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.

Hey, you should take a look on Cher's article at the Wikipedia in portuguese. It's well ilustrated, very well written, complete and have a big number of references. It's also a featured article. You may translate it to english. Lordelliott (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher

Hey, Bookkeeperoftheoccult. What do you make of User talk:NBJames#Your assertion of false quotes and sources at the Christina Aguilera and Whitney Houston articles? Flyer22 (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The sources as far as I can tell are legit. Is the Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth argument. Whether or not the editor believes the source or not is irrelevant. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bookkeeperoftheoccult. I'll wait for NBJames to reply. If the editor does not, or says that they were removed due to doubt that they support the texts, I will revert. Flyer22 (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Bookkeeperoftheoccult. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Vatsan34 (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that one of the recent editors who have edited the Michael Jackson's health and appearance article commented at the Janet Jackson article, an article you have heavily edited. So I decided that it couldn't hurt to ask you: Are you willing to help out with this? 2001:DA8:201:1067:250:56FF:FEB5:826A (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Speed Demon (song), an article that you may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.--Tomcat (7) 16:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Since you give comments on music-related articles that are listed at WP:PR, I was wondering if you could give some helpful comments to Wikipedia:Peer review/Cher/archive1? Thanks, Lordelliott (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Batgirl BTAS.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 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Werieth (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Control (Janet Jackson album) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 4, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 4, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Control is the third studio album by American recording artist Janet Jackson (pictured in 2008). Released on February 4, 1986, it became one of the defining albums of the decade. Her collaborations with songwriters and record producers Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis resulted in an unconventional sound that established Jackson, Jam and Lewis as the leading innovators of contemporary R&B. The album's lyrics reflect a series of changes in her life, including the annulment of her marriage to R&B singer James DeBarge and severing her business affairs from her father and manager Joseph and the rest of the Jackson family. The album has been praised by critics as both an artistic feat and as a personal testament of self-actualization. Control is widely regarded as the breakthrough album of Jackson's career. It became her first album to top the Billboard 200 and five of its commercial singles, including "What Have You Done for Me Lately", peaked within the top five of the Billboard Hot 100. The album received several accolades, including a nomination for the Grammy Award for Album of the Year, and has sold over fourteen million copies worldwide. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"personal testament of self-actualization"
Thank you, child at heart. for "comprehensive and well written" quality articles, concentrating on Janet Jackson, like her album Control, a "personal testament of self-actualization", for "everything we learn we naturally understand through subjective reasoning" and quoting "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 757th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 757 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Would you be up for making a page titled "list of artists influenced by Janet Jackson?"

Similar to something like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artists_influenced_by_Beyonc%C3%A9Tombo671 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bookkeeper. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Janet Jackson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page That's the Way Love Goes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bookkeeper, remember me from the Janet Jackson legacy discussion? Well now the Madonna legacy section has come under scrutiny because of its excessive drivel and fan-fluff. It has completely lost its credibility. Would you please help out some with trimming the section and make it professional like you did for Jackson? I already started it out at here and have trimmed about 11KB worth of data but it needs better flow. Please help out. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio: I've made a revision to the section. Hope that helps. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It is absolutely brilliant. Many many thanks again for your proficiency. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's to you on your birthday, Bookkeeperoftheoccult! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bookkeeper! I think there might be too much emphasis on new jack and R&B, and not enough on the dance/pop genre that's in the majority of the record. Many critics consider it primarily dance-pop (state-of-the-art dance-pop productions 1),(pure pop fare and dance music 2), (dance pop 3), (There's dance, pop, ballads 4), 5, and the same for the title track 1 2. As with industrial, that seems like an important part of the whole album and not only a subgenre. Here it's called "industrial-style". I think it deserves a mention in the main genre, along with Dance-pop as the lead and r&b second, in place of new jack swing. The former genre description, saying it blends dance-pop, rhythm and blues, industrial music, and funk, might seem more accurate. The musicology book is a good source, but some quotes from it are overly encyclopedic and are already mentioned in simpler terms. I think it read a little easier the way it was before and still had the same message about its production and styles. Do you think it can be changed back to this? User5482 (talk)

@User5482: The structure of Jackson's entire catalog is equal parts R&B/Pop. I would never be in favor of emphasizing the pop component over R&B, which diminishes her music and is also factually inaccurate. This does not mean I'm against the inclusion of credible sources which emphasize the pop component to the article, but not at the expense of downplaying her music as R&B, which is intellectually dishonest. I have modified the lead to bring in more the dance/pop component based on the examples you gave.

