of a film character is useful in a film article; it is about them. A picture of a person who created an album it is not useful; it is about the album not the person.

The rest of it I can't even be bothered with, it's just too wordy, not brilliantly written etc.

So don't think I'm leaving the project, just giving it a little time :) (The Elfoid (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

Eltonio

While Eltonio may have vandalized your user page, that is no reason to be uncivil. Please keep a cool head and just try to ignore him, or rephrase your comments in a more civil manner. Comments like this serve only to inflame the situation and provoke further vandalism or retaliation. Please read the civility policy for more information. Thank you, Kamek (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'

Please look at what you're doing here. Other people are capable of editing Michael Jackson articles. Please don't just blindly revert whenever anyone edits this. What you are doing is removing a source... and in doing so, it causes the boldfaced, red-text error message to display about a missing citation in the References section. Adding the source for the Canadian chart is fine, but why are you removing the source for the U.S.? - eo (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

re: mistake

It's right here: - eo (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Yes it is #39, did you click the link? - eo (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Click refresh, maybe? I'm looking right at it. #39 - Hot shot debut. Chart dated 02/16. - eo (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cache issue?

All I can think of is that you have an older version of the page stored in your cache. Just hitting refresh won't clear that. Try loading the page, and then holding the control key while you push f5. --Onorem♠Dil 00:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OH MY GOD

I went into my mj picture archives and if i don't have the best picture in the world up on the article now then who knows!, i cant remembers its sauce but i know its government. Plus a free userbox

It's close to midnight and this user is lurking in the dark, what a Thriller.

Gaogier 23:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

hey realist

hi again! I have actually been on for a bit, and am currently fighting to get one of my three Featured Articles onto the main page. if you wouldn't mind, I would appreciate if you could support my bid. you can just click here and go to "February 15" and depending on your opinion, add a 'support' or 'oppose' vote, but obviously I would prefer it if you supported :D you don't have to do anything if you don't want to though. and yes, I think that I'm gonna be on wiki a bit more, I just get frustrated with users like elfoid who think they own the whole friggin' joint and stiffle other editors. I'm sorry but my tolerance of @ssholes like elfoid can wear thin very quickly.--Paaerduag (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

elfoid

did you agree with elfoid to remove the speed demon and just good friends articles? he said that you did, as well as personally attacking and threatening me, and I'm just going to say that people like elfoid are the reason I stopped going on wikipedia for a while. he personally attacked me, and then turned it around and said I was attacking him. It is really horrible and mean. and anyway, why did you support the merging of speed demon? it is NOTABLE as it has a music video (not a clip like elfoid was saying). Just tell me, are you supporting elfoid's merging of all the articles I have created, like "we are here to change the world", and now "speed demon"? I'd just appreciate if you could tell me. thanks, and sorry if I have offended you with this post.--Paaerduag (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Realist2 , elfoid and Paeer debate

right , firstly both of you stop shouting at each other, it seems im the only 1 who`s remaining calm so i think its best it all goes on here. Yes I agreed the "We are here to change the world" and "Speed Demon" should be merged, they are unnecessary. That said it was not ment as a personal attack on you, I just thought it was the right thing to do. As for elfoid you can be heavy handed particulary on thriller 25, an article that you dont own. Let other edits participate in its direction, i know i edit it a LOT but all that is , is where i have found info and documented it, i havent played much of a part in its structure. Thoughts?Realist2 (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I can be heavy handed since I tend to avoid doing things until I feel confident in my actions. I tend to focus on the deletion of un-necessary things than the actual construction of an article. I would definitely regard my behaviour as calm. I have not sworn, called names or done the internet equivalent of shouting. Now, if here is where we shall debate things, I will look at Paeer's post.

"don't you dare threaten and harass me, as if you are somehow superior and can 'report' me whenever you want."

Anyone can report anyone whenever they want. If you break Misplaced Pages's recommended code of conduct your behaviour can reasonably be looked into and dealt with as administrators deem fair. I can dare to do things within the rules, and to tell the admins you are out of line is not harassing. I think someone who insults and swears at someone needs to calm down.

