User talk:Harout72/Archive 3

Backstreet Boys Main Article

I am very glad that the page has been protected, but I am not impressed by many factless additions and unnecessary removals to the page by you and Mad Hatter. If anything I agree the article was a mess, but unfortunately I was by myself for nearly two years providing information on them without a great deal of help. I in fact find it a double standard that you two make mention to a troublesome user of undoing hours of editors' work when you are essentially doing the same thing, while rightfully cleaning up the article. I listed detailed chronological information on their early recordings and have found many of them undone. You personally removed a statement on how what was intended to be their debut release in first quarter of 1995 being snatched. I mentioned how they had recorded I'll Never Find Some Like You in 1994 and it had been unfairly taken by Keith Martin afterward. My information on that came from Brian Littrell stating how he heard Keith Martin's on the radio one day in early 1995, a several months after recording it in 1994. He clearly made mention of how they forgot to copyright it and tell Jive their plans for it in 1995. Keith Martin released his version in February 1995, which many sources prove. If you two need trim articles and clean them up, I'm all for it. However, removing information that may not be baseless(or a rumor) and NOT researching it yourself to confirm its validity isn't productive. If I find a user provide information without a source that I feel is sketchy, I research it. If it holds, I provide the source for them. If not, I remove the addition citing why I did so. I work very hard to provide VALID info on music artists for Wikipedia and there are certainly MANY times where I encounter sources that expire or are pay-per-view subscription articles to the point that providing them as references seems useless. For that reason they are sometimes not provided if I edit. If anything I have learned to check the editing history of ALL pages and route any irritating edits to the user that originally added them. If I find that a user who has a disruptive editing pattern made it, I usually will research the info. If it's finally proven to be wrong, I remove it. If you check my editing history on that page you will surely see that I do not make destructive/silly edits and hardly appreciate the removal of correct(yes, researched) additions I made.Carmaker1 (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you this upset, and I certainly have no doubts that you meant to improve the article by providing detailed information. But please understand that all (especially key) statements must be verifiable, and they were not. While I don't know how long you had not edited the article of Backstreet Boys, it most certainly had begun looking like a fan page due to massive illiterate insertions by Backstreet Boys fans. Therefore, I felt it was necessary to step in and clean the article as aggressively as it may seem to you. Please don't hesitate to insert any information (that has been removed by me) for which you can locate reliable sources. Best regards.--Harout72 (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I am really thankful you guys cleaned up that article. It did look too much like a fan page and as a result looked neglected by administrators. I felt that because of the group's demeanor, no one cared to keep the article in order, so I hardly bothered to fix it clean it up myself. Glad that is changed. I'll re-add the info with the appropriate sources and work with you to keep poor additions at bay.Carmaker1 (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'm glad you understand.--Harout72 (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We Have A Problem That We Need To Resolve

I have reviewed the Billboard dates you provided. They are very inconsistent and have no basis in that article. Those only apply to peak dates on the charts, which of course follow the date of release. I suggest you find another source that proves their U.S. debut disc was issued in 1998, as many legitimate news articles and sales records show information for it following the second week of August 1997. You are being very biased and that is not useful in these articles. All the info you've added, I analyzed and checked to see what matched up. The European release date given for I'll Never Break Heart only accounts for the Swiss market, not European Union as a whole. Better yet not even for radio promotion. French and German music media first reported in December 1995 the release of that single to radio. In addition to that I have seen a French news program from December 1995 that showed the finished music video of the song. European promotion between December 1995 and March 1996 was high for I'll Never Break Your Heart, which makes sense why it would be released as a physical single on February 12. Canadian news archives from October 30, 1996 and other dates earlier that month notably mention how the sales of the Backstreet Boys album peaked in October 1996, which is very much 3 months from February 1, 1997. You if anything need to read articles of their singles and albums. The loose information you left there needed to be fixed, as it didn't make sense why Quit Playing Games(With My Heart) was in the same sentence as the actions they took in January 1997. Also, August 12, 1997 is a definite given source by many and for Backstreet's Back, August 11. The excellent clean-up made things better, but I found it wasn't entirely correct date wise. It is better not to add incorrect information by excusing it with a source as all sources are likely to make mistakes and give wrong info. Billboard is not superior to any other sources, especially the artist's own website. Being threatened by others differing opinions is not the way to go on this public online encyclopedia. It is understandable why many do not trust Wikipedia, as such inaccurate information that I removed is easily added on the basis of an editor not "liking" another source versus their own. The excuse of leaving wrong information on a page and telling me not to remove it because it has a source isn't plausible. It misleads many readers who use the info on that page as a template for their sites and in many cases, Youtube videos. If you can't notice that, then I'll speak to an administrator to resolve this issue at hand. Calling my work damage proves an agenda by you, so please be objective. It's easier to work with you as a fellow editor if you don't bark at changes not done by you. I have been here 3 years and I know how things work. Those dates are wrong and shouldn't be there. If they are reinstated, I will undo them until something more concrete is provided.Carmaker1 (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been here for three years and you claim that you know how things work. Well, looking at your edit here for example, tells me that you may not exactly know how things work. You have removed a reliable source along with the statement that it was supporting only because you disagree with it. What, in fact, your edit demonstrates is vandalism as you shouldn't remove sourced information without providing your detailed explanation first. As for the swisscharts.com, bear in mind that Backstreet Boys, initially were a German phenomenon which quickly spread also to Switzerland and Austria. The German speaking markets were the first ones releasing Backstreet Boys' new materials, which means we only need to go with the earlier release-dates. Also, citing a source the way you have in this edit tells me that you may need to go over WP:ciations. Finally, unless you can come forward with different release-dates by providing equally reliable sources, the changes made in the article will not be tolerated.--Harout72 (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I did provide an explanation and in fact added back that Swiss Charts date as the date of release given for the single is December 13, 1995. That is FAR from vandalism, which I wouldn't even say is what you're doing. You are being immature and somehow using someone to cover-up your false changes. I will report you to another administrator as I am not impressed with your behavior with how you edit articles. Those Billboard dates are 100% valid, but relate to the day or week the albums reached their peak positions, not their date of release. I have trifed to resolve this with you and will happily take it up with a sensible higher authority. I also question how Kww knows about all of your edits despite not communicating on your respective talk pages. I'll check the article's talk page. The dates for the Canadian release, as well as the U.S. release are being falsely interpreted by you. You may not realize that, but it's true.Carmaker1 (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem with understanding, I've already stated countless times, if you have an equally reliable source with which you could prove the release-dates otherwise, please feel free to provide them. Accusing me of this or that isn't helping me or you. You really should stop threatening me by going to higher authorities. All you have to do is come forward with a reliable source to support your arguments which, so far, you have failed to do.--Harout72 (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Condescending to me isn't going solve anything. You must not comprehend my huge chunks of paragraphs after I have stated endlessly that research your info again and CORRECT IT! If you do that, I won't have to myself. Your sources(Billboard) are of course valid, but what they gave are not RELEASE DATES. It is Billboard, so of course they are going to focus on the "highest charting date" of a record. You aren't helping anything by immaturely stating "quick success" in editing explanations. That is one of the most childish things I've ever read on Wikipedia by an esteemed editor. The fact you are trying to be sly, by thinking you're insulting me in questioning my comprehension, and accusing me of vandalism isn't either. I will gladly remind you AGAIN that I will go to other administrators and get support against what you have listed as it doesn't hold. Until I can get a page with a reliable source that "satisfies you", there is no reason to keep incorrect info in the article. Jive Records and the group themselves would question your judgment if they saw all of this(as if they even care, Wikipedia isn't reliable). I am not touching a single thing relating to this for now as the 3RR is benefiting you at the moment. Review what is wrong and fix it if you like. Simply remove those incorrect dates as they are not needed, until they are replaced with correct ones. The correct dates are already posted in the info-boxes on the pages of these albums'/singles', which already differ from what you posted on the main page.Carmaker1 (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's ok and I think that we can still reach a peaceful conclusion to this argument before it gets out of hand. I mean, come on guys. It is time that Carmaker1 realise that the article is not all about himself or who is winning. We work for the greater good. And if Carmaker doesn't change his working attitude then I fear that he should look for a collaborative work elsewhere. Because one thing is to state something without references, something else is to state with. That's why the work of me and Harout is appreciated. So, I suggest first to Carmaker1 to change his attitude toward me, Harout and everyone else, and also as well his attitude in his work here. Second I suggest to Harout to think about what can be improved in his work and how to deal without further... how to say it... derangment of the situation. That's all.

