User talk:Realist2/Archive 3

RE: Thriller 25

I'm very sorry Realist2 but i have no idea of what you're talking about.. im very new to MJ.. i know hardly anything about him.. i started listening to his music abt 4 months ago.. I'm very sorry Sai2020 15:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see.. but i don't know anything abt it yet.. i'll learn abt it soon.. Sai2020 08:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Thriller 25 & vandalism to my page

Thanks so much for cleaning up the vandalism. I laughed out loud when I saw what the person tried to do- I can't believe anyone would even bother!lol this person has no life, which is why it cracked me up. But such is the life of a fan. lol Thank you so much for doing that- I really appreciate it and it looks like the user and all accounts attached to that name have been blocked.

Anyway, I will be happy to help on Thriller 25 for sure! Let me know what you would like me to do. I am a good writer and can contribute any way you need me to. You're right- it needs a page of its own- its a far bigger release than the previous editions and the Thriller page is big enough on its own. It will also have a lot added to it because of the promotional campaign and single due to be released. :) Let me know where I can start. Marnifrances (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thriller 25

It needs to go on Thriller's page. That's standard practise for album re-releas es. I know that Thriller's a bigger album than most, but all the same I think we should do that.

Hysteria (album) No Prayer for the Dying Bad (album)

See?

It is a re-release of Thriller, just a special edition one. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

Realist, you must have read my mind! I was actually considering a new page for Thriller 25, but considering the large group of editors currently 'running' the Michael Jackson page who are resisting any new progress in any way possible, I was apprehensive of going through with my plan. I've been researching the new special edition (and preordering it :D) and I think that it deserves a new page, as opposed to being added onto the current Thriller page, for several reasons:

• Notability - Thriller is not any old successful album. It is THE GREATEST SELLING ALBUM OF ALL TIME. And this is not just a 'special edition' version with remastered tracks, a few unreleased tracks and an interview. This is a 25th ANNIVERSARY release, and that's gotta count for something. Don't use the same old argument of 'it's not notable enough' for it's own page or 'other album re-releases' don't have a separate page. Of course they don't - they're 'special editions' or whatever. We don't have separate pages for the special editions of each of MJs albums. But this is different, and I think that per the above reasons we must realize that.

• Collaborations - Thriller 25 has got some really notable collaborations with other highly successful contemporary pop artists. These include Kanye West, Akon, Fergie and will.i.am. This further adds support to the above idea that this product, Thriller 25, has enough notability APART FROM ITS CONNECTION WITH THRILLER that it deserves a page of its own. These collaborations are part of that notability which does not rely on the original Thriller album, and justify Thriller 25 having its own page.

I think that for these reasons, no one in their right mind can dismiss Thriller 25 as "just a special edition" or "just a re-release of Thriller". It is MUCH MUCH MORE and I have outlined why above. This is no special edition. This is a product which has enough importance by itself, as opposed to having importance solely in relation to the original Thriller, through COLLABORATIONS with HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL POP MUSIC ARTISTS. And that's gotta count for something.--Paaerduag (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, absolutely I'll get the article up on its feet. I know a bit about it as well. As I'm sure you've done, they've got a nice little advert at www.michaeljackson.com, and we may be able to use part of that image, namely the 'Thriller 25' bit, in this article. I'll get to work making the article right away, but be prepared for trouble. I have a feeling an AfD may pop up sooner or later. Don't say I didn't warn you ;) --Paaerduag (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I for one think HIStory's single CD re-issue is not worthy of it's own page, to be honest. I mean, look at the page - it offers nothing useful whatsoever that the main HIStory page doesn't. You just reminded me to change it sometime.

Create a page (e.g. [1]) to do a write-up on it. See if you can really find enough to give it a page.

I read Paaerduag's stuff. Yeah, it's notable, and important, and useful. But most of the information from the Thriller page would have to be copied across. Wikipedia is more efficient if it is in less expansive form. And to be honest, I doubt a page's worth of material will get on there.

I also think too little information on a new page is concrete.

