I'm not the vandal, the only vandalising I see is your reverts. AC/DC is a British/Australian band. It's actually just British, and I can find a source for that too. Van Halen is a band from The Netherlands, but it was more reasonable to simply state that it was both from The Netherlands and the US. Remember, all of them are from Holland. Rolling Stones' source is indeed reliable. You removed them entirely and THAT is vandalising the article. The Bee Gees' source is very reliable. There is no need for 3rd party sources; that is a ridiculous rule that should be removed. If not, then you can remove Elvis entirely as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.87.125 (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are incorrect. Billboard is reliable, but irrelevant to the topic at hand. They are simply as ignorant as you. Of course the nationality of the band matters; they represent The Netherlands as much as the US.

And regarding AC/DC, I think you'll find I have an excellent history in righting certain wrongs on that article. Anyone with any sort of sense would realise that they are of course a British band; if you call correcting a mistake vandalism, you're on the wrong site.

Hi, I was interested in your edit here. Can you explain what you mean in the edit summary please? Thanks in advance, --John (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone think of flag icons as reluctant? Such an interpretation could drive a person to assume that one has a difficult time glancing at a foreign country-flag other than his/her own. Or perhaps it is simply: Why does a car need to be covered with red or green paint when it simply could say on the hood of the car the name of the colour the owner prefers. :)--Harout72 (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, not reluctant. Please see WP:MOSFLAG. We don't use flags like this. See also WP:AGF. --John (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link WP:MOSFLAG, the wiki policy says flag icons could be distracting the reader when it's within the body of the article: (Not for use in general article prose)[1] or it could lead the reader to assume incorrect citizenship: [2]. As for the flag which stood within the info box of the band Modern Talking, the flag was simply there to represent the country the band's from, which would be similar to the case of sportsmen [3] example [4].--Harout72 (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. This is not a good use of flags though. They are useful as space savers in a long list but not in an infobox for a band. "Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative." Tell me what Germany has that is better than just Germany please. --John (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could live with without having a flag icon plastered next to the name of a country. The wiki policy is in a way right and so are you honestly, it does stand as sort of a decoration. That's fine.--Harout72 (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you wrote in an edit summary: "Why was the image of Celebrate the Nun removed?" I would make two comments about your edit. First, per Help:reverting, reversion is used against vandalism or vandal-like edits. Using it when (as your edit summary indicates) you don't understand the policy involved is a bad idea. Secondly, the image was removed on copyright grounds. Here is a good starting point to understand why using nonfree images this way is also a bad idea. Let me know if I can help you with anything else. --John (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That image is from 1991 and they are no longer active as Celebrate the Nun. I believe the colour purple within the description that says Fair Use in Scooter Band [5] indicates that the image has already been approved as a non-free rationale by an admin, there are no free images available for Celebrate the Nun. They have not been active since 1991. --Harout72 (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard that about the colour before and doubt if it is true. The image is too large for use as a fair use image; 250 or 300 px would be better. If you can edit it down to that size I would have no problem about using it. --John (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to downsize it. Thanks and appreciate your kindness.--Harout72 (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • C'mon, friend, do the greatest article of ENglish-Wiki! As I've done in RU :)))))--Oleg Abarnikov (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "User:Garik 11 reverted 7 version back instead of only 2, please observe the edits and differ vandals from non-vandals". But I do not see how my edit could result in that. I only re-added one sourced entry which had been removed. Please take note. Garik 11 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I took a closer look at the the edits done by user:84.198.70.215 as they look clear vandalism, I first thought you had simply reverted when I read your "rv repeated vandalism by user Koshi Inaba". I apologize for the confusion.--Harout72 (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. SimoneJackson (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted Adriano Celentano in the 200 million list at the 220 million records, because the first source claims 200 million records worldwide (100 million only in Italy), the second source claims 120 million in Italy, so i wrote 220 million records. SimoneJackson (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout, i've got some question for you so, i will ready for this list: 1) Why only the Britannica Encyclopedia and not also the Canadian? 2) Why MSNBC and Times are more realiable than Musica & Dischi that's a sort of Billboard in Italy? 3) Why Xohah Records is not realiable for Boney M sales? 4) Why the Hall of Fame aren't realiable? In this list there are other artists with source an Hall of Fame, for example The Carpenters has got the Hit Parade Hall of Fame. 5) Why when i posted high sources like ABC wasn't good? Only one high source is not enough? 6) Why the official web site is not realiable?

Thank you for your answer :)

SimoneJackson (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oh, calm. Don't angry...., i understand, but I don't understand because the Hall of Fames and the Canadian Encyclopedia aren't realiable in this list. SimoneJackson (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Since List of best-selling music artists happens to be one of the most difficult pages that one can keep straight I choose to keep the most highly regarded sources in order to avoid inflated figures. Therefore, I allow only Britannica as far as Encyclopedic sources go.
• 2. First, MSNBC and Times are highly regarded sources. Therefore, there is no need to replace them with anything else. Not to mention that we are only to use foreign language sources only when there is not an English language source available. See this at WP:RS.
• 3. We don't accept label based sources as they are known for exaggerated figures. We are to accept major record company sources only.
• 4. Hall of Fame can only be used as a secondary source. In other words, if we already have one highly regarded source as CNN for example which is the case of The Carpenters then it's ok to have Hall of Fame next to it.
• 5.Yes, we have multiple highly regarded sources for Cher. It's needless to replace them.
• 6.Official sites are not considered third party sources. See WP:RS.