Regards:The Mad Hatter (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, I hardly have time right now to chase busy administrators and only focus on my own life. It is understandable and believable that most of your works are appreciated, but at the same time your attitudes aren't. It is one thing to "provide a source" for information you've added, it is another thing if the information doesn't fit what is said in the source. I look forward to monitoring your edits and comments User: Mad Hatter. You've been blocked before as opposed to Harout who hasn't, so please mind your behavior.Carmaker1 (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeez...

I think Carmaker1 is using some illegal stuff. I am also on weed from time to time, but man... give it a break! :) Anyways, I am with you man. Hands down, I am behind every statement that Harout72 has made, because he is a reliable contributor and shows desire to change and maintain a high quality of editing. So, if Carmaker continues to makes unassessed claims and continues to disrupt our work on the article, he should be reported to a higher authority. Once again, I am not you Harout, regardless of what this deranged individual is thinking. I am stating that maybe there can be a peaceful resolution before things roll on too hard to control. I am expressing my support over you Harout. If there is anything else I can do - feel free to contact me. Anyways that's all.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That is very crass and warrants me the right to report your language content MadHatter. You must be very careless and wrongfully arrogant to think I'm one of those childish rookie editors. I have never encountered an edit war in the plenty of sections I've worked in. Many of those I edit with(with the exception of you two), respect me and I respect them. I only see an oddity in both of your editing habits. Both of you greatly provide excellent sourcing, but your manners in commentary and editing are horrid. You both need to change your behaviors or else be questioned by administrators. Some things just shouldn't be said despite how you really feel inside. I may be spoiled, but I'm not someone to hide behind a computer and dish out crude comments because of anonymity.Carmaker1 (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Carmaker1, you are on my talk-page, on Harout's talk page, not on Mad Hatter's. I can't understand why you'd be trying to communicate with Mad Hatter on here. Does this mean I should start believing in Mad Hatter's first statement/suggestion in this section?

