Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Never17! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Teahouse

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Never17 (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Never17. Where we can talk about List of best-selling music artists and any other ideas or wiki projects? Paladium (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Pop music which generally covers popular music, i'd start there. Never17 (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey your account has the required number of edits needed to be extended protected, can't you just make the changes on the page? Never17 (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have enough edits but i prefer that we find a consensus among a group of people. That's why i asked for more people. Paladium (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Never17, made an attempt at a best-selling artist list article at this address User talk:Paladium/List of best-selling music artists How would you update it with the sales estimates of the artists who have sold the most units?

And do you have a web adress we could talk to that is external to Wikipedia? Paladium (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing that needs to be done is replacing all of the outdated sources with more recent sources. Since a lot of the claimed figures aren't used anymore, we should look to purge the old claimed sales figures and replace them with new ones. In some cases we can simply add a newer certification alongside the currently used source.

Madonna - 2024 (Hollywood Reporter) - 400 Million, 2024 (Yahoo) - 400 Million

Elton John - 2024 (Yahoo) - 300 Million 2023 (SmoothRadio) - 300 Million

The Beatles - May 2024 (NME) - 500 Million, May 2024 (IheartRadio) - 500 Million

Celine Dion - 2023 (Business Insider) - 230 Million, 2024 (Yahoo) - 230 Million

Queen - 2023 (BBC) - 300 Million records

Tina Turner - 2023 (CBC) - 200 Million records, 2023 (Fox) - 150 Million records

For Bing Crosby we can use the reported number of sales given when he died since he wouldn't have sold very much since then.

Bing Crosby - New York Times - 300 Million, Los Angeles Times - 300 Million

There are also other older artists who are missing sales certifications that have been claimed to sell millions, we could add them as well or at least discuss with editors first before adding them to the page

Cliff Richard - BBC - 250 Million, 2023 (Smooth Radio) - 250 Million

The Jackson 5 - May 2024 (WNDU) - 150 Million, 1984 (New York Times) - 100 Million

There's also the subject of a international artist named Nana Mouskouri, we would need to come to a consensus on them too

Nana Mouskouri - NeoMagazine - 350 Million, UNICEF - 300 Million

We also need to come to a consensus on newer artists like Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Drake. Since streaming distorts their sales figures. Never17 (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the claims are very flimsy or are only a statement with no proof. For example, the claim on 400 millions on Madonna is just a verbal statement of the artist herself. Is against the rules of the list to accept the word of the artist as enough proof to be on the list. Quoting your hollywood reporter-guiness link:

Madonna, 65, said during an interview on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon last year that she had sold over 400 million records – albums, singles and digital – during her career..

On Nana Mouskouri, could be a great thing to do a complete discography, and make an independent page covering her discography of more than 200 albums. We only have selected works on her wikipedia page. I am in favor of Nana being included in the list and that we work to include more of its albumes in Wikipedia.

About the streaming. My take is that i want to accept streaming as sales because the streaming company is paying the artist for each listening even if this is a millionth of a cent. It is a sale, independent of the price at which they are selling it. For me, the list should be about total sales and total impact and not only pure sales. If the list is pure sales only, that would have to be reflected in the title of the article. On the other hand, I believe that the consensus of the article and what is being applied now separates pure sales in "Claimed Sales" (pure) and "certifications" (combined sale). If that is the case i suggest changing the title "claimed sales" to "claimed pure sales" or "claimed total sales" to add clarity.

Quoting the article

The RIAA counts 10 downloads of individual track as well as 1,500 audio/video streams as an equivalent to one unit of album, including those from singles released prior to the album release. Theoretically, if one song were streamed 1.5 billion times on YouTube, the single would receive Diamond and the whole album could be certified Platinum, thus creating a combined total of 11 million certified units without any sales. Kanye West's album The Life of Pablo achieved Platinum without selling a single copy and was only available for streaming.

I think streaming has come here to stay. Streaming is tracked and you can decide if you use only pure sales or pure + digital sales + streaming. As I said before, if you want to use only pure sales, you can use Top Album Sales list but billboard and certifications are using Album equivanlent units on the main chart. Quoting the wiki article again:

Standards

To ensure the highest level of fact checking and editorial control, this list sources sales figures to news organizations and highly regarded music industry related organizations such as Billboard.

This section is saying that Billboard is a highly regarded source and is the one that uses the album equivalent chart as their main chart and that left the pure sales chart as a secondary chart. An even on pure sales some artists are still at the top. Quoting Top Album Sales.

In December 2023, Taylor Swift became the first act to simultaneously occupy the top 4 positions of the chart. In January 2024, Swift also became the first act to simultaneously occupy 7 of the top 10 positions.