Anyway, if you set up a page like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Realist2/thriller25, let me know. I'll check it out and contribute and we can put something together. I might argue about giving it it's own page, but if it's gonna have it's own page we might as well make it good. I really doubt we'll get the material though.(The Elfoid (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

If it only has 1-4 new tracks, I don't think it's remotely worthy of a new page and I'll apply for a merge the instant it's up. But if it's got more than that, I'd agree it might deserve a new article. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

NEW INFORMATION!!!!! This release does not only contain the artist collaborations, original songs, unreleased and demos, but it ALSO INCLUDES the THREE VIDEOS FROM THRILLER. This alone is enough to justify its notability. HIStory Volumes I and II got individual articles because they contained a compilation of videos. So does Thriller 25. This justifies, beyond doubt, that the Thriller 25 article deserves to be standalone. --Paaerduag (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes and the source i read says that if you include remixes and previous unheared songs there will be 8 new songs on it. I think this is going to be a three Disc CD so some1 better no how all this platinum and gold stuff works. Realist2 01:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

hehe my browser's going so slow because i've got like 10 windows open from various news sources. I'll put em on the talk page. --Paaerduag (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"some1 better no how all this platinum and gold stuff works"

It's entirely based on unit shipments. I have a feeling the third disc is gonna be a DVD though, and won't count. If it's a DVD, only the CDs will count. If the album is over 100 minutes long, it counts as a double to the RIAA, and is worth 2 sales units per sale. Read my little essay on The Wall on the MJ page, if you need more info on that :P (The Elfoid (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

Well certification we don't need to worry about, only the sales figures it represents. And I meant it, if it's over 100 minutes of audio CD material it'll be a double album, if not it's a single. Don't worry - I'll handle it if you want. And hey, we're cool. I love you to bits man, don't go thinking I hate ya :)

What about PYT or Stranger in Moscow? I don't get it. (The Elfoid (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

Tracklist

I didn't remove them. I'm just re-organising the list itself. Someone else removed them.

We don't actually know the order of the songs anyway. So after the original list, so we should note that song order after 1-9 is un-known. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

Re:

I meant the 1993 trial. When he paid an un-stated sum of money to the family and they decided it was enough to drop charges. I mean, if he was innocent, why do that? It just seems an odd thing to do.

The recent trial, yes, they were just unable to prosecute him and evidence he committed the crimes accused was minimal.

Jackson's decline began in 1993 because backsales slowed down then. Why? The cancellation of the promised US tour upset a lot of people, and also because the accusations of child molestation, whether true or not, hit his popularity hard. HIStory's sales were 18.5 million...it should have been a lot higher given the wealth of content on there.

His album sales did go from 60 million (or 104, if you want to say Thriller sold that), to 32, to 30, to 18. HIStory sold less well in most territories where Jackson was already famous; he compensated by touring places he had rarely, if ever visited before. I would say he did not face SIGNIFICANT decline until around late 1998, when it became clear his albums and singles had been charting as well as they should have for three straight years.

Singles sales fell hugely, even in 1992. And yes, I know album-launching singles for Dangerous/HIStory/Invincible charted well, follow up singles did not.

Oh, and archiving? Look it up, it's easy to find info. I forget how to do it ;O (The Elfoid (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

(The Elfoid (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

Thriller 25 - CDs

How can it be a single CD as people seem to think? There is a limit to how much music fits on a CD, the bonus songs will not all fit. No way in hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Elfoid (talk • contribs) 19:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol. The bonus songs will fit exactly. How come YOU ever think a second CD would be needed? A CD has space for 80 min of default audio and the few bonus songs do not even reach this frontier.

Just read this --> [2]

AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.44.130 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

reverted your edit

Dude. Thriller 25's tracklist was confirmed on michaeljackson.com. It needs sourcing still, but I had to revert your edit.

Since Jackson's serving as EXECUTIVE producer and has not actually produced any of the tracks directly (the Vinent Price one and "For All Time" had main production handled by Jones, only any additional work by Jackson and the remixes are specifically listed as produced by will.i.am) I felt we can list him as a producer on the list of producers but not call it co-production. Since it's not.

