User talk:Vorash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Previous Messages

User talk:Vorash/1

[edit] Biggest-selling female musician/Madonna/Mariah Carey and others

You might not think that the World Music Awards show is credible but they are. They have to get their information from somewhere if they are going to present awards to musicians around the world. That show is viewed in over 150 countries with over 900 million viewers, there must be something legitimate about it whether you think so or not. Just like any other music awards, they have their organisation that gather data and then they persent the award in the WMA show. Maybe you dont want it as a source because Madonna does not have any WMAs. Thats all you seem to care about; showing Madonna as the best seller. If Madonna was named as the biggest selling Female artist of the Millennium, Im sure that you would jump @ the opportunity to use it as a source, wouldnt you?

Guess what, I dont care if you think its credible under the circumstances. The fact remains that it awards musicians on worldwide sales. It just pains you that Mariah sells more, doesn't it?

Anyway, as already stated, I really dont want to fight with anyone about the article, so don't let me break my promise. I just want the article to conform to the high standards that Wikipedia is known for. You keep saying I use POV, but you are the one actually doing it in your ineffectual attempt to prove Madonna as the best seller. Journalist 7 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the Biggest-selling female musician article. I tried to remain neutral in my edits. I have deleted some of the info in Mariah Carey's section and have also edited Madonna's and Celine's section. Things deleted from Carey's section were either unnecessary or they caused a biased, as her article was longer than the other articles; I tried to make it as succinct as possible. Look over the changes and tell me what you think about them. Journalist 8 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)

I would like for you to cite the sources that you used inorder to arrive at the conclusion that "World Music Awards show doesn't count the record sales generated prior to its inception in 1989". If that was the case, they could not have awarded best selling artists of the Millennium. Remember, Michael Jackson also sold his bulk in the early 1980s. Furthermore, Mariah an Celine are not the only artists to ever win the Diamond World music Award. Other artists have won it, eg.Rod Stewart, who received the award in 2002 (Im not so sure about the year). He began in the 60s. How can the world music give him any awards if they only counted since 1989? You have absoulutely no proof to support your claim. I'm going to revert your changes until you provide a link that substantiates your view. Where did you get the idea that they do not count soundtracks? Whitney Houston has five World music awards for her sales of 'The Bodyguard Soundtrack' . She even received a Legend World Music Award (in 1998, (Im not sure)), which is nearly as good as a the Diamond award, but not qiute. This award is not based on the sales for the particular year, but rather accumulated sales. Cant you see that the WMAs are legitimate and credible???

This is what I do not understand. First you say that WMA just want to put on a good show. You claim that they do not count sales at all; awards are based on votes or something or the other. Then you say that they count sales, but not since 1989. Make up your mind, what are you trying to say? Journalist 8 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

I didn't say WMA don't count sales ! I sayed that they got the numbers from record companies, so whats the point to quote them , if they are the secondary source any way ????? Its the same thing with Guinness Book of World Records which is also the secondary source. Vorash 8 July 2005 08:50 (UTC) Also why are you saying that Whitney Houston got WMA for 'The Bodyguard Soundtrack'? YOu have no facts to support this Vorash 8 July 2005 09:04 (UTC)

Actually, I do have sources to prove that Whitney Houston got WMAs for 'The Bodyguard Soundtrack'. If you look at the discography in her article and many other of her websites,you see that her album was released in November of 1992. It was released that year and sold its bulk in 1993. Whitney received 5 World Muisic awards in 1994 (including a special one for World's Best selling Artist of the ERA); which could only have been for the aforementioned album as her next album came out in 1995. If you click the third source , which will take you to thw WMA's official website, you will see her receiving her Legend World muisc award.

As you can see, WMAs do not descriminate against any artist from the 1980s, you are just running out of things to say to try to discredit them, just because they did not award your favorite artist.

Where is your proof to show that the WMA is a secondary source. If they get sales from record companies, wouldnt Madonna have won the 'Biggest selling female artist award', since you claim that Warner Bros. says 250 million albums? This just goes to show that her sales are inflated. Anyway, I digress as we are way past that now. Stop using POV in the articles. Madonna is not the best selling, WMAs are not biased, just accept that.

