User talk:Realist2/Archive 36

im still greving of the death of mj i just cant belive it man--Mjlouisdbz14 (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Something to add to Invincible. The article notes that the album's sales are better than 95 per cent of other singer's, despite being branded a 'flop'.
   • Thanks, I'll add that. It can also be added to the media bias article :)
2. Do you know of any other artists influenced by MJ to add to this? Pyrrhus16 19:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
   • Not off the top of my head (R. Kelly should be on it though, see You Are Not Alone), I would have to research it, which I'll do, but I likely won't find anything more than you. — R² 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     • Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. — R² 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Realist [R2], thanks for taking the time in reviewing the article. I appreciate it. Let me know when you have the review done. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When is this being unlocked? I think the issues might have died down now. — R² 17:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Realist,

Per your request, I've unprotected the article. There are several other similar articles which can also be unprotected, if the vandalism issues have truly died out. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I removed Switzerland because in the talk page we reached a consensus regarding the removal of that country. I added Spain because according to the sales figures of markets in 2008 and 2009 it's one of the 10 biggest markets in the world. I am not going to revert your edit, I will leave it how it is, but I just wanted to make clear that a consensus had been reached. Nympho wiki (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, but at this stage I do not believe consensus has actually be reached. That Switzerland should be removed and replaced by Spain, I just can't see that much support on the talk page, at least at a quick glance. — R² 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, got your note on the links, but wanted to better understand why they are not allowed; the content I linked to is licensed, i.e. it's not illegal. Sorry for what may appear as ignorance (new to editing). Thanks! --Otodic (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. — R² 13:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's now live. I've sent it over to DYK as well. Pyrrhus16 18:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted, hopefully those crazed deletionists won't try and pick holes in it. Note, I'm only a moderate crazed deletionist :D — R² 18:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully they won't. :) Pyrrhus16 18:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. We cursed it. Pyrrhus16 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Timberlake actually makes the best case for deletion: "Anytime someone comes out and dances and does something with choreography, they say, 'Well, that's inspired by Michael'". The problem is, like the Beatles, he's influenced pretty much everyone, so what you've effectively got is List of pop singers active after the mid-1980s. Any way to refocus it into "Artists significantly and demonstrably influenced by Michael Jackson", (only with a better title), which I think would stand a better chance? – iridescent 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented, but I do agree that the article needs to be sent in a different direction. — R² 19:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely open to suggestions. I like that idea about the larger type article. :) Pyrrhus16 19:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just see how it pans out. But don't take it to heart. You've clearly spent quite some time working on it so this must be frustrating. — R² 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General hint for anything that looks like it may be headed for deletion; send it over to MyWikiBiz. As long as it's got a "taken from Wikipedia" credit and link to the (potentially) deleted page, GFDL means anything (even if it's deleted here) can be exported there (that's what that legalese beneath the edit box means). Greg won't delete anything that's not libellous, and once it's there you can work on it at your leisure. MWB pages also generally rank very high on Google counts (although in this case, that's going to be relative). – iridescent 20:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an idea. I'm also liking the idea about creating a larger article. Anyway, I won't be able to access the computer from tommorrow (going to Spain on holiday). I should be back next week. :) Pyrrhus16 20:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have a great holiday. Is there anything you want me to watchlist while you are away? — R² 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I think the hotels have internet access in the cafe, so I should be able to get on here at least once a day to check my watchlist. Anyway, best get ready; we're leaving this afternoon. :) Pyrrhus16 08:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This could end up having an epic AfD. — R² 20:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 2 things: !-have you transcluded the review page to the article discussion? Somehow I don't see it. & for #2:.... Jonathan King recently wrote Lady GaGa could be Xtine Aguilera. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 18:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for reminding me. Shouldn't take too long to give you a review. — R² 18:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I'm not clear about everything you mentioned. Can you refer me to an all-purpose reference template? Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 23:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can use <ref name=" ">{{cite web |first= |last= |url= |title= |publisher= |date=June 18, 1995 |accessdate=April 1, 2009 }}</ref> for anything bar books. First and last being the first and last name of the writer, if there was one. — R² 23:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. Though not fully recovered (still battered), I will be able to edit articles for Gaga and others (yeahh!!). That should calm be down. Thanks for your help in watchlisting these articles. Really appreciated. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god your back, looking after those articles was a nightmare, don't know how you manage. I just heard Mariah Carey's new song. — R² 04:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He he. I know. Thats why you don't see me that much on the other music related articles. I have yet to hear MC's "Obsession". What do you feel are its potentials? Pulsemusic is going crazy for it. :D --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than the lead single from her last album and that went to #1 in the US singles chart, so I imagine this will as well. It's catchy right now, but it will be forgotten in a few years. — R² 13:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could i add the alternative covers Spanish/Summer Limited Edition and the International Tour Edition File:Loose International Tour Edition album by Nelly Furtado.jpg of the album Loose and add in the article? D6H! (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No sorry, it is nearly identical to the standard version and no fair use argument can be made for its inclusion. — R² 23:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link is from a trusty source and is used across wikipedia. Golden Husky (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. — R² 02:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for keeping an open mind Golden Husky (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but did you see my own contributions to that discussion on the noticeboard? It would seem that, to validate your opinion, you'll have to remove every single cite with that link on wikipedia.Golden Husky (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There are loads of shitty articles at Wikipedia, it's not my fault. — Please comment R² 13:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested or have any pertinent content to add to the case, please see this SPI. Thanks!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've bumped into quite a few of those accounts, but I'm not good at spotting sock puppetry. — R² 13:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I seem to be good enough to spot it once I've seen the editor at work a few times. On the other hand, I had no clue there were so many accounts involved until I started looking at the contributions from the IP page and cross checking. I'm confident I didn't spot them all. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll look, not only were all the accounts but one related, the number of others that were found far exceeded what I expected. However, some of them had not been used as of yet. It's a relief for it to be out in the open. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I can't believe Wikipedia can't do more to stop people activating more than one account. — Please comment R² 13:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but there was no-one disscusing. And I have wanted the article to go to the GA quickly. I do not see any improvments needed. I changed the pic. beacuse we must (as the policy says) the most recent image is to put up. Thank you for you concerns. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 02:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the GA thing. As for the image, we only use the more recent image when there are several years between them (and that's not policy either, more a guideline), not several months. — R² Please comment 02:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He he. Have you started using the Screem PR in your sign? PS the GAN. I can smell troubleeeeeeeeeeeeee from Dance-pop. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I really want Scream to pass FA. I assume most of the people commenting at Lady Gaga are sock puppets, don't worry. — Please comment R² 16:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, regarding the genres, they are actually sourced in the article body. I don't necessarily agree with the analysis of the critics either, but that's another matter. Not sure what you think...— Please comment R² 01:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't change it back...but I consulted the sources and only Rolling Stone referred to the song as "blues operatic". But to contextualize things, a song can have a blues-y or operatic influence or aura, but still be a pop or a rock song. It's "gospel-y" and operatic in the sense that there's a choir. But that does mean it's an opera song. Orane (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's your call, I'll trust your judgment. — Please comment R² 02:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the wrong url and i return the notice =D Vítor&R™ ^{(Live Your Life!)} 00h00min de 21 de Junho de 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, but the source only states that's she's an R&B artist, not the influence she has had on the genre. — Please comment R² 22:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So just put the reference to "Queen of R B" in another article or change the text.Vítor&R™ ^{(Live Your Life!)} 15h40min de 22 de Junho de 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. The R&B article should discuss how the genre developed over time, not list popular R&B artists. If she has had a specific influence on the genre then she should be mentioned, with an explanation of how she affected the genre. The allmusic link doesn't really explain that. — Please comment R² 14:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Real. I have been working on this article for the last three days. Can you help me out a bit about the LEAD. I'm a little stuck as to how encompass such a giant article. I somehow did it for "4 Minutes" but in this one, I'm quite stuck. Just a heads up should be fine. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will do. — Please comment R² 16:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its done. Just check how the final aricle shapes up. PS I still wanna start the Madonna wikiproject with you :( --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through it in the next hour. — Please comment R² 14:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably be aware of Petergriffin9901's return to editing. He's on a pretty tight leash. If you catch him violating parole, let me know.—Kww(talk) 15:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will do. — Please comment R² 16:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, neutrality concerns over the criminal conviction of Chris Brown have been raised on the talk page. Since you have been previously involved in the discussion, will you answer the request for comment? Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Please comment R² 22:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. Be prepared for every vandal and POV-pusher under the sun to join in. – iridescent 21:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Please comment R² 21:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just when you thought you might get a quiet evening to burn some CDs!- I'll semi if the nonsense gets out of hand. Rodhullandemu 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article already is semi protected, were you talking about the talk page? — Please comment R² 21:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC has just reported "believed dead". Full-protected until this is sorted out. – iridescent 21:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please, can someone at least semi the talk page. — Please comment R² 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big hugs my dear friend. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, man! :( – (iMatthew • talk) at 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm a little drunk right now. — Please comment R² 00:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very sad. Orane (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm in complete and total shock. A big loss, not only in music, but in history itself. — Σxplicit 22:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't interacted often, so this may seem unprecedented, but I wanted to say that if the reports are true, and Michael Jackson is dead, that I'm sorry. It's obvious you've put so much of your time and effort into keeping his article neutral and encyclopedic. The saddest part of it all is that if the reports are true, that only means more interest in his name, and we all know what "large amounts of interest" on Wikipedia means. You have my condolences. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hugs to you, I know you were quite the fan. A sad day overall. - eo (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is very hard for me. — Please comment R² 00:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry - I imagine you must be going through a terrible time right now. I had always planned on giving you this one because it's the closest I have come to shooting Michael, and this day seems fitting. If it's any consolation, I'm certain he knew you had such a strong hand in keeping his article NPOV. In my experience, celebrities often read the Talk pages of their articles, just as they do blogs and newspaper stories. -->David Shankbone 23:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try and stay positive, I am truly devastated by the news. — Please comment R² 00:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel strongly about what we did for his article and I am devastated we'll never see him live now. I hope you are well. I no longer have AIM, but I will check on this again soon.--Manboobies (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am truly crushed by the news. — Please comment R² 00:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I know you were a fan of Michael Jackson, and I echo the above. Thank you for all the work you've done on his article. Kind regards. Acalamari 02:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your Acalamari, I appreciate it. — Please comment R² 02:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I'm on a Wikibreak, I thought I'd drop in because I know you loved him as much as we all did. I hope you are doing very well in such a sad time. Stay strong, and I give you my regards! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 02:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Carpet. — Please comment R² 02:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere regards for you my friend. Even I cannot believe it! I remember watching him in Mumbai when he came to India. Alas such a tragic event. I hope you are doing well. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. — Please comment R² 03:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope they donot unprotect the bio article for a few weeks. It has already turned into a nightmare. Did you know that it was even reported in the news regarding Wikipedia server coming down due to the hits on the MJ article? Please be strong and wish him well. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, wanted to thank you for all your hard work on the Michael Jackson project and I send my regards. Useight (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the bad news, Realist. However, on the bright side (if there is one), your excellent work on the article has been viewed by millions of people in the past day, and I think you should be proud of that. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. — Please comment R² 03:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are with you.--andreasegde (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I analyzed Michael Jackson's Wikipedia biography today, and I figured out that you are the main contributor to his bio. Thanks for your high-quality edits to the bio of Michael Jackson. You should be proud of the fact that millions of people around the word are reading the bio developed by you. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry about the bad news, Realist2. I hope you're doing well. I just came here to thank you for the brilliant work you've done on the Michael Jackson article. It truly is one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Regards, TheLeftorium 11:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey realist,