I hope my answers are satisfactory for you.--Harout72 (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :) P.S. So, can i re-post Johnny Mathis at the 200 million list with Hall of Fame like a source? You removed him, but Johnny Mathis wasn't in this list. SimoneJackson (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Fame, please understand, cannot be used as a primary source, it can only be used a secondary source. I mentioned this above. And I would rather if you listed your sources first at the talk page of List of best-selling music artists so we can take it from there. Because I don't think you can tell the difference between reliable and unreliable sources.--Harout72 (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thank you :) SimoneJackson (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the sales reported by Süddeutsche Zeitung for Celentano are fakes? The MTV link claims 120 million records only in Italy, not worldwide. SimoneJackson (talk) 02:00, 01 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that 120 is not a worldwide figure, but I also understand that 200 figure by Süddeutsche Zeitung is an exaggerated figure tossed in most probably in the direction of Germans by Celentano's label for promotional purposes. Also, Italy does not have a huge music market for Celentano to have been able to sell as many as 120 million records in Italy alone. I could somehow swallow it, if the 120 million was a worldwide figure. Another way to look at this is through his Certifications, and it seems like he has no Certifications in Germany, no certifications in The Netherlands, none in Austria, none in Norway, he has gathered two Gold records (25,000 units each [6], [7]) in Switzerland between '89-'09. From 1996 through 2009, I show one European certification for sales of over 1 million on his IO NON SO PARLAR D'AMORE, and another European certification on his ESCO DI RADO E PARLO ANCORA MENO. Even though, he's been releasing his materials since 1965 [8] it still looks ourtight obvious that he could not have sold as many as 200 million records worldwide, especially when he has never been huge in major territories.--Harout72 (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not needed to certifie an album or a single. Motown Records has certifified only some albums, but it sold million and million records. SimoneJackson (talk) 17:54, 01 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by Motown Records which is a label not a record company and certifications are obtained by record companies, such would be Universal Music, Sony Music etc.. I don't know if you are familiar with some of the tools that record companies use to promote their artists, but one of their main promotional tactics is to draw people's attention by bringing up artists' Certifications. And in the case of Celentano 120 million in Italy alone (which I don't buy a second) or another 80-100 million abroad would mean countless Gold and Platinum records, which his record company based in Italy or the ones outside of Italy would definitely use to promote his next/upcoming materials.--Harout72 (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i know, but not always. For example, Bad by Michael Jackson is 8x Multi-Platinum until 1994. It's from 1994 that's not updated. The majors don't certifie always, for example Ben by Michael Jackson, that's at least 2x Multi-Platinum in US, is not certified in this country, also Fearles by Taylor Swift according to Nielsen SoundScan is least 3x Multi-Platinum in US, but is not certified. SimoneJackson (talk) 21:04, 01 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually all certifications get updated. Often times people get to read about non-existing Certifications in unreliable sources and they believe that RIAA or IFPI have failed to update their databases. Are you saying that no country has bothered to update Celentano's so-called countless Gold/Platinum records since 1965. That sounds quite ludicrous, don't you think, because we are speaking of 100 million records outside of Italy. In addition, if the 200 million records worldwide were true, then we should be able to locate enough Certifications supporting at least 10-20% of his total sales. Such, however, is not the case.--Harout72 (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also other artists in this list haven't got much certifications. Four example: The Drifters and A.R. Rahman haven't got nothing. Bob Marley and Nana Mouskouri haven't got much certifications, at the limit they sold 50-100 million records according to your reasons (sorry for my English, i'm Italian :D)

• http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH
• http://www.cria.ca/cert_db_search.php
• http://www.musikindustrie.de/gold_platin_datenbank0/
• http://www.nvpi.nl/nvpi/pagina.asp?pagkey=60461#resultaat

I taken some markets with a big database. SimoneJackson (talk) 23:23, 01 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do have my eye on Bob Marley's 300 million records which in my opinion is an exaggerated figure as well; I am hoping to find a highly regarded news service one of these days to degrade him as I believe his actual sales should be around 100 tops. But again, Marley is someone many of whose records have been sold in many major markets including US=17 million+, Germany=2 million+, (UK's database is under construction, where he must've sold at least 3-5 million), not to mention The Netherlands=320,000+, Canada=600,000. So, all in all, perhaps the total figure of Marley's records is exaggerated, but you have to admit that Marley's exaggeration can under no circumstances be compared to the exaggeration of Celentano's 200 million. In my opinion, Celentano's true figure is about 40-50 million records maximum worldwide.

Keep in mind that A.R. Rahman is from India where the population is 1.1 billion and the volume of their Platinum certification was much higher than the present 200,000 units (as all music markets experienced great shrinkage due to music piracy). Currently, India's music industry doesn't offer a searchable database, but I somehow believe that his sales may not be awfully exaggerated.