The WMAs have to use cumulative sales as Legend, Millennium and the Era awards cannot come from annual 'per album' sales, but overall track record!!!!. See if that can sink in and stop making wild accusationsJournalist 9 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

I would also appreciate it if you left Mariah's article alone. I noticed that you made some changes in her discography, stating that 'sales are innacurate as record company says blah blah blah'. If my memory serves me correctly, you also cannot find that 250 million quote from Madonna's record company. Do not let me edit her page and state that; you know I would. Warner Bros. claim 150 in 2003, and though it has not been updated (or so you say), there still is no proof of that 250 and she has not received anymore RIAA certifications or anything. I have many sources that state 120 million records for Madonna, do not let me add them as disclaimers to her discography section. I know you are gonna accuse me of POV, but there is none. If you want to be accurate about Carey's discography, we should be accurate about Madonna's too and every other artist on the Wikipedia site because if you look at many articles here, sales figures are hyperbolized. If you go to their official website, the number is much lower. Journalist 9 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

  • Let me ask you this question:
    • 1. What do you have against Mariah Carey because I see that you always target her?
    • 2. If there are no sources to track worldwide sales, why do you believe an artist's record company holds accurate figures?

Journalist 9 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you STOP YOUR THREATS !!!!!!!!. "left Mariah's article alone" is a threat !!!! Don't threaten me !!!!! Vorash 9 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

HOW HAVE I THREATENED YOU?. Telling you to leave an article and stop trying to destroy its content do not constitute a threat. Now you are gonna 'play the victim' just because you cannot answer any of my questions. You finally figured out that I was right; WMAs do count sountracks and they do not discriminate, that is why you are trying to change the subject and make wild accusations. If you felt threatened, that was not my intention, Im sorry that you feel that way, but Im not apologising for saying what I said. You are biased and you need to realise that your arguments are devoid of any logics and accuracy. Journalist 9 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

I just wrote that sales are innacurate as record company says !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why are you calling it TO DESTROY ARTICLE CONTENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????? I didn't destroy anything !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Vorash 9 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)

It also wasn't my original idea !! It was originaly wrote by some anonymous user Revision as of 10:32, 8 July 2005 , and after that i deleted it Revision as of 10:36, 8 July 2005. And so after some thoughts i decided to rewrite it in more appropriate manner in order to prevent Vulgar notes in the future ! Vorash 9 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

I will also agree to add Madonna's Label website sales figures to her discography !!!!! Why it should be a problem ??????? YOur thoughts about me are TOTALLY WRONG !! I am not a Madonna fan !!! I like MANY artists !!! Hundreds of them !! My goal is to verify as much information as possible and to present it to Wikipedia users. Madonna has 1000s of fan sites , she really don't need my support !!! I also didn't say that "WMAs descriminates against any artist from the 1980s". I said that they started to give awards in 1989 !!! This is a truth !!! Also about Whitney Houston your assumption about 1994 maybe right , but this is only an assumption , this is not a fact !! Vorash 9 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)

I participate on the Biggest-selling female musician article as a part of my work on the List of best-selling music artists. There is no other purpose of my work there. 95% of List of best-selling music artists were contributed by me and as you can see i am the one who putted Alla Pugacheva there. Allla Pugacheva is the #1 and Madonna second. So how can you accuse me of being Madonna fan ?????? Vorash 9 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)

There is a page I would like you to read here: [1]. When the page is accessed, select 'menu', then 'news' and look at the article entitled MARIAH SURPASSES MADONNA IN THE US. If you cannot find it, type in the article's title at the 'search the news' section on the bottom right of the page. With that said, I will now edit the page in both Madonna's and Mariah's article so that it displays the info in the article. Journalist 23:43, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

This is all so confusing. How can Mariah sell 155 million records and be the best selling female of all time? If World music awards gets data from record companies, how can that mean that she really is the best selling; Celine's site claim 155, Madonna's say 250 etc. Wouldnt the show have given Madonna or Celine the award instead? Do you think record sales are exaggerated or something for them or something? If Mariah sells 155 million doesnt that mean that Celine's and Madonna's sales are below 155? This is all so confusing to me. Journalist 00:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, World Music Awards yearly-awards are giving based on numbers supplied by record companies, but these nembers are "checked" by IFPI.IFPI compares these numbers with certifications by IFPI's National members. They just check in order to prevent large exaggerations. The main problem is that they say based on what they give yearly-awards, but i can't find any information about the Milenium Award ! I can't find the information about what exactly they declared there and based on what data they gave the Millenium Award. Vorash 01:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Mariah Carey's 70 million differnce between 155 million on her site and 223(in her discography) is very strange ! Mariah Carey Discography is frequently edited by many anonymous users, but almost always there is no big differnce in numbers when they edit her discography. So i realy can't understand why it can be. 150 million is also can't be a mistake because this figure also appear on Sony site and on Universal site. And on Universal site you can see clearly 75 million US records figure which looks very reliable and similar to 80-81 million US records figure presented in her dicography. Vorash 01:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

