Jump to content

User talk:Bookkeeperoftheoccult/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Playing cold

No; if you generally like that's all there is to it. That's how I've always felt. Hell, Jay-Z likes Coldplay. Nonetheless, I'm personally not into Coldplay. They're just realy bland to me. Essentially, their sound is basically this but with all the interesting bits taken out (which is especially funny since both groups were competing for Album of the Year at the Grammys last night). WesleyDodds (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I'm just glad at Robert Plant finally got some major Grammys. He should've won Album of the Year over thirty years ago back when he was in that one band. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I still remember the first time I heard that album. It was turned up LOUD. There's a reason it's only three places behind Thriller and the Eagles' greatest hits in the "best selling albums of all time" tally. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I play guitar; I can play "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "When I Come Around" at the drop of a hat. Haven't played in a few months; been too focused on other things in the meanwhile. If you ever want music recommendations, feel free to ask me. It's kind of what I do for a living. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There's something I actually do need that I can't get because I don't have interlibrary loan privileges as an alumni at my university library (seriously, what is up with that?), although I'm going to ask one of my friends to try and get it for me first. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal opinion wanted: do you think I'm being unreasonable here? Really what it my concern comes down to is that people kept repeating something over the years until it is accepted as fact even if the basis for it was not all that concrete in the first place. Personally I've always wanted to find a definite source for this, but none has ever turned up. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

More or less. Thanks anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you could get your hands on this for me? I can view a few pages on Amazon.com, but not everything I need. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Be careful that when you're adding items to the music honorific list that you are including well-established terms associated with an artist, and not just isolated off-the-cuff comments by reviewers and article writer. The titles should be well-established. Something to look out for is that a proper title would be capitalized (such as "The King of Pop" with Michael Jackson). WesleyDodds (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The list need a a lot of discretion if it is to be useful. As I've done a lot of research on R.E.M. and The Smashing Pumpkins, I can assure you that they are not afforded honorifics regularly; at most you get R.E.M. being called the fathers/forefathers/godfathers of alternative rock, but they've never been given a proper title that's used in descriptions of the group. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment regarding Rihanna on my talk page

Not to worry, no offense is taken at all. I'm interested to see where this leads, it's always good to get additional views regarding Wikipedia policies when there is an apparent gray area. I understand your concerns completely and I don't necessarily disagree with your assertions, although considering the continuing news coverage that this is receiving, it seems likely that the story will persist for some time. One comment would be that notability is not transient, and this event is a significant news event, even outside the realm of tabloid journalism. Comparisons could be made to other events that occur, such as Flight 1549, of which we had an article within 15 minutes of the occurrence. Of course, I do also realize that Wikipedia is not a tabloid, although it is almost certain that readers of both articles are likely to be seeking information regarding the event, as witnessed by the comments on the talk pages. We must of course be very careful when dealing with BLP's, being neutral in the extreme, well sourced and even more-so when there is domestic violence included. I'm a strong believer in moral and ethical duties to our subject articles, so while I believe the information should be included, we must be very careful. If we cannot meet a higher than usual standard, then it should certainly be removed. Best regards. --Chasingsol(talk) 10:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Mug shot

Since you've been working with mug shots lately, I just wanted to bring this to your attention. A mug shot of a living person (an entertainer) was just added as an example to the Mug shot article itself.[1] Another reason why a clearer policy is needed perhaps. Siawase (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

You have recently been posting on user talk pages to drum up support for your point on WP:BLP on the following pages: Chris_Brown_(entertainer) and Rihanna . At least two cases can be seen here: User_talk:Kotra#BLPs and here: User_talk:WesleyDodds#BLPs. Please desist such actions as this appears to violates WP:Canvassing. Thank you for your time! Magemirlen (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No canvassing here, Bookkeeper is just asking for the input of editors that have clue. — R2 03:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Tina & MJ