"YOU HAVE CONSTANTLY UNDONE, TRIED TO REMOVE AND GENERALLY RESISTED MY EDITS. All you did on Thriller 25 is continually change things I did."

Actually I just looked at the article and changed things as I felt necessary. I didn't check the edit history to say who did what.

"You work without concensus, and you think you're above the law."

Read my talk page. I've had debates with people. Sometimes (see Talk: AC/DC) I have considered my side of the argument strong, but not DONE anything. I work within the confines of the law, you explicitely told me you don't believe in rules on my talk page. And I don't work without concensus...you're the only person to object to most of my edits. The one big argument I had was the keeping of information on Slash in one section on the MJ page. Eventually I conceded against mass public demand. You only need a consensus for a debated topic.

"You personally attack me"

I've not sworn at you. I've not called you names. I've not reverted your edits without explanation, wheras you revert mine because you think it's someone who hates you doing them (which is not justification).

(The Elfoid (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

I have been too insulted and offended this time. I've warned time and time again I'll get administration involved. I don't like being insulted, sworn at, I don't like false accusations and I don't like edits reverted just because I made them. I NEVER LOOKED AT THRILLER 25'S EDIT HISTORY AND I AM BEING ACCUSED OF SPECIFICALLY REVERTING HIS EDITS. Some stuff I did was open to debate, that is not. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

elfoid , getting admin involved is only going to make tension worse , you would get paeer blocked on a first report so you will both be left here together pissed off even more. Realist2 (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ref 154 in Michael Jackson

something wrong with ref no. 154 in MJ article. fix it up will you? Σαι ( Talk) 18:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thriller 25 Ref

Okay well im not exactly sure how i would go about citing it, perhaps you could do so for me. Here is the link to the iTunes store URL (that may be the canadian page, not sure -- but point is it's hard to refute... its right there on iTunes waiting to be purchased lol) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehmjay (talk • contribs) 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thriller 25 edits

Don't delete stuff just because I have no right to decide if it's worth putting in...cuz you're deciding if stuff's worth adding too. I remove minor details that you rarely find on ANY articles. I don't know any FAs for albums that go into the stupid fine details these things do. It's just not an economic, useful, encyclopaedic, concise or intelligent methodology.

I'll go through them bit by bit, was not space in an edit summary:

• Macedonia: Why do you think there's no other Macedonian chart positions on ANY Misplaced Pages pages? It has a population of 2 million people. You know their record buying market is so tiny that they don't even have silver/gold/platinum albums? Look at it like this: Metallica's best-selling album has sold 15 million copies in the USA, a place with a population of approx. 3 million people. To achieve equivalent success in Macedonia, the album would have to sell 400, 000 copies. Yeah, 400, 000 copies is their equivalent of 14x Platinum. Misplaced Pages does not discriminate against other people? No it does not. But when talking about the success of an album, it refers to places of significance. Somewhat like the way George Bush was criticized for his "coalition of the willing". They claimed to have over 30 nations, some did not have armies and some had populations smaller than most British cities. Plus your link was to a radio station, not an official chart of any kind; so it doesn't count
• "Talking on Access Hollywood in late 2006, Jackson said that a "second chapter" for Thriller was a "great idea" which he would think about further and discuss with collaborator will.i.am"..... we don't need to quote "great idea". The fact he would discuss it with will.i.am implies that he would think about it to the point where typing it is poor quality use of the language
• "Global marketing for Thriller 25 will last throughout 2008" isn't good enough for you but "There will be a global multimedia marketing scheme throughout 2008 promoting Thriller 25" is? I think you didn't like some of my edits and reverted some for no reason at all.
• "since mid January" - not close to important. I don't think ANY artist's web-page states when they first got a myspace on here. It's within the promotional period, that has already been made clear. Any other fine details are not needed. Misplaced Pages recommends you remove over-detailed information that is too fine tuned like that.
• "marketing frenzy" - I removed that since it's a bit POV and non-encyclopaedic
• "On February 12, Legacy launched "Thrillercast" on Jackson's website, a podcast series about the idea that "everyone remembers the first time they heard Thriller" featuring various musicians and other celebrities." - tell me what's wrong with that. It says everything the other comment did but is shorter.
• "since "One More Chance" , in 2003" - seriously... it charted at 83 in the US, it was only a hid in the UK, Estonia and Bulgaria (clearly a huge proportion of the record buying market, lol). To put the name of the single in suggests the single was a significant one in some way or other. To be honest, no one will remember it ever came out in 5 years time. It wasn't a special single...it was just another Michael Jackson single, fairly ordinary in terms of the impact it had (except less than normal).