155 million records WW - 45 million singels WW = 110 million albums WW. 110 million albums WW / 61 million albums (US) = ratio 1.8. 1.8 can be true. See here for example IFPI European Awards 1996-2001 MAdonna has 17 awards (WW/US ratio 3), Celine Dion 33 (WW/US ratio 4) and MAriah Carey only 7 awards (WW/US ratio 1.8). Ratio 1.8 can mean that she is more puplar in US.- Vorash 02:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

According to Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists the Certification process that exist in many countries is "on-demand" process. THey say for example that "Most of Elvis Presley's albums were not certified before 2002" by RIAA. IFPI compare data of record companies with certifications that are supplied by IFPI National members, but since many record sales are not certified in those countries (because this is on-demand process), IFPI cannot check all data. Vorash 02:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I was looking in the same link that I gave you (that took you to Mariah archives) and this article: On top at the turn of the century , claims that she sold 120 million albums, as of 1999! In addition, in the article entitled: The best selling female artist, it states something that you may find interesting. You might also want to check out 'Mariah no longer best-selling artist?'. I suggest that you go to the link and see. If you dont know your way around the site already, when you access the link I gave you, click 'menu', then 'news'. Go to the bottom, right of the page where it says 'Search the news' and type in the title of the article. Journalist 03:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Be sure to type in the name of the articles instead of 'cut and paste'. I tried it awhile ago and it didnt work. Type in the titles without any capitals or commas ect. Journalist 03:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, i don't know...they don't tell any new facts.....a 120 million figure was also provided by me from archive org see here [2] Vorash 03:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


Heres what I do not understand. In the 2003 RIAA sales chart, it said that Mariah sold 57.5 million albums. If it was updated, how can she still be 57.5 and she has sold 4 million more albums since then: her latest one, which is 3X platinum, and the one before that. Also, according to http://www.mcarchives.com/ where I showed you, it said that she has sold 61.5 according to RIAA, and has surprassed Madonna. The figures on the current RIAA charts and the one that was in 2003 is identical. How can that be? Journalist 20:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Could you please tell me how you came to this conclusion?: "The major problem here is that a Certification process that exist in many countries is "on-demand" process, and many record sales are not certified just because their owners (record companies) didn't ask for certification. Thus, large portions of record sales cannot be checked by IFPI". I would like for you to cite your source; you can't just claim things that you think might be true, you have to provide a source. In addition, you might not find many info on The Millennium World Music awards because they were 'special'. There is information on the Legend World Muisc Awards here: Legend World Music Awards Journalist 03:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Certification process that exist in many countries is "on-demand" process !!! It's a fact !! Go to RIAA Link or any other National Federation site and see by yourself, you should specifically ask and pay for any certification !!! MOst of Elvis Presley records were not certified before 2000 , so how can you say that Certification and sales are the same !! Record sales of artists like Alla Pugacheva also were not certified at all, because there was no certification process in USSR/Russia. It doesn't mean that she didn't sell 250 million. About Mellenium award why should i care if it was "special" or not, the important thing is to know based on what data it was given !! About Legend Award they don't say anything about specific parameters for this award and that's why i wrote that we don't have any info about this award. Vorash 10:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LimeWire

I saw your listing of Tannin on WP:AN3. May I offer you a tip? The best kind of diffs are ones which compare the compare the revert not to the previous version but to the previous version that is the same. like this: [3] Four diffs like and an admin will block the user for sure. Sometimes you don't have four 1:1 reverts like this, but they should at least indicate that the same text was reverted 4x, along with possible other changes. Unfortunately the diffs you supplied don't conclusively demonstrate a 3RR violation, so he will probably go unsanctioned. HTH -- Viajero | Talk 7 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

