User talk:Salmoria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi! Well, you speak of a certain user, but you don't mention it. I need more information if you want me to help. Cheers, Phaedriel - 23:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that looks more like a content dispute than anything else. I suggest you discuss a possible compromise at the Talk page instead. I also must tell you that his opinion has merit: the claims that you're trying to insert in the article must be referenced and verifiable. Please let me know if I can be of further assitance. Regards, Phaedriel - 23:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know... have you tried to, well, you know... ask him? ;) Cheers! Phaedriel - 00:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Firt, put the references at the article; second engage in constructive dialog at the talk page. Assume good faith on his part before pressuming he'll remove them! Discussion is the key. Cheers, Phaedriel - 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say... but he's right. Please read our policies on Verifiability and reliable sources to see what kind of references are appropriate. Hope that helps. Cheers, Phaedriel - 00:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He's right in that a Ringtones website is not an appropriate and reliable source. Please, read the guidelines I linked you to above. Have a nice day! Phaedriel - 01:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tina Turner

I am sorry that you are having such a hard time understanding the principles behind wikipedia and caring to ignore advice given above. Please note that continued reversing of referenced data is considered vandalism. Please make yourself aware of WP:AN/3RR which means that if you keep reverting for more than 3 times, you can be blocked. Maggott2000 02:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note, one more time and you will be asked to be blocked. You have reversed 3x now on correct edits. Maggott2000 23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Resorting to offensive and personal attacks is also against wikipedia policy. Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Maggott2000 03:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Much of you edits were reversed. Again for the reasons previously given. Please read up on policies on Verifiability and reliable sources, as you have already been suggested to do. Maggott2000 03:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

IMDB, unfortunately, is not reliable. Will ^(talk) 18:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

IMDB isn't reliable because it's user edited, so anyone can add information. There are content controls, yes, but it's still user edited. Good reliable sources would be something like Empire magazine, Yahoo Movies, interviews with producers... in the case of Tina Turner with music, try All Music Guide. Will ^(talk) 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Try and find more reliable sources for the facts - fansites have varying degrees of reliability, for example, the Freema Agyeman fansite is very reliable, but a fansite for say, Heather Graham might not be. Will ^(talk) 18:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

About your question, WP:AIV can be used for obvious vandalism, while WP:ANI might be used for more subtle vandalism. Will ^(talk) 16:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits have been reversed. If you had taken the time to look at the edits done previously, they were NOT removed, but put in a more appropriate place. Check 'Awards' section on the page. Maggott2000 19:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do NOT add false accusations to my talk page. All you edits in the end have been removed that I had issue with, and the others it is I who mostly cleaned up the referencing and reconstructed the remaining detail into what it is now. That is evidence in itself that this was not vandalism, and the work of someone trying to achieve the correct balance. Here are the details on what you called vandalism 'tina turner is the top-selling solo act of all time' (removed),'biggest female artist in Europe'(removed), biggest solo act of all time'(removed),'sold 150 million albums'(removed), 'sold 80 million albums'(removed), 'the most amazing comeback in the history of rock'(edited to as I said it should), 'R&B music's first real diva'(edited to what I said it should), 'the most successful female rock artist of all time'(edited to what I said it should), 'tina turner embodies the best and the earthiest meaning of women in Rock...'(removed), as well as the accusations for deleting existing verifiable links, which were just resorted. Apology accepted Maggott2000 09:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment blanking

You blanked the feedback provided on your discussion page. Rather than doing this, a better solution would be to understand what is being reported to you. You can look at the article and see that you have made improvements, and that many of your edits are worthwhile ... but they need cleaning up to meet wikipedia standards. Whereas you are seeing the editing of your edits as vandalism, the advice being given to you is that as long as it meets the standards it is accepted. Maggott2000 23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPOV

Please take some time to read our policy on maintaining a Neutral point of view in articles. While your additions to Tina Turner are sourced, they are needlessly POV in nature.--Isotope23 19:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply on my talkpage. It still is not NPOV, even if you yourself didn't write it. There is a way to state things neutrally with these sources and that is what needs to happen here.--Isotope23 19:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the article so it better conforms to NPOV... there are still a few things that need to be tweaked, but you can look at the diffs and see what I did.--Isotope23 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madonna

I'm not going to get to it today, but I will look at it tomorrow. That is unfortunate to hear because if I remember correctly I completely cleaned up the Madonna page about a year or so ago...--Isotope23 20:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False warning/Madonna