Go through my points one by one, consider them. Reply to each seperately so we can deal with them seperately. Some like the Macedonia one I think are a total joke, some like Thrillercast I think you just didn't think about and some like One More Chance I'm not so bothered by but feel at least need debating. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Viewing figures of over 95 million...how do you know that's American? That's 1/3 of the number of people in the USA who own a TV. It sounds wrong. Are you sure it's not a global figure?

And the advert thing needs removing still. You still class it as promotion just because it got mentioned in a press release from Sony about "Michael Jackson mania". It nowhere connected current promotions to the advert, or referred to the advert as promotion.

The stuff on Pepsi and Jackson not working together in so long is nothing to do with Thriller 25.

(The Elfoid (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Talk:Thriller 25

This is bad form again, Realist, and this is something I would consider vandalism. You will not change other people's comments on the talk page for Thriller 25, nor will you change someone's vote from "Merge" to "Comment", based on YOUR analysis that his "argument is flawed". This is unacceptable behavoir, and I have reverted all of your most recent edits. . If you would like to update your own comments, do so, but DO NOT touch anyone else's. I do believe you chided another editor for doing just this very thing not too long ago. - eo (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is sneaky. If you are unsure of someone's viewpoint, ask for an explanation. Do not change comments to fit your view of how it should read. - eo (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thriller 25

ARIA is not the Irish album charts. It's the Australian music charts. The Australian music charts have included Thriller 25's sales and charting positions with the original Thriller's charting positions and sales. Street walker (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thriller

OK so I've moved the stuff from my sandbox accross, other than the Thriller 25 things. I've cut a few things down too...looking at it after having a chance to put some distance between it and myself, some things didn't flow right or fit in. Read it carefully, as a whole, rather than searching for things I changed and it really is a lot better.

I've lost the information on Special Edition's chart positions - could you find them for me? That needs adding.

The section on Thriller 25 needs sourcing, and I also want you to check if it's ok as it is. I think we could expand it into 2-3 sentences perhaps. Perhaps include the album cover for Thriller 25 too? I'm unsure.

(The Elfoid (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

re:semi protection

Done. Semi-protect for 2 weeks. - eo (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Billboard 200

No, as is stated in the sources, as well as within the chart policies of Billboard, the album will only chart on the catalog albums chart because it is considered a reissue of older material. - eo (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Charts

Hi Realist2! Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. I noticed that you were removing record charts such as the U.S. Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs from the article, "Feedback." Please, do not remove these as they are not component charts, and doing so would result in a violation of this Misplaced Pages guideline: Misplaced Pages:Record charts. Still, you are welcome to remove airplay charts as the majority of them are component. Thank you. Bull Borgnine (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey dude! As someone's commenting on charts, I will too. Just looking at how you mention chart positions in articles. It's ok to say "It re-entered at number 5 in Ireland". You don't have to say "in the Irish album charts", if it's a national statement it's ok to assume it's national charts. Saves us a little space on my "narrowing down the article" mission for thriller :D (The Elfoid (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

re: Catalog

No, this is not the case. Albums are moved to this chart if they are 18 months old and have dropped below position 100 on the Billboard 200. It has nothing to do with when an album dropped off the chart. If an album stays above #100 it can spend way more than 18 months on the chart. - eo (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Beat It

There really wasn't much of anything there, so I redirected it to Beat It. If the 2008 article is deleted completely chances are someone else will come along and recreate it.... if it remains a redirect we can keep an eye on it. - eo (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thriller Special Edition reviews

I can't find ANY. Know any MJ websites that might have links to them? (The Elfoid (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Thanks, we'll see. I've touched up the credits (again), but please leave them be. I've done all I ever want to do to them, and it's finally feeling right to me.

