User talk:60.234.242.196

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not just that I "believe" it is wrong, it IS wrong. I thought Wikipedia was about relaying factual information? What was written before was incorrect and not even sourced. The version now I have no problem with, it doesn't state Gold is the Xth biggest seller and that Bat Out Of Hell is in the top 5 all time chart - it may be about the most charted album in UK chart history, but it hasn't actually sold as much as Gold etc, nobody actually knows for sure anyway. Like I said the top 100 best selling albums in the UK is revealed next month, then some more specific info can be added.

Regarding the swearing, fair enough.. I just said that because I was annoyed at the blatant misinformation. But it was hardly that bad and children who read this site can look up swear words and plenty of explicit adult articles already on here if they so wish. Plus you are also an anoynomous user with just an IP address for a name, so I don't believe you have any particular authority to tell someone how to behave on here. Thanks anyway for the advice though, I won't do that again in the future.

Contents

[edit] Please do not misuse the block tag...

Hi there, I noticed you added the block tag to User talk:Hi I love You. Only administrators are allowed to use that tag after they have blocked a user. Please do not re-add it again, thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam Blacklist

Hallo. The problem about www.abba-world.net is now fixed. See meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#GateWorld. --Kusunose 08:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best-selling music artist

It was a pleasure to help out. I had made an error with the article before because I misread the source. Thank you for your assistance in creating and preserving a great article.--Stardust6000 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Just adding my thanks too for your work on the article. --Robdurbar 08:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:List of world records

Hi. Considering your message, what is your source that these are US records and not world records? Usually in Wikipedia, when someone writes something we consider it right but when someone corrects something (s)he has to state some reliable sources. If you have reliable sources, leave a message on the talk page. I doesn't know much about this subject, so, I would rather suggest that you contact someone who is more knowledgeable. Try leaving a message to anyone in the page's history. Thank you. --Meno25 10:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. But I didn't edit the page. I only reverted what I thought was vandalism. I will not edit this article again. Just leave a message on the talk page describing what you did and then delete what you want from the article. I also recommend that you create an account. Cheers. --Meno25 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assumption

I see that you base your sales estimations from media traffic more commonly known as the United World Chart. I have no problem with that, but you must be aware that just because in that site they claim that 55% of the points are sales, that doesn't necessarily mean that for every song 55% are in fact sales because lets assume that Cher's Believe got more airplay than sales that would mean that the sales percentage would be lower. That's why you can't take 55% of every song's points in wikipedia and claim that thats the total sales from that song. It's still undertemined even with the math Why? because the source (UWC) hasn't done the math therefore in the future don't use the UWC as a source for sales. Someone made this assumption with the Madonna Sales. This can't be done because it's not a fact rather it's a user's assumption and as you said this online encyclopedia is about facts not assumptions. If it was you who changed the sales in Madonna discography, you have done wrong. If you didn't learn from the lesson told ↑ there. Now since someone has created sales for Madonna's singles out of their own assumption I must report it to a moderator or administrator so that they remove the 00's sales provided by Madonna. Rsf7589 22:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You may think what you want, but if you take a better look at the recent pages I've been editing, you can see that in them I state Points and not Sales. Examples of this are the Anastacia and Nelly Furtado discographies. Oh and your comment about contacting UWC is not a source unless you have prove that you have done so. Rsf7589 16:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits made 18 February 2007 to ...Baby One More Time

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from an article. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Slugger9066 23:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:Knmno

Yeah, I've noticed his/her contributions. Thanks for keeping on top of them! I've given a final, more substantial, 'reasonable warning'. I think the next move would be a brief (24/48 hours) block if he/she were to continue being disruptive, to show we won't stand for it. In my experience, though, users like this tend to either become good contributors, or go away board. --Robdurbar 12:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:Micheal-Nick

Hello just I want saying the Millennium guide for Backstreet Boys : very very vivid And not need to more of that, my brother it is sale 30 million old and but Brian Littrell saying : his sale 40 million warranting that


[edit] User:Micheal-Nick

Hello I Wish be your Friend , But I Want saying about Millennium for The Backstreet Boys I Have Guide Two And This Sufficing In Motif And This saying For Brian Littrell Not My saying , I am can Or not ? I Don't Lie , Remember In 2000 sale 30 Million [1] , Look To The Date , I waiting Your Answers .