As for Nana Mouskouri, I am counting 1.5 million from Germany, 1.2 million from Canada, 2.3 million from France. She happens to be someone with worldwide distribution, and again cannot be compared to Celentano whose marketing/distribution has been quite limited.

I suggest we stop this futile discussion as it's quite obvious that Celentano is lucky enough to be within the section of 100-199 million, don't you agree?--Harout72 (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles and Elvis Presley certifications don't arrive to say 1 billion records. At the limit 400/500 million records. For the ABBA, it'impossible that ABBA sold more than Michael Jackson. Their certifications arrives at the limit at 200 million records. Also Nana Mouskouri. SimoneJackson (talk) 19:03, 09 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be patient with this page please as it's not an easy task to study the sales of all artists at once. I will get to all those artists the sales of whose looks suspicious. --Harout72 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mirror of Wikipedia's Metallica article - read the section underneath the biography. Funeral 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read this version of Wikipedia's Metallica article from 2006. And compare it to the wording found in your weblink here. See anything similar?

It happens all the time. Lots of low-end websites steal content from Wikipedia all the time. Many will note that the content comes from Wiki. Some, like your activemusician.com link, tend will hide the source of the text. It's pretty simple. Read WP:V. Content must be verifiable. And Wikipedia can never be used as a source for itself. And right along with that... by common sense... websites that steal content from Wikipedia can't be used as a ref because that's just using a third party pipe to try and use Wikipedia as a source for itself. Hope that helps. Websites, in general, suck as far as reliable sources go. Notable books and notable pro publications are the best place to look for refs. My opinion is biased since I am a librarian. But I will go to printed paper for citations long before I resort to the internet. In this day and age where websites are concerned... if they don't list where there information os from or who the author is(and it must be a pro writer and not a blog)... assume it's been copied from Wiki... because it usually is. BTW. one of the other refs you added for Metallica is directly from metallica.com... a "self ref"... which is also frowned upon for being a good reliable source. A better one should be found to replace it ASAP. Hope that helps. 156.34.221.33 (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, It's understandable that there are lot of junk web sites out there, but let me ask you this, what makes you so sure that who ever wrote whatever is here Read this version of Wikipedia's Metallica article from 2006 isn't copied from here here. If we are going to be as skeptical as your approach is especially when it comes to artists' official web sites then what you're basically suggesting is that 50% of wiki articles should be considered for deletion. I am, by the way, no fan of Metallica nor Mariah Carey, I am simply trying to help that page be as sourced as we possibly can keep it. Before we go after obviously popular acts like those we should look at this for example Michiya Mihashi with a source which is in Japanese [9].--Harout72 (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, in my opinion, Wikipedia could only be improved by deleting half the articles that are here. Not only am I a staunch IP editor... I am an even stricter "deletionist". 2 million articles on English Wikipedia and 75% of them are pure junk. Why do I not think that the article is a reverse copy? I am a veteran Wikipedia editor (formally logged in but have chosen the "purity" of anonymous editing for over a year and a half) with an edit count of close to 50000(thats combined user account/IP) edits. I can remember the ongoing history of the Metallica article quite well since I have a huge number of vandal rv's just on that one article. (it's a magnet for vandals) If you review the edit history of the Metallica article throughout 2006 you will see that the "then" lead-in was composed and fleshed out by certain key editors like User:Master of Puppets(a former admin nominee and one of the most "liked" editors on Wikipedia), User:M3tal H3ad(a user with several Featured Articles under his belt and likely a future admin himself), Wiki admin User:Anger22 (a vandal/copyvio hunter with a mean streak) and User:LuciferMorgan (another editor with several Featured Articles on his Wiki-resume)... along with a few other "vets". Are you saying that these editors copied content from an external source... or that they were blind not to spot that copyvio content was being added in to that article? I highly doubt it. It's just another mirror site. 156.34.221.33 (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, didn't really mean to call your edit vandalism with RVV. 220.253.8.185 (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken, I actually must've accidentally pasted those web-addresses into the wrong version after I copied them from another browser I had open. --Harout72 (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take my original statement back, as those musicians often receive vandalism and it is possible you are a "sneaky" vandal, that has been trying to remove them all along. 220.253.192.72 (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me one example please. I, in fact, so far have not removed anything from the list that didn't need to be removed. I have, moreover, been trying to keep that page as fairly sourced as one could possibly do. Having said that, I am now beginning to think that perhaps you are the kind of "sneaky" vandal as you like to call it since you've been hiding behind that anonymous IP even after you became quite disappointed over the fact that you no longer were going to be able to supposedly help the page after I requested for page protection. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Michiya Mihashi whose reference was already confirmed before, moreover Katsuya provided all requested information, and sentence translation. Michiya Mihashi is indeed entitled to remain there according to this incident report. [10]. Moreover you also removed Hibari Misora, whose reference clearly states she sold 80 million records 通算８０００万枚のレコード売上実績を持ち although it does not list her single sales, so she can't be added into the 100 millon bracket where she belongs. Do not remove referenced information. Her reference is from the Shizuoka government website! I will have no hesitation about creating an incident report, if this is not promptly fixed. 220.253.8.46 (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You replaced the Hibari Misora reference with the 20 year old NY Times article, the NY Times article says she sold 68 million records, including 45 million singles. That is 113 million. 220.253.155.88 (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you try to reprimand others on issues you're not sure of, you might want to overlook at your English-language skills again as the word Including means the 45 million is within the 68 million. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in the context and date published, no it does not. 220.253.155.88 (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Media Control headquarters in Baden-Baden, Germany.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Retropunk (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed the misuse of the template:wikipedia-screenshot. It's reserved for screenshots of wikipedia and not images found on another wikipedia site. You'll need to attach the appropriate template for it. Retropunk (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to tag it properly. You currently have it tagged as a wikipedia screenshot, which it's not. If it's a creative commons image, you need to tag it as such. Retropunk (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have two very similar images - with an upper case H and and the other with a lower case h. I'm not sure if you meant to do this or not. Retropunk (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, seems you're getting hit by an IP hopper. Want me to instate a temporary semi-protection so you do not have to deal with all that hubbub?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes please, I would really appreciate that, thanks. I was just going to request for it.--Harout72 (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got you covered for 24 hours. Feel free to ask me again if you require more.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, that was needed.--Harout72 (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created his discography article, that's why I removed the most of the tables in that section, and keeping a list of his albums, just like for all articles of major artists with an extensive discography (Eminem, Madonna, The Beatles an so on). Didn't you see the "See Eros Ramzzotti discography" link? I spent lots of time into doing this, so it doesn't feel nice when some clueless person shows up and tags everything as vandalism. So please, try understanding what you're doing before sending nice little templates labelling other edits as "not constructive". Udonknome (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you can't be serious. There is no point in keeping all those tables which are already present his discography article. PLEASE, LISTEN. That's what a discography article is for... Udonknome (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you believe that discography section mentions every single chart position of both the albums and singles? Keeping the table serves a detailed information about how well an album or a single has charted in a particular country the reader would be interested in....It doesn't. That's why there is a link to the discography article, for a more extensive listing. And that's why we all can contribute to the discography article, to put up as many chart positions as possible!!! Udonknome (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, go ahead and initiate the Administrators' noticeboard/incidents for this. I'm honestly looking forward ( :) ) to see if I'm a vandal. Thanks.Udonknome (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Reuteurs, Frank Sinatra sold 150 million ALBUMS, not records. Look: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS162145+03-Mar-2008+PRN20080303 He sold 600 million records (albums, singles, greatest hits and compilation ecc...) http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19980516/13650964.html Simone Jackson (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits and Compilation albums are considered albums; therefore, the 150 million albums within the article published by Reuters does include Sinatra's Greatest Hits and Compilation albums. The sales figures within indianexpress.com are poorly studied and awfully inflated. We are to accept only highly reliable third party sources for List of best-selling music artists in order to avoid figures such as the one for Frank Sinatra which you seem to be drawn to. Perhaps, "Indianexpress" could be used for other pages as long as the significance of the entire material is not relied upon it. Having said that, we can't use "indianexpress" (which is only weakly reliable) for List of best-selling music artists whereon keeping the artists directly depends on the sales-figures published by sources. --Harout72 (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That source don't count singles, box set ecc... If you say only albums, don't count also singles and other relases. Simone Jackson (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you under the impression that Sinatra's sold 450 million singles? In other words, are you saying that 75% of his sales is based on singles? That sounds quite ludicrous, don't you think? --Harout72 (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it based on singles, DVD, box set and other relases that's not classified like an album. Anyway, at the time, the singles sold more than albums. Simone Jackson (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it rather hard to believe that singles could have sold more than albums back then. The sales of singles became quite strong mostly in European territory on dance projects after 1990, the reason of which largely lies beneath either getting hold of all remixes or because no album ever being released. As for the sales of DVDs and Box sets, they ordinarily don't comprise even the 5% of artists' entire record sales. Anyways, if we could get a hold of an article coming from alike arenas such as these refs, I don't mind moving Sinatra to the next/higher bracket. I hate to repeat it, but "Indianexpress" and anything as weakly reliable should be kept away from List of best-selling music artists.--Harout72 (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed interesting changes to the article in the article's talk page. Would you like to have a look at them and comment please? thanks Udonknome (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the "adesso tu" album. I updated it with the right albums and "year blocks". Are you sure about the colours? It's a bit distracting IMO, and it really doesn't work in the singles section. The albums column gets all messed up. Udonknome (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The "redone version" of Terra promessa from the compilation album Eros has no place in the discography. Please have a look at this: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style#What_should_not_be_included. It clearly says Non-original or previously-released material used on soundtracks, trailers, commercials, or any other compilation releases should not be included. Udonknome (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the effort and searching for a free image of Eros Ramazzotti after the recent deletion discussion. Unfortunately, while the photo you uploaded (Image:Eros Ramazzotti CC.jpg) is under a Creative Commons license, it is a "NC" version, which is not suitable for Wikipedia because it does not allow commercial use. Therefore have nominated it for deletion.