Thriller 25 has some horribly written stuff, so I am gonna be doing a lot of editing in the next day or two...but it's only sorting out writing style, not changing content. So don't worry if it looks dramatically different in any places - it's just making it make sense. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

Replies to your comment

See replies to your comments on the Conservapedia talk page: .

Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Thriller 25. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. WebHamster 13:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:

List tag, ok.

Sources, sorry, I'll sort it out later though - I'll make sure there's just one per reference. It'll be cuz there's another citation linked to the reference I deleted.

"For All Time" I moved up because there's information on "For All Time" higher up the page and I wanted it in one place. Plus that section's horribly over-written - when I considered slimming it down, integrating it felt better. We can leave it in "Content", but I'll sort it out sometime.

Sales figures...seriously man. For one, you don't need to list the "sales/units" thing. In almost all cases, just listing sales is quite enough. And since it was a compilation album, it's not valid for comparison which is what it's being used for. You always refer to albums like Invincible as a "studio album". Sometimes that's valid, but in almost all cases, it's best to just put "album" (studio album is the assumed meaning of "album" 99% of the time). I'll clean up that section, but leave the sales figures on. Eventually we'll argue over it and you'll give up, like usual ;) (The Elfoid (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

Talk:Thriller 25

Is there a particular reason why you are (again ) removing portions of people's comments on this talk page without archiving them? - eo (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

• I reverted the edit because Vandal Fighter flagged it as vandalism, and it appeared to be, at first glance, vandalism. If this was a mistake, I apologise. Steve Crossin (talk) 11:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

re: THRILLER MASTERPIECE

Hi there, it looks really good so far - I have some minor suggestions (mostly having to do with formatting). Do with them what you will:

• Thriller track list: I would not boldface this or center the titles the columns. Actually I wouldn't put them into a table at all, per WP:ALBUMS. If you want to keep them in a table with the chart positions, then at least get rid of the boldfacing. I think it's best to keep all three track lists the same for consistency.
• Change the first sentence in Thriller 25 from "Thriller 25 was a 25th Anniversary edition of Thriller" to "Thriller 25 is a 25th Anniversary edition of Thriller"
• The ref list is really long. Split it into two or three columns by adding a pipe + numeral to the end of the ref tag, i.e. {{reflist|2}} or {{reflist|3}}.

I don't have the time this minute to delve into it further, but I'll give it a closer look sometime this weekend. - eo (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey dude. Check what I did to the Thriller 25 tracklist. See the two-columned list that separates the CD from the DVD? Could you do that for the Thriller 25 credits for me please? I'll do Thriller's later.(The Elfoid (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

I'll do it myself later, I know how :) (The Elfoid (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Reading WikiProject Charts "The number of charts should include no more than ten national charts, and up to ten additional charts, but no more than eighteen charts total."

You should only have 18 charts for Thriller 25. Right now you got 34. I'll leave it for you to deal with. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Thriller article page

Please do not undo edits that have included cited, credible sources as this is in violation of Misplaced Pages's rules and will be considered as vandalism.79.66.34.19 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR WARNING

You are in breach of Misplaced Pages's "three revert rule" on the "Thriller" page and have been reported to the Wiki administrators. I suggest you not attempt any further edits or reverts until the matter has been investigated. MassassiUK (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK

Got your message. Hope your account gets sorted and you learn your lesson :) (The Elfoid (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Cheer it hopefully will soon Realist2 (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Assistance, Thriller and Bad