I deleted spaces since Wikipedia likes having less spaces. Odd rule, but there you go. It does work better at the top particularly where the contents partitions the page naturally.

I removed Akon from list of people Jackson's working with since Kanye West is remixing a song and will.i.am is remixing the rest. The people featuring in william's (easier to call him that...) remixes have worked with him. Jackson might have had ideas on who to involve but we can't confirm he has worked with them directly. I'm playing safe by leaving it ambiguous as to what role Jackson had with them.

(The Elfoid (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

We are here to change the world

We Are Here to Change the World Talk:We Are Here to Change the World

I know you said to drop the matter, but given I'm proceeding...you should take part I guess.(The Elfoid (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Pop music

Hi Realist2. Over the past month I've been rewriting the Pop music article, as advised on various notices on the talk page. These days I'm adding the finishing touches, and yesterday I had various edit conflicts with you; you were making minor additions whilst I was trying to save big paragraphs and my work was being refused, but that's beside the point.
The issue that brings me here is, of course, Michael Jackson. You've added a whole bunch of his songs to the article and I wish you to note the page is about a genre of popular music, not a performer, regardless of his commercial success or your passion for his music. I've removed those songs that are not notable, and moved others to their appropriate paragraphs. With these latest additions, Mr Jackson is more than sufficiently represented on the page, and I would be grateful if you would abstain from adding more of his oeuvre to the article. Thank you.
Finally, to help avoid edit conflicts such as those I suffered yesterday, I would like to suggest you use the preview button before saving; this has the benefit of allowing you to find errors you may have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again, and happy holidays. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

HIStory (the song)

HIStory (song) HIStory/Ghosts

I don't know what we should do with the two since I've only skim-read them, but right now a lot of information is repeated on the two. Generally a remix does not get a new page. We should perhaps change the page for HIStory/Ghosts to make the HIStory song's page redundant. Right now HIStory is only notable as a song since it has famous quotes; these could be listed in HIStory/Ghosts and a re-direct link created.

Your opinion? (The Elfoid (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC))

You're definitely right that we only need one article on the HIStory song. Wasn't it released as a double A-side though? It's kinda odd, since it was the only remix to ever be the 'main' version of a song on a single. Might be worth asking other people. (The Elfoid (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC))

Sorry!

By lord, I meant you are the guy who knows more about everything Jackson related on Wikipedia than anything else. I wasn't talking about you at all in the rest of it. I was talking about...well you should be able to guess. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

RE: archive

I dont know how to split archive 14 into smaller bits.. reduced the max archive size Sai2020 07:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

2 things

1) Wikipedia:Editor review/The Elfoid 2) I put a semi-colon into the Thriller 25 article. Just so you know, it is grammatically correct! I know from your user page you aren't English in origin, wasn't sure if you ever had to use semi-colons. They've fallen out of common use. Didn't want you confused :)

It'd be cool if you check the review thing and add comments too. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

Michael Jackson

When blind reverting the above article, you removed a huge section that on finances that was merged in from another article. Please take time to check over what you're actually reverting from and to. Also, attacks in edit summaries such as this serve no purpose. If you check the logs, you'll notice that no-one unprotected the article, the protection just got lost when the article was deleted to make way for the history merge. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Before you revert me, read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson's finances - if you revert again, it's plain disruption, the AfD result is quite clear. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the semiprot was accidentally lost when an administrator temporarily deleted the page; unfortunate mistake, but fixed, now. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Realist, he has a point. His finances are half of what the tabloid press talk about (other than his surgery), and whether we find it relevant/interesting, it's important stuff. Needs a LOT of work though. (The Elfoid (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Girl is Mine

Doesn't matter. We can have it like other cover songs - give it a new infobox. See All along the watchtower - that's the best known cover song of all time and it hasn't got it's own page. The new song is a cover rather than a remix since it's got new lyrics by a new vocalist, new Jackson vocals inserted etc. but remixes and covers in general NEVER get their own page. Basically because so much relevant information is on the existing page and would need moving over.