Hi there. We appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia, and encourage you to continue. Anyway, I have reverted your contribution to the Madonna article. First off, you cannot say that Madonna has the Guinness world record for being "one of" the best selling female artists. The fact that its a record means that she has to be number ½1. The same goes for the other records that are listed in her intro. All of the information in the article is sourced, so I do not understand why you are changing it. Secondly, please be careful when adding warning signs to another editor's talk page. Don't just dive into it; try to be a little less rigid. Make sure that you are not making a mistake (like you did with me, and like you did with Rabbitfighter (talk · contribs) about the Tina Turner article). Orane (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As an Administrator for Wikipedia, and an editor for many years, I know most of the policies thoroughly. I would advise that you reread the policies on neutrality (No original research, WP:Verifiability, and WP:NPOV) before you chide others for not abiding by them. To write that a person holds a Guinness World Record is not POV in itself. Maybe the tone of the Madonna article is off —and I agree that it is — and maybe there is undue balance when discussing her achievements and her shortcomings. But the records that she holds should be listed as is, unless you can find reputable sources to challenge them. Now, please do not revert my changes to the article until you have fully understood the guidelines. Orane (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And just to remind you to be careful of the Three-revert rule, which states that you should not revert an article more than three times within the same day, or you may be blocked from editing by me, or any other Administrator. Orane (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do NOT add false accusations to my talk page. That is evidence in itself that this was not vandalism to request a block and threaten users is against Wikipedia's policy,that was just my work trying to achieve the correct balance. It still is NPOV, even if you yourself didn't write it. And as i said before there is a way to state things neutrally and i hope you understand me. thanks! Salmoria 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a way to state things neutrally, but you are not doing so. What you are doing is adding misleading and incorrect information to the article. You are also choosing to ignore my advice on the correct interpretation of the policies, even though I have been here years longer than you have, and have a far superior knowledge of the policies, having come into contact with them more times than you can imagine (in fact, as part of the wikipedia community, I helped to institute these policies). I have once again reverted you changes, and I urge you one last time to reread the policies (or seek additional help). If you do not take my advice, then the Madonna article will be protected from further editing until you and I can come to some sort of agreement. Orane (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, please desist from removing content and sources from the Madonna article. It is considered vandalism for which you may be blocked. This is not a threat. I'm simply making you aware of the repercussions of your actions. Orane (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I think I see the problem

After reading your talkpage, I see that your interaction with Isotope23 (talk · contribs) regarding "Tina Turner" has influenced your understanding of the NPOV policies. Here's the difference between the two situations, which may put all of this to rest:

The Tina Turner situation was different, because the information that you were adding to it was subjective/qualitative. In other words, it was based on an opinion. The problem with opinions is that many people do not share the same one; there are always dissenting opinions for any particular subject. (Some people may say that Tina Turner is the best rock artist of all time, some may disagree). In dealing with points like this, the NPOV policy states that you should discuss the dissenting views if they are from credible sources. In other words, something like this: "According to Rolling Stone magazine, Tina Turner is the best Rock and roll diva of all time. However, All Music Guide has criticized Turner for her overt sexual appeal and her overuse of publicity stunts to gain popularity." By exploring both the praise and the criticism, the Tina Turner article becomes more balanced and less POV.

The case with Madonna is a little different. While for Tina Turner, the subject was of her artistry (which is subjected to wide interpretation) the subject here is about Madonna's success, which is quantitative. In other words, it is measurable, and not open to interpretation. When she achieved sales of 250 million, or earned $300 million, she set a record that, try as they might, people cannot misinterpret or disagree (just as how its impossible to challenge that 2+2=4). In such cases, it would not be POV to list these records as is, because they are not contested by any reputable source. In dealing with such cases, the NPOV policy states that you should incorporate criticism into the article to help to create a balance. For example: "While Guinnes listed Madonna as the most successful female singer, she has come under intense criticism for her artistry and her deficient singing ability." As you can see, again, the criticism here is of her artistry (qualitative), not the quantitative. For further examples, read the intro of these two articles: Celine Dion and Mariah Carey. They are two of the best written articles on Wikipedia and were promoted to featured articles after being checked rigorously for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style.

If you still do not understand, I urge you to contact me. Orane (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

ok i'm almost understanding,but look tina's comeback IS the most amazing comeback in Rock and Roll history you can see it here:http://oldies.about.com/od/soulmotown/p/tinaturner.htm ,this source is verifiable,so why it can't be stated there?

second - in spite of what madonna article states, madonna isn't the "most successful female recording artist of all time, with estimated worldwide sales of 200 million albums", and yes, Nana Mouskouri,who sold over 300 million albums, and that need to be fixed. what do you think? And one more thing how celine dion is the "Biggest Selling Female Artist Of All Time" with 175,000 million if Nana Mouskouri and madonna sold more albums???