That sounds good. I had just changed up the article again on Bad. I don't know if you had reverted the page back to where it was until "merging" but I just didn't like that all these articles were bunched up together. To me, the Bad article should be about the album, rather than all the other events that surrounded it. Some of the statements repeated itself and others sound like NPOV. So I wanted to edit it to make look like a respectable album page in respect to Michael and Quincy, the album's co-creators. It just looked biased to me, lol. But maybe I can help you on the assistance page. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See that's just my point though, I mean don't they already have single article pages: "Captain EO", Moonwalker and Bad Tour? I mean I still don't think it's necessarily to bunched them up together when nothing is being mentioned about Stevie Wonder being on the album, how Run DMC were once considered to be on the album (but eventually weren't), and who turned down the offer to record "I Just Can't Stop Loving You"? I mean it would make better sense talking about the actual recording than how much it sold, which compared to Thriller is still peanuts, lol. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well I hate to put it to you like this but if you ever read the Guinness World Records 2008 edition or skimmed through it (like I did one time or twice), the people from Guinness did claim that "Michael's management company" claim it sold that "104" number whereas some other articles still have Thriller selling around 50-65 million records, which is still big numbers, dig? I know a lot of people have said already that there is no "concrete proof" that Jackson sold that many numbers. No one's dissing the album as the biggest-selling album ever (which it'll always be as far as I'm concerned) but there's gonna always be denial whenever someone reports that "104" claim, you have to respect that at least, as long as the article doesn't look plum crazy (like the Bad page is again), then it's alright. Holla. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Either that or put some of the stuff on that page into the respectable pages of the other articles rather than have it all in one page. It has the threat of being seen as either vandalism, which you've been accused of (I've noticed from the discussions) or NPOV. Plus in respect to the article, I don't like that it has to be reverted either. I don't wanna make it seem to everyone viewing the pages that all Michael Jackson did was set records and become this great entertainer. The musical element of his work hasn't been discussed as of length as the sales numbers and the entertaining moments have. That's why several Michael Jackson articles (including the official Michael Jackson article) looks as if it was written by an obsessed fanatic (at times) or at least a devoted one at that. No I'm not suggesting that we should bring negativity but Michael's career wasn't all roses either, it had some thorns too (as with the HIStory article). That's why I wished the articles on Jackson should have an unbiased feel to it. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, lol. I understand. Also I feel this greatest of all time statements are getting moronic, lol. Just my opinion. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I think it could be fear-mongering but I wouldn't worry about it. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Just read this conversation..."I think moonwalker, the tour and captain oe need a page together as a bad era activities article or something?" you mean "what was Michael Jackson doing around the years 1984-1989? That should go on the MICHAEL JACKSON page, in simplified form, with individual articles for each one going into details.

And go to the help/advice/administrative pages and get some help over this guy if he's really causing trouble. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Well he's talking about me, so I'm getting involved because of that. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

No one fucking accuses me of anything. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

T25 charts

36 charts on T25 now? Dude you have to cut that down significantly, or I will. It's just insane. I know it might "climb elsewhere", but in all honesty, if it charts at number 1 in Barbados, we're gonna need to have the key record buying markets like Japan taking priority and can't fit ALL your minorities in there. Since you hated the idea of it being cut down, I'll let you do it, unless you don't.(The Elfoid (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Oh yeah, and the big list of singles charts...you HAVE to cut that down. It's got so many countries it's overwhelming and confusing. You just need to imply and give examples of their success in a variety of regions, going into depth on their own pages(The Elfoid (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

After a certain number of countries, it is ok to just say "it reached number one in 50 places" or whatever, you know. It debuted at his top chart position in Norway; that's not one I considered dropping anyway.

You can justify Australia (2), Brazil (3), Canada (4), Denmark (2), France (1), Germany (2), Italy (6), Japan (8), Norway (1), Poland (4), Spain (2), Sweden (2), UK (3) and USA (2) out of the nationals if you're very lucky. That's 14 countries. Right now you're listing 31 countries. And 5 other charts.

Since it's best to have the largest record buying markets, the places it certified, the places it hit charted best and the major English speaking markets (since it's an English spoken album). My proposed cuts (since we can make some cuts now, some later, I wasn't suggesting we make ALL changes now) would still include the top nine record buying nations, as well as positions 12, 18 and 20. It has USA, UK, Australia representing English language market - Ireland's official languages are both Irish and English, it's a tiny part of the record buying market too. The only other English language country would be New Zealand, which is again, very tiny. If you added Mexico and the Netherlands, you'd have nations 1-12, 18 and 20 in the top 20 record buying nations - quite enough I think.