Thanks for looking in and leaving a comment. I have been so frustrated with the discussion on Talk:Tina Turner that I'm afraid I am becoming more than a little snippy with this editor. She does indeed have circular arguments, not to mention a huge propensity for ignoring anything against which she can't argue. The article was slowly shaping up again, and then suddenly the editor appeared and it has been deteriorated in the meanwhile. Although she backpedalled a bit on her stance of FA and GA articles, she still went to a couple FAs (Jackson and Celine Dion and seems to be stretching out to "fix" crap articles. I'm sorry it spilled onto the Jackson article. I try not bite the newbies, but when I saw she has only been here since November 2008, and doesn't appear to know how to format a cite, I realized the horse we were beating hadn't drawn a breath yet. Sorry for bad analogies. I thought I'd wait until tomorrow to see what she does with what has been changed tonight before I go anywhere else. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little overwhelmed with where to go on this. You've suggested Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#General user conduct and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I'm also a bit confused on what to include. Should I include the arbitrary and odd comments and changes to Michael Jackson, Celine Dion, and Gwen Stefani and her very clear statements about featured articles being crap? I've mostly only used WP:AN/I and this seems to go beyond that, with her encouraging everyone to help her fix featured and good articles because she "can't do all the work myself after all." I shudder thinking about what is involved in pulling this together. Then there is the sudden pop-up of a new account that returned her icon statement to Tina Turner [2] which reeks of sock. Any suggestions would be most welcome. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Ping, he/she want the Jackson article reassessed. — R2 23:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no way this is not sock activity. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rihanna

Look the page now... I took the Rap and there is the R&B and Reggae, according to the source that I put, Billboard reliable source is not Pop, and remove a source is not allowed :) Hug Vítor & Rihanna (msg) 23:09 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop remove the Billboard source. Vítor & Rihanna (msg) 23:20 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not true, stop remove, because the singer only are pop in 2005 and 2006. Hug Vítor & Rihanna (msg) 23:25 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If you continue to modify the page, I will talk to an administrator Vítor & Rihanna (msg) 23:28 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Everyone knows that Billboard is more credible that the All Music, it was discovered that the Billboard R & B. The section is so wrong that I will not play Vítor & Rihanna (msg) 23:51 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over this right now. You have grossly broken WP:3RR, let's please come to some agreement on the talk page first. Amalthea 23:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Rihanna has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Britney Spears/GA1

Heads up guys. --Efe (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yay

:). — R2 02:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Will he be able to manage his business while on the road? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The majority of business owners have a wealth of people working under them. Bill Gates doesn't even manage microsoft anymore. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Bill Gates is retired. Are you confusing being an investor with being a businessman perhaps? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I happen to be a business major in college. I know the definition of both terms. An individual can easily hold more than one occupation. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Not only can you have more than one profession, you can also be an investor and a musician. Being a businessman and a musician would be more unusual. Is there any evidence that MJ is a businessman? Where did MJ get his business training? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing unusual about being a musician and a businessman. More importantly, you don't need formal training to do either. MJ never went to school for music, acting or dancing and pleanty of wealthy business owners have no formal education. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> exactly what business is Michael Jackson in? Do you have any sources discussing him being a businessman? I know he's auctioning stuff off. Is that his business? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything connected to his finances- his catalog of songs (music industry), his recording contracts with sony (music industry again) and his realestate ventures (neverland ranch), his holding company for his finances (MJJ Productions Inc... a legally recognized incorporated company) and his charity organization Heal the World Foundation (another legally recognized entity)- from which he is the primary beneficiary and/or negotiator are all business transactions/ventures and therefore he automatically falls under the label, as a vast majority of human beings do who are not simply employed by someone. Considering I've listed a wide variety of source on the article talk page, I have zero interest in discussing this further. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
But again his owning a song catalog and other property and investments does not make him a businessman. There need to be sources discussing him being one. Every musician deals with contracts. And being party to a charitable organization does nto make someone a businessman. If you can't produce sources I'm going to have to reword it again to what the sources in the article say and describe, which is na investor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does, and the sources provided back that up. Altering the text at this point, against reliable sources and against consensus constitutes vandalism and I will have no quarrel reporting you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Billie Jean/archive1

This might interest you. I'm not overtly involved with it, I did a little clean up before GA. Would be nice to see such an iconic song reach FA. — R2 14:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Warrington has been trying to alter the business man thing, following talks with Childofmidnight. This is clearly getting disruptive. — R2 22:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I know who is behind this. — R2 02:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Chris Brown

