User talk:Michael Jackson

About Michael Jackson

wtf how is this vandalism.... Chase Ranger 03:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with its deletion, discuss it, don't remove the tag.-- BVt 03:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

PLease do not remove content from talk pages Drogo Boffin 03:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

While this may not be appropriate, it is not vandalism, and is not in violation of any GWW policy that I know. I have removed the delete tag. -- Wyn 03:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Rofl WTF? If we allow everyone to create userpages and accounts for people who are dead, the list will be endless. -- §Lacky§ Talk 07:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Let them do what they want... If its isnt against any policy whats the problemm then? |Cyan LightLive!| 07:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, I just mean, if all people is doing is creating accounts because people die then it is just pointless because the list will go on forever, and also other people who want to use the wiki under that name won't be able too. -- §Lacky§ Talk 07:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a registered user, so I don't see the issue considering the circumstances. Dominator Matrix 07:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Registration has always been first come, first serve. If someone takes the name so be it, no one else can use it. And if you haven't noticed...Special:ListUsers... the list already goes on and on... what's your point? We do not have any sort of No Sockpuppet policy, which means that anyone is welcome to create any registered account and as many registered accounts as they wish as long as it's not being used for malicious purposes. -- Wyn 07:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, I don't really care. All I am saying is, it is just a waste. -- §Lacky§ Talk 08:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The user didn't create the userpage, and in fact has no edits on the wiki. That alone would qualify for deletion IMO. Whoever created the account should make the edit, not other random users on the wiki. -Auron 10:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Auron. Should we put the deletion tag back up -- §Lacky§ Talk 10:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No we should not put the deletion back up. -- Wyn 14:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Since there are people who agree that the page should be deleted, it might be a good idea to put the deletion tag up at some point. I also agree with Auron about deleting the userpage - we usually do delete userpages which haven't been created by the correct user, and I don't see why this is any different. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Chase created the page before he realized it was going to be a problem, then he created the account. I don't see what earthly harm it causes to allow this. It's a sock puppet account, big deal. It wasn't created for malicious purposes, it was created so that someone could express their sadness at the passing of a pop icon. Why everyone has to be so quick to delete it is beyond me. It's not like User:Michael Jackson is off vandalising the wiki, or even creating any problems, other than in the minds of a very few people. <edit> btw... according to Brains' theory, all Chase would have to do is log in as Michael Jackson and recreate the page if it were deleted, then all possible objections to it would be gone. Is it really worth going to all that trouble? -- Wyn 16:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeh we all know Michael Jackson was never one for vandalising, other much more disturbing crimes maybe, but not vandalising. -- Salome 17:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is this considered vandalism? If you wish discussion regarding whether or not it should be deleted, at least give it the 3 day period of a regular deletion as opposed to a speedy which any sysop can delete immediately. --Nyworea talk 22:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Brains made a point up there. If whoever sock this page is wants it to remain, the only thing he has to do is to log with that account, edit the userpage, and be done with it. If he doesn't then it should be treated like any other case of the same type. I am removing the speedy tag in any case, AGF'ing, and since "concensus has not been reached".--Fighterdoken 23:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to agree with Wyn and Leave it alone. --MystiLefemEle 11:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, but why? Merely signing your support doesn't help your case much. All that has to be done to keep the page is him logging into this account and removing the tag. That's not a terribly hard requirement to meet, seeing as he was made aware of the delete tag as it was replaced. He's got 3 days to do a 30 second task.

Respecting dead famous people isn't a reason to start ignoring basic wiki etiquette, and I would be very concerned if people had their priorities clouded because of the death of someone completely unrelated to Guild Wars or this wiki. -Auron 11:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