It's much easier keeping it on one page, and easier to keep track of. It's not an issue of notability, organising the discography or anything...just being consistent with Wikipedia policy and making it both easier to research and maintain. The Girl is Mine 2008's article is absolutely useless without The Girl is Mine's own, but TGIM is not a "main article" on the topic...it's a needless split in the article.

(The Elfoid (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

A remix is a form of cover, when you're talking about electronically produced sounds that can be replicated exactly with pin point precision the line blurs. If Jackson's involved isn't an issue - some artists have covered their own songs numerous times before. Not common in pop though, which is what you appear to listen to mostly judging by your userpage (though I have been surprised before, you might have other tastes). It's really because no one can find out anything about the 08 version until they read up on the original, and a lot of information would be needed in both, so it's easier that way. The "The Girl is Mine" page could do with a big clean-up though, we should tackle that together sometime :) (The Elfoid (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

You're not my type, lol. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Reply

Yes it was tagged for one week, during the holidays. That is hardly a long time to be tagged. And as another editor told you, tagging it for improvement is the preferable option to outright removal, since all that info is in fact correct. I would suggest you bring this to the talk page itself, rather than delete it. There are many dedicated editors working on Beatles-related articles, and I'm sure one or two are planning on working on those citations. I'll assume good faith on your part, but you really need to actually discuss the removal of such a large block of text. That's why we have talk pages. Thank you. freshacconcispeaktome 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Im quite supprised by your comment there, it goes against wiki ideology entirely. You must have a liking for the beatles. And I'd like to remind you to assume good faith, as I have done for you. (As you're an admitted Michael Jackson fan, I could be inclined to think that there is some sort of agenda at work here, deleting The Beatles' achievements, but I won't be so inclined). freshacconcispeaktome 13:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

New singles

Sorted out girl is mine 2008 infobox, do we know of any new singles to be released by Jackson/will.i.am afterwards? Only bit I didn't know about.

Also, now we know what the new single is, we need to re-write the stuff on thriller 25 about "a new single will be released" and just write about the girl is mine being released. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Ah yes, so I see. Sorry! Hmm. I've changed it a little more though, since it said that promotion and marketing begins in February and lasts throughout 2008, when the single's out in January and obviously counts as part of that. That might change though, if marketing clearly changes in February but most releases get some promotion BEFORE they come out. (The Elfoid (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

I don't think exactly, but we can use it as something to write about how the sound of the new songs works. Like "the new songs sound very different, for instance on the girl is mine....". We can say they're leaks, so subject to change, but they ARE finished sounding leaks. Find a site that writes about the leaks for a source tho.(The Elfoid (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Your edits to Michael Jackson

Regardless of your own view of the Daily Mail, it is regarded as a valid source on wikipedia. I have therefore, reverted the edits you made where you removed verifiable information. Please, as I have asked you before, read WP:V. I would suggest in future you follow your own advice here [3] Thanks  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet you continue to remove verifiable information from the article. I have reverted again. Continue and you WILL be reported for vandalism.. You may nor agree with the source, but it IS verifiable, and reliable.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, say so in your edit summary. You stated in your edit summary that you were removing the info as it was poorly sourced. What do you expect? The edit summary is there for a reason.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Message

Hi Realist. I have had repeated vandalism to my page and for some reason I can't revert the edits due to "conflicting intermediate edits". I have no idea what is going on. would you have any idea about how I could cancel my account maybe? then at least i can have a fresh start. My page is getting attacked constantly. Thanks Marnifrances (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: My page has now been semi protected, and an impersonator account has been blocked. I hope this kind of thing doesn't happen to other MJ fans, because it's horrible! Marnifrances (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep all my messages here, so you know where mine are. lol. I'm not gonna change it just yet- I can always go back. My original page was all self glorification for the fun of it anyway. haha. I'll leave it a couple of months and then get a friend to help me make a funny one. I'm glad you got your page protected too- it's soooo annoying trying to revert the vandalism. Marnifrances (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey again. I just added an opinion to the T25 page. It shouldn't be merged. :)Marnifrances (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Decade (unreleased album)

Decade (unreleased album) - you know more about MJ, can we make any use of this/did it exist/can we prove it? I think AFD, but want your opinion. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

We should perhaps mention it in the HIStory article under the background of the album. Jackson's desire to do a greatest hits package or something. (The Elfoid (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

My idea for HIStory was just something like "this was not the first time Jackson had considered releasing a greatest hits set" and maybe a 1-2 sentence summary. It's not a major enough issue to waste sleep on.