Had you respected all the work and the cleaning up that I and Mad Hatter produced, you wouldn't have encountered any of the experience that you seem to be repulsed by. Initially, you came into my talk-page and I explained to you very friendly and calmly that you could insert any detailed information that you like as long as you can provide sources for them. You, on the other hand, went on inserting unsourced release-dates, meantime, surreptitiously deleting sourced statements without any prior discussions. That is not acceptable, that is hours of my work you tried to damage, and I prevented it from happing. That; however, you didn't like because probably no one had challenged you like that before, and all of that you translate into Gang like mentality? Respect and you will be respected, Carmaker1.--Harout72 (talk) 04:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh....It is a gang mentality as I've observed the pattern the two of you exhibit while together. You need to stop assuming how I'm feeling. I wasn't repulsed, more like irritated. I initially came into the article and was impressed with how organized it now was. It wasn't until I noticed certain bits of important information were gone. I checked the edit history and rooted it to changes from December 31 to March 1. Most of the changes were good, then I noticed another editor "fighting" with you two on adding back information and being belittled. THAT IS WHAT IRRITATED ME. Trying to treat a fellow editor they way both of you did shocked me, as I've seen this before and the ones' who did so got banned despite their good efforts for Wikipedia. If I wanted to I could belittle both of you for not being as well-to-do as I am or graduating in the top 2% of your class, but the truth is I don't know either of you in real life to do that. For that reason I channeled my frustrations on that into asking you why you made those removals instead of me defending the other user's poor logic. You responded and I felt satisfied with your response. On Monday, I then decided to analyze the information in the article to see if you guys missed anything. I found "I'll Never Break Your Heart" to have a release date that differed from the one in its single infobox that listed December 13, 1995, as well as other release dates. I remembered how record companies issued singles to radio 3-8 weeks before releasing a physical single in the form of a disc or cassette. By watching videos from December 1995 and January 1996, plenty of European media were explicitly making mention of the song's release date alongside the video's. Reading entertainment articles in 2008 and 2009, my claims were backed up(then that is). A great deal of them I can't find anymore as I foolishly didn't copy them down. This issue applied to the addition of info without a citation on the "Anywhere For You" video shot on 1/11/96. The only proof for the "AFY" video date, that isn't from a fan site, only exists now on several video interviews on Youtube in 1996-1997. Those aren't allowed, so I didn't provide them. The info on the Canadian release baffled me, so I looked at the Billboard source and it made me think that a clueless person provided it. Those were obviously charting dates, that even listed the track list of the US edition containing many songs that hadn't been recorded yet(2/1/97) or mastered to a disc. To my surprise you did that, so I realized in an effort to not irritate you I would provide the Toronto Star source. You noticed I undid what I considered mistakes by you, so removed my changes, claiming I was damaging the article when the same could be said of you. There was no mention of any subsequent singles for the international album, so I provided some while undoing your revision. I left you a message on your page, then undid your revision with "vague" seasonal periods as winter runs from December to March and autumn would be September to December. Those unfortunately didn't have sources. I realized the Swiss charts link was 100% valid, so I tried to make an effort to add back your revision of February 12, 1996 for INBYH. While trying to, User: Kww removed as whole all of what I did. Kww, reasonably considered the same addition of yours I was trying add back a valid source, but didn't bother in making the effort to separately add it. That made me think to question his motives on this and explain my point of view and the situation. While responding to him, I used Twinkle to undo his revert. The fact Kww didn't thoroughly analyze the situation is what shocked me more. Understandably, I became angry and felt threatened that you weren't warned for edit-warring. When you have 2-3 people siding against you on something you can see as wrong, then it can frustrating. Your rude comments in reply to my elaborate paragraph showed me the sourness you exhibited against the better person that you were pretending to be. Instead of me considering you were a level-headed editor, I came to the conclusion you had questionable intentions. I saw it as your way out was to paint me as an illiterate and clueless editor. Kww, a user I always put trust in, thought that treating me like a vandal would work, so I understandably took offense towards that. People who behave like I have intent to harm articles are very misinformed. Ironically, you recently changed back the U.S. compilation's release date to August 12, 1997, despite insisting it was January 31/February 1, 1998. As for you demanding respect, YEAH RIGHT! Many people have always had to give me respect by my high position in life and I've given it back to them upon their warranting it, so that makes me chuckle when you say that. First, you should try not designating changes that aren't done by your "select" people or yourself as "damage". It is offensive as you sound as if you are referring to a criminal. If a Backstreet Boy(one of the artists) or someone in their business circle(manager, record executive) was making these exact changes by anonymity(but you knew who they were) would you call it "damage"? Probably so in your case. Second, examine the meaning of your sources(Billboard) to make sure no matter how highly reliable they are, that they apply to what you are saying(release date). Your editing until late has been remarkable, but your behavior is quickly becoming appalling. You are worlds politer and much more polished than Mad Hatter, but trying belittle other users isn't necessary. I didn't slyly tell you are uninformed, so don't play that card to me. As you see now, I don't owe ANY respect to you unless you show it and not pretend to mean it. It can't all be about your work and what you like. A truce can work only if all sides let up, not one.Carmaker1 (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We Need To Discuss The Matters at Hand

For your revert to this addition[1], I'm guessing you forgot to read thisWP:Access to sources. Verifiability on Wikipedia doesn't imply the ease of accessing a source. Even though my high economic status allows me to easily purchase archived material at a whim, it certainly doesn't prevent other users from doing so. WP:WRE can help those who can't afford such constant expenses on their own. The archive I retrieved through searching Google News is reliable for the reason it leads to the Minneapolis Star Tribune article. I also used it to find Canadian news articles from 1996, one of which you removed that proves Backstreet Boys was released in September 1996. This proves to me and likely unbiased third parties you have an underlying agenda to only provide information yourself or by users you favor. That is comprising the greater meaning of Wikipedia. You clearly know that the October 15, 1998 MTV article proves that information, as well as a track list source I'll soon be providing for "A Night Out With The Backstreet Boys". It didn't make sense to me to include the same source twice in an article. I must be missing something on referring to an already posted source. I would like to ask why Amazon isn't a reliable, when it is in many other cases that I've found. I might change that back if I receive a differing opinion on it.

This revert you made[2] is based on what you believe. This website is used as a source in this article several times by edits not made through my profile. The information listed in the article derives from a transcript of on an appearance at Viva Interaktiv on April 12, 1999 in Germany. Having seen and also possessing easy access to the video of their performance on 4/12/1999 that alone is proof. However, proof that is reliable on Wikipedia can only be in the form of text, not a copyrighted film that isn't hosted online by Viva Interaktiv. Many other articles prove the release of "I Want It That Way" to radio. You also made a mistake by removing part of another source.

Thank you for fixing that Entertainment Weekly citation[3], but removing the Montreal Mirror source isn't needed as you should refer to WP: Access to sources. I was actually in the middle of fixing an error I made on the citation[4]. After finishing, I remember receiving a warning about the page being updated already, which told me an editor might have made a change. I found out it was you and decided to analyze what you removed, instead of edit-warring. What happened is, I simply opened up the page editor before you, but took too long to finish. You probably made your change to remove the link quickly, while I had no clue you done so when I saved it after your version. Stop trying to see me as a petulant brat, as that isn't what I am[5]. I even barely found out about this while typing this paragraph and analyzing your removals. Thank you for taking the effort to add back the improved EW citation, despite my accidental mistake. I forgot that this article isn't a ghost town anymore that allows one endless time to make one single edit, before another user does.