YOu say "reverts should at least indicate that the same text was reverted 4x, along with possible other changes", but he reverted same text - "[[Category:spyware]]" x4 times, and i wrote it in coments. Vorash 7 July 2005 17:58 (UTC) Tannin is also an Admin, he is not simple user. Vorash 7 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

Ok, I took a look again at the diffs and I can see you are right. Yes, I know he is an admin, but that shouldn't make any difference. -- Viajero | Talk 7 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

You are the one making the accusations. You watch your language. Where is your evidence for the accusation you made? I am trying to maintain a balanced and honest article which properly warns our readers about a dangerous product. You are trying to hide documented public facts, which is one thing, and facts which, if hidden, could cause direct harm to Wilkipedia readers, which is another thing altogether.

I am unaware of violating the 3R rule. If I have done so, please revert me. Tannin 8 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)

All your expressions like "Don't spout nonsense", "whitewash this program", "revert fanboy whitewash" are insultments !! Nobody trying to whitewash this program, its you that trying to scare people ! You also don't have any respect for the obvious consensus against your opinion. I don't understand what's the purpose of your reverts ?? Limewire will never be listed in category spyware because your minor "unusual" opinion is not supported by majority of editors of this article. Vorash 8 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)

Hi Vorash: Your use of bold uppercase on my talk page feels like shouting. I agree with some of your points and I am glad to see that someone has further enhanced the article. Please do not shout at me or any other editor again. —Theo (Talk) 8 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

The bold text was used in order to underline dispiuted POVs. Why are you calling it "Shouting" ?? I still don't understand why are you removing NPOV template on disputed article , which is a subject for frequent Edit wars !!??? Vorash 8 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)

You talking about bold text, but i am talking about violation of official Wikipedia policy - NPOV. Removing NPOV template on article, whose actual accuracy is desputed is violation of Wikipedia policy ! Vorash 8 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. When you pointed out my error I went to restore the tag and found that someone had already done so. There was no cause to shout at me. An error does not justify incivility. I realise that you think me rather stupid but that is still no reason to be rude to me. —Theo (Talk) 8 July 2005 17:19 (UTC) PS: If you want to cite policy, the policy that applies here is Wikipedia:Civility.

About what exactly "error" are you talking about ? He is your edit Revision as of 15:57, 8 July 2005 . In your edit you added addtional info about SPYWARE and said qoute "Focus on the present whilst acknowledging the past in attempt to restore "NPOV" and in your attempt to "restore NPOV" you removed an NPOV template . THis is what you call "ERROR" ????? I see it as a case where two Administrators trying to enforce their opinion on other "regular" users. One Tanin - rudely violates 3RR rule, the second one - you - rudely violates NPOV rule ! Vorash 8 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)

I am ashamed for you. I believe that I have consistently treated you with courtesy and respect. Furthermore, I can assure you that I am proud that I have always acted in good faith on Wikipedia and that where I have made mistakes I have acknowledged them and apologised if I feel that hurt was done. Your assumption that I would treat a non-sysop with less respect than I accord a sysop is deeply offensive to me. Please reflect on just how unpleasant I consider such an accusation to be. —Theo (Talk) 8 July 2005 17:40 (UTC) (PS: This was edit conflicted. The fact that you took the time to refine your statement suggests that it was considered. Whatever evidence have I ever given you that I act in bad faith?)

Well, you ashamed of me , but i ashamed of Wikipedia where article about absolutely clean program can be overloaded with the word SPYWARE !!! Vorash 8 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

[edit] Are you logged in?

I've noticed a pattern of anon edits at User talk:Journalist that have signed your name. Are they your non-logged in edits, or is it an anon vandal? -- Essjay · Talk 15:33, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Davis pic

I found your image gallery using my super secret wiki powers, and noticed that you didn't have a picture of Mike Davis. I had an uncaptioned picture of him buried in one of my image galleries, so I decided to be bold and add it to your collection. →Raul654 02:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: personal attack.