I'm sorry if I unintentionally got things a bit riled up by suggesting a separate section for the incident. I completely agree that the incident shouldn't take up a significant portion of the article, because we have no idea if it will have this much importance one year or five years from now. Similarly, the arrest section in the Kanye West article appears to be now pointless, because now I'm pretty sure not too many people can recall he was arrested in September, because it wasn't that big of a deal. The reason I suggested a subsection for the Chris Brown case was purely technical; having to scroll down and muddle through the text in the edit window is a bit of an inconvenience (at least in my opinion) considering how long the current section is. But I don't want for a new, separate section on the incident to invite users to add unimportant details, such as his withdrawal from the Kids' Choice Awards, criticism from other celebrities, etc. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 06:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to adding detail, such as his withdrawl from the Kids' Choice Awards or community criticisms etc., but they have to be added with objectivity; I think its too early to do currently. As I've mentioned before, Janet and Micheal's controversies (as an example) have plenty of detail, but enough time has passed to known what details out of 3-5 years of coverage are important and which ones are not. Knowing Brown had been dropped from multiple endorsements as a result of his actions isn't overly detailed, its just factual, which is what is most important. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not at all opposed to adding relevant details, because I'm not interested in making Chris Brown look "good" or "bad" in the article. I just want it to be purely factual, just as the other editors do, which is why I understand no one wants to add a separate section for the incident yet, because every minute there's always "new breaking details" on the case and it's unclear which details will be important to add in the long run. Like I said, my suggestion for an arrest section was purely technical, but I more than understand why the current section should remain as is. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
agreed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

About time for this

The Special Barnstar
for your continued dedication to keeping List of honorific titles in popular music free of unsourced fancruft and properly encyclopedic. This article was a shed when started, but has now grown into a defensible article, thanks to your continued efforts. Rodhullandemu 00:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Aww thanks! I really appreciate it! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah fair do's, you deserve this. :) — R2 15:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Princess of Wails"

Priceless. Apart from the "duh!" factor, that's made my day! --Rodhullandemu 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot spinout of Coraline (film)

Talk:Coraline_(film)#PlotKjellmikal (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Cher

[3] Thanks. I've been trying to deal with User:Excuseme99 regarding poor sourcing and POV editing on some articles for a while, and then occasionally with User:4Real182 on the same issues. I left Real a note about my reasoning for reversion on that talk page. How interesting that Excuseme showed up to revert my revert, based on "him" giving five sources (most all of which were either copies of the current version of the Cher article, or an older version). Sheesh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Janet!

Love it! I was never fortunate enough to go to the GLAAD awards with someone named Ace, but I am glad I never had to go to the Ace Awards. Hm?  ;) So the real question is, did you get that cute doctor's number? Abrazame (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Cher

You're right. *Ow!* And you're a diligent editor who keeps his focus on the research necessary. I've got a thing about trying to make people see reason. *sigh* Abrazame (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary R&B

Where does that is a source? Value have been quiet ... Vítor&R™ (msg) 16h10min de 28 de Março de 2009 (UTC)


Hey! How can i look at the article talk page for Rihanna? I want to make sure I know what has been previously discussed so I dont make changes that are incorrect! Thank you Tyty06 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC).


AALIYAH PAGE

IF YOU CAN REWRITE THE AALIYAH" MUSICAL STYLE" SECTION BETTER THEN GO AHEAD.BUT IF YOU ARENT ABLE TO SUPPORT CLAIMS THEN PLEASE DONT ATTEMPT.THANKYOU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.108.191 (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to show you this

I will just let the links speak for themselves. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ChildofMidnight, [4]. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Me either!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Just an update. This has finally gone active. Oh boy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
And so you did! And you used the same basis I'm formulating right now!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Whitney Houston

Thank you for removing the "too long" tag from the Whitney Houston article (as well as the cleanup-reorganize one). That tag being wrongly placed there is exactly what I tried to explain to Lil-unique1, on Lil-unique1's talk page and mine. I did not directly mention WP:SIZE in those discussions because I felt that that user was probably familiar with it but going by his own feelings, and that he probably got what I meant about other articles being of the same accepted or longer length here.