Well I made a mistake on the citation, it still exists actually[6]. Like I said above, that second source isn't the artist's website. The source in it, is an insert from a legitimate Entertainment source. You and I both know the video was shot on April 1, 1999. Wayne Isham's camera's have dated stamps of 04/1/1999 on them in behind the scenes footage(can't be used a source). If my source doesn't prove it to you, find another one that will instead of removing it. That is what helps this site and why I don't get into countless confrontations with users. I try to confirm their addition by researching its validity, rather removing it a whim.

Honestly I have no idea why you removed this when it's obvious by the date and location he was recording track 12, The Perfect Fan. The last thing I need to do is provide 5 billion sources for one statement. I can't even personally believe anything unless the source is legitimate.

I will speak to another level-headed third party about this revert as someone else is bound to add this information again if I don't. It is genuine as it came from an interview for Entertainment Weekly in 2000. ARTISTdirect is a reliable source, as shown by many other articles on here. Removing that doesn't have any reasonable basis. The last sentence wasn't added by me this year, if you think so. Even though it's correct they recorded in June 1995, you should have removed that if, you felt that way before when you tidied up earlier on this year. This isn't your article, it's Wikipedia's. Allow room for a multitude of differing opinions. You and Mad Hatter's personal opinions are not the only ones here that matter.

What? Is there really any basis to do that other than the obvious? It is not their first single, as We've Got It Goin' On is on the track list of the U.S. release. That one I might change back, citing another source that proves so.

We have a major problem that needs resolving, you are guilty of edit-warring for reverting more than three of my edits in 24 hours. If want I'm saying is true, it wouldn't be pleasant to report you. None of us are guilty of vandalism, so providing the excuse that I am would be poppycock. If anything good faith edits are not. If anything I'm not impressed with the conduct, that when together, you and Mad Hatter exhibit.Carmaker1 (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Listen Carmaker1, provide reliable sources that actually contain the information with which you are trying to support your statements in articles. Even though, you managed to locate this source which at the time of my removal could not be found, it does not mention any date for the video shooting as it was stated here. This here I removed because it's not reliable, if you disagree with me refer to the folks at WP:RSN. As far as attaching the references next to statements go, you need to enter correct citations, refer to WP:Citations for help as you seem to need it. This here does not mention specifically anything about recording tracks as it was stated.

Other user hardly practice the use of adequate citations and continue to lazily insert anything without sources. In some cases they will properly cite which is a good thing, but otherwise when they do most of the time it's simply a link to the source in reference quotes. I am busy man and don't have time to specially provide citations for sources, but I try to continue doing that for the good of articles. I know how to do that, but I just haven't bothered often. The March 4, 1999 article makes a statement about the Perfect Fan like I said, if you read other articles around that you'll see mentions of Millennium. The month of April 1999 was filled with promotional work and preparation for the release of Millennium. Also better yet focus on the first single. By then, the album was in the mixing process and mastered later that month. Recording wrapped with The Perfect Fan in March, as all of the tracks were recorded in late 1998 and January 1999. Simply removing an addition by another user against improving it with better sources or structure shouldn't be the way to go. The way you fixed the Quit Playing Games edit I made is exactly the right thing to do when editing and very commendable for someone of your caliber. I have no issue with removing unsourced statements by me, as it isn't acceptable for me to add unsourced info. Deciding what you think is reliable against a general consensus isn't correct though. I did mention WP:PAYWALL.---Carmaker1 (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Any of the sources that I have removed and you disagree with my removals, you should post them at WP:RSN and acquire a third opinion. As far as this here goes, I have only re-phrased your statement; in other words, you, yourself had the word first within. Yes, you are right; however, using the word first referring to "Quit Playing Games With My Heart" is incorrect. I will change that.--Harout72 (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My lengthy response to yours in "Jeez." was typed before reading these two by you.---Carmaker1 (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought I did say I was getting another opinion, I do know my way around. Thank you for trying to be helpful though. I'm glad to know that the correction you made for me proves that you believe in fixing the wrongdoing others instead of eradicating it with other inclusions. Bearing in mind that because I'm human you will see typos.---Carmaker1 (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oprah Appearance by A.J. Mclean

The key word "last month" in the source dated on December 4, 2003, says so in the text: ""We're all excited," Kevin Richardson said soon after the group taped an upcoming episode of "The Oprah Winfrey Show" last month.". If you still don't agree, I won't add it back.Carmaker1 (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless you issue a response, I might add back November 2003 by the reference to the "previous month" that was made. I only WON'T change it, if you say that you don't agree in the next hour.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I re-inserted the November 2003, but in general it's a good idea to specify dates only if they are word for word mentioned in articles. By the way, thanks for formatting the citations. Also, please don't leave out the dates the articles are published. --Harout72 (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad you noticed. Oh yes, I'll make sure I do that so that other users are aware of the publishing date.Carmaker1 (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No Harout, I wasn't referring to you in the recently deleted comment. That was for Mad Hatter. I didn't plan to burden myself with copying and pasting his message on his talk page for a response.Carmaker1 (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Carmaker1

Carmaker reported me on Wikipedia. Apparently he has taken huge disliking of me editing Wikipedia and instead of dropping the matter, he has reported me here. In other words, he wants me to be spanked. Would you back me up, partner? I need helping hand in this issue. I don't think that I can describe in civil manner what it is to be confused by someone into being entirely different person, make a joyful comment entirely taken out of understanding, and then suddenly being pointed out for blame for making Backstreet Boys better place. Please help me up, partner! I am dealing with some kind of freaky boyish behaviour in this matter. In other words someone who wants to teach me a lesson or how to say it he wants to show me how big and bad he can be and how fucking awful editor I am. But I am seriously counting on you. You are better person than he is. You can defend me in this issue. Probably my English isn't too good to this thing, but I am counting on you. Thanks very much beforehand.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Back me up Harout. I have attacked this freak. Stay by me my friend. The end is near.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the fighting would be longer than expected. I would really use your help. Thanks beforehand, Harout72, I am counting on you once again.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Backstreet Boys