Well, there are many things wrong with the Tina Turner source. First, that source is not very reputable: consider Guinness World Records/ Billboard Magazine vs. a small, relatively unknown website authored by a person who is generally unknown and probably unqualified. That Turner staged "the most amazing comeback" is rather a bold statement, that needs to come from a source that is extremely authoritative. Secondly, the statement is rather qualitative rather than quantitative. It's not enough to say that something is the best, and leave it at that. If you look at "Madonna" or "Celine Dion," it states that she is number one because she sold 'x' amount of records, or that Madonna earned $300+ million etc. The adjective "amazing" is vague, to say the very least, and people can disagree with it (another source can easily say that Michael Jackson staged the best or most amazing comeback).

look, Michael Jackson staged the best or most amazing comeback in POP AND tina staged it in Rock.there is a diference.Salmoria .

There are two ways to cope with this, according to the NPOV policy:

1. the first way is to explicitly attribute the statement to a person/organization (rather than just putting a cite at the end of the statement like it is a generally accepted truth). What would work great is something like this: "According to Robert Fontenot of About.com, Turner staged the most amazing comeback in rock history." This makes it clear that some people actually believe that it is so. But again, this seems a bit vague and highly opinionated: on what grounds is her comeback "the most amazing"?

(By the way, the attribution point wont work well with the about.com source. People will say "Who the hell is Robert Fontenot?" Does he work for Billboard, or some other reputable source that measures people's comebacks? What makes him the authority figure on comebacks?)

ok i agree with you at this point.Salmoria

1. The second, and better, way to deal with this is to use numbers (ever heard of the show, don't tell principle?): "Tina Turner achieved 6 Billboard #1 albums, 10 #1 singles and 12 top-10 singles since her comeback, and is hailed by Fontenot as the best comeback in rock history...." See the difference? If we provide measurable data, then it make the statement more believable and less of an opinion.

Regarding the 'best selling' title. It's a bit more confusing. First, it seems like there are a few artists who constantly receive best-selling titles. In a situation like this, it is not Wikipedia's place to decide who the best selling is. In other words, we cant write in the Madonna article that, "Maddonna is usually hailed as the best-selling, but she isn't not, because Nana has sold 300 million." We did that once, and a debate ensued that lasted for ages.

yes this part is a bit confusing, but if nana sold 300million she is the best selling don't you think? take a look in this site: http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:20th%20Century%20Masters%20-%20The%20Millennium%20Collection:%20The%20Best%20of%20Nana%20Mouskouri:1922367941 ....there is another singer who sold over 250 million. Alla Pugacheva had reportedly sold as many as 250 million records look the site :http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9114570/Pugacheva-Alla-Borisovna.Salmoria

What we can do, however, is to attribute the most reputable source out there to each artist's article. It's best to say that "According to Guinness, Madonna is the most successful," (which is a true statement: Guinness did say that, whether in real life it is accurate or not), or, "According to World Music Awards, Celine Dion is the best selling" (which again is true, since WMA did state this). The policies state that we should let the readers decide for themselves which (authoritative) source to believe. If you can find a reputable source that state that Nana is the best selling, then by all means, attribute it.

If this is too long and boring, or if you don't understand, then please contact me. Thanks. Orane (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the MJ thing was just an example. My intent was to show that another writer could say that 'x' staged the best rock comeback, even if it was true or not.

Of extreme importance when discussing the best-selling title, or anything else, is the fact that Wikipedia is not concerned with the truth. We are only concerned with what can be verified and attributed to a reputable source (see WP:Attribution and Wikipedia:Verifiability. In other words, and in reiteration of my previous point, we should not concern ourselves with what the truth about the best-selling is. As part of the NPOV policy, we should state that, "This source says that it's Madonna," "this source says it's Mariah Carey," and, "this source says Celine Dion," and leave it at that. We as editors are not allowed to make any personal analyses, arguments, or conclusions. For example, we are not allowed to state that "Madonna isn't the best-selling because Nana has sold 300 million." It's not our place to analyse. Just report what each source states. You may also go to Nana's page and write that she has sold 300 million albums (and source it). But don't write that she is the best selling unless you can find a source that explicitly states this (because you need to attribute this point to a source). Orane (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since you have found a source for it, then you can include it in the Nana Mouskouri article. (Use this source though. It's better: All Music Guide). However, do not add it to the Madonna article, the Celine Dion or Mariah Carey article, because each of those have their individual, reputable source.