I'm not done tinkering what we have for Thriller 25 yet. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

Revert

Did you even read most of them? Almost all of them were impossible to debate on. Like the fact that we list "Produced by Quincy Jones" for every_single_song despite him already officially being credited as "producer" for the album. Most of the stuff on the upper paragraphs was just grammar changes and contained accurate language in a slightly more concise manner (though I did not remove ANY facts from the main body of text) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Elfoid (talk • contribs) 21:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Go check the Talk: Thriller (album) page...almost all my edits individually noted. Barely any are even debate worthy. (The Elfoid (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC))

As I said, Thriller's in no state for a merge right now until it's sorted out, so sure, drop the merge debate until I've done my job there. I guess if I argue Thriller's ina bad way, I can't argue we should dump Thriller 25 there - feel free to remove the tag and I'll post explaining what my view is. Coupla other things: 1) The mugshot got taken off the trial page. We should sort that out, that's crazy...it's a lot more relevant there 2) User:The_Elfoid/sandbox 3) That page above, is written in the past tense. This is what Thriller 25 can become when the hard to justify Ebony thing is removed, the "forthcoming album" and "merge discussion" tags are removed, the Thriller tracks are taken out from the tracklist, and the language in general is a tiny bit tighter. I also changed the layout a bit since we'd not introduce it with "Thriller 25 is a special edition album by Michael Jackson", it wouldn't be so natural. See how much shorter it can be? My plan is once thriller's short enough for a merge discussion to open, we use that to see how it would fit in the context of the main article 4) When I have finished sorting out Thriller, would you help me write about Thriller Special Edition? I've never listened to the interviews on it, ever, I imagine you could help me a fair bit on that part of the article. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

Hmmm. I can't think of anything more to add to Thriller really. The thing is, it might be the biggest album ever, but it is JUST an album. If you think of things to add, please do....but I can't think of what we might add. As I make my edits, perhaps some will become clear to you. First I will delete the "produced by" tag on each song, because Quincy Jones is credited on each one, when that's already obvious since he is the album's only producer.

Then, I will remove the segment saying it's Jackson's best selling AND best selling album, since if it's the best selling it must therefore be his best selling.

Those 2 edits make sense for you? (The Elfoid (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

I'll need to make major edits at some stage when I re-structure the article, but I can keep it gradual as long as possible for you. What did you think of my mockup of Thriller 25 as it will look soon? Sales information and critical reception would have to be added, and charts, but other than that do you think it's a good view of how it will look? (The Elfoid (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

We could say it had high quality music videos of the style Jackson was famous for or something, but details would have to be saved for song pages as singles get released. It might have a second, possibly third single released, but it won't have more than that. I see this as a way Jackson can test the waters...the trial's been (almost) forgotten, he needs to see how much commercial appeal he's really got in 2008 so that he can decide how much money to spend on music videos etc. for the new album. He doesn't want to tour and has all the money he needs...I doubt Jackson will tour. He's said repeatedly he does not want to. He'll do a series of shows in places like Vegas or London, some one offs, some TV specials. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