I undid part of the edit on the Backstreet Boys article and took out the part about the phone audition. Now it just says "The group took its final member when Brian Littrell, Richardson's cousin, joined the group." The History on the page needs to still say Littrell was the final member to join because only the other four members were listed. If I find one of those interviews where he talks about auditioning over the phone, I'll source it. Thanks Cougars2012 (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Brother Louie

Are you sure you have it right? Our anon made 2 changes and I am not sure it is as you would wish it to be. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

New Wave genre is somewhat OK for the 1986 version; although, I myself would call it simply Europop. Feel free to remove it if you'd like. I mainly object to using New Wave genre for later versions, quite frankly I'm not sure why anybody would view the 1998 version as New Wave.--Harout72 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment about what genre it should be, I am relying on your comments. I looked saw there were 2 edits and wasn't sure if you had what you wanted. FWIW I don't like the whole genre thing anyway, a "song" can't be in a specific genre, but a "recording" can. Then people like to spend their times changing genres for songs. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

PS Our anon has reverted the merge on Brother Louie and the other one. Now reverted. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Release Date

Please refer to WP:PAYWALL on that as it clearly requires payment to view the full article. The full article mentions "Backstreet Boys" being at number one and Celine Dion's "Falling Into You" at number 2 on the Soundscan charts. 1997 as a release date isn't applicable.Carmaker1 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As much as I'm aware of WP:PAYWALL, I cannot accept the use of the source because the information within needs to be verified first. Therefor, you should post it at WP:RSN and ask someone with access to verify the information, thereafter, once the existence of the information is confirmed we should not have a problem implementing it as a source. --Harout72 (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. How about this instead? The archived information here might help. Please respond.Carmaker1 (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That helps me to believe that the album has been released there before October 28, 1996, but what exactly is the release date. The article doesn't seem to specify that. We can't simply insert just any date before October 28th, 1996. Is this really the only article that could be found for the Canadian release-date? I'd say we dig deeper. --Harout72 (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay.

I found something very interesting which immediately disagrees with your archived article's release-date (October 28, 1996). Take a look at the Canadian album chart's date here (it states October 28, 1996), and the top selling album that week belongs to Nirvana.--Harout72 (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad you found another accessible source to replace the previous Billboard Magazine citation. The week provided though is for November 4, 1996, which is a week after October 28. The current source shows entering at 17, so how could they even fall down that fast from No. 1 the week before. Maybe it was only relevant to Montreal, Quebec and not Canada as a whole.Carmaker1 (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

November 4, 1996 happens to be the first week the album has landed on the album-chart, normally, albums appear on the charts week after their releases. So, the album seems to have been released there in Canada on October 28, 1996, but I don't want to make guesses; therefore, it's best to leave it as October, 1996. As for the archived source which you had utilized previously, I'm not sure how could BSB have had the highest selling album there on October 28, 1996, when Billboard-magazine's Canadian album chart clearly shows that BSB were not even on the top-20 that week.--Harout72 (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Millennium Stockholm Sessions

I think that needs to be reinstated, as the Aftonbladet article refers to when recording sessions started that same week. The obvious date would be on Tuesday, November 3, 1998 as a whole group considering how only two members were there on November 2. The Minneapolis Tribune article you previously removed was actually the citation for the date of November 15, 1998. You cannot just undo sourced additions without discussing their validity first as that is against the rules(edit-warring). There is no reason to undo my own work if I'm providing a legitimate source.Carmaker1 (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, the last thing I try to practice at wikipedia is Edit-warring. The reason I removed those specific sources is because neither one actually supported the statement that was written about the sessions. The Swedish language article doesn't mention which album they went to the studio to do the recording on nor does it mention any dates, and that is not enough to support a statement which contains such specifics. Allowing insertions of statements with a support of vague sources will turn the article back to where it was before I started cleaning up.--Harout72 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Pinks certifications

hey, the order of the certifications is home country first, then alphabetical with collective (ie EU) at the end. this is how FLC discussions tell you to order them and as i worked very hard to make this discog fl status thats why i changed it back. Mister sparky (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

hang on a minute, if you call me edit warring for reverting something which i have done, then i can accuse you of edit warring for changing what was told to be done and insisting on it being in your version. if you bear with me i will find the discussions, i'm trying to find it. don't start being uncivil there really is no need. Mister sparky (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lena Meyer-Landrut

I'm not interested in an edit war, but I really don't understand your changes. Firstly, the link to the EU charts [7] does include all three of her songs at the positions mentioned in the article. Why do you claim the source doesn't contain the positions of her? Secondly, the Gold/Platinum database indeed does not yet mention her, however it is the standard WP source for German certifications, so I already included it. But there is a second source in the text [8] confirming her reaching gold. Plus, I could find ten more German language sources, if necessary. But why make it so difficult for everyone? EnemyOfTheState_|talk 23:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between having been certified Gold and being eligible for Gold-certification as stated in the second source which is only weakly reliable.--Harout72 (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Constraints

Hi there.

I am still concerned about the constraints section in List of best-selling music artists, which has been tagged as OR for some time. I didn't want to simply remove it before I spoke to you, but really, it has to go - it is 'meta information', not factual, and not supported by reliable sources; it infers that the 'rules' for the article differ from the standard policies and guidelines.