It's not a personal attack. It's not about you; it's about your actions. Stop throwing an NPOV tag on a page that has no POV violations, just because you don't like Michael Jackson and think that the article should expressly state that people think he is a pedophile. The fact (and that's what this encyclopedia is all about; fact) is that Jackson was acquited. We don't know if he's a pedophile or ot; no one does. Even so, it's more professional to say "he has been acused of child molestation". And, yes, you can be banned for repeated poor edits to articles and vandalisation, but I cannot be banned for telling you so. --FuriousFreddy 19:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You say that "you can be banned for repeated poor edits to articles and vandalisation". I didn't doo any "poor edits" and i didn't vandalise any pages. I just say that a Michael Jackson page include POV statements. You are also lying that "i didn't like Michael Jackson". It's untruth. THreating people for arguing POV in the article and telling lies about them is a personal attack !!! Will see who will be banned !! Vorash 19:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
You removed several sentences from the article, some of which were not POV but verifiable fact, and then said it was POV when the information was re-written and integrated back into the article. That is indeed vandalism.

And for you to say that you actually don't dislike Jackson, you seem awful adamant about wanting the "people call him a pedophile" bit added to the article, and you've been persuing that point, it seems, for several months. If you had a neitral opinion of Jackson, there would be no point in pushing for such an addition (especially since, again, the article repeatedly states the same, but in a more neutral way).

I'm not going to fight you, and I'm not going to argue with you. We've re-written and revised nearly this entire article; there are no POV violations as far as I can see. If there are, list them on my talk page, and if they are verifiable, I will edit them. Otherwise, everything should be settled. But users who continuously make bad edits are to be banned. It appears you've stopped, so I will leave you alone. But I am watching this page, and if you resume doing what you did, you will be reported. And, for the last time, no one is staging a personal attack against you. --FuriousFreddy 20:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
"you seem awful adamant about wanting the "people call him a pedophile" bit added to the article, and you've been persuing that point, it seems, for several months" is onother lie !! You continue to lie . My opinion is wrtitten in Michael Jackson's talk page. I didn't said that a word "pedophile" should be added, I said that there are some people that think that he is the "king of pop", but other people think that he is "Wacko Jacko" or even "Pedophile", but Wikipidia should avoid all these statements, because they are all POV in my opinion. Saying that i am pursuing adding a bit of "Pedophile" for 'months is another lie !!! Why are you lying ??? MOnths ??? As of removal i said in the talk page that in my opinion MTV and Rolling stones "best songs" should be moved to trivia section, and it is not suitable for the entrance section (its all written in talk page )! Here again YOu continue to lie and saying that i did it as an act of VAndalism !!!!! - Vorash 20:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Conversation from June 16 shows you attempting to get that fact added to the page. And, if the use of exclamaition points are any eidence, quite adamant about the fact that someone removed that statement (was it ever added). Perhaps "months" is a bit long (it's just been one and a half months; for some reason I thought the the time between when I first read that and now was a lot longer), but it's still been an extended period of time.
Oh, and you just told on yourself here: "in my opinion MTV and Rolling stones "best songs" should be..." "In your opinion". That is, "in your [point of view]". Now that is a POV violation, and edits to support that opinion are indeed vandalism. MTV and Rolling Stone are two of the most iportant authorities on music in the world, and if they compile a list of the most important singles in the world, and Michael Jacksonm is on there thre times - four if you count the Jackson 5 - that's a very notable fact, and can (actually, should) be added to the header, because it serves as a supporting fact for why Jackson is a notable artist, and gives indication about why he is famous. It's not trivia; that section should be reserved for information such as what color car he drives and such. --FuriousFreddy 20:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

On 16 July i said quote:

  1. "Proven fact" ? Really ? :)"
  2. "Many people think that he is pedophile, but in order to publish it we should have a substantial evidence or at least a link to some respectful source (if you say that he has admitted that)"

THat's what you call "attempting to get that fact added to the page" ???? It wasn't my idea to add the Word PEDOPHILE to the page !! You are lying again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP YOUR LIES !!!!!!!!!!