As far as industrial music, its not indicative of the entire album (Rhythm Nation, Miss You Much and Alight all clearly contain industrial music, the rest of the album doesn't) so it definitely does not belong in the infobox. The genre field in the infobox is meant to include whatever genres the album would be cataloged as as a whole-which, as with all of her music, would be R&B/Pop (New Jack Swing for example is still R&B music which is why it doesn't appear in the infobox and by the same token, Dance-Pop is still Pop).

Lastly, the most encyclopedic as source is, the better it is for any article (simpler is bad, very bad). The Control album and biography passed FA specifically because I scoured the internet to find encyclopedic text that cover her music, otherwise I'm sure they would both still be at GA (a few reviewers didn't want them to pass specifically because there were only a few encyclopedic text regarding her music/life). Building articles mean including sources that are not only reliable but explain their assessment thoroughly as The New Blues Music encyclopedia does to full the 'comprehensive' and 'well researched' requirements of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the structure is debatable. Some sources consider her more pop than R&B, although both are her main genres. It's not downplaying R&B, but it feels like the pop element is downplayed in favor of new jack swing and R&B, to the point where it was removed from the lead. The encyclopedic sources are helpful of course, but The New Blues Music focuses solely on the rhythm and blues component without regarding its other genre elements, as that's the genre the book is about. Citing its main genre as pop is in no way diminishing it or infactual, as many critics felt the pop component is stronger. Here is an encyclopedic source on African American music which calls it primarily pop or dance music.

With industrial, that's in all of the album's upbeat songs, not just several, and shows its diversity. Just a suggestion, as her music isn't solely pop and r&b. The Legacy section talked more about the legacy of the era itself, while Influence talked about the influence of the album on particular artists who have mentioned it, which is why it was separated. Some of that article needed an update, and it also had been condensed to a reasonable length. It doesn't necessarily need all of the old text added back in to make it a good article. When I said simple, I meant in the way things read and how they're worded. Can we leave it at this edit? It seems to have read the best without being too wordy or lengthy, or overly detailed. User5482 (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@User5482: It is indeed debatable, but which source to use and why is, in and of itself, tricky business. The link you pointed to Black American Biographies: The Journey of Achievement is a source specializing in biographies of Black people, not music specifically. Good source yes (which I've used in articles several times), but reviwers look at context too. For instance, the sound samples used in the article can't simply say "this is R&B or this is pop according to x source." To be accurate under fair use, there has to be a complete analysis of what is happening in that particular soundbite in order not to be removed, which is why I restored my earlier edit. Sound samples and especially composition sections of music article are best served with either music encyclopedias or any source which can covey the literal structure and production process of how the music was made. Again, that level of detail is hard to come by concerning Jackson's music (and really any pop music in general - alernatively you can find an infinte number of sources on composition/procution on rock music) but its best to be in that mindframe while researching.

I futher reduced the Legacy section to a resonable size. Another thing reviwers literally hate is block quotes and/or over quoting. I get into the habit of direct quoting too, but generally its prefered to summerize the points made by sources. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 16:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It may not only concern music, but it discusses her career and points out the pop element, as do several reliable sources. They shouldn't be disregarded if they aren't in academic text - an encyclopedia shouldn't necessarily be used to prove its main genre, especially with only one genre being its subject. Even then, there's a few encyclopedic music sources that do mention this, such as this or this calling it dance and pop, even one of the sources already there calls it mainly pop and dance, along with industrial. I think points made by general music critics should also be considered.

The sound samples are suitable, but a few of the quotes added to its composition and Legacy seem unnecessary and somewhat outdated. The Legacy section was just combined with Influence, with several quotes replaced with others. It's now more jumbled and a bit harder to read for viewers, in my eyes. If anything was to be added it would be even longer, rather than having two separate, shorter sections. They might not be in favor of block quotes, but they do a great job at pointing out particular information for readers.