Please accept my recommended cut to 14 countries, or at the least those 14, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Ireland and Argentina (since you think that'll hit number 1). That'd still cut the list down to 19 countries, 12 less than we have now. I can't just keep saying to you "ok, we'll wait a bit longer" - simply put, it's ridiculously big now and there is no cause whatsoever for it to remain that size. I mentioned Israel before since it's not done great there, so what if it climbs there? It won't get far, add it if it surprises us but at 11 now, I doubt it'll hit top 5. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Austria, Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Korea, Portugal, the Philippines, Switzerland are the ones I think that we have no excuse whatsoever to keep. Best to start with ones I think we have absolutely NO need for and go from there.

Korea's 2 totally seperate countries anyway...a shared chart position is something that would never ever happen. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Alright, take em out. They're not on what I'd consider "essential" countries.(The Elfoid (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Sandbox

It's not perfectly written, but good content. The Pepsi ads go into too much detail for inclusion on a Thriller page, but it's worth including in some form. I'll reshape it later so you can see what I think should be done.(The Elfoid (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

3RR

27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Realist2_reported_by_Kookoo_Star_.28Result:_72_hours.29 As of now, it looks like there won't be a block, but I'm not an admin. The report as filed was incomplete, and it hasn't been fixed yet. I don't know how long it takes before reports are considered stale, but blocking days later would be harder to justify as preventative instead of punitive. I will say that even if you didn't technically make 3 reverts, it would still likely be looked at as edit warring, especially since you're just coming off a block. Also, "tag-teaming" doesn't justify breaking 3rr. In cases that aren't blatant vandalism, you should consider a request for comment or third opinion instead of an edit war. --Onorem♠Dil 19:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it takes 4 reverts to technically break 3RR, but, from the top of WP:AN3, "just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked. Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day." --Onorem♠Dil 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

—slakr 11:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Realist2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok now that i have argued with the admins reasoning I will provide my defence.