I am pleased that our previous discussions resulted in what I believe to be a more neutral style in the article - ie the bracketed listings; I think that has been a huge improvement. However, I think this issue with constraints does need to be addressed, and I welcome your own comments on the matter. If we need to discuss it to get consensus on the talk page instead, that would be fine too; I just wanted to ask you in person first.  Chzz  ►  00:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, cheers (and thanks for the welcome back) - I have moved the constraints over to the talk page, so any further discussions can happen there. Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  05:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I Am... Sasha Fierce

Now you are being slightly awkward. FA and GA articles do not use citations in the lead because they are not required. The lead section is an overal summary and written in generality of the article. Per WP:LEADCITE citations in the lead section need a consensus. There isn't one to include those citations with this article. Also i'll point out to you again: The very second sentance of the commericial performance section reads "The album debuted at number one on the U.S. Billboard 200, selling 482,000 units in its first week, giving Knowles her third consecutive number one album in the U.S.^[42]". The last sentance of that section reads: "Worldwide sales stand at more than six million copies.^[67]"'

Now why are you creating an issue when one doesn't exist? – Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree... your claim was that the first week sales were unsourced. Well i've proved that to be untrue so thats why i couldn't understand why you reverted the change. Secondly i'm not owning the article i'm simply ensuring that it strictly follows guidelines so that it passes GA and eventually FA. There is a clear difference. The source for the sales was in the lead section because previously there was edit warring over the number of sourced sales. This is no longer the case hence it was removed. If there is a consensus on the article's talk page that the lead section needs sources because of edit warring etc. then i'll happily include them but right now the article is quite stable and so per WP:LEADCITE they are not required. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

and you dont think editing the article three times in quick succession is inflamatory even though the article before had sourced sales in the introduction? you are seeking the change therefore you should seek a consensus. the guidelines for lead sections as noted above clearly mention consensus that's why im insisting.Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

See now where in a situation where you've inserted an additional citation into the lead section now equalling two citations. yet your asking me to get a consensus to remove them? that makes illogical sense. You should restore the lead to how it was before with just one source at the end and get a consensus on the talk page for the addition of a new citation. As the editor leading the pre GA improvements i was entitled to make the change i did, as i've already made many other informative changes to the article in the hopes of it passing GA. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Note 1 i was going by the advice given to me by suncreator who is GA reviewing Fight for This Love, an article which i've agreed to edit to pass GA. On the talk page of that article he tells me to move any information present in the lead which isn't present elsewhere into the body of the text and that references were not required for the lead.

Note 2, Beyonce's previous album B'Day is GA (one that i've not contributed to) and that doesnt use citations in the lead. – Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Note 3, a quick check at today's featured article shows that today's FA doesn't have citations in the lead neither does another Beyonce FA article: Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song). Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well writing the lead section is the last thing to do before its nominated for GA because the lead has to be based on the cotents of the article. The article is still growing especially in terms of the music and conception section which will impact upon the lead section. I've already answered your question... you asked why was there one source in the lead and i replied "because there was previously edit warring over the number of sourced sales though this has since died down" with the addition of the source and hidden message. also note on the talk page there are around 15 improvements to be done to the article... so when you started editing the lead section it reminded me that removing the final citation was long overview. I hate to have quote things but WP:LEADCITE does say:

• "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited" and later it says "the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material" and finally it says "necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus".

Therefore per the guidelines you wish to add citations into the lead (regardless of whether the sources already exist in the article or not) and therefore you require a consensus for the necessity of the citations. I couldn't put it any clearer. – Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I genuinly was going to remove the final source. Whether you believe it or not. And actually i havent disallowed anyone else to edit. You'll see that Chase, Tbhotch, Dan56 and Jivesh are all editing the article too. I'm sorry if you felt otherwise. Like i said if opinion changes i wont oppose them to be reinserted but currently i just dont see the necessity for them. what happened to assuming WP:Good faith? please dont let it put you off contributing to the article if you wish. there is a lot of correcting to do to be ready for GA nom. – Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

chart limit

Chart-limit suggests a 10 chart limit.—Kww(talk) 22:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Then, I can remove Ireland and put Sweden back. Is it ok? Decodet (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's done. I didn't know Sweden is a bigger market in comparision with Ireland or New Zealand. My mistake. Decodet (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Chart positions and sources

Hi. Sorry, didn't want to be rude. Please note that I didn't call your edit unconstructive but pointed out that it would have been more productive to provide a source than to just delete the chart position. Especially when the source was so "nearby". I share your view that "no chart position">"wrong or insufficiently sourced chart position", I just sometimes get the impression that in implementing that you sometimes forget that also "reliably sourced chart position">"no chart position". If Wikipedia was just about deleting stuff than we could all just go home and stop wrting articles ;). Wikipedia should always be about more not less information and I am sometimes puzzled by your approach of favouring less information over just looking for the sources. Again, no harm intended. Janfrie1988 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we just have totally different views on that topic, then ;). I, for one, want Wikipedia to be open and welcoming to anyone who wants to contribute. We don't win over anyone as an editor if we seem like an elitist club of know-it-alls. What makes Wikipedia great, after all, is not its perfect body of rules or guidelines but the spirit of voluntary contribution and involvement. Before scaring off Newbies by reverting their edits we should be thankful that they also are having an eye on our articles and may see things that we overlook. And as it turns out, this was a case of someone seing more (or rather earlier) than us, he/she might just not be totally aware of sourcing rules, etc. Whatever the reason was, the information added to the article was correct. And why shouldn't it be? Just because someone hasn't read to all rules there are that doesn't make him suspicious. Instead it would be great if he/she kept editing and learned something about it. More eyes see more than less eyes.