None of your accusations are supported by facts ! YOu continue to call me VaNDAL without supplying any proof for it. So it can be only a Personal Attack !! And if you will continue your lies i will complain to administrators !! Vorash 21:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

(1) That was June, not July. (2) You forgot this, which you said today: "So why it's was deleted that many people call him PEdOPHILE ??? It's a verifiable fact !! Many people say that he is a PEdOPHILE !!" (3) If you really didn't want that in there, then I apoligize. My point (which seems to have gotten lost in here) was that an editor do not remove things from articles just because he or she alone thinks they don't belong. TO do otherwise, and to continue to do so, is not right. (Also, there is no need to speak with a dozen or so exclamation points or bold points.)
And as far as the Madonna question you had on the MJ talk page, a sentence like the one that was removed could only stay if it were linked to a source. Otherwise, you'd have to say that Madonna was a popular artist by citing record sales. --FuriousFreddy 21:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
It the same thing here: you don't quote any sources !!! You say "He has been referred to by some as "The King of Pop"." Where is your sources for this ?????????????? If you don't have any sources, it's a POV and should be removed !! Vorash 21:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
The last edit I made said "He often refers to himself as the King of Pop", which is true. However, a source is not neccessary to prove that Michael Jackson is often referred to as "The King of Pop": that nickname was used just as much as his real name during the 1990s, and a Google search for king+of+pop+Michael+Jackson turns up several newspaper articles which use the nickname, whether in a positive way or not: [4] [5] [6] [7]. Whether he actually is "the king of pop" or not is up for debate (and, as of present, is probably untrue), but it's a provable fact that he's (constantly) called that. It'd be like asking for a reference that Jay-Z is called "Jay-hova" or Louie Armstrong is called "Satchmo". You have to look at it as a nickname, adn not an actual title. If the article stated that Jackson was often referred to as "Mike", would that still be POV without a source?
"Many consider Madonna to be one of the most iconic and influential female figures of the late 20th century", however, is stating someone's opinion (not neccessarily that of the editor, but of someone), and for its inclusion in the article, it needs a reference (even something like "Rolling Stone says that Madonna is the..."). Otherwise, you'd have to edit it to say Madonna is "one of the most"... --FuriousFreddy 22:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Madonna

Locutions like "many believe" need to be made specific, and given citations (if only in the references section of the Talk page. The nast name for it is "weasel words", but I prefer to restrict that phrase for their use for deliberate deception. I didn't think that that was the case here, but the claim was vague and uncited. I should have explained -- sorry. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a lookat the article; without seeing it, though, it sounds as if you're right. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Journalist

For what its worth, I really dont think that you are a vandal. Ive seen some of the valuable contributions that you have made to this encyclopedia, especially the List of best-selling music artists page and I have to give you kudos. To tell you the truth, I think you are one of the hardest working editors here, but they dont see that; all they see are the mistakes someone makes and they all jump at the opportunity to threaten 'banning'. Journalist 17:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for vote to delete List of best-selling music artists, list that i spend some few weeks to create now will be deleted, so what's the point to contribute to wikipedia any way ? Vorash 14:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Everyone appreciates your contribution to Wikipedia, and we understand how you must feel. However, you have to admit that the article, at the moment is quite a mess. Its vandalised everyday, even at this very moment, someone has put Cher at #1, selling over 5 billion records. See what I mean? its hopeless. And even if you want to revert the changes, its so heavily edited and vandalised you do not know what version to revert it to; you stand the chance of deleting the useful contributions that are made inbetween the vandalisations. Spiteful users have caused the article to be grossly inaccurate and unreliable, and at the moment, its of no useful purpose. I know you devoted a lot of time to the article and Im sorry thats its being considered for deletion, but with the direction in which the article was going, this was inevitable. Journalist 19:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Wikipedians

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Israel page as living in or being associated with Israel. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Israeli Wikipedians for instructions. —Simetrical (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

List dude, that best singles and albums list is more messed up than ever! Wha happend?

[edit] Mariah Carey singles discography

Reverting other people's contributions with the summary "reverting vandalism", when those edits clearly do not constitute vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism for a more accurate definition of the term), is generally considered bad behaviour. There was extensive discussion about the issue of boldfacing number-one positions in chart tables at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts. As for the total sales figures, if you have a reliable source for them then please add it to the article. Extraordinary Machine 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Mariah Carey singles discography, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! Extraordinary Machine 21:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Who The HEll are "WE" ??? "We can verify your work" ?? "We welcome and appreciate your contributions" ?? Are you nuts ??? What is this bullshit anyway ??!! Shut up funboy !! Vandal !! Vorash 14:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You've reinserted the uncited total sales figures into the article, again with the summary "rv VANDALISM". You have been asked to cite your sources (as you are also requested to every time you edit a page), as well as refrain from reverting non-vandalism edits as vandalism. You have failed to do either of these things. I have removed the sales figures again, and would suggest that you consult Wikipedia:Civility before making any further comments. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 21:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain at Talk:Mariah Carey singles discography why earlier today you reverted to a weeks-old version of the article without justification or prior discussion, thus overwriting dozens of (useful) edits made in the meantime? Extraordinary Machine 18:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Also: Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." Extraordinary Machine 18:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