• 1 - I made over 150 edits that day, i cant remember what edits i made where.
• 2 - I was not told I was aproaching an alleged 3rr and so with 150 edits made how on earth was I to know?
• 3 - When I was reported I was not told.
• 4 - The issue was delt with 36 or more hours after the report occured by which time the issue had been resolved, the compromise and agreement was reached so the purpose of the block is of less useage.
• 5 - The user provided his 4 alleged reverts on the noticeboard. Only 1 of my reverts was an exact revert of his material.
• 6 - Some of my other alleged reverts were the removal of SINGLE pov slanted words such as SIGNIFICANTLY.
• 7 - On I of my "reverts" I removed the phrase "vary dramatically" but a few hours later of my own free will i reinserted "vary" therefore I only removed "dramatically".
• 8 - One of my edits was not related to the issue. The user added something about the Eagles album sales which was UNSOURCED. It is wiki policy to remove UNSOURCED material on the biography of a living person , it was unsourced and unrelated.
• 9 - here was my defense on the notice board.
• The issue is completely over, it was over a long time ago, a 3 days ban is so unfair on this.
• She says she blocked me for edit warring when i didnt i spent a day discussing it on a talk page, where i might add even though i was insulted for being foreign , i continued to discuss the issue until it was clear that it should be worded in a specfic way and then stuck that consensus on both pages. I was told the first time i was blocked to use the talk pages. Well i used the talk pages and this admin never even botherd to check that out, i took the advise and look where it got me. Blocked for three days well after the event and its all over. What is the point to this madness? Does it achieve anything.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am contesting for a number of reasons and I will begin by discussing how the admins reasoning for her/his decision means they got it wrong. Firstly the Admin says that I have ignored a request by another user who wrote on my talk page (a few comments above on the 3th of march) to discuss the issues on the talk pages. Secondly the admin has said that i continued edit warring instead of discussing the issues. I DID discuss the issues to a lengthy degree it occured on the ]) page instead (of the Michael Jackson talk page), with the very user the admin asserts i refused to peacefully talk to. The issues were relevant to both pages and we kept the debate on ONE page instead of both. I did discuss the topic instead of edit warring and UPHELD the consensus on the ]. There was NO point talking about the exact SAME issue on both pages. If you look at the discussion on the THRILLER talk page you will see there WERE compromises and consensus's reached on the issues. The consensus on that talk page was relevant to BOTH the Michael Jackson article and Thriller article. I was making sure the consensus reached for one article was then upheld on another by copying and pasting the exact same thing to both pages. Why discuss the same issue on to seperate pages, there was 1 debate, it occured on the thriller talk page and I upheld that consensus onto the MICHAEL JACKSON article. Ok now that i have argued with the admins reasoning I will provide my defence. * 1 - I made over 150 edits that day, i cant remember what edits i made where. * 2 - I was not told I was aproaching an alleged 3rr and so with 150 edits made how on earth was I to know? * 3 - When I was reported I was not told. * 4 - The issue was delt with '''36''' or more hours after the report occured by which time the issue had been resolved, the compromise and agreement was reached so the purpose of the block is of less useage. * 5 - The user provided his 4 alleged reverts on the noticeboard. Only 1 of my reverts was an exact revert of his material. * 6 - Some of my other alleged reverts were the removal of SINGLE pov slanted words such as SIGNIFICANTLY. * 7 - On I of my "reverts" I removed the phrase "vary dramatically" but a few hours later of my own free will i reinserted "vary" therefore I only removed "dramatically". * 8 - One of my edits was not related to the issue. The user added something about the Eagles album sales which was UNSOURCED. It is wiki policy to remove UNSOURCED material on the biography of a living person , it was unsourced and unrelated. * 9 - here was my defense on the notice board. ] *The issue is completely over, it was over a long time ago, a 3 days ban is so unfair on this. *She says she blocked me for edit warring when i didnt i spent a day discussing it on a talk page, where i might add even though i was insulted for being foreign , i continued to discuss the issue until it was clear that it should be worded in a specfic way and then stuck that consensus on both pages. I was told the first time i was blocked to use the talk pages. Well i used the talk pages and this admin never even botherd to check that out, i took the advise and look where it got me. Blocked for three days well after the event and its all over. What is the point to this madness? Does it achieve anything. I did discuss the issues, the admin didnt both to look hard enough to find it, and i did discuss the issues with the earlier editor. There has been a mistake. Please dont block me for THREE days, i really did discuss these issues at length. ] (]) 16:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am contesting for a number of reasons and I will begin by discussing how the admins reasoning for her/his decision means they got it wrong. Firstly the Admin says that I have ignored a request by another user who wrote on my talk page (a few comments above on the 3th of march) to discuss the issues on the talk pages. Secondly the admin has said that i continued edit warring instead of discussing the issues. I DID discuss the issues to a lengthy degree it occured on the ]) page instead (of the Michael Jackson talk page), with the very user the admin asserts i refused to peacefully talk to. The issues were relevant to both pages and we kept the debate on ONE page instead of both. I did discuss the topic instead of edit warring and UPHELD the consensus on the ]. There was NO point talking about the exact SAME issue on both pages. If you look at the discussion on the THRILLER talk