You might want to state something about your removal of the tag on Lil-unique1's talk page as well, though...just in case Lil-unique1 adds it back. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk page, thanks for explaining to him. You did an excellent job in laying it all out. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm loving the new introduction to the Whitney Houston article. But I have a quick question: why was the mention of her decline in success and her drug use removed from the intro? Orane (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I'm against putting personal troubles/conflicts into the lead of a biography unless the event overshadows the individuals entire career or completely derails it (EX: Michael Jackson whose child molestation cases were deemed simply too large to ignore during the FAC). Houston's drug/rehab ordeal was fairly recent, whereas her marriage has always been a "backdrop" of her public identity since she and Brown said "I Do." Being in the spotlight for the majority of her career and even signing a $100 million dollar contract in the midst of personal turmoil is pretty astounding. I've taken the same stance on Janet Jackson, Chris Brown and Rihanna (see FAC and talk pages). Basically, if you can ignore it and focus on their career itself, you should. it also falls in line with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Although I respect your decision to not tout embarassing/degrading information in the intro, I feel that her crazy behaviour, weight loss, marital abuse and drug use did sorta derail her career. Perhaps a swift mention of "Houston faced various personal and professional difficulties at the beginning of the millennium" would even be enough. Most neutral biographies that I've seen gave even passing mention of it. And in line with Undue weight, this information is found in the most authoritative sources, and was widely circulated. Anyway, it's up to you. Either way, the intro looks good. Orane (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I may add something similar to the sentence which mentions her divorce to brown. Thanks for the advice. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
"Biography" vs "Life and Career". It's probably a matter of personal taste, but like your use of the term "recording artist", I've been championing the use of "Life and Career" instead of "Biography" in articles. Biography, as far as what I've learned, is a genre of writing giving an account of someone's life including their achievements, works, and influence (if any). As such, the prose isn't "the biography". The entire article, including their discography, filmography etc falls under someone's biograpgy (i.e the article is the biography, and not just the section within it that recounts their life). To read the biography of Voltaire isn't just to read the events of his life, without mention of his works or their influence etc. Don't know if it makes sense. Something I learned in class (I had a book souce but lost it), and I don't know if others would agree. Orane (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand, I'm a bookworm myself (I spend a great deal of time researching databases). Like you said, it probably boils down to a matter of personal taste. The reason I personally prefer biography is specifically to indicate actual prose verse the listing of information, meaning "their achievements, works, and influence (if any)" are actually being discussed in said prose (which, in and of itself, may be my own personal POV)...ultimately i guess neither is really "right" or "wrong". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In the Legacy section, shouldn't the use of the term "Black" be capitalized due to the fact that it is referring to ethnicity? For example, the article Black people does this.

I'm going to ask the editor who changed my capitalized edits on that back to smaller case. All in all, though, whichever form is the best way to Wikipedia, it should be consistent throughout the article (of course) wherever it is noted/mentioned. Flyer22 (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see that the article Black people (from what I glanced of it) only capitalizes Black in referring to Black Africa in the In the sub-Saharan Africa section. Flyer22 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary R&B

Do you think it would be wise to remove the tables on sales? Maybe keep the one for total artist sales/group sales? The one on albums seems redundant and too susceptible to unsourced pov pushing.Also, we have an article dedicated to the best selling albums (regardless of genre). Thoughts? — R2 00:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it does seem a little ridiculous to have it there: the point of the article should be to focus on the genre itself, not album sales. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Wowwww. Thanks book!! Really appreciated!!! How did you know? --Legolas (talk2me) 11:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I was reading the "Poker Face (Lady GaGa song)" article (which I think is amazing) and noticed you were the primary contributor...so I looked through some of your other contributions and saw some of the stuff you've done on Madonna's discography and was pleasantly surprised. Most of the competent music editors are restricted to rock music related articles. Its nice to see Pop getting proper attention. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. Yes, I like contributing significantly to articles which need attention and format articles which have been developed as a result of fancruft. You won't believe the amount of haters I accumulated just for the "Poker Face" article!! --Legolas (talk2me) 11:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP wikiproject

Will interest you. — R2 16:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Anytime you're ready

You and R2: Anytime you're ready, let me know. :) Orane (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Aww. Thanks for the vote of confidence! I'm sure Realist is thankful as well. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Character Defamation

Hi Bookkeeperoftheoccult, Any thoughts how to fix this? This is a very serious issue concerning an artist I represent - Salvatore Inzerillo He is properly placed as a living artist in a substantial production in this article:

The above Article links him to this Article:

This is not the same person; it is defamatory, wrong, misleading and insulting.

