User talk:MassassiUK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] thriller issue

hey please dont consider me or elfoid to be the same user. We are different people and if needs be i will get an admin who has worked with both of us to confirm this issue. He knows us both well. Im trying to get along and hostility wont improve things, im not edit warring as you can know see, i am not simply going to revert you , all i did was revert to a decision by a neutral , respected iditor. Realist2 (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The user you reverted to (Elfoid) is either a friend of yours (since there was a message from him on your TALK page) or he is you yourself. I would like to know how he apparently received your message that you had been banned though. (and by the way, deleting the sections about your ban on your talk page will not hide the evidence that it took place). MassassiUK (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Im fully aware i cant hide it but as i appealled 4 times it took up quite a large section of my talk page. A further 2 editor including an admin have reverted back to the edit by elfoid minus the word widely. This seems completelely fair to both sides. Realist2 (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not fair to both sides at all. The BBC link also states that it was Jackson and his people who claimed the album sold 104 million. You are therefore removing CITED information and are engineering another edit war. It was actually my edit that was the most balanced of all since I maintained that Thriller is still the best selling album of all time, but that there were discrepancies in the number of copies it has sold which range from 45million to 104million - and I provided citations for both opinions. It is important to the article that it states that Jackson himself claims the 104 million figure, as there is no actual evidence other than his word. Guinness Book of Records still says its far less (55 or 65 million). Basically, you are editing in a way that makes Jackson appear to be far more successful (and innocent) than he actually is, which is a violation of POV. Wikipedia is NOT a Michael Jackson fanpage and your removal of cited information that is relevant to the article will not be tolerated. MassassiUK (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Im not making the edits, its other users and admins, please dont blame me for the actions of others. Realist2 (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You reverted today! As soon as your ban was over you reverted both the Thriller AND the Michael Jackson pages. Dont try to play innocent because you wont get away with it.MassassiUK (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

All i did was revert it to an edit by elfoid who is respected for his balanced approach when it comes to jackson. Please dont threaten me i have learnt my error. Realist2 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You reverted to an edit that was made by a friend of yours (and you had the nerve to accuse ME of "tag-teaming"). It is obvious that you haven't learned your lesson and I will be watching your moves (and those of your friends) closely. MassassiUK (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If thats the way you feel, im sorry ive upset you so much, Realist2 (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made edits about your question on thriller 25 , please see the thriller talk page. Realist2 (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC) massassi if your dictatorial ways continue i will report you , and therefore it will be you that will be banned. os. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.117 (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't accuse me of a crime without contacting me, it's rude

And just not a gentlemanly way to behave!

"The user you reverted to (Elfoid) is either a friend of yours (since there was a message from him on your TALK page) or he is you yourself."

Read the Michael Jackson pages. He and I argue constantly and are frequently reverting each other's edits and having huge battles on major issues. We rarely agree on anything. Between us we form a yin/yang balance, so we're friends, but believe me, our approaches vary a great deal. And it's not hard for you to be able to see that either.

"I would like to know how he apparently received your message that you had been banned though. (and by the way, deleting the sections about your ban on your talk page will not hide the evidence that it took place)"

I checked his talk page.

"there were discrepancies in the number of copies it has sold which range from 45million to 104million"

There are no discrepancies. If something says "over 45 million", technically, it COULD just mean they haven't counted in a while and it could have reached 104. It's just damn unlikely. It's worth mentioning the Guiness score being lower, yes, but the use of italics implicated meaning. The pragmatics of the italics was an issue.

"I will be watching your moves (and those of your friends) closely."

So you're "spying" on me because you don't like him? Grow up. I'm just a guy trying to make Wikipedia a better encyclopaedia, nothing else. I don't even like Michael Jackson, I just think he has some cool songs.

"Excuse me, but was I talking to you? This is an issue Onorem needs to deal with because it was he/she who made the revert edit in question."

Don't talk about me if I'm not involved in YOUR arguments then.

"AM I TALKING TO YOU???"

Well if he sees you making an incorrect statement, and wants to point it out, has he not the right? It could be considered interrupting a conversation in real life, but on Wikipedia it's no issue. He politely and concisely said "actually, as a big MJ expert, I know that....__________" - how is that really gonna do anything other than possibly inform you? Are you saying because you didn't ask him something specifically, you'll automatically dispute his point of view?

I doubt Sony would decide Thriller had sold 104 million albums because Jacko "made it up". You can fiddle sales figures, but Sony are a larger and more powerful force than Jacko ever was. They'd not just go along with him like that.