I went and looked for a replacement with a really suitable license and found Image:Eros Ramazzotti (early 1990s).jpg, which I am inserting into the article now.

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The artist Ayumi Hamasaki does not belong on the list, and the reference provided says she has sold almost 50 million. 220.253.198.246 (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I translated the source as much as I could through the help of Google-Language-Tools and it seems like it mentions 20 million singles and 50 million albums having been sold. Let me know please if I have mistranslated the content of the source then I will go ahead and remove her from the list.--Harout72 (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should help

Original Line: これまでシングル約２０００万枚、アルバム５０００万枚、計２０００億円以上の売り上げを記録した。

English:So far about 20 million single sheets of 50 million CD albums in total sales of more than 200 billion yen recorded

Thought I would help out. Rgoodermote  20:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I came across too, but no almost 50 million albums sold (as 220.253.198.246 claims). And this is what I mean with foreign-language sources, you could never be able to translate thoroughly, something along the way does not make clear sense.--Harout72 (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harout72, just wondering why you sent me this link as some kind of evidence that the Scooter hit "Nessaja" is not included on the album Encore: Live And Direct? It clearly has Nessaja listed as the final track, and if that weren't enough the picture of the cover includes a bright yellow circle with the words "Inc. No-1 Hit Nessaja!". Also, you'll be interested to know that on the Scooter talk page you can now find three separate links to "Ramp!" being known merely as "The Logical Song" in the UK. Syxx (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links of "Ramp! (the logical song), as for the "Nessaja", I briefly discussed why I don't believe the song is supposed to be linked to the Encore-Live and Direct.--Harout72 (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently violated a large number of Wikipedia policies. To begin with, it is forbidden to copy text from external sources as you have done on the page Eros Ramazzotti. The text you have added is stolen word by word from Der Stern and violates WP:CV. What is more, the text is entirely unencyclopedic, violating a host of policies, including WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. Lastly, accusing others of vandalism without reasons to do so violates WP:NPA. You had no reason to call my edit vandalism, as it should have been clear to anyone familiar with Wikipedia policies that the text had to be deleted as it was stolen from another source. Your edit, on the other hand, was a clear case of vandalism as it restored the text, including the theft. I will assume good faith and assume that you simply do not know the Wikipedia policies, but I suggest you read them and start to edit in accordance with them. Further violations of WP:CV might lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. JdeJ (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm repeating what I said, do NOT add copyright material to Wikipedia. That you have translated it makes no difference, copyright laws still apply. JdeJ (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop filling my talk page with your illogical rants. I'd be violating if I didn't credit the original source. --Harout72 (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then please stop filling Wikipedia articles with nonsense texts. And you still don't understand copyright rules, crediting a source does not allow copying to the extent you are engaged in. JdeJ (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Modern Talking 2001.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Modern Talking 1987.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Celebrate The Nun.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Scooter in 1999.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Scooter with Ferris Bueller.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Scooter including Jay Frog.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Harout72, I am looking for a source on Luis Miguel, Let me know if this one works? http://www.ticketcity.com/Luis-Miguel-Tickets.html

It states "The "Latin Frank Sinatra", Luis Miguel boasts a carreer total of around 100 million records sold worldwide. Over the course of his career the singer has become one of the most successful spanish-speaking artists worldwide. Having accrewed mulitple Grammys, World Muisc Awards, and Billboard Awards, among many other honors, Miguel continues to pack venues all over the world.

and also.... http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/archive/peoplearchive.php/Luis_Miguel/biography

I persnally like this one from The University of Austin Texas Performing arts center

http://www.utpac.org/media/press/Luis_Miguel

seems for relieable- states 90 million.

Both sources you provided are irrelevant; the simple fact that they were FORMED in Australia or America does not mean they are from there. Considering that NONE of them are from either Australia or America, the only thing keeping them being listed as from those countries is the fact that they formed there, and nothing more. Both bands are fully comprised of British and Dutch citizens respectively - birthplace, citizenship, nationality of parents and where the band members grew up all determine the origins of the band (after all, the band members originated from a different country, so their origins lie there also).

I will change the article back to its correct form and I will continue to do so. Please, stop inserting errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 19:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The second album Whispers was released in 1991, two singles were released off Anders' second solo album" How about the third one? http://swisscharts.com/showitem.asp?key=34541&cat=s http://www.discogs.com/release/1141357

"Anders co-wrote Tal Vez - a big hit in Latin America for Marta Sánchez" http://repertoire.bmi.com/writer.asp?page=1&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&fromrow=1&torow=25&affiliation=GEMA&cae=232570884&keyID=547135&keyname=COPPERFIELD%20CHRIS&querytype=WriterID check Tal Vez http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=1904336&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Heights/8073/charts_ta3.html