[edit] User:Micheal-Nick

Guide Black And Blue So Vivid And Don't Need Debate And Suffice From popdirt And Livedaily


[edit] User:Micheal-Nick

ukmix.com Every Her Talks Garrulous , They Names Boys And Girls for Garrulous Just Inventing's Anything digits There , www.popdirt.com Purport Guide Oops I Did It Again For Britney Spears Taken From popdirt . I Can Laid Guides In All Page And I Don't Lie This (The Guides) Cosmopolitan And You Be True , All Right My Friend .


[edit] User:Micheal-Nick

I Used Guide Self (Backstreet's Back) This Location What You Like Him Right My Friend .

[edit] Your edit to Robbie Williams discography

Your recent edit to Robbie Williams discography (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for the mistake

I am sorry for the error. Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk 13:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 87.109.81.105

Please Help Me Backstreet Boys discography Because Snowolf did wreck things And But Black And Blue sale 24 Million Because Popdir Don't lying in his Talks And it's taken from Ten locations And more .


[edit] Black And Blue

Oh man how you understand ? how did will you wreck wikipedia Please

by using factual, reliable, sourced referencing. Research is a good thing, please try it. 60.234.242.196 12:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] old

Your guide ollllllld man now sale 24 million horizon you of dream

wow, personal attacks. Then you expect people to respect your credibility. Refer Best-selling albums in the United States since Nielsen SoundScan tracking began. Millennium (Backstreet Boys album) has sold 0.12 million in past 5 years in BSB's biggest market. Backstreet Boys (US album) has sold 0.8 million in the same period. So you are wanting everyone to believe that their average selling album has sold an additional 9 million in the same period , and without supply evidence. 60.234.242.196 01:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] A.k.s.n

You are fash store here for old talks baby .

english please! 60.234.242.196 23:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] A.k.s.n

Why Canceled Greatest Hits from discography Backstreet Boys ?

It wasn't me. I have added it back in. 60.234.242.196 23:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A.k.s.n

Would there New news about new album for backstreet boys ?

[edit] A.k.s.n

Would it's true [never gone] sale 10 million ? [2]

no this is fake. Just another fan making up figures. 60.234.242.196 06:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] A.k.s.n

in what day will issue Backstreet Boys song "Love Will Keep You Up All Night" ? and would it's in April ?