That means she was topping the list of pure sales with several albums. Paladium (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Madonna i personally believe she's sold just around 350 million, not much more then that. 400 Million shouln't come from the artist, i agree with you it's no different from a record label.

Taylor Swift had claimed sales of 200 million in 2021 based on what we have listed here. Billboard reported over the last 3 years she sold 32 million in the United States. We don't have figures elsewhere but she could conservatively be listed at 250 million records however we'd need a reliable source to report it. [1] Never17 (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson recently gained 600,000 units with his latest certifications in the UK, his global certified sales should be 290.1 million. Can you add that to his total? list of best selling Never17 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Never17. Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you've been editing for a while not, and hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Never17 (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Never17! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Irltoad (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Never17. You have new messages at Richard3120's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Richard3120 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Never17, I think it is a distasteful and conversation-impeding practice to delete entire sections of wiki discussion pages without asking permission or consent from those involved. Several times you have deleted comment sections where there were one or more of my comments. It seems to me that with that you have not valued the time that I have invested in making those comments. So I would ask you to please not delete entire sections. If you need to call out other users for going out of line, talk to a Wikipedia moderator instead of deleting all comments. Paladium (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, i thought conversations were getting out of hand. I will not do that anymore Never17 (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paladium: I would like to respectfully ask you a simple question? Is there a way to stop this editor Mr. Never 17 from engaging in this type of repeated comportment? He has kept the impeding practice to delete entire conversations in Wiki discussion pages without asking permission or consent from the contributors involved. He has been told to stop, and yet he has resume deleting entire sections in a distasteful and disrespectful way. Moreover he has engaged in "edit wars" that have created a hostile and unhealthy environment among other contributors who have displayed a difference of opinion to his own. I am hoping that someone can take note that this type of behavior is not acceptable. I am hoping that you can do address this problem for its creating resentment and animosity among many contributors. Thank you so much. I will await for your response!! Victor0327 (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I literally haven't deleted any conversation since that message from July of last year, i have no idea what you are talking about. Don't blame me Never17 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the Elvis Wiki talk page discussion only to realize that my discussion, which by the way vociferously defended you had been removed to the WP: Not A Forum Section: Regardless, which editor is responsible for this maneuver then? I always been a defender and respectfully so, of all your opinions concerning the subject at hand. We both have contributed in helping to the improvement of this best selling article. Why remove any of my content which to reiterate, praised you as an editor and contributor, and try to establish some type of pacifism between you and the other contributors who had opined differently from the subject of Jackson vs Presley? I am hoping that you can attest to the reason of why I am divulging this question to you. Nothing personal, but I do not like to be censored or have my discussion removed or alienated to the WP: Not A Forum section without just cause. Especially when I have never disrespected or displayed animosity to any contributor who has a difference of opinion from my own. I am hoping that this unjust maneuver will cease. Thank you for your response. Victor0327 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't me, i don't make rules nor do i remove threads due to rule violations. That would have been someone else. Never17 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All right fair then: it's all good... Victor0327 (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smooth Radio. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm letting you know that I've removed the following line that you added to the lead of the article for "Thriller": "Thriller is widely considered one of the most popular songs of all time, having been played in even the most remote corners of the world." This is because this line is puffery: "most popular songs of all time" is a very subjective line, while the already-existing line "...is one of the bestselling singles of all time" is not. In addition, it is not appropriate to say that the song was play in "even the most remote corners of the world", as this line reeks of American- and European-bias. Thank you on your work thus far, but please stay diligent! Leafy46 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'm always welcome to people fixing my grammar issues. Never17 (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Jackson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Portrait Gallery.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bad (album), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Onorem (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed it with another editor as it was a revision other editors made that was changed without discussion, therefore i will leave it up to them Never17 (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changes don't require discussion. 3 people have tried to change it. You have reverted them 3 times. I don't care either way what wording is used, but if you revert again in the next 24 hours, you'll have broken 3RR. As a side note, please read WP:VANDAL. I noticed you called the edits reverting you vandalism. That's not correct. --Onorem (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K, you are right. Multiple people did change it and however multiple people also originally changed the previous change as well reportedly without consensus. It seems it would be most suitable to get a discussion and get a consensus Never17 (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michael (2025 film). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Using your IP counts as reverts.. Mike Allen 22:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already tried to explain the issues with that source and their unreliability in the past, until there's a genuinely reliable and impartial source regarding the alleged re-write it would be better served to hold off on it Never17 (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a chance. Thank you. Mike Allen 00:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the producers commented on the claims. Shooting down allegations of the movie being in "total chaos" and reported to People Magazine that the film is proceeding as planned. That's basically the end of this "controversy" Never17 (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Jackson fandom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GBC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Jackson fandom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Moonwalk and GBH.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]