Regarding Tina Turner. Unfortunately, fan clubs are not considered reputable sources. We need scholarly sources for points like these. Also, the IMDB article was written by "Anonymous." We cannot trust his/her judgement as being authoritative. However, you can use this source from biography.com (in the last paragraphy), which is reputable in my opinion (http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9512276)

If anyone removes it, just contact me. Also, you're welcome. It's my job to help new users :). If you need any other assistance, just come to my talkpage. It's no bother. Orane (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Sorry I didn't reply. I was away all day, and just received your message. Orane (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So far, you have uploaded only album covers. Please copy and paste the following sign on their description pages: {{albumcover}}. If you have any questions, please contact me. Orane (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Sorry I gave your IP a warning and reverted the stuff on Tina Turner. I thought it was a page blanking...not a section moving. Again, sorry. Peace. Spartan-James 02:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tina Turner

hi there!, you removed the bold text that i added in tina turner's article, i just want to know if i can revert it in the way it was, i just felt that the article would get more 'beautiful'! can i??? thanks! Salmoria 24 june 2007 .

First off, "beautiful" is a matter of taste. The reason why I changed it to a normal heading is because there isn't another Wikipage with the same style. Bold text is used to acknowledge words or parts, like real names or nicknames. With bold text below every image, the reader is compelled to look at it. I suggest you take it up to [1], where I wrote a little report of my actions. You can react there, and so can others. --Soetermans 08:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

BUT IF I DID REACT THERE YOU WOULD NEVER SEE, AND I'M BEING POLITE WITH YOU,JUST ASKING IF I COULD DO THAT FOR THE PERSON WHO REMOVED. Salmoria 25 june 2007.

...What?! Anyway, if I write something on a talk page, I am certain to check it for a week or so. Let's take it to the talk page there, cause we don't seem to agree on the matter. --Soetermans 16:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Best Selling Music Artists Worldwide

I have had to reverse this. Although the reference is valid on the Tina Turner page (comment made on articles discussion page), it is not valid on the best selling artists page. The reason is as per Cher vs Sonny and Cher, George Michael vs Wham, Paul McCartney vs Beatles, to name a few. The list is sales as the artist, not the individual. You can read in the aricle opening paragraphs, that artists who are part of different acts have their sales totals'separated. I have an open discussion on this pages discussion page asking for this to be amended, and you could contribute by adding your voice of support. Maggott2000 20:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I reversed your edit based on the following: the source says 180 million and doesn't say if the sales include the period with Ike just says that by 2000 she has sold 180 million. Salmoria 19:49 4 July 2007 (UTC)

oh ok i got it. For sure i can do that!Salmoria 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. If there is support for it, it will change. But it is hard getting anyone to add their support. Maggott2000 01:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes i know but i'll try to get more people to support, i'll talk to some friends. Salmoria 16:14 3 July 2007 (UTC)

no problems. I don't agree with the criteria anyway as I have said. Maggott2000 23:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tina Turner Album sales

Sorry to say, that the link provided is non valid. At the bottom of the page you will see that it was derived from wikipedia. Effectively you are looking at an older version of the Tina Turner page you have assisted in fixing. This makes it self referencing. If you do find any verified links or links you are not sure on for album sales, do add them. Don't get too upset if they do prove to be non useable, it is all part of the tedious process to get it right. Maggott2000 00:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on this. Please do note that if I remove the edit, there is a valid reason. Please do not keep reversing blindly. You keep re-adding the sales detail of 185 million. This cannot be used for the following reasons. That the reference only says 180m. You cannot increase the figure because of your own knowledge. By doing this, you are adding original (your own) data aka original research, and non validing the reference. What you can do is say (as per source) that she has sold 180m till 2000, and has had several million sellers (referencing the sources to the other sales) since 2000. You also considered your 185m in sales as the combined total of this reference as well as Áll the Best'sales, yet, this sales figure was non referenced and likely inaccurate as it did not sell anywhere as good as 'Simply the Best' which would have sold near this mark, probably more. If you cannot understand what I am trying to point out, please get back to me. Keep up the good work Maggott2000 18:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is your absolute last warning

Do not add non-free media to Wikipedia that violates our policies. Do not do this with a named account OR a sockpuppet OR an IP address. Tina Turner isn't worth being banned from Wikipedia over. If you continue to revert war over non-free media you have uploaded or if you continue to add non-free media to Wikipedia that violates the policy or if you use a sockpuppet to add non-free media to Wikipedia or use a sock-puppet to revert war (as you appear to have done for months at the Tina Turner article) you will be blocked from editing. -N 22:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• sorry I don't know what are you talking about! the computer I'm using is also used by others and some people know my password maybe you posted the comment above for the wrong person.-Salmoria 02:19, 22 July 2007
  • I'm sorry to hear your account has been compromised. -Nard 23:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tina1985.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tina1985.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -Nard 23:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please have the website owner forward permission to use the picture under a free license. See Wikipedia:Permissions. -Nard 14:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Iketina.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Iketina.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will 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. ElinorD (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Acidqueen.jpg

I have tagged Image:Acidqueen.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeatedly uploading copyright violations, removing deletion notices, and using multiple anonymous IPs to cover your tracks, all after multiple warnings.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Acidqueen.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Acidqueen.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)