[edit] Dangerous

I'm afraid in that article, that's exactly how it works. Claims take precedence over any claims to ontological truth. If you do care about the latter, however, there are some estimates that put Dangerous anywhere from 29 to 32 million copies. I know where I can find that source and will put it up if you would like me to. Just let me know ok?UberCryxic 04:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I've actually gone ahead and put that new source up. Everything should be fine now.UberCryxic 04:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please address my concerns here or in the talk page of the article before reverting any further. I have considered your points and they are worthless in the context of that article. The CNN transcript claimed that Dangerous had sold 30 million and now you were given another source saying its range was from 29 to 32 million. There is absolutely no good reason to be pushing this any further. The article operates on claims and virtually claims alone.UberCryxic 15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the greatest selling artists article, I remember seeing a transcript from CNN that was used to qualify an artist as having sold a certain number of records. So there is precedent for what I did initially, but now I have given you a good source that puts the range for Dangerous above 30 million.UberCryxic 18:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with BSB is something different. The sources that those people are giving say that BSB has sold a total of over 50 million albums worldwide. I'm reverting them because they think it means they can put that as one album or something (or that this is a list of how many albums artists have sold...whichever). Anyway, their confusion aside, the CNN transcript is one good source for the sales of Dangerous. Mjjcharts.com does a break down and gives a range, which in the context of that article is just as significant since they're claiming the figures for Dangerous could be as high as 32 million, kind of like Guinness is claiming that the sales for Thriller could be as high as 104 million (although that's not exactly how they put it).UberCryxic 23:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: we are not trying to give the most accurate figure that is available. Wikipedia does not make any claims to what is true, what is accurate, and so on. Please learn to rethink this part of the issue because I sense that this is causing much confusion. Think about it, do you honestly think that the most accurate figure for Thriller, if we're talking about accuracy, is 104 million? Clearly not! Then why do we put 104 million in that article? Because that is what's claimed! Most figures for Thriller place it somewhere between 50 and 60 million, but that's not the figure that goes in Wikipedia because the highest claim is over 100 million. This is explained in the article itself; claims are the only things that matter.UberCryxic 23:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the illogic that causes so much dispute in Wikipedia. I see from your talk page that you are trying to major in History. In reference to your own specialty, if I were to reference that Germany won WWII, then you would be happy with this as long as I referenced it. Wikipedia itself states that it is encyclopedic in nature. I would have thought someone with your background would see the benefits of factual information over claims. I do not dispute that it does say "claims" but this is within the realms of sensibility, and known information. Some fans just want to promote their favourite artists at the expense of truth and reality. 60.234.242.196 08:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If we were really interested in "factual claims," and not just saying it, then Thriller would not be listed as 104 million because it's sold nowhere near that. That figure is crap and everyone knows it. But you know what else? Wikipedia doesn't permit statements like that. It will pass them off as sociologically motivated, ie. "ok that's what you think but others are saying something else; who's to decide the truth?" As an encyclopedia, that's what it should do. Germany winning World War II is not a relevant and wide-ranging opinion among the relevant historical community or the public at large, so Wikipedia will reflect that. How much Dangerous has sold? Only music enthusiasts interested in figures and Michael Jackson fans will care about that. It's a lot easier to pass off claims from unique sources. Not the best way, but if we're allowing it for other artists and albums, then we should allow it for Dangerous. I should also further highlight that I'm deeply troubled by this "factual" approach of yours here. It's good generally, but not here. I have seen tons of ridiculous claims on sales figures. In the best-selling artists article, for example, Elvis and the Beatles are said to be over a billion, Michael Jackson 750 million, Bing Crosby 900 million, and so on. Again, if we were interested in accuracy, we'd shove all those figures in the you know where. But we don't. We allow claims from the most menial and disreputable sites on stuff like this because there just isn't anything better that we can do. Understand that I personally disagree with this policy, but it's one that's apparently been established by consensus, so we'd have to renew the discussion and establish a new consensus if we wanted to change it.UberCryxic 11:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On your question concerning the best selling male artist: there are plenty of Michael Jackson fan sites that claim he's the greatest selling single artist of all time and there's also the Sony biography that I gave in the talk page of the List of world records article. Prince Albert also explicitly called Michael Jackson the "greatest selling artist of all time" at the World Music Awards in 2000. So it's nothing surprising....Elvis Presley fans claim he's the greatest selling, Michael Jackson fans claim he's the greatest selling. Again....lots of claims, claims, claims. Wikipedia is trying to spare itself the torment by instituing the policies above.UberCryxic 14:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know if you saw it, but Access Hollywood also stated that Dangerous had sold 30 million copies in a special they did with Michael Jackson in November 2006. Do you think that's good enough? You've got a CNN anchor, Access Hollywood, and a fan site giving a range. For the lax standards of that article, I doubt anyone could demand anything more.UberCryxic 19:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Black & Blue

Who it which mutate sale black and blue for backstreet boys always you ?


[edit] Backstreet Boys

intended in the album guide (Backstreet Boys) Just which in image .

[edit] Please Assume Good Faith

Please, when reverting vandalism, and posting vandalism templates, remember to assume good faith. This will make Wikipedia more enjoyable for everyone, and therefore, make it better. Thanks. Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 03:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] welcome!