When I attempted to create a new Article for the living Salvatore Inzerillo, it was refused, and yet there are articles I sited within Wikipedia as well as extremely reputable sites throughout the Internet. I refuse to accept this abomination of my clients character and hope that Wikipedia can restore Salvatore Inzerillo's name as a separate person in a separate Article before I continue with legal action. On Wikipedia My client is properly cited:


On the Internet:


Salvatore Inzerillo is not a dead heroin trafficking murderer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Promethius11 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi BKOTO, This was posted and handled at WP:EAR. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And there went Maude

That is so sad. I too loved her, she was the original tough broad!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Bea Loved

You're so sweet to think of me and leave that message. I was just sitting here watching clips of her on YouTube. Not to get maudlin, but I just came back from the funeral of a cousin this week and it was on the one-year anniversary of a friend's passing. I thought maybe I was just all cried out, but I think you're right. She was so tremendous, so unique, and so successful for so many years, and I feel like I had the opportunities I wanted to experience her gifts. Even though I'm generally easily moved by the death of people I care for, she had a long and proud and triumphant life at the top of her game and perhaps tears are simply not called for.

I was just pondering last week about maybe writing her. I've never actually written a fan letter, but having had her on my mind here with you and in another venue a month ago, I was thinking I hadn't seen her for awhile and it might be nice to tell her what I'd missed the chance to that night after seeing her show on Broadway. But I know she knows it all now.

Have you ever seen this? [5] (I don't care what anyone says, I love the Lucille Ball version of Mame every bit as much as the Rosalind Russell version, and Bea is the ONLY Vera Charles for me!)

And how gay is this ;) her TV special from 1980 that starred Rock Hudson, Melba Moore, the Solid Gold Dancers and Madame!!! [6]

Spectacular talent. Nobody had her impeccable timing and her gravelly gravitas. Well, thank God we've still got Elaine Stritch. The Queen is dead. Long live The Queen! Abrazame (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. TreyGeek (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:FORUM

Hello, Bookkeeperoftheoccult. You have new messages at TreyGeek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

hello

hello

im here cos of your message you sent me

im a huge fan of michael jackson and in editing cos they got it wrong so im just changing it to perfect it ok? yours sincerly, LOUIS mjlouisdbz14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjlouisdbz14 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My RFA

Hello, Ms. Oftheoccult! I'm giving adminship a shot, and thought you might have some thoughts about this. If you're interested in co-nominating (no problem if you're not!), the page is here. Or, if you think I'm sure to fail, please let me know! -kotra (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to help. I'm going to be out of town for a few days (until Monday May 4th) but once I'm back I may offer a question for you to answer provide the nomination hasn't gone live at that point. I don't think you are sure to fail, but my sole concern for you as an Admin would be if you are too "understanding" with problem editors. You're sweet like sugar and while that wonderful there will be situations where you are going to have to put down the hammer. Nonetheless I think you can handle the ropes and I am willing to Support. If im not home in time to co-nominate or at leas ask a question, you can count on at least one support. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! I think I will probably be putting the RFA off for about a week, so there's plenty of time; no worries though if you'd rather not co-nom. I can answer your question right now if you like. If you're referring to my interactions with a specific editor, I can confirm that I was purposely being particularly supportive and friendly (as much as the situation allowed), because I felt that was the only way to avoid a defensive reaction from the editor, and thereby perhaps achieve some change. I felt it was up to the rest of the community to act like the "bad cop" (and they obliged, most of the time). Eventually I realized the editor did not really want to change, despite the editor's assurances, so I tried to be a little more strict; this backfired and since I wasn't ready to be overtly hostile, it ended there. As for "putting down the hammer" in general, I do agree that it's not in my nature to like doing that sort of thing, but if necessary I will, and have, done it. I think my reluctance to excoriate well-meaning editors is a strength that not all admins have, unfortunately. I'd like to help balance that. Also, since adminship is a voluntary position, I wouldn't have to block people or delete pages if I wasn't up to it.
Sorry, that was way too long. Anyway, if you still want to ask this question at my RFA, feel free. And I hope you have a good time on your trip! -kotra (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm back from my mini-vacation. I've added my optional question to your RfA page. I appreciate your answer here. Vandals and disruptive editors tend to be the Achilles' heel of wikipedia which is why I feel its an issue ever admin should be prepared for. In any case, I'm comfortable supporting your RfA. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll answer the question shortly. -kotra (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Britneyspearsrollingstone.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Britneyspearsrollingstone.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Myspace