  1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
  2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
  3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 02:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:NathanBJonesBPic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NathanBJonesBPic.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 13:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kad Network

If you have a source for this assertion which you seem to want to have in the article - please cite it. Simply adding deleted information back into the article does not solve anything.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Sarah-7.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarah-7.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Pagrashtak 01:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mariah Carey singles discography

You do realise that those sales figures are still unsourced, right? Extraordinary Machine 18:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, as I've already said, it's considered bad behaviour to revert to an old version of an article (thus removing dozens of edits made in the meantime) without explaining or discussing the matter. If you do it again, you will be reported at WP:AN. Extraordinary Machine 18:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete important information ! If you do it again i will report you as VANDAL to the same WP:AN ! Vorash 18:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Vorash, Extraordinary Machine is correct: you need to cite sources when adding new information. You also shouldn't revert to an older version in order to restore a certain bit of content when reverting removes other unrelated edits. Finally, please stop referring to Extraordinary Machine as a vandal. It is not civil; in fact, it's rude. If you can't abide by these Wikipedia guidelines, you will end up blocked for disruption of the encyclopedia. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 20:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You wrong, this is not a new information ! The sales info are in article for a long time, and i didn't add it. Vorash 12:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If you look closely at this diff, you can see that your reverts reintroduce a plethora of inaccuracies into the article (which had been removed by other editors), and remove references and important material. This is vandalism. If you don't stop, you may be blocked from editing. Extraordinary Machine 16:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
EM is right. Vorash, you cannot just revert the infor to a week old version as it deletes new information. If you want to, you can readd the figures manually. However, please take the time to look for sources to support the figures. And please, calm down —all of your responses seem to be shouts and childish insistencies. Orane (t) (c) (e) 01:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The article has been protected from editing, and I have left a message to other editors at Talk:Mariah Carey singles discography explaining the situation. It would be much appreciated if you were to go there and start discussing this issue calmly, find and cite reliable sources for the sales figures you keep reinserting, and stop performing blind reverts which destroy all edits made in the meantime. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 13:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits on The Muses Rapt

Were reverted. This is an Encyclopedia and not a fan site, we do not use words like "wonderful track"... and there was no reason to revert my "[[Goa trance music|Goa trance]]" back to your "Goa-Trance" (without a link to the Goa article!). Yet I kept the deletion of his "You" album, because I guess you know more than me about it. Psychomel@di(s)cussion 19:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote in the Article Improvement Drive for Madonna!

Hi!

Could u please add ur vote for Madonna in the article improvement drive? Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Improvement_Drive#Madonna_.28entertainer.29_.2811_votes.2C_stays_until_April_24.29

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:WoodyAllen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WoodyAllen.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you--Jonathaneo 08:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final warning

This is your final warning about reverting Mariah Carey singles discography to a week (or even month old version). Do it again, and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for a long while. This is just too much, and you will not yield. You display no courtesy what-so-ever, and you haven't even the manners and politeness to discuss any changes with anyone. Your edits simply remove all constructive and updated info that have been made to the article since the start of 2006!!! Doesn't that mean anything to you? Orane (t) (c) (e) 23:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not engage in an edit war with you!!! That was the last straw. You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of time. I suggest that you take this time to think about your behaviour. And don't bother with your arguing— I will hear none of it! Orane (t) (c) (e) 02:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Sandraposter1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sandraposter1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Atthealberthall.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Atthealberthall.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:U2_LiveAid.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:U2_LiveAid.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Michaelcretu.jpg)

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Michaelcretu.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. meco 07:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Terminator3004.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Terminator3004.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 14:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Moderntalking.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Moderntalking.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --85.160.5.195 07:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Eternalsunshineposter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eternalsunshineposter.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shannernanner 08:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Eternalsunshine002.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eternalsunshine002.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shannernanner 08:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Eternalsunshine003.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eternalsunshine003.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shannernanner 08:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:ThomasAnders.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ThomasAnders.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/o/r/User_talk%7EVorash_e7ef.html"