He may not log in for 3 days. And sorry, but "merely signing your support" shows disagreement for the deletion, and means that there is not concensus. Not everything has to be proven to your personal satisfaction Auron. -- Wyn 16:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Chase has admitted he does not own the account. I'm pretty sure I called that one. You can try to play it off as a personal vendetta against a wiki page, but that would be silly and wrong. -Auron 10:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would I "admit" to something that I didn't lie about. I never said I owned the page. Also, I'm not trying to "play it off as a personal vendetta against a wiki page", I simply made the page, when it wasn't created, and tried to register the account afterwards. -_- Chase Ranger 03:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Auron was talking to Wyn about the vendetta thing? Also, admit = said. Anyway, the point is, the page should have only been created by the actual user, however in this case the real account owner hasn't responded/confirmed the page, so it should be deleted. -- Lacky 04:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I find this whole thing utterly ridiculous, we don't make people admit to owning socks account EVER, but I don't really care anymore, I just think you guys are being stupid and obnoxious. And I think there were enough people who said leave it be that it shouldn't be deleted. It will be forgotten about in a few weeks when it's all out of the news anyway. But since the commentary here seems to be attracting the trolls, go ahead and delete it. -- Wyn talk 04:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Wyn here. Since Chase already admitted to creating the page and registering the account, the issue is resolved. There is to be no deletion unless "User:Michael Jackson" logs in and requests it. We only delete user pages not created by the actual user if it appears to be vandalism, spam, snide remarks, or if the owner of that page complains. This situation is no different from users helping other users create user pages. There are numerous pages that started off with one user helping another user set up dozens of user pages and all we needed was a simple "I'm helping so-and-so with his/her user page". Why are making such a fuss over this particular page? -- ab.er.rant 07:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Im confused. I dont see where he says he registered it. He has said that he didnt register it. Drogo Boffin 07:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? In this post, he says "I come to see on the Michael Jackson page that people think that I, Chase Ranger, own the user:Michael Jackson account. This is false. I do not own the account..." I really wish people would read before spouting off final judgments in matters :/ -Auron 08:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I may have read wrong but since this page was created by Chase and he is not the owner of the registered username then the page should be deleted. If the proper owner of the registered account wants this page they can then re-create it and it would then comply with policy. Drogo Boffin 22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Something else to consider

• 03:46, 26 June 2009 Michael Jackson (Talk | contribs) New user account
• 17:00, 26 June 2009 MJ (Talk | contribs) New user account
• 17:20, 26 June 2009 Farrah Fawcett (Talk | contribs) New user account
• 17:25, 26 June 2009 Wiki Humor (Talk | contribs) New user account
• 20:21, 28 June 2009 Billy Mays (Talk | contribs) New user account

While an innocent "tribute account" may not be really a problem (Dwayna knows there are lots of socks registered here anyways), i think this should be stopped now before future vandals take it to the next step. In that regard, whatever is done here will pretty much set a precedent for this.--Fighterdoken 22:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree if it means that policies need to change. Something needs to be done or everytime somebody dies you can expect this. Drogo Boffin 02:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

M.J.

Nice touch, Kuudos to you, Chase!MystiLefemEle 10:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Lololo

Did you guis hear? They are going to melt Michael Jackson into toys so children can play with HIM. Also, you know why Michael Jackson wasn't reanimated? They couldn't find his nose. Dark Morphon 14:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's just harsh.--Short talk to me 15:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Harsh, AND in-appropriate. -- §Lacky§ Talk 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm inappropriate ;o. Dark Morphon 07:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's... bad. /banhammer. -- Halogod35 22:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dark you may like the following link then "Frankie Boyle's column on MJ". Also guys how is it harsh and inappropriate? People can make jokes if they so wish. I get very tired of people trying to in some way purify the dead. Am I the only one who doesn't want to hop on the mourning train for an accused child molester? EDIT: also my favourite line from that article is: "Michael Jackson was apparently refusing to eat ahead of his O2 gigs. He now weighed less than nine stone and the only thing he would eat willingly was nachos. Nachos being the name of a young Mexican boy." ROFLMAO!!! -- Salome 14:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't pay $10,000,000 for silence if you're innocent. Drogo Boffin 20:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You're. Misery 20:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing is that when he's buried 100 years later there'll be a plastic nose on his bones --adrin 20:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean there will be a plastic head attached to his skeleton. ~Shard 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Or is there? Depends on what kind of plastic it is. - J.P.Talk 20:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how much candy and Jesus juice they burried him with. Now he truly is in Neverland. Drogo Boffin 20:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't even be suprised if Michael Jackson was still alive. After all the crazy things in his life -.- - J.P.Talk 20:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Yeah he was broke enough to pull something like this. Drogo Boffin 20:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere hiding with Elvis :S - J.P.Talk 20:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)