On Links to avoid, right at the top in bold it says avoid the following links unless they are official pages of the subject (or something to that effect). Therefore the bullet to avoid myspace is voided since it is an official page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nude Photos

It's all over the web, it's extremely dumb for you to deny it is her. It is already on E! & Access Hollywood, so it's better if you stop this whole "non-reliable source" garbage. it's her .. GET OVER IT! User:Willallen93 (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Gaga

I wanted to thank you for all the help that you are lending to the Gaga articles regarding cleaning up and improving. I really appreaciate it. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a Problem. Lady Gaga is very addicting. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Aaliyah

Hey there Bookkeeper, after protection wore off on Aaliyah, it seems the the IPs are back adding unsourced content and changing sales figures there and in Aaliyah discography to their liking. I really doubt this behavior will change, regardless of temporary semi-protections and blocks, considering both measures have been taken and these edits continue. Any idea on how this should be handled? — Σxplicit 01:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Major articles like Janet Jackson are on indefinite semi-protection. You may simply request an indefinite semi-protection for the page due to excessive vandalism. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll give a request for indefinite semi-protection a try; I'll start gathering heaps of diffs before requesting protection. If it's declined, I'll have to try alternatives. — Σxplicit 02:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Got another month of protection. Wish that indefinite went through… — Σxplicit 07:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Some protection is better than none :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 19:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Guess you're right. Hopefully I can get the article through to GA with the additional time. — Σxplicit 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally the article looks good... That Legacy section needs a serious overhaul though. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, one of the many problems surrounding the article at the moment, along with POV sentences and citation issues. I should be able to thoroughly rewrite the article next weekend. — Σxplicit 20:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Any Help?

Hi there. How have you been? Haven't spoken to you in a while.

I've seen your work and have been impressed, and I was wondering, if you're not too busy, if you could give me a little hand with an article. Right now, my main issue is writing about the music/song structure/composition etc. I have all the information (fixyourmix, LATimes and The Times). I'll get back to you with a sort of rough draft, if possible, and if you can help at all, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Orane (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In general I'm good at doing research since I have access to proquest and other online databases that archive news media and academic journals. If you need any help sourcing information or have questions on something that may have been reported, I'll be happy to assist. When I get a chance I'll try looking up something on the musical arrangement of the song. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Essential Janet Jackson

Something you might want to keep an eye on, easy GA potential here. — R2 11:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually considering redirecting it, since google isn't picking up much traction. — R2 13:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I think its fine as is. I'm sure more information will become available as the release date nears. In any case...YAY! JANET! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually I just read through the sourced on the page, which gives zero infomation. I'll try looking up some validity to the article when I get a chance. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. I also noticed an IP vandalised the article saying "THIS IS NOT TRUE!". Maybe redirect it if nothing can be found. — R2 00:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd say the article needs to be nominated for deletion. There is no evidence anywhere this is valid. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Poker Face

Thanks for your help in this article. But have you noticed that an user is continuously removing sourced content and replacing with unreliable sources? Even after explaining that wp goes for verifiability and not truth. Obviously when I reverted, its all my fault and the same bad-mouthing me. sigh! --Legolas (talk2me) 12:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't noticed, but I'll keep a better eye out. Keep the faith! :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on this issue. I have an entirely different request. I have finished working on "4 Minutes", "Give It 2 Me" and "Miles Away". Now I will be working on the charity song "Hey You". I have found background info for the song. But what I am missing is the critical receptions. Can you please help me in finding some reception for the song? --Legolas (talk2me) 04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow!! That was so fast!! I can't thank you enough for it!!! --Legolas (talk2me) 05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Book. This is just to inform you that User:Smanu is starting the same edit wars over The Cherrytree Sessions (Lady Gaga EP) over alternate tracklistings. Both are confirmed by WP:RS. A consensus is there in the talk page, but still the user is reverting. I don't wanna commit 3RR so just thought of informing you. Thanks. --Legolas (talk2me) 12:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Well was not feeling that well yesterday. But definitely today it will be nominated for GA. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bookkeeperoftheoccult/Archive_5&oldid=1144452272"