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users, and you will be able to:

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, remember to sign and date your comments with four tildes (~~~~).xC | ☎ 07:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of best-selling music artists

Please don't remove an "unsourced" tag without supplying sources for the allegations. Corvus cornix 20:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. That's why I put it in the particular section instead of against the entire article. Corvus cornix 15:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Rami John

I Know Maggott2000 It's Too You If You Don't Want The Stop Will You Be Scandal In wikipedia And They Will Consider You Lie Of All Time Please Stop I Am Not Micheal Nick Or A.k.s.n You Are Can't Titter With Me , Take Care You Rami John Thanks .


[edit] Merge

I have proposed merging Best-selling albums in the United States since Nielsen SoundScan tracking began into List of best-selling albums in the United States. Since you seem to be the primary editor of the former, I thought I'd let you know about the proposal.

Horologium talk - contrib 20:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maggott2000

I Know This Game You Are Maggott2000 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not a game. I have many times already stated this. It is when I forget to log in. However, you hide behind a roaming IP address, and keep making the same pointless edits, wasting everyones time 60.234.242.196 18:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Please

Please Stop And Shut Up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.240.6 (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Songs in A Minor

Please stop removing the United World Chart peak position for Songs in A Minor. Here you'll learn the album charted on the UWC at number fifteen on 15 September 2001. And if the UWC didn't exist before 2003, then why the list of number-one hits on the United World Chart page has lists of number ones for 1957, 1958, 1966, 1967, and so on? Read United World Chart#Notes again—"It should be noted that the UWC only has charts available from 1957-1958, 1966-1968, 1976-1978, 1986-1988, and 1996-present". Funk Junkie (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got your point now, sorry for any inconvenience. By the way, you didn't have to add source links to every peak position! I had added them all at the top of the table, next to where it reads "Chart (2001)". :) On the other hand, the source links for the certifications were quite helpful. Funk Junkie (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem! It's all fixed right now. Funk Junkie (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Your recent edit to The Best Damn Thing (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. Please do not add email addresses/phone numbers, Imageshack/Photobucket/Flickr, or related links to non-talk pages if possible. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(warning removed) Absolutely. Please accept my apologies for the mistake ;-) And happy editing, Snowolf How can I help? 10:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Madonna discography (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Madonna discography (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Madonna discography (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help Request

{{helpme}}

I have several questions sorry to say. Recently "Madonna Discography" was separated into Madonna albums discography and Madonna singles discography. On the original article, there was a lot of information on that discussion page, which now appears lost. Is there any way to retrieve it from the original article?

On the Madonna albums discography article, there is one User who is persistant in amending the sales records, even though the existing ones are fully referenced and verified (and were part of the discussion page mentioned above). The User does not meet the criteria for sockpuppet, meatpuppet etc, and WP:3RR fails to work as each edit is from a different IP address. Is there any way of blocking this User as blocking an IP range could impact many genuine Users from that ISP? I assume the alternative is restricting the article to signed-on Users (as has been done previously), but this restricts all genuine Users using IP addresses for the sake of one ... and this User just comes back after the restriction is lifted. Help please? 60.234.242.196 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The page Madonna discography still exists, as does its companion talk page. You may want to simply link to that page from the top of each of the new talk pages. I'll leave your other question(s). Bovlb (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
About the vandalism: you can report the user at WP:AIV, where an admin will most likely, block that user. ~ LegoKontribsTalkM 02:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re AIV report re Madonna Discography

Upon review, I decided it was easier to sprotect the article against ip/new accounts editing for 2 days. Unfortunately, this also effects you. If you have not registered an account it may be a good time to do so (although this will not allow you to edit the article before protection lapses, but may be useful in future). You might also use the downtime in preparing a report to WP:ANI so a more lasting solution - possible range block? - may be tried to resolve this. I apologise if my actions have an effect on your enjoyment in editing Wikipedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Something to Remember. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —C'est moi Parlez 05:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)