This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I read the sentance at the top of your user page, its great to see such excitment as the release date comes closer, however we are missing you and want you back. Realist2 18:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you bother to inspect the replacement link I provided with my most recent edit to that article? Obviously not. It provides a citation for the relevant part of the Wikipedia article text and doesn't contain malware. Unless you are a shill for Gameguru Mania, there is no reason not to use the link I provided and thus cause problems for unwitting folks who happen to follow that link. -- Dachannien ^Talk _Contrib 11:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Submitted article to RFC for resolution. -- Dachannien ^Talk _Contrib 12:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:JGF.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

hey we have just agreed on some new pictures for the michael jackson article (see talk page) unfortunately we do not no how to up load them especially withh this free use rubbish, was hoping you could help with this. Realist2 09:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. We fans are far more powerful than those haters. Sai2020 15:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey I think we really need to make a page of its own for the Thriller 25 special addition which would follow the singles rereleases of 2006. People dont want it added to the "forthcoming new studio album" page. It will need its own page when it is released anyway but i see no problem with starting it now. Would you help? Yours Realist2 ( talk) 14:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good I think we should go ahead with it as well although elfoid is unimpressed. If History Volume 1 (The 1st CD off HIStory) released 6 years after HIStory has its own page then so will this. The elfoid wants it to go on the Thriller page as im sure your aware but i disagree. I think theres too much info that will need to be written for it to be attached to the Thriller article. I would very much like to get on with it although i have no knowledge of how to start a new article. If you would like to get it started I will surely contribute. Let Me Know. Yours Realist2 ( talk) 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol I dont even no what an AFD is so im so glad your setting it up, i have convinced/ we have convinced elfoid of its worthyness so make sure we include and inform him of this when its up. He would like to contribute. Realist2 ( talk) 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey I just went on the page looking good. I think the best thing to do first is bring all the sources we have together and put them on the Thriller 25 talk page. Realist2 ( talk) 01:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure on the talk page as well im disecting the sources and discussing the new material that is coming. the billboard source says were will be quite a lot. Go to the talk page to see. Try some of them. Realist2 ( talk) 01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey this also needs linking to the his album chronological history. After the singles re releases of 2006 it jumps to the forethcoming studio album. This needs to go before that. Realist2 ( talk) 02:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey well done on the article you and elfoid have made it god. sorry i had to get sleep. this will be good. you should spend more time here!!!! Realist2 ( talk) 11:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I love Michael Jackson's music. I have Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad, Dangerous, HIStory, Blood on the Dance Floor and Invincible. I follow updates on his career routinely. I own both HIStory: Greatest Video Hits and HIStory On Film Volume II on DVD. I've watched Moonwalker. I am dead keen on Michael Jackson! I've made major contributions to several articles on him, in collaboration with my friend/enemy Realist2.

I find most fans are overly-positive about Michael Jackson. Just like most people speak too warmly about their heroes. For instance, in terms of his child molestation trial, when everyone was saying he was guilty/innocent, I was saying "We don't know. We don't know a thing about Michael Jackson, we only read press reports from his spokesman and newspaper garbage". Why? Because someone can be incredibly talented, and be a horrible person. Or a great person. We just can't tell!

Wikipedia is all about acting without bias. If you're too passionate about something, you can forget that. A page can become something more like propaganda. My job when it comes to Michael Jackson, is chase down the fancruft content and make it into fair and reasonably written articles. Michael Jackson fans are considered a joke on Wikipedia, since so much fancruft gets dumped on these pages. I'm out to improve our name. Sure, we think he's awesome, really talented, and buy all his stuff, but we don't all think he's a god in every way just because he can sing and dance real great. ( The Elfoid ( talk) 16:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

I think its safe to say he is a fan but just of the stranger variety, we need to work together on this ppl, if we start attacking eachother the haters win . Realist2 ( talk) 20:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a cynic. While you might hope to be unbiased, I'm so bad I almost wish I was...I can't have any faith in anyone or anything these days. I don't assume the worst, I just take a bland neutral stance on the world. In terms of neutrality, you might find me annoying sometimes. But I stick to my guns. ( The Elfoid ( talk) 23:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

Realist2 and I have an attitude of understanding. You'll get into our little mob in time. We do use the talk page when we have to, but there's a certain degree of give and take. If I REALLY think something needs to be somewhere on a page, he lets it go. And I do the same for him. I'll play your game for now.( The Elfoid ( talk) 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

Sorry. I skimmed the page. All I saw was it said he was discussing Thriller 25. I assumed it was recent, since it reads like he's discussing the present project.

All the same, it is not relevant. Just like the logo...this stuff does not go on album pages. EVER. ( The Elfoid ( talk) 00:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

See talk page...it is not the sort of content Wikipedia makes use of, nor does it serve any purpose that Wikipedia aims to allow.

An article so new simply cannot be a GA. Why? Well for one, it's based too much on speculation. Until the album is out, it's too light on guaranteed details. ( The Elfoid ( talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

You've repeatedly edited the article since my last comment on there went on the talk page. Stop ignoring it and read my comment! And reply!

It is not encyclopaedic knowledge It does not teach me anything I do not know from reading the article That conversation was of the tiniest levels of importance, a photo is not required That was over a year ago. The project had not even started then. It is not the way things are done on other Wikipedia album articles. No one needs to know what Michael Jackson looks like on this article. Why would they need to know what he looks like when he's talking to someone?

( The Elfoid ( talk) 00:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

Articles should not require beefing up. If they do, it's either a worthless article, someone's trying to make it look more information filled than it is or they just think it looks better so it is better.

Knowingly doing that is a blatant disregard of Wikipedia's official guidlines, and policies. It makes it less efficient, less easy to use as an encyclopaedia. Using more words to make a sentence more clear to understand and a little smoother to read is one thing, adding for no pratactical reason to one already in place is pointless.

"I'm just trying to make it look a bit better before the next wave of information."

Right then and there. That's where the point you proved you're going against the aims of Wikipedia.

A bigger article is harder to check for errors, and to edit. It takes longer to read and is harder to sift for more information. And it's not super important, but also remember Wikipedia costs money to run. A longer article is more memory; why increase the cost of something funded by donations needlesly?

Here is the official statement on Wikipedia policy:

"Articles themselves should be kept relatively short. Say what needs saying, but do not overdo it."

"Articles should use only necessary words. This does not mean that it is always better to use fewer words; rather, when choosing between otherwise equal formulations, choose the one that is more concise."

"Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. "

"Reduce sentences to the essentials. Wordiness does not add credibility to Wikipedia articles. Avoid expressions like "due to the fact that" in place of "because" or "at the present time" in place of "currently". The ideal method of specifying on-going events is "as of 2007"."

( The Elfoid ( talk) 15:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

Hey what do you think about adding the ebony photo shoot to the Thriller 25 page as an example of the promotional work for the release. Realist2 ( talk) 22:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)