User talk:Pyrrhus16/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pyrrhus16. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Title change

You changed the title without consensus. A title change is a very serious step and should have been arrived at through consensus. I will have to take this to ANI. SoniaSyle (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. Pyrrhus16 15:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Livesy

Hi, I noticed you've been working on the article. Just a quick note, the Character development section usually comes before the storylines section. Are you planning to try and get the article up to GA status at some point? :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 15:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do hope to get it to GA status in the future. :) WP:MOSTV states that for fictional characters, their storylines should come first, and then the information on their creation and characterization. It makes more sense to read about what storylines the character has been involved in, before going into the production of it all. The same style is used for articles on books, films and television shows/episodes. Pyrrhus16 16:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Ownership_Issues_with_Michael_Jackson_and_Bubbles. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Michael Jackson and Bubbles . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Madonna

Consider looking at the John Lennon article. It's basic structure is better. You can dislike the exact order but it is not like a diary found in the Madonna article. Her film and music career is the most important part of her life and should be separated out. Rather than do and and you reverting it, how about commenting about this idea? Or do you prefer reverting each other and keeping a little bit (most people are not so giving but revert the entirety). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Addressed the FAC concerns. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

?

Sisterhood? --Boutros Boutros Boutros (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your meticulous editing and improvement of the Speechless article and getting it all the way to Featured Article status from its humble beginnings. Great job! Silver seren^C 20:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you very much, Silver seren. Pyrrhus16 20:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice!!

		Bad Award — For helping get a Michael Jackson article to FA level
		For your dedication to everything that is MJ! You have set a wonderful example for everyone else to follow. I present you with this award on behalf of the community. Enjoy. ...Moxy (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks a lot, Moxy. Pyrrhus16 16:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Portal MJ

Was gong to make a 4th selection in the portal....Since you and Crystal Clear do all the articles ...pls tell me what YOU and Crystal Clear x3 would like to see in the portals next 5 spots...First an album article you guys got to GA..then a song from a GA article ...and so on!! ...no rush...but all upto you what is next!! :-) ....Moxy (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not all that fussed what is chosen for the portal; they are all great articles deserving of being selected. You and Crystal Clear are probably the best ones to decide. Regards, Pyrrhus16 17:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

Vandalizing? I don't know what you're talking about ma'am! If you show me where I "vandalized", I'll verify if it was me or not! Thank you! Have a nice day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.150.220.100 (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC) How Could 66.150.220.100 not see thier obviouse vandalism. I think this deserves an AN/IOttomanJackson 21:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Speechless FA

Can You Please tell me when Speechless (Michael Jackson song) was a featured article? Thanks A Lot. P.S. I LOVED the Speechless infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC) I'm Sorry if my edit to Speechless was unconstuctive. I was trying to restore content that was deleted. Please explain the deletion so I understand it. Also, your recent message on my talk page was unclear. Does it mean Speechless was the featured article on the main page that day, or that it was promoted to that class that day. If it has not been featured yet, when will it be. Thanks a ton!!! :)!!!! OttomanJackson 21:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs) Hi. I had a few questions. I don't understand how Removal of content improves the article. Would you please explain. Plus how come it will not be featured soon. Please notify me when it is. Also, please take a look at User:OttomanJackson/Money (Michael Jackson song) and tell me if I have met your concerns and whether or not I can recreate it. Have a Good Day. OttomanJackson 22:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC) I also noticed a factual inaccuracy. It says Speechless is the only song from Invincible written entirely by Jackson. However, ther were two song written only by Jackson. Speechless and The Lost Children. It says so in the Invincible Liner Notes. Thank You OttomanJackson 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs)

Media bias in Jackson trial

A good read, possible worth using in the jackson trial article. — R ² 00:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It was a very interesting read and would be great in the trial article, though I have no current plans to go anywhere the page; MJ song articles alone have become hard enough to maintain from POV-pushers and nuisances, so I'd hate to begin working on that. :) Pyrrhus16 21:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hanna and Barbera