"Thats where you're wrong. I've liked Jackson's music for many years, but Wikipedia is NOT a MJ fanpage (something I have reminded you of repeatedly). Wiki has to give a BALANCED view, which includes the good and the bad, and when controversial information (such as 104 million sales) is passed off as "fact" then I am prepared to step in and provide sources to the contrary. The main problem with your edits on the MJ pages is that you make it appear like it was written by an obsessed fan, and you only want to show the best things about him rather than the whole picture. You can do that on a fanpage, but this is inappropriate for Wikipedia. And I've read Sony's website and they make no mention of 104 million sales"

It specifically stated sales figures are CLAIMED to be 104 million. Basically, Realist2 knows every damn GOOD thing about Jacko in the world, and a few bad things. He's the MJ expert right now. And I'm the guy who writes a good encyclopaedia. The two of us make a good team, I destroy a lot of what he writes to make it a more balanced and fair piece; he's almost got the hang of that now, my work is largely deleting details that are un-necessary to go into. If it was a problem, I'd have cut it to pieces by now.

I'd not be that bothered, if you hadn't accused me of "being" Realist2. There's nothing to suggest it, and I take it both as offensive and a personal insult. But I'm not gonna "spy" on your friends, accuse of you of breaking rules you didn't or make other childish remarks. I'm just gonna tell you not to do it. Simple as that. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Erm....biased much? All you have succeeded in doing here is showing that you and Realist2 are good pals who will back each other up regardless of right or wrong. He accused me of sock-puppetry and tag-teaming without proof, and I threw the accusation right back at him. You also need to get your facts straight. The Billboard source (from 2007) did not say sales OVER 45 million, it just said "around 45million". This is Billboard and it is preposterous to suggest they have failed to count another 60 million album sales! And it was ME who wrote "sales are CLAIMED to be as high as 104million" because Realist2 kept putting "sales of approximately 104million" in the intro. He was passing it off as a fact and not a claim. This is wrong for Wiki and if you consider yourself to be such a good editor, then you should acknowledge that. Later, Realist2 kept reverting the page back to say "sales of approximately 104 million", as he had done earlier with another user - and then he got banned for his actions. Check the history for yourself. I would also be extremely wary of putting yourself in the middle of my disagreement with Realist2 just because he is disgruntled and is trying to rattle you into taking part in his delusional little war. "Spying" indeed. Oh please. MassassiUK (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not pals so much as collaborators. We disagree on almost everything, but between us somehow produce better articles - and he's learnt a lot about being less POV from me. He accused you of sock-puppetry/tag-teaming, maybe that's true, I don't know. I'm not that bothered, it's not my business frankly. What IS my business is what happened when you mentioned myn ame and got me involved. Thriller's sales are huge in so many minority countries (have you seen the weird places Thriller 25 charted in?), it's quite legitimate to consider they may have sales figures very wrong. Most sources have put the sales to be from around 50 million for a long time, with a fair few updating to 60 million in the last few years. The 104 million claim DOES seem a little unlikely, but you can't assume it's not right either.

Looking at the Thriller talk page, I think you're in the right and he's in the wrong. The use of italics that he said had been done by you, something like "It is claimed sales are 104 million) had some pragmatics we didn't need inserting, but what you suggest on the talk page is fine by me. My problem is what you've said about me, and my friend, your edit is fine - I just don't like you handled it on a personal level.(The Elfoid (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Re:Thiller page

One reference says that Jackson's people claim 105. Even if you provide a YouTube link to where he makes the statement, that doesn't justify saying that the number is claimed to be 104 simply because of that statement. Who's to say that he didn't say 104 because that's what his people were told? The way you are trying to present it is definitely not from a neutral point of view. Your way suggests that Jackson's people have intentionally inflated the numbers. You have not provided a source to back this. 6 references say that 104 is the number. One disagrees. Both figures are noted. If you want to provide a link to a reliable source that is specifically about the dispute over the total number, not just a side mention like the BBC note, that would probably be worth discussing on the article's talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 17:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What I am trying to present is a balanced POV because the page previously only said that the album had sold 104 million copies and passed it off as a fact based solely on newspaper reports that simply reiterated what Jackson and his people said. The only real proof of true sales figures is by tallying the various certifications around the world and perhaps the Guinness Book Of Records (neither of which even remotely support sales of 104million). Perhaps it would have been best worded "with sales claimed to be as high as 104 million (including by Jackson himself) though the BBC state that the GuinnessBOR list sales at 65 million". As long as all the references are still intact, this does not contravene POV policies. Comments?MassassiUK (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No its completely unnesarry, sony came to the figure and we cant proof they were deliberately lying or are inaccurate, jackson only reiterated what his label are saying, and why shouldnt he? hes not an expert in calculating sales, hes only saying what hes being told, many artists reiterate their acheivements even when there is skeptism about them but we dont go around saying , mariah carey said glitter sold 12 million copies, it doesnt matter.Realist2 (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but was I talking to you? This is an issue Onorem needs to deal with because it was he/she who made the revert edit in question. And what proof do you have that Sony came up with the figure and Jackson was only reiterating it? None.MassassiUK (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Which is exactly the same amount of proof that you have that Jackson came up with the number, and other people are reporting figures solely based off his comments. Both figures are cited. Both are mentioned. We don't need to specify which figure Jackson himself claims. All the references are still intact. --Onorem♠Dil 18:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Its because the first time this 104 million figure was ever publicly stated was by Jackson himself at the 2006 World Music Awards. Maybe he was misinformed, or maybe he was just trying to hype his own success. Either way, it started during that awards ceremony and the fact that he himself stated the figure is relevant to its validity (because he can hardly be described as unbiased).MassassiUK (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That may be the case, but I haven't seen a source that supports it. --Onorem♠Dil 18:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
At present I cant find a source that specifically says the 104 million figure was first quoted at the WMA ceremony. However, I added a reputable source yesterday (Billboard's and the All Music Guide's profile of Michael Jackson) that quoted a 45 million sales figure, which included 25 million in the US (assumingly these were over-the-counter sales as opposed to shipped sales since Thriller is 27x Platinum in the US). The article was dated 2007 and so is therefore just as current as any of the sources that state 104 million sales. However, the information and the source were continually deleted by the user "Realist2" (which is how he or she ultimately got blocked for edit warring). Considering that it's Billboard, this makes the source more reputable than any of the other sources and the information should have remained in the article as it prompts the reader to make up their own mind as to the true validity of the 104 million figure.MassassiUK (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It has no primary sourcing and it suggests that it is 25x Platinum. Thriller hasnt been 25x Platinum since 1997, that means billboard used a source that was at least 10 years old when recording its finding. Realist2 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