how do you go on from this? I woke up and found this out - it's just a nightmare... how do you get over this?--Paaerduag (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Honestly, if it wasn't for all of your hard work, the Michael Jackson article would have been total crap yesterday. That would have been a disaster, IMO. If it was filled with false information, and a lack of sources, and all of that stuff, the media would be ripping Wikipedia apart. While for a bad reason, your work was seen by over a million people yesterday. That's certainly something to be proud of. Thank you for all of your work on Jackson's article! :) – (iMatthew • talk) at 12:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True - We've saved him from further humiliation. That's the least we could have done. What they've done to him in life is fucking disgraceful, but at least in death Wikipedia respects his legend. It's so sad to see him stopped just before he was going to prove everyone he still had raw fire in spades.--Manboobies (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad to think of his fashion show appearance and how he moved so effortlessly riffing and jiving with the music, how we'll never see that.--Manboobies (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Realist, I mentioned your work on the Michael Jackson article in this blog post. -->David Shankbone 14:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I immediately thought of you, Realist when I woke up to the bad news this morning. I know you're sad at the untimely death of this talented man; however, you can be proud of all the painstaking work you have done on his article, which has probably been read by a countless number of people. All the best, Realist.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been on Wiki for a while, but I as well thought of you when I heard the shocking and tragic news. I felt a strange emptiness when I heard the news, and it is incontrovertible that the world has lost one of the greatest artists in history. He was a great singer, dancer, and a great man. Many personal issues have come up in my life, so unfortunately I cannot see myself editing at Wikipedia in the near future. But nonetheless, my regards and hopefully the Michael Jackson page will remain informative and clean of vandalism. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 17:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When hearing this over the radio, I thought of all the editors who have contributed to the Jackson project. You were first. Knowing you are a fan, very sorry.

ceranthor 19:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the fact that Sky News has now reached 24 hours with 55 minutes of every hour dedicated to a single story isn't enough, this puts the whole "people don't care" thing in perspective. In the last two hours of the 25th (since the story broke) I believe Michael Jackson came second only to Obama on election day in terms of number of views, and I have no doubt at all that once today's views are tallied, it will not only break the article record, but will come close (if not actually beat) the Main Page itself.