If we didn't, we'd have nothing to talk about!(The Elfoid (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

re: merger tag

I agree 100% at some point the merge tag should be removed, however I feel that consensus has not been reached. If you and Elfoid (and whomever else) wants to concentrate for a while on the main Thriller article, that's great - in the meantime it is not hurting anything to keep the merge tag. The only reason they are separated now is because a Thriller 25 article was created first... it could have very easily been an opposite scenario, i.e. Thriller 25 info originally put in the main article and someone could have placed a "split" tag on Thriller to gather a consensus. - eo (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You're being presumptuous. The idea of a merge is not "overwhelmingly unpopular" as most of the debate regarding this has been between you, Elfoid and me. And quite frankly whether you think I am a "mad person" makes no difference to me. There is no reason why the merge tag cannot remain. Why would comments that people make now be irrelevant later? While you and Elfoid go back and forth about articlite length, my position the entire time has been about the nobility of the 25 version and whether it can stand on its own. - eo (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're counting votes. Please read WP:Consensus. It is not hurting anything by keeping the merge tag in place as things play out. And whatever the outcome is fine with me, my life does not revolve around whether these articles are merged or separated however I will not be bulldozed by you or anyone who for whatever reason wants to put a rush on this when there is no rush. I prefer also to have this conversation on the Thriller 25 Talk Page, as we're both repeating everything here and on my Talk Page. - eo (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Userpage protection

Sorry. Forgot to respond yesterday. I can't change the protection level on your page myself. You might be able to get them to fully protect it at requests for page protection, but I doubt it since it's only been vandalized about 6 times since September. You also wouldn't be able to edit it yourself if protection was increased. Seeing how quickly the vandals have been reverted, I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you. It looks like you've got a few quick editors ready to revert with your page on their watchlist. --Onorem♠Dil 16:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Chart positions on thriller singles

Done a lot of work tonight, going to bed. Do me a favour - on the page, where we list singles, have the billboard chart position up next to it in italics? It'd be nice info to have (The Elfoid (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

Oh, sorry. Rather than list the singles seperate from the tracklist, I think we should indicate singles by listing the chart position the single reached in key territories (USA and UK). Like the albums on Mötley Crüe discography.

It saves a little space on the page, and as an added bonus it gets the chart positions onto the page. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

MJ...copy of note put on talk page

Hi, I just did research on the whole MTV and MJ connection and the big issues, as identified by Tom McGrath in "Michael and MTV" from MTV: The Making of a Revolution (Philadelphia: Running Press, 1996) (http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id127.htm) are: A) MTV executives believed that MTV was a "rock" channel, so they didn't initially want to play black artists such as Rick James or Michael Jackson....then, after much protest and criticism from black artists, "on March 2, one week after the song hit No. 1 on Billboard's Hot 100, the "Billie Jean" video debuted on MTV."...B) When MTV executives saw the "Beat It" and "Billie Jean" videos " they were absolutely floored by "Beat It."", with its choreography and dancing...." Never before had there been a video like this one. Almost single-handedly, this shy former child star had taken the entire field of music video and lifted it up a notch artistically. The reaction to both clips once they'd been aired -- and to the songs, and to the album, and to Michael himself -- made that clear. All across the country, in bars and basements and breakfast nooks and anywhere else that the MTV pipeline reached, people were watching the two clips and nodding that, yes, these were the best they'd ever seen, these were what video had the potential to become. Certainly record sales reflected people's excitement. Thriller had already sold more than two million copies by the time MTV first played "Billie Jean," but after the video went on the air, the album began to sell at a remarkable eight hundred thousand copies per week."....C) MJ and MTV together caused a big synergy, each helping each other.... "Michael Jackson was the hottest pop star on the planet in nearly twenty years -- and you could see him almost hourly on your favorite music video channel. While Michael and MTV were both absolutely on fire, the two weren't competing with each other; they were helping each other. Some would turn on their televisions merely to catch "Billie Jean" and "Beat It," and then find themselves mesmerized by the rest of what they were seeing on MTV. Others would tune in merely to watch MTV, and then find their jaws dropping at Michael's videos. The synergy was phenomenal. It was as if a couple of supercharged rockets had somehow hooked up in midair, and now the two of them were hurtling toward the heavens, linked together and moving faster than anyone could ever have imagined."...........................................................To summarize, the story in a BOOK about MTV and MJ is that MTV wouldn't play black artists, then MTV saw MJ's amazing videos, and played them, and the videos became super popular, and then MTV and MJ were "helping each other." Based on the guidelines for Wikipedia, the most reliable sources should be emphasized. I argue that the storyline from a BOOK about "Michael and MTV" from