And besides: No-one is talking of "duty" here, because on Wikipedia no-one owes anyone anything (which to me is part of the fun of it). ;) It would just have been - nice. It would have proven that you trust the editor instead of mistrust him, that you appreciate his work and do not see it as an introdusion in your "Wikipedia rule cosmos" or whatever :P. After all, there was no reason for mistrust in this case. Janfrie1988 (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am very aware of the fact that there is vandalism going on, especially by users with relatively few contributions. Where we obviously differ, though, is our approach to that. Apart from all the vandalism I am still of the opinion that we should be trustful and thankful for every new editor, as long as he/she doesn't commit obvious vandalism. This is in accordance with Wikipedia:Assume good faith, by the way. I am particularly disappointed by your view that new editors "perhaps should not edit" because they may not be aware of all the rules. This violates Wikipedia:Be bold, i.e. one of Wikpedia's cornerstones. This encyclopedia is a collaborative work. It is all about making mistakes, just as well as it is about correcting mistakes. We are so many that mistakes can be easily corrected. But the reason we are so many is - ironically - that mistakes can be made and that the threshhold for participation is low. It should stay that way. To cut a long story short: In my view we should correct mistakes but in doing that still built on the work of other (also unexperienced) users, i.e. improve instead of delete and say "wrong, do it all over again". In our example this would have meant that you check for the source and insert it (especially since the official source for the Norwegian singles chart already listed "Satellite" at that point). It is not your duty (of course), it just would have been nicer and more productive. Also, with Meyer-Landrut winning the Eurovision and receiving top scores from Scandinavian countries a good chart position in this area was very likely.

Well, this is an inflated discussion about something relatively minor. From time to time I don't like your approach and I certainly won't stop to comment when I see something to be deleted unnecessarily. You are right though, that I shouldn't have done so in the edit summary. Janfrie1988 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two editors responsible for the edit you reverted, namely Kappabk, who inserted the position and Andy 593, who inserted a source. While the former has been known to add chart positions without sufficient sources, the latter is very new to Wikipedia - yet indeed he provided a source, albeit one that didn't show the position at that time (now it does). All I'm asking of you is not to judge every edit adding unsourced chart positions as unproductive und assume said chart position is false. We are not here to just delete unsourced material but to collect as much notable and sourced material as possible. Again: Given the current situation, the chart position was very likely. It would have been nice to at least check the official source. I don't want to be offensive, I'm just of the opinion that when you criticise you should also be able to take criticism. And again: I never said your edit was unconstructive. I just meant to say that it would have been yet better for the climate and the article if the chart position had stayed and had been sourced correctly. However, I admit that the edit summary might not have been the right place for my criticism.Janfrie1988 (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Listr Of Best Selling Music Artist

I had a typo i ment to put 180 million it is recorded where i work i am with the RIAA and we record the artist.--Bonjovi332 (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

RIAA doesn't get involved in recording artists.--Harout72 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have two jobs i edit for the recording artist compony(sorry i am under alot of stress and i forget the name) and i work with the RIAA sorry for misleading you.--Bonjovi332 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I'd like to ask you a question, would you happen to know exactly in which month of 2007 the certification-award-levels for Digital format were raised from Platinum=200,000 and Gold=100,000. I know the Digital-awards were launched in July 2004 but I am not sure when exactly the levels of Gold and Platinum were brought up to match with the levels of the physical records' levels. RIAA doesn't seem to have this information anywhere within their News Room archive.--Harout72 (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am very sorry but i do not know that either and i try to find it what i would do though is i would copy some of your question and paste on bing or goole and see what comes up. Also can you change Boin Jovi's sales to 180,000,000 million records please.--Bonjovi332 (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking for what month because i can help you out with that one(the internet i would not believe or trust taken from experiance) we planed it in febuary and God if i remember i think it was april if i am not mistaken i do not really remember but i think it was april or my pssibaly later aor but not erlier(sorry for my spelling i am in a hurry).It is a tough job for RIAA and REcording artist(tell me the name of the compony again)--Bonjovi332 (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I can't change Bon Jovi's ranking at the moment as their stay on the list is supported by 120 million claim. That figure alone seems quite inflated as their available certifications don't suggest anything beyond 100 million. In the end, 120 million records may not be correct but it's swollowable, as for 180 million, I don't view it as incorrect for an act like Bon Jovi, but rather outrageous, I'm sorry if my words sound harsh, but it's the truth. And don't worry about the Digital format's amendment date, I will somehow try and get the information from Kate Harold.--Harout72 (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I said 180 s*** i ment 150 that is reasonable not ouragous but they will probbaly get 180 some point in there carear. Why can't you change it though i am wondering.--Bonjovi332 (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I verify claimed figures with certifications, and as I mentioned above the available certifications for Bon Jovi do not even reach 70 million, which translates into 100 million in actual sales at the most. Besides, I don't believe there is a highly reliable source out there at the moment claiming anything over 120 million for Bon Jovi.--Harout72 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am lost here everybody says they have sold over 120,000 million albums and i think they might have about 125 or 130.--Bonjovi332 (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC),000

Certification levels

Hi. I think this becomes too removed from Meyer-Landrut's discography to continue there ;). Thanks for the info and link, I am indeed interested. For France I had erroneously taken the certification threshhold for album when I meant to look for the singles. So, right, the numbers for France and Germany are quite close. Now I am rather wandering that they are so close, since Germany has 20% more population. Well, maybe the French just buy more music - or the awards are harder to obtain there. Do you know if there is any agreed-upon standardisation between the countries' certification numbers so that it is equally "hard" to reach a certain certification in every market? Janfrie1988 (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Certifications

Hi. Do you know how to find album certifications for countries like Italy and Spain? Many of the references just lead to the homepage of the website but I don't know where to search for the certifications in the website as they are written in foreign languages. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Italy (FIMI) does not offer a certification-database, and Spain certifications I normally get from PROMUSICAE's site where they post weekly album/single charts (certifications are posted in the last column on the charts), they also they archived charts, but unfortunately, that database stretches back to 2004 only.--Harout72 (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I found this site being used as a source for many albums showing spanish certifications before 2004. Is it reliable?

KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16 June 2010 (UTC)

While the Gold/Platinum awards given for each artist may be close and even correct (for some), the site cannot be regarded as reliable, I'm afraid as it's nothing but a fan-site like site. Also note that the page was updated last in April 2005--Harout72 (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sales of Millennium

Can you check if all the sales shown in Backstreet Boys' Millennium page are right? I am not sure especially about german sales because it got certified 3x Gold in 2000 and I'm wondering if it got certified 3x Gold for shipments of 450,000 or 750,000 copies. When Millennium was released 1 gold was 250,000 copies but from 24 September, 1999 onwards it became only 150,000 copies. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Good question, yes Millennium has been certified in Germany 3x Gold for selling over 750,000. The album was released worldwide in May 1999 and Bundesverband Musikindustrie has reduced the certification-levels for albums in September 1999. The change in certification-levels in German market affects on records released on/after the date of the change.--Harout72 (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

List of best-selling music artists

From some reason you reverted my minor clean up on List of best-selling music artists. Just thought I'll ask why, in case it was more than a misclick. --Muhandes (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Mina's record sales

Which databases did you check? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

All of the databases that are available including the ones posted at the bottom of the box at the discussion page for List of best-selling music artists.--Harout72 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have a case here. Mina made most of her impact in Italy, Spain, Argentina, France, Germany and Japan in the 1960s and 1970s. Do you have reliable certifications databases for these countries and periods? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting that Mina has managed to sell tons of records in the 70s in markets like Germany (where they've had certification-scheme available since 1975)and France (where they've had certification-scheme available since 1973, albums, singles) but failing to reach a Gold-certification status with all of her materials in both those counties is outright ludicrous. The 150 million records claimed by la Repubblica is nothing but another well known record-company-promotional-tool designed to boost artist's upcoming materials. No artist from a tiny market like Italy's (the platinum-certification-level of which was just 100,000 units before music piracy began) could achieve such major record-sales without collecting countless Gold and Platinum certifications-awards in major markets for many years. Eros Ramaazzotti, for example has been collecting Gold and Platinum records in Germany and France since 1985, and still has sold just under 1/3rd of Mina's so called 150 million.

I've been observing and analyzing record-sales for a long time now, and I can assure you that Mina has not had major success in markets where she doesn't have certifications from, regardless of the period. All very popular artists end up having numerous "Best of" compilation-albums released in the markets where they have once conquered the charts. In Germany, for example, not only Mina has no certifications, but she also lacks appealing chart-positions there. --Harout72 (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In German charts, Mina scored six singles in 1962-1964. One of them was at the top of the annual sales list. [9] And she has personal compilation albums there [10]. In France, her greatest success also predates 1973. Italy's market may be smaller than the in the U.K. but you probably do not know that Mina dominated the charts there in 1960-1975, scoring 34 albums in the annual top 20 of Italy while Ramazzotti has managed only 12 http://www.hitparadeitalia.it/hp_yenda/index.html. Added the Latin American and Spanish market, Mina selling Ramazzotti out threefold is very likely. However, most of Mina's sales were probably singles, as back in the 1960s and 1970s, people were mainly buying those instead of albums. Mina has scored 24 singles in the annual top 20 of Italy. [11]. So I can assure you that she has sold at least double of what contemporary Italian artists have and she can perhaps only be touched by of Adriano Celentano. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, but you're speculating based on chart positions, whereas having Gold/Platinum certification-awards is a solid way of determining whether or not the claimed figures are true. Let me just emphasize one important point here, entering the top-20 with either singles or albums does not immediately mean huge record-sales unless the records end up spending many weeks within the top-20. I hate to say this, but Spanish market has also never been big (Platinum-award was at 100,000 before piracy). In the same vein, Latin American markets could have never generated any serious sales for Mina either in order to achieve 150 million, because 95% of the music markets are extremely tiny there regardless of their large population. The size of music markets is based on both economy and population, not just population. Argentina has had certification scheme established since 1980, and Mina doesn't have a single certification there. Brazil and Mexico are considered the largest markets in south/central America, and Brazil, since 1990 has no certifications. Mexico doesn't have anything posted either [12].

And note that Ramazzotti has been awfully popular not just in Italy, but also in at least dozen non-English speaking European countries plus in south/central America not to mention his Latin-type-certifications in US, and when I say he's been popular in Europe, I mean dozens of certifications everywhere.

To wrap this up and not make this discussion any longer and futile, I'd willing to put Mina up on the list with a claimed figure of 50 million, since I see that she has charted very well with her materials at her native market. But please understand that she could not have sold 150 million which is only a figure for promotional purposes, record companies are know for inflating figures. If you still don't believe me, I could provide reliable sources which actually state that.--Harout72 (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

50 million sounds good but we don't have a source for that. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Selena Wikiproject

Hey! I see you are very active in Selena-related articles, I have proposed a Selena WikiProject and would like you to "support" this project! Here's the link Hope you join us! AJona1992 (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Kesha

I base by certification reason on the fact that i want it to become an eventual FL. All FL Discographies of Canadians or Americans following using : Canada, US, Europe, UK, Aus, and NZ. Please see : Rihanna, Carrie Underwood, Eminem, Madonna and i could go on to list hundreds more. Im not sure where this originally came from but it is enforced. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 02:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not a reason enough to remove certifications coming from much larger markets than Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Japan has the second largest market after US and Germany has the 4th largest market after US, Japan and UK. Therefore, it's very important to include certifications of both those markets. However, should you or others who seem to have a problem with certifications of non-English speaking markets, you and others should start a discussion and establish a policy, which I am quite certain will not walk.--Harout72 (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its fine for now, but if it gets brought up in the eventual nomination then it will be removed. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 02:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, it won't be removed. And yes it is fine, period.--Harout72 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Making the rationale for your addition clear from the start would have saved a lot of keystrokes. I'm just saying. Fixer23 (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That I don't know, but had you considered discussing your edits beforehand would have saved me keystrokes for sure.--Harout72 (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Lena Meyer-Landrut Discography

Well actually, I never made the edit, i just undone an edit that someone else made. "Bee" and "Love me" was never released as official singles, only "Satelite" was... Bee and Love Me were downloads, therefore, "Other charted songs" is right! Also, me and Janfrie88 know each other, and get along... Can you really give me warnings? :| AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)