It seems like most of this edit was done for reviewers, which I can understand. Having a featured article is fantastic, but if it came at the expense of making the article simpler and more precise for readers, or adding quotes from encyclopedias to ensure its chance of being featured, then the former seems like a more valuable option, in my opinion. Perhaps I can edit a few things and divide Legacy into two proper sections again? User5482 (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Artistry of Janet Jackson, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. wia (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added your name to this list due to your inactivity in recent months. If you come back, remember to remove yourself from the page. Thank you for all the work you've done on Janet Jackson-related articles and more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bookkeeper, I'd like to use this edit, or create a slightly shortened version of it, for Janet's page. I noticed you trimmed some of her article, making the latest edit slightly shorter than this one, but this version's cleaned up, updated, and reads more neatly, in my opinion. Only the lead was slightly lengthened, but it seems more up to date and accurate. Her lead section ends at the Janet album, as if she didn't have a notable or essential career following. Pages for other musicians also briefly include later releases on top, past what would be considered their prime. I wanted to address this here since I saw it had been changed it to an older version and would like to give it an update, which it could really use. There's no reason to keep an outdated version. Other users should feel able to provide input and edit it themselves as well. Regards, User5482 (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I had quite a few issues with your edit. I don't agree it reads more neatly, which was my primary concern. As I said on the talk page, the last thing I want to see is this article get pulled into WP:FAR. If it were, I honestly believe even more information from both our edits would be further reduced/removed (I still want to reduce the Artistry/Legacy sections even as they are now). Another point is that you seem determined to remove any refences to her impact/connection to R&B music. That's intellectually dishonest and diminishes the article. You also removed any reference to the word "crossover" which is not only a crutial term/point of interest to her music, but most Black music artists in American history. As for the lead, it isn't required (or partiularly usefull) to reference ever single piece of work the subject has ever done (which is something that was specifically addressed when this article went through FAC). And as a Janet devotee, I wouldn't consider anything she's released post-All For You to be particularly "notable" and that's perfectly OK. I want to make it clear I'm not opposed to updates, but at the same time its highly important to avoid WP:RECENTISM especially when there will be a lot of information added once the new album is released. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it did appear more smoothly overall, and easier to understand for readers, which was my main goal. There's no determination to remove anything, I briefly added her influence on the pop and dance genre, which is missing and inaccurate towards her artistry (she has even referred to herself as a "dance music" artist many times). I added her innovation within that genre, while also maintaining her invention within R&B. Both sides, and her overall musicality, should be reflected. As for crossover, I only changed it to mainstream to reflect she had become a "mainstream" artist at that point, but I agree that retaining the original word is important. Regarding the lead, I agree about her most recent three releases. However, it should at least briefly include her two albums following Janet, which are both notable, and maybe her next two films following her debut. This isn't for recentism but notability, as they were each successful and vital factors to her music and acting career, especially for readers unfamiliar with her work.
I don't think updating and revising parts would put it into FAR, which I also wouldn't want to happen. That's also why I came to you to discuss it, as you seem to have a great track record. But as another devotee, it becomes disheartening to feel unable to update it. My only intention is for the article to read more balanced and accurately, with some of the excess data removed. This is not to diminish anything, but to update and emphasize her overall influence, while also watching length and quotes, and giving clarification for readers. Do you think I can revise it while keeping a similar length? User5482 (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Usher and Jerry Ross. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

In regards to the "Recording" section for her album Unbreakable - Jerkings didn't produce "Nothing," nor does the source cited say that he did. I was just wondering if you'd feel up to rewording this to make it accurate. Partyclams (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JanetUnbreakableSingle.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Batgirl film.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Booker. It's been ages since we last spoke. How have you been? It's good to see that you're still active. There are so few female editors on wiki so its good you are still here. Do you still work on Janet Jackson? I do miss seeing Realist working on Michael Jackson. Wish he would return. Anyway just wanted to say hi. Caden ^cool 23:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Caden: Hello, I am still active although in a greatly reduced capacity as of late. I've been sticking primarily to Janet Jackson and Sailor Moon related articles for the past year. Nice to hear from you. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well I hope you come back more often in the future and become as active with music related articles as you once were in the past. Music related articles need you. It needs Realist too. Good to see you still work on Janet though. Keep in touch :) Caden ^cool 05:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

For all your excellent work. Caden cool 05:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Caden: Thank you! I appreciate the treat. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 17:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Birdsofpreybloodandcircuits.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, because it's so long (that I have to scroll down to see it all), I thought that it was more than 4 paragraphs. WP:LEAD says that it should be "concise". That's not concise. It really should be trimmed. I could do it, but I won't – mainly because it probably would be waste of time – because you'd probably just revert it. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Velvet Rope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miguel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?

1. Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
2. Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
3. Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Wishing Bookkeeperoftheoccult a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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.