MTV: The Making of a Revolution is a more reputable source than ONE SENTENCE in an ABC news article about the dedication of Jackson's fans, which states that "Jackson moonwalked for the first time across the stage at Motown's 25th anniversary special in 1983 and put MTV on the map with pioneering videos such as "Thriller," "Billie Jean" and "Beat It."...................As such, I argue that the line "put MTV on the map" should be replaced with the history outlined by Tom McGrath, that MJ and MTV together caused a big synergy, each helping each other.Nazamo (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thriller Special Edition infobox

Could you please create me one? To put on User:The Elfoid/sandbox. It's not finished, but now that Thriller/Thriller 25 are much shorter, I wanted to at least get an idea of where this was going, and if a merge is a more plausable idea.

Oh, and some of the credits are for things now recognised as names for synthesizers and keyboards, so I've merged some credits. Different types of synth are just types of synth on an album credit, given we're not giving exhausting details(The Elfoid (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

I'm at school and the network blocks my talk page (no idea why), but in the split-second it loaded for, I think I read you saying it did not deserve an infobox? I believe it has a different ID number, and would qualify as another release (yet another way to ruin Thriller sales figures beyond comprehension!) from Thriller and Thriller 25. It would give a sense of continuity to give one for it, since the other two releases (Thriller/Thriller 25) have an infobox. Don't take this as what I intend to do to Thriller though! This is just an outline idea. Chart information on Thriller Special Edition needs adding and will need adding for Thriller 25. Reviews of both releases, sales figures (though not high for Special Edition are important since sales of the original album would cut out of potential customer numbers) etc. would also go in.

Probably a picture of at least one music video would be useful too. Thriller ideally.

If you get this in the next 5 minutes, reply on your userpage and I'll check(The Elfoid (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

ok il TRY to do an info box for you, ive never done it before tho so i cant promise anything, lol.Realist2 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just take another one and edit details. Copy and paste the standard Thriller one and edit certain details (runtime, possibly the producer depending on who put together the new release, what albums came before and after [were the special editions all released in one day or seperately?], album cover.

The damn school don't like me surfing Wiki, but sending messages on the edit screen looks more like I'm doing some sort of work. Otherwise I'd do it myself.

What do you think of my mock-up page by the way? A sign that perhaps this can be done? I think if we go to town on both re-issues, it'll become a GA. Maybe an FA not out of the question. A music videos paragraph explaining why they were groundbreaking and unusual is another thing we could add. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

we`ll see theres lots that needs to be done yet, yeah i pasted some stuff, i dont no all the details so some of its wrong but the structure is up.Realist2 (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll sort it when I get home I guess. Sales figures were on mjinfo.co.uk, I need to check if I can access that from archive.org. (The Elfoid (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

sure ill leave it to you now, i dont wanna mess with it to much, it needs spacing out, the paragraph on thriller 2001 is so small and that info box is so big, it looks wierd. maybe as we write more about thriller 2001 it wount be such an eye saw.Realist2 (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thriller's credits should be ok now, might be one or two edits to make that I made to MY version (sandbox) of the article that aren't in the wiki one. Mostly types of synth. I'm still unsure about those Motown sales because Motown and Jackson severed connections long before then.

You're right though, I can't see the article getting much shorter. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

keep the site i will redirect it to a better page that has more relevance.Realist2 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 ^Talk! 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 ^Talk! 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 ^Talk! 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The this link is ok its just the citation needed i really don't understand Gaogier ^Talk! 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 ^Talk! 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nrjawards2008b.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Nrjawards2008b.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia 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: [4] - 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 ^Chat! 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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. [5]. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia guideline: Wikipedia: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: [6].

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 [7]) 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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

[8]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)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring: directly after release of block. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr^\ talk / 11:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|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 talk:Thriller (album)) 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 talk:Thriller (album). 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. [Here]
• 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. Realist2 (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)}}