Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:48, 29 April 2008

Archives

Archive 1 - Archive 2 - Archive 3 - Archive 4 - Archive 5 - Archive 6 - Archive 7 - Archive 8 -

Notes to self

• 12374

MJ

Saw the previous edit, but assuming good faith and not biting newcomers is still good practice. Gusworld (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

RE

Hello. Thank you for the barnstar, that was kind of you. I've replied to your comment. Cheers! APK 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I hate Micheal Jackson and for that reason I stay far away from anything related to him. I know it was reverted out of Good Faith and I reverted back out of Good Faith. I had also left a note on the user who reverted it telling them I reverted it and stating I considered the user's answers legit and if he wants to revert back..I would not contest. Rgoodermote  16:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

O and for the very thing you said. If this user is indeed not a sock it would be in the user's best interest. If all the editors said they were guilty and it was proven wrong no amount of sorry will bring that user back. So if this is indeed false..well I do not want to see new user get scared away. If it is indeed true..well..I am glad I didn't defend the user. I actually kept those comment pretty neutral..or tried to. I actually...think..the user is guilty. Rgoodermote  16:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Above was a comment for the communication thing by the way. I am trying to do like 6 things right now at the same time and all my thoughts are scattered. Right now I really hope whatever good faith I have pumped into this is was for not. Because I already feel like a fool. Though I do see a guilty I do indeed feel this user wants to help. Rgoodermote  16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

O in case you didn't get what I meant when I said I disliked Jackson I was trying to tell you that I was not going to defend the user because the subject is something that could potentially drive me off the deep end. Rgoodermote  16:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Timbaland

I am willing to go forward and fix the issues at hand. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Timbaland#On_Hold Gary King (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to, feel free to review one of my other nominations and be confident that you will get an equally quick response from me. The music articles that I've nominated for GAN include Coldplay, Beck, and Death Cab for Cutie. My other nominations can be found at User:Gary_King#Future_featured_items. Gary King (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

All done at Talk:Timbaland Gary King (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, do you need some help with anything? I fixed up A Day in the Life per IvoShandor's PR. I think it's pretty good now. I want to get it to FA, but that will take a while. :) Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I finished the Career section. I'll work on the rest now. Why are you confused, is it okay? Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 21:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, everything in the Career section and the Influence section, which I just CE'd, is okay. I have to go, the battery on my laptop is extremely low. I'll be back when I get home and I can charge my computer. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 22:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

See you later. (Really, I'm testing my new signature). Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Stone House (Washington, D.C.)

I see you're a GA reviewer. I know this article isn't ready yet for GA review (I just finished it 2 days ago), but what kind of things would need to be added? I've yet to write a GA and want to have one of those under my belt. The only thing I can think of that the article doesn't mention is the list of owners between 1875 and 1953. I've looked and looked but can only find what type of businesses were operated out of the house. If you get time to look it over, I'd appreciate it. Gracias. APK 02:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: J5

Hmm, you got any suggestions? LOL I saw you mention you wanna take the personnel page out. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well just talk about their solo careers only in that section, lol. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson pictures

Well, I had a spot of bad news yesterday (a stupid part in my van that my dog chewed up is going to cost over $1800 to replace!) and so I didn't feel much up for working on Misplaced Pages, heh. :) I did ask around about recent pictures of living but semi-reclusive celebrities, and it sounds like the answer is no. If Jackson were so reclusive that not even paparazzi were getting pictures of him in recent years, then we might be able to make a case. But basically, if a person is living they always start with the presumption that it is possible to get a new picture, and the onus is on us to argue that it's not. And I don't think we can make that case when paparazzi are still getting pictures of him.

I haven't checked for the formatting of attribution info, I'll try to do that today. I do think we can make a case for at least two older pictures of Jackson, if they show the change in appearance. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it a shot:

Can you add it to the article, possibly in a section that talks about the costumes and crotch-grabbing? I wish we had a free recent image, and then we could add both to Michael Jackson#Physical appearance and I think we'd be in good shape, but we aren't there yet. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at some other images that are currently being vetted to see whether they are replaceable (and therefore not valid fair use), and holy crap, our reasoning is way better. Most people don't even bother to give a reason, probably because they don't understand the policy. A few people are like, "Well, it illustrates the subject, so that's fair." I saw one guy who had taken a picture of a local attraction, and his rationale was, "I don't have time to go take a picture of it," ha ha ha....

That doesn't mean this will get let go, but at least we are in waaaaay better shape than most of the images that are tagged like this. So we'll see... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You can add it to the article at any time, but it may end up getting deleted ;) Actually, I think it would be better if you added it to the article, because otherwise someone might complain that the image is orphaned and try to delete it on that basis (Non-free images that are not used in any article can be speedy-deleted, even if they otherwise would meet Fair use).

In theory, we should know within 48 hours whether the fair use rationale is accepted or not. However, taking a look at the normal quality of fair use justifications that people do, it might end up in limbo for awhile. Most of the images in this category, an admin can take one look at it and say, "Yeah right, DELETE!" This one, it will take some time and consideration.

So, it might be gone tomorrow, it might be approved in a few days, or it might hang around with people arguing about it for weeks, ha ha ha... In any case, go ahead and add it to the article, so that at least it is not orphaned, and we will keep our fingers crossed! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I was already editing the caption before I got your message ;) It looks pretty good. I think we have a shot; I just wish we had a recent free picture of him.

I know it is an unflattering photo, but it looks like this image is pretty ubiquitous in places that talk about "free" Jackson images. Do you have any idea where it comes from? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's the mugshot, lol. I'm sorry, I hope I didn't offend. Hmnmm, well... I know you aren't going to like this, but AFAIK mugshots are public domain, and it does show a recent photo of him....... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a mugshot? Hmm, some websites said it was... Also, I am pretty sure mugshots are allowed to illustrate an arrest... But anyhow, we should try to get a better pic anyway. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re, the smooth criminal pic: I could be wrong, by my understanding is you could probably just add it to the section that discusses the moves, since it is already accepted on Misplaced Pages... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just about to say, I am definitely wrong. I think if the image was used in substantially the same way, you could get away from it; but the fair use rationale for using it in Smooth Criminal definitely does not apply here.

We could try it, but my impression is that you are going to have a hard time because they will say that it is more appropriate in the article about the video (critical commentary and all that). It doesn't show Jackson's appearance as well as the one we already uploaded. I think we will have trouble getting more than one non-free image of Jackson's earlier career and performances.. I'd be inclined to wait and see what happens with the one we just tried. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

2

`