AM I TALKING TO YOU??? And none of YOUR references show their primary sources either - which makes them no more or less reliable than the Billboard source. Based on that alone, it is grounds to remove all of your sources from the article. And the Billboard article does not say it is 25x platinum in the US, it merely states that is has sold over 25 million copies which could be over-the-counter sales. The 27x platinum award is for the amount of copies that have been SHIPPED TO STORES since the album was released, not actual sales to the public. MassassiUK (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Look we all know you hate jackson as much as a like him but please this is a joke, you cant write i an encyclopedia that jackson made up the figure, sony are promoting THRILLER 25 saying it has sold 104 million not jackson. Realist2 (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats where you're wrong. I've liked Jackson's music for many years, but Wikipedia is NOT a MJ fanpage (something I have reminded you of repeatedly). Wiki has to give a BALANCED view, which includes the good and the bad, and when controversial information (such as 104 million sales) is passed off as "fact" then I am prepared to step in and provide sources to the contrary. The main problem with your edits on the MJ pages is that you make it appear like it was written by an obsessed fan, and you only want to show the best things about him rather than the whole picture. You can do that on a fanpage, but this is inappropriate for Wikipedia. And I've read Sony's website and they make no mention of 104 million sales.MassassiUK (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And you just exposed your ip adress on onorems talk page , looks like you were using it the other night after all. Realist2 (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again. The IP addresses are different, it just means they were from the same country and nothing more.MassassiUK (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

massassi do you understand anything about what you are doing, are you really educated?##

I'm educated enough to know how to spell and use grammar correctly, and intelligent enough not to get myself BANNED twice in the same week - which is more than I can say for you. Don't think I don't know who you are just because you spinelessly posted this with only your IP address showing. Idiot.MassassiUK (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"the fact that he himself stated the figure is relevant to its validity"
This depends on what OTHER sources contradict it; reliable sources state 104 million, the fact Jackson also stated it does not come into the matter. Guinness stated it had 104 million sales as of November 2006. Sure they changed it later, but you can't ignore that fact. The fact is, Guinness, Sony and Michael Jackson have all claimed 104 million and no one's argued the matter. Sales figures outside of the USA haven't been monitored in as much detail, and it's sold well in nations where figures are harder to come by, since Jackson's famous in less developed countries. It's impossible to calculate the sales totally, but we can't claim sales figures vary from 45-104 million like you wanted...........60 million is a standard accepted figure for the MINNIMUM it could possibly be, with 104 being the figure most people read about now. Worth NOTING that many sources have not updated to the 104, and that Guinness changed their figure, but you can't imply anything to do with who did it or why.
Onorem, Realist2 and myself have one viewpoint; 3 to 1 outnumbering you, you can't just tell us what to do. And yes I know you didn't ask me to talk about this, but we'd get into a discussion about it if I started editing, so why not?(The Elfoid (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Hey

Actually i successfully appealed the second ban I have you know, and there are multiple ip adresses attacking your page they cant ALL be me lol. Actually they started vandalising the MJ talk page insulting you. It was me who reverted their edits on the talk page and got it semi protected Here. As a result they must have come to your talk pae instead. If you continue to have problems with this get it semi protected asap.  :-) Realist2 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)