page you will see there WERE compromises and consensus's reached on the issues. The consensus on that talk page was relevant to BOTH the Michael Jackson article and Thriller article. I was making sure the consensus reached for one article was then upheld on another by copying and pasting the exact same thing to both pages. Why discuss the same issue on to seperate pages, there was 1 debate, it occured on the thriller talk page and I upheld that consensus onto the MICHAEL JACKSON article. Ok now that i have argued with the admins reasoning I will provide my defence. * 1 - I made over 150 edits that day, i cant remember what edits i made where. * 2 - I was not told I was aproaching an alleged 3rr and so with 150 edits made how on earth was I to know? * 3 - When I was reported I was not told. * 4 - The issue was delt with '''36''' or more hours after the report occured by which time the issue had been resolved, the compromise and agreement was reached so the purpose of the block is of less useage. * 5 - The user provided his 4 alleged reverts on the noticeboard. Only 1 of my reverts was an exact revert of his material. * 6 - Some of my other alleged reverts were the removal of SINGLE pov slanted words such as SIGNIFICANTLY. * 7 - On I of my "reverts" I removed the phrase "vary dramatically" but a few hours later of my own free will i reinserted "vary" therefore I only removed "dramatically". * 8 - One of my edits was not related to the issue. The user added something about the Eagles album sales which was UNSOURCED. It is wiki policy to remove UNSOURCED material on the biography of a living person , it was unsourced and unrelated. * 9 - here was my defense on the notice board. ] *The issue is completely over, it was over a long time ago, a 3 days ban is so unfair on this. *She says she blocked me for edit warring when i didnt i spent a day discussing it on a talk page, where i might add even though i was insulted for being foreign , i continued to discuss the issue until it was clear that it should be worded in a specfic way and then stuck that consensus on both pages. I was told the first time i was blocked to use the talk pages. Well i used the talk pages and this admin never even botherd to check that out, i took the advise and look where it got me. Blocked for three days well after the event and its all over. What is the point to this madness? Does it achieve anything. I did discuss the issues, the admin didnt both to look hard enough to find it, and i did discuss the issues with the earlier editor. There has been a mistake. Please dont block me for THREE days, i really did discuss these issues at length. ] (]) 16:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am contesting for a number of reasons and I will begin by discussing how the admins reasoning for her/his decision means they got it wrong. Firstly the Admin says that I have ignored a request by another user who wrote on my talk page (a few comments above on the 3th of march) to discuss the issues on the talk pages. Secondly the admin has said that i continued edit warring instead of discussing the issues. I DID discuss the issues to a lengthy degree it occured on the ]) page instead (of the Michael Jackson talk page), with the very user the admin asserts i refused to peacefully talk to. The issues were relevant to both pages and we kept the debate on ONE page instead of both. I did discuss the topic instead of edit warring and UPHELD the consensus on the ]. There was NO point talking about the exact SAME issue on both pages. If you look at the discussion on the THRILLER talk page you will see there WERE compromises and consensus's reached on the issues. The consensus on that talk page was relevant to BOTH the Michael Jackson article and Thriller article. I was making sure the consensus reached for one article was then upheld on another by copying and pasting the exact same thing to both pages. Why discuss the same issue on to seperate pages, there was 1 debate, it occured on the thriller talk page and I upheld that consensus onto the MICHAEL JACKSON article. Ok now that i have argued with the admins reasoning I will provide my defence. * 1 - I made over 150 edits that day, i cant remember what edits i made where. * 2 - I was not told I was aproaching an alleged 3rr and so with 150 edits made how on earth was I to know? * 3 - When I was reported I was not told. * 4 - The issue was delt with '''36''' or more hours after the report occured by which time the issue had been resolved, the compromise and agreement was reached so the purpose of the block is of less useage. * 5 - The user provided his 4 alleged reverts on the noticeboard. Only 1 of my reverts was an exact revert of his material. * 6 - Some of my other alleged reverts were the removal of SINGLE pov slanted words such as SIGNIFICANTLY. * 7 - On I of my "reverts" I removed the phrase "vary dramatically" but a few hours later of my own free will i reinserted "vary" therefore I only removed "dramatically". * 8 - One of my edits was not related to the issue. The user added something about the Eagles album sales which was UNSOURCED. It is wiki policy to remove UNSOURCED material on the biography of a living person , it was unsourced and unrelated. * 9 - here was my defense on the notice board. ] *The issue is completely over, it was over a long time ago, a 3 days ban is so unfair on this. *She says she blocked me for edit warring when i didnt i spent a day discussing it on a talk page, where i might add even though i was insulted for being foreign , i continued to discuss the issue until it was clear that it should be worded in a specfic way and then stuck that consensus on both pages. I was told the first time i was blocked to use the talk pages. Well i used the talk pages and this admin never even botherd to check that out, i took the advise and look where it got me. Blocked for three days well after the event and its all over. What is the point to this madness? Does it achieve anything. I did discuss the issues, the admin didnt both to look hard enough to find it, and i did discuss the issues with the earlier editor. There has been a mistake. Please dont block me for THREE days, i really did discuss these issues at length. ] (]) 16:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

1. Michaeljackson.com Podcast Page

• Requests for unblock