Thanks for putting up William Hanna for the main page. Joseph Barbera's 100th is next Spring, March 2011. Could you make a note to nom it at the appropriate time? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. And yes, I'll make a note to nominate Barbera for his 100th. Regards, Pyrrhus16 14:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

My userpage

Why did you remove my crediting of you for the wikitable, and do you mind if I use it. (P.S. I love it) Have you ever seen Michael Jackson in concert, I wish I had. If so could you please tell me about it, :) OttomanJackson 19:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs)

They killed Michael, and now they want to Kill Me

Dear Pyrrhus16, I will always love Michael jackson, but thats not why I am writing you. I have written to you and all members associated with wikiproject x factor, and I desperately need your help!!! I am the editor of The_X_Factor_Fansite, currently under heavy attack by admins who have articled for removal. Earlier they tagged other x factor sites of mine as speedy removal, and within minutes my article was gone. I need your vote to save. I need your vote immediately to be placed at: [[1]]

PLEASE HELP ME! I am also a member of wikiproject x factor and feel very strongly about the issues.--Robtencer (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Sorry, couldn't help it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: reverting all my edits on Speechless (Michael Jackson song)

I made sure many of my edits had an edit summary, and I felt many of the others were done for an obvious reason. If you need further explanation, I can provide it.

However, I feel a need to point out to you "undiscussed edits" is not grounds for a revert, carefully discussed though the wording may have been. It is the actual content of the writing which matters, regardless of the circumstances under which it came about. While I made a number of careful, staged edits, with many explanations, you performed a major revert with no explanation other than "you didn't discuss if it was ok to write this!". There's an implication you didn't so much read my edits, so much as you were dissatisfied someone had changed it so much without discussion, so reverted it ahead of time. In an article that short, you should have gone through it line by line identifying specific things to change because you can quite easily revert good edits alongside bad ones with that kind of calous, extreme approach and cynical attitude towards the edits of others. And you'll alienate other editors - it's an agressive, bullying form of policing your page. An apology would be appreciated or at the least an explanation for several of the reverts made to justify the mass revert.

I did infact edit it in stages, and made a note on the Talk page saying I was going to, because I know how cliquey Michael Jackson article editors can be about outside editors and how upset they can get about outside involvement (it's a trait which is difficult for someone like me to work alongside, but in collaboration can provide a good balance to my style). In light of that, I suggest rather than us battling it out, we attempt to work on this together? This "work" may involve further battling - if my brilliantly fricticious though completely stable editing relationship with Realist2 was anything to go by - but could prove more useful for the article than us just head butting each other. What do you say to that? You can be the lavish optimist, I can be the more tight, specific cynic and between a lot of fighting and arguments we can forge a better article. (Chill (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC))

I see you've made an edit in the last few days. Please get back to me, because I'd like to resume work on the article. If that work is going to involve having to find someone in authority to tell you that just because an article's write-up is reached by consensus, users are not thereby forbidden from editing/updating the article until that same group are consulted for approval, it may take some time to get all of my edits restored or debated in the correct manner (as opposed to a blanket revert).

(Chill (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

You're edits were reverted because they introduced several errors. The track listing was moved to the first section of the article, when the consensus is for it to be near the bottom. The article should arranged chronologically; production aspects first, then information regarding the music and structuring of the song, then post production, reception and finally the track listing. The structuring of the article is based on many GAs and FAs. You also introduced grammatical/MOS errors and reduced contextual information that enhanced readers' understanding of the topic. Please take each aspect you have an issue with to the talk page for discussion. Pyrrhus16 17:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See talk page. Your move. (Chill (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

Happy Pyrrhus16's Day!