I did mean what I said about leaving the articles entirely for a few days; I'm not touching them at all, and I'd recognise that everyone else stay clear of them (other than maintenance needed for the TGIM FAC). In a week's time when the dust has settled, and it's clearer exactly what has happened, whatever problems are left can be cleaned up at leisure. Don't try to fight the tide by yourself. – iridescent 20:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very surreal experience at the moment; I still can't believe what is happening. Take all the time you need; I'm watchlisting your GA articles. I'll leave the main article for the others. Like the people above, I also want to say well done for getting the King of Pop's article to such a high level of quality. At least when millions of people came to the page (and imploded the internet), they saw a neutral, well written and respected article within Wikipedia. Pyrrhus16 13:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The BLP Barnstar
		For making Michael Jackson such a high quality article, prior to the King of Pop's untimely death. Pyrrhus16 13:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I hope you're holding up well, about as well as one can be expected to react in this situation. I was absolutely shocked too. If you haven't found out already, then let me be the first to tell you that the MJ article, which you turned into a FA, was yesterday the most visited article for a single day in the history of Wikipedia. Good work dude. I'm sorry I haven't been active lately. I've been very, very busy. Come back soon; Wikipedia needs you.

RIP MJ.UberCryxic (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know who you are Realist2, but apparently you love MJ and have taken good care of his articles, so thank you. Portillo (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you watch after this page. This user is constantly destroying it. Lovejonesfly (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought you'd like to know that the MJ article had more hits yesterday than the main page got. Raul654 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your comprehensive and nuanced work on Michael Jackson, one of the key cultural figures of our time, who will be deeply missed. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone has nominated This Is It (Michael Jackson concerts) for GA. As your the main contributor, I thought you should know. I would have waited for things to settle down, but seeing as it's there, we might as well leave it. It not being promoted is the worst that can happen. I'll keep an eye on the review discussion, and see if I can fix any concerns. Pyrrhus16 09:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to personally thank you for your excellent work on the Michael Jackson articles during these past days. I read the main article, like everyone else on the planet :-), and found it to be quite good. Later, people pointed out to me that you had a major role in making it so. Thank you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess it was relief to see an article about an important cultural figure in good shape. I read over the FACs months ago, and was impressed with the dedication you showed to improvement of the article, despite the stress. That you brought it to featured status despite English not being your native language is doubly impressive. Congrats, thank you, and may MJ rest in peace. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Biography Barnstar
		Thank you for all of your hard work making Michael Jackson an FA - we can be proud of how Wikipedia looked in the eyes of the world largely because of your efforts! Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For making this article featured. I am quite positive that the Jackson family, his associates, even Jackson himself, looked at the article while you were making it featured. And, believe you me...making a featured article is never easy. From another life-long MJ fan... Take care. miranda 03:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like everyone's done the "oh my god dude you must be so upset" thing enough already. I echo their sentiments, but I'll try and put (some kind of) positive slant on all this...at least all his out-takes and unreleased material will probably show up now. The new album they delayed to do Thriller 25, The King of Pop and This Is It will probably show up, as will a host of other stuff. Raw, original demos with no studio editing will show up. There's that story that his kids have had a songbank of Jacko's work put aside so they can release it to generate income after his lifetime, stuff that was set aside years ago, too. I'd imagine that stuff's interesting, if it's for his kids maybe it's not all dark/miserable like most of the last two records were, and could show a happier, more invigorated side of post-1993 Jackson.

Doubt I've made you feel much better, but I wanted to say something that hadn't been said by tons of people already and that was all I could think of. I also think it's perhaps for the best...he had led a very tortured existence for a long time, the majority of his life it appears, starting in childhood and only interrupted for a few years. The man is probably happier now than he was in his lifetime.

Show up on AIM sometime bro, we've not talked in far too long. Not to talk about all this necessarily, just life generally. There's MJ fans on some forums I looked at saying they opened windows and contemplated suicide on hearing the news, it'd be re-assuring for you to remind me you're not quite that nuts, like I used to think when we first met and fought lots. Those were good days. We really should find something new to argue about too...we always worked well together when we were in disagreement and I think on the Jackson articles I largely lost interest when we started to agree a lot. I'd guess while all the news with him's going on you'll only be looking at those articles, but once that's over and done with, name me some other artist you edit articles for and I'll get in and...start arguing. I miss the banter

(The Elfoid (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

My Friend, He Lives. --X7000matrix (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hope you read this in time, Some peaple has messed up death section. There are words from unreliable people. --X7000matrix (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You never responded to this: Talk:If_U_Seek_Amy#Initial_music_video_shooting_date... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.176.220 (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, I'm still in shock about MJ but well done with the Featured Article and large number of views. I think we should make a real effort to get all of the article related to Michael Jackson to at least GA, and preferably to FA, in the near future. I will make a start on one of the article. Post a comment here or on my talk page if you are willing to help. Look through the current articles and take as many as possible to Peer Review in their current state. We will then have some concrete issues to address. Thanks. 03md 01:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]