"Barcos De Cristal, which he released in Spanish only and was only available in Latin America" http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1418171 You can read on the back cover: "Manufactured and marketed by PolyGram Latino U.S., a division of PolyGram Records Inc. New York; Printed in the USA" Latin America could be defined as all those parts of the Americas that that speak languages stemming from Latin. Under this definition, much of the U.S. Southwest, Florida, and Louisiana would be included in the region. Bolafik (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not reverting edits without discussions, I added the third single "True Love" off Whispers, however, the single Tal Vez released by Marta Sanchez is not worth mentioning since it hasn't charted anywhere in Europe, especially when Anders is only one of the 5 writers/composers. As for the album Barcos De Cristal, it would be incorrect to say that it has been released in Latin America only. The scan of the print that you are providing above is the U.S. print released through the Latin division of Polygram, in other words, the license belongs to Germany's Universal Polydor [11] (which Anders was releasing his materials through in '92, '93, '94). In addition, we don't have to make the article sound blatant when it comes to chart positions because Anders as a solo artist has not had any plausible chartings neither in Germany nor anywhere else in Europe. --Harout72 (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to say that I've provided an argument and supplement sources - including one from the band's label on the talk page. (By the way, when I reverted, the summary says "Please check before reverting. I provided reliable sources" - I meant to say "Please check talk page before reverting. I provided reliable sources").

Anyway, there are many reliable sources, however the only two I feel are necessary are this Yahoo Music story on Nirvana reaching 50 million, and this bio on Pearl Jam's label website that states they reached 60 million. Alice Mudgarden (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say that you're doing a fantastic job with that List of best-selling music artists page. Well done. --Anarchodin (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, feels good to be appreciated. --Harout72 (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr.Harout72, I saw your reply about my post in Talk:List of best-selling music artists, but I found 4 more reliable sources:

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Sabbath-Souls-black-t-shirt/dp/B001OR23BC

http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=42351&highlight=&sid=223ac726a08a0268d8a3012f70ab9ae1

http://geekzkrieg.com/top-10-influential-metal-bands/

http://www.discogs.com/popular_artists

Shouldn't we change this?MainBegan (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid none of the above can be regarded as reliable. Examples of reliable sources could be found here. --Harout72 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. Harout72, Sorry for unnoticed by me Talk page of this article, I really forgot to see that. I have added to the talk page of this article 2 reliable sources of 2 artists: Alanis Morissette and Green Day. I'm waiting for your reaction. Borkan85 (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it doesn't make sense to take the time to find a third party source. Why? Because where do the third party get the information? Yes! From the band itself or from the record company. So the official homepage is a reliable source. Show me here a rule where to find a THIRD PARTY SOURCE. That doesn't make sense in this case as it isn't a political site or something to argue about. So please be so kind to stay away from remove the sales figures.... otherwise I will take this dispute to a edit-war-court. Then will they decide! Andreas81 (talk) 7:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

First, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Reliable sources, regardless of whether it's an artist biography page or a discography page, sources must be third party reliable publishings. Having said that, this here which you keep supporting all the sales-figures with at the Roxette discography is not a reliable source. Reliable sources such as these for example here which we use at List of best-selling music artists always study records-sales mostly through artists' Silver, Gold, Platinum Certification-Awards. You should post this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask the folks whether it's reliable or not since you are having a hard time believeing me. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you be so strikt: remove all the certifications as well. They aren't third party information, too. Andreas81 (talk) 7:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am very strict when it comes to sales-figures; therefore, I also went through the Certifications one by one checking to see if they all corresponded with what's being claimed on that page. I also corrected the way the re-directions should be for Switzerland in order to verify the Swiss Certifications. As for whether they are reliable or not, yes they all come from very reliable arenas (RIAA, BPI, IFPI). Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Roxette discography. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes, you have been edit warring. If Andreas finds out about the WP:3RRN board then an admin would probably block you both and I wouldn't recommend filing a report there either. Basically, just cut it out and discuss it. I'll have a word with the other guy. If you have any questions or need any help, please don't hesitate to contact me. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 03:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is what you are referring to [12], his efforts have gone in vain as I have reverted only twice [13], [14]. --Harout72 (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some sales figures stated 7 (I hope) reliable sources. One newspaper (aftonbladet), MTV.de, and a source which was also used for the swiss charts and others. I hope that is fine with you. I have to admit I was a little bit angry that people repeatedly erase information from this site. If you look at other discographies on wikipedia like Madonna albums discography; she also have the official site as source. Some don't even have a source like Celine Dion albums discography or Katy Perry discography. It is a bit frustrating to see that some pages are not affected but the Roxette page. Or see Robbie Williams discography. I hope you are happy with the sources and this fight is over. Andreas81 (talk) 9:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed you have changed Roxette's US sales figure to 2.7 million. Using the 2005 billboard source, which is more detailed. The total comes over 3.1 million. I'm not sure why you have changed it? Mattg82 (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we are going to rely on this source which supports the U.S. sales on Roxette's page then the total is 2.7 million in album sales. Let's look at this together again so there will be no misunderstanding. This is the part that may seem confusing: "Look Sharp!" (1989; certified platinum for U.S. shipments of 1 million units by the Recording Industry Association of America in 1990; it has sold 402,000 since Nielsen SoundScan began tracking data in 1991), the sales of "Look Sharp" is actually just over 400,000 units, but let's count that as 1 million (and not 1,402,000) since that's how many units the record company has shipped out. So, "Look Sharp" (1 Million), "Joyride" (1.3 million), "Tourism" (273,000), "Crash! Boom! Bang!" (46,000), "Baladas En Espagnol" (13,000), "Don't Bore Us, Get to the Chorus-Greatest Hits" (78,000), "The Ballad Hits" (14,000), total is 2,724,000 million. However, Roxette has sold just over 3 million records in U.S. (that is Singles, Albums and Videos combined). --Harout72 (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Shipped units obviously don't automatically mean actual sales, thanks for the clarification. Mattg82 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Recording Industry in U.S. had no actual way of scanning the sales before 1991. So, RIAA would simply rely- as far as the Certifications go- on as many units as the Record Companies would ship out regardless of whether they necessarily sold or not. In the same vein, as you see here, RIAA has certified Look Sharp Platinum, although the Industry has only been able to count the 402,000 units through help of Nielsen SoundScan (which was developed in 1991). After 1991, however, no matter how many units were shipped out RIAA would certify Gold or Platinum only those records which actually sold either 500,000 for Gold or 1 million for Platinum. --Harout72 (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any discussion about this; the last talk page comment was Dec 9th by an anon. Maybe you should bring it on talk? Or bring it up with the editor on their talk page? :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV is much faster for basic vandalism like that. Warn them (you can go from 2nd or 3rd to 4th if you need to) and post it there. However at this point it has stopped and any blocking would probably be pointless (and maybe counterproductive). You can message my talk page if they start up immediately or it looks like the articles need to be protected or something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted an explanatory warning at User talk:189.191.197.92, but you are right. Semi-protection is probably necessary. However, it looks like the IP addresses are coming from Spain and then Mexico, so it's probably more than one person. I'll add a comment to the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that you're a closet vandal, even though you're the main editor of an article.