User:Pyrrhus16 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Pyrrhus16's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Pyrrhus16!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TFA for Halloween

Grace Sherwood just became an FA (bot hasn't run yet though). It is about an alleged witch. I was wondering if you would put it on Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests when you get a chance and ask for Oct 31. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I figure it should get 1 pt for date relevancy, 1 for underepresented topic (witchcraft), 1-2 for no similar topic on the MP recently — Rlevse • Talk • 22:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I managed to get this on TFA requests, so you may want to look at: Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Rude place names

It's a pity they don't mention Two Ball Lonnen. Rodhull andemu 18:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Perhaps they will next time. :) Pyrrhus16 12:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am NOT self promoting

To Whom It May Concern: I am the man who told Ken Kragen that my two associates would arrange to get all of the equipment and labor donated to The We Are The World project. Originally Kenny Rogers and Lionel Richie were going to put up $100,000 each to finace the project.

In fact my team spent four months working on the project creating a music video, a one hour HBO special, and a half hour home video.

I am old and disabled, but truly believe it is only fair to be noted in the making of this project. I believe that myself, Craig B. Golin, and April Lee Grebb made this possible.

Call Kragen or the We Are The World office and they will verify these facts. I have a family and I want to be remembered as part of this project. I was approached by just about every project after and asked to get things donated.

I don't believe you should just edit me out of history and just what happened.

Call me if you like--818-991-9515. History is history and we were part of it!

Thank you.

Howard G. Malley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgmalley (talk • contribs) 05:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

SONY/ATV CATALOGUE (50 PERCENT OWNERSHIP MICHAEL JACKSON)

I just looked up the complete list of Sony/ATV artist, that I believe you have compiled. This is the thing I do have a problem with and wonder if you can answer this for me. There are a huge amount of famous artists past and present on that list and like the article states Sony/ATV has the copyright to more than 500 000 songs. So how come that Michael Jackson was so much in debt??? How does it work with royalties or payments of these songs/artists for the owners of the catalogue, namely Michael Jackson and Sony. There has to be a huge amount of money coming in, especially if new artists like Eminem, Lady Gaga, are on that list. The share alone of those two artists must be enormous. Is it possible for you to put some light on this matter. Especially since the ATV Catalogue has been always a controversial issue in Michael Jackson's live. Thank you. Elke Hassell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.48.179.229 (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Article

Pyrrhus16, I have looked through your contributions and wish to congratulate you for your work on Speechless (Michael Jackson song). I am also a Michael Jackson fan and believe with work The Break of Dawn and Unbreakable articles could at least become Good Articles. P.S. What discussions were you referring to about deleting Break of Dawn. Thank You, AttilaBrady (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Speed Demon Michael Jackson

Hi, Pyrrhus16 I just wanted to know if you could help me with something, after reading the talk page of the article on Speed Demon, I concluded that we should add an audio file, but currently, I not only don't know how to upload one but, I don't have access, to anything but Wikipedia and another site for my school.Just wondering if you could help me out. Thanks Much, BTW check out my talk page and reply there. SUPER SONIC BABY 2 (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of unreleased Michael Jackson material for featured list removal

I have nominated List of unreleased Michael Jackson material for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Rubiscous (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Leave the songs

IDK what's your problem with the Cascio songs but these songs remain unreleased and are registered to Michael Jackson & published by Mijac Music and if you want more reliable proof where is the proof for all the other songs ? Why are you just targeting the Cascio songs ?

Once again here is the BMI link click on each song and read it http://repertoire.bmi.com/writer.asp?page=1&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&fromrow=1&torow=25&affiliation=BMI&cae=618309449&keyID=550167238&keyname=CASCIO%20EDDIE&querytype=WriterID

--ADKIc3mAnX (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's some videos where the co-writer talks about it 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15TxYH0hAjQ 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E-pmUppNJQ 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzFR2aga5GE&feature=related

So seriously only these songs are getting removed I don't see anyone removing the other and they don't have no reliable proof to go with them.

--ADKIc3mAnX (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)