Care to tell me what's unreliable about these two articles? http://www.pxdrive.com/album/QUEEN+(BAND)_pictures_agbcpic/ http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=6&no=270701&rel_no=1

The second is more reliable than the first, true, but they are no less reliable than many articles here.

You already made the mistake about AC/DC's nationality, are you honestly going to make a cock-up over this too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.79.114 (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are referring to List of best-selling music artists. This very source which is currently supporting Queen on the list is coming from Time (magazine). I'll make two comments for you on your question above. First, sites of this kind should not be used anywhere within wikipedia, that's how unreliable that is. Second, since you are unable to see how much more reliable Time's source is compared to this, you should simply post them within WP:RSN and ask the folks to state their opinion and tell you which one of the two can be regarded as reliable. And lastly, I did not make a mistake about AC/DC, you simply need to familiarize yourself with the difference that stands between nationality and origin. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a piece of information in the article Luis Miguel. Let me put it simple. You can't just delete sourced information in Wikipedia (exept in specific cases). Especially since the information was presented clearly as another opinion. At most you could have added the {{dubious}} template.

I will not reverse your edit, because I agree that the 90mln was probably a misunderstanding or just plain wrong, in view of two other sources stating 50mln and 52mln. But you should be more carefull about your edits next time. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it in a simpler format before you make another attempt in reprimanding me on such matter. First, I am not new to wikipedia, so please invest your time in giving lessons to people who may need it. Second, I had the page semi-protected for one week due to high vandalism [15]. You should have familiarized yourself with all the recent edits that have taken place within the page of Luis Miguel before finding your way to my talk page to drop off a ludicrous rebuke of this kind. Regards. --Harout72 (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you seem to misunderstand me. I am a lot less senior on Wikipedia than you are, but I do a lot of Wikignoming and I know how to recognise what "The Problem" is in a given article. Please understand that I don't question your expertise or good intentions.

Please see Talk:Luis Miguel that I was talking about removing sourced third party information, which even experienced editors should not do (exept in special cases). In this case you could have added your source as a third opinion (or second if you insist to remove Miguel's website from the sources). If that weren't enough in your eyes, you could have tagged the other source with {{dubious}}. Debresser (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be informed that I have requested admin involvement in connection with your behaviour in this case. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Harout72. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to say, it looks like you're doing a great job a List of best-selling music artists. I used to 'police', for want of a better word, that article when I edited Wikipedia regularly; I converted it from a random list of things people had written to the current categories system. I'm glad to see someone has continued watching it and has developed more stringent referencing criteria as well. If I could still log in, I'd give you a barnstar myself - but I'm not sure how much it would be widely appreciated due to my actions one day when I wasn't feeling entirely myself. Anyway, good on you and keep up the sort of work which gets all too often ignored. --129.234.4.1 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (Robdurbar from work)[reply]

I agree with the user above. :) and regarding Janet, its not that I wanted a less reliable source, its just that since I'm a watchdog on BLPs, in tend to prefer using articles which put the subject's best foot forward, rather than focusing on a recent mishap in their lives. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the citation. It's one of those things I know I read years ago, but couldn't find a citation when I put it in the article so hoped someone familiar with him would know where to look instead of just deleting it. Best, Abrazame (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bee Gees are British, at the very least British-Australian. Same goes for AC/DC, and Van Halen is similar - they are either Dutch or Dutch-American.

The article says COUNTRY, not ORIGIN. Where does it say that we are to list what country they formed in? Where in the article, where in wikipedia? What gives YOU the right to illogically dictate that we are discussing origin instead of what country the bands are actually from?

The article says COUNTRY, and NOT origin. Therefore, we are discussing what country the band are from rather than where they originated and formed. Because of this, it is wholly incorrect for the 3 bands mentioned to be listed as they currently are.

Considering that all 3 members of the Bee Gees were British and none are from Australia, it is incorrect to say that the band is Australian. How can it possibly be Australian if it never contained a single Australian citizen? They weren't even naturalised Australians when they formed, they were British citizens living in Australia!

So please, stop with this nonsense. It isn't going to go away. I can find numerous sources stating that the Bee Gees are at least Anglo-Australian, and considering that wikipedia is to be editted according to sources instead of opinions, then that is what we should be using. Please stop incorrectly reverting as you have done so many times before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you have repeatedly vandalised that page it is rather rich of you to criticise me of vandalising it.

I was right that the Bee Gees had sold 300 million albums. I was right that Queen had sold 300 million albums. I was right that AC/DC are British-Australian, I was right that Van Halen were Dutch-American and now I'm right that the Bee Gees are a British band.

Yte you have constantly reverted my correct edits and replaced with, effectively, vandalism and lies. When will you learn some common sense? The Bee Gees are a British band; please stop listening to your opinions and edit the article based on the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 00:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had already covered this ground with you. You are again finding yourself being disruptive and you are leaving me no choice but to take you to WP:AN/I.--Harout72 (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing out all the glaring errors by an anon IP on Roxette. But I reverted two of your edits in this article. The Dean Cushman story is true. How can you ask for reliable sources when the only printed source is a 1992 book by Larz Lundgren & Jan-Owe Wikström titled "Roxette: The Book." My local library doesn't carry it and why would they for a band that was hot for only 2 short years. Its not like they were the Beatles. This book was written 9 yrs before Marie's cancer. Without Cushman, no one in America would care about an obscure Swedish music duo named Roxette; Gessle & Marie openly note the Cushman story here

• Please be reasonable about sources. For the past 15+ years, there has been little literature here since they are no longer popular....as you likely know. Some of the Daily Roxette's articles consist of important interviews with Marie and Per from the mid-1990s. As an aside, The Daily Roxette is really the only online source for Roxette...and I'd rather have an accessible source than nothing at all. We don't live in a perfect world with many published books on short lived music stars who shot to stardom and then winked away. At least with Roxette, they were definitely not your typical "on hit wonder" that one sees so many times. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try and clean-up that page as it's in quite a mess, and leaving statements such as the The Dean Cushman story within and supporting it with blogs makes the article even more doubtful. Since, Roxette is not a one-hit-wonder act, there should always be an article about pretty much everything that has played a significant role within their career. The information about the exchange student may not have been published in US since they have not collected that many Golds/Platinums here. However, it is available in German since Germany has been their biggest market with countless Golds/Platinums with sales of over 5 million records.

Anyways, I have replaced the blog supporting the "Dean Cushman Story" with a reliable source published in German. --Harout72 (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. thank you. I'm in Canada and I can't read German but thanks for the source. I can always use Babelfish to translate it anyway. I notice most music articles here have few sources because the stars are minor hits or one hit wonders. The only accessible info is usually from the musician's web site sadly due to the paucity of sources. I gave a few paper text sources on Lisa Brokop who was a former classmate of mine (same high school) before she went to Nashville in 1991 (after graduating in my class) but unless one is a real fan of hers, the same lack of sources issue occurs there too. I sourced a picture for her article...by contacting someone on flickr. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I will try and help that page more in the near future as it has lots of unsourced chart positions, which need to be verified and referenced. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the Swedish language as I am sure Swedish prominent news services must have covered all Roxette's events/details. However, it seems like there is all kinds of info having been published in the German market, which is something I could help it with. Cheers.--Harout72 (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting you dismissed my edit, because I took great care to maintain the information you added to the list (Yes, I do acknowledge/appreciate your hard work). The only problem was the citation for the Spanish certifications. I did omit the European IFPI certification. Most featured artist discographies don't list it. What I did change were the country codes because they were (and are, now that you reverted) all over the place. I changed the order in which the certifications were listed to coincide with the chart list. I did away with unnecessary bold text and redundancies. I reformatted to take advantage of the infobox page jump links. I added new information. Sure, I made changes, but your work remained the same. The certifications were not "messed up". I made a side by side comparison. Pray tell, what was really wrong with my revision? Seriously, "if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly…do not submit it." Oskarg956 (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now let's take a look at the page together before your edit and after, so there won't be any misunderstanding. Line 58, do you mind explaining why you have replaced the European Continent's Certification with a Swiss Certification? Line 80, again you have chosen for some mysterious reason to get rid of the Europe's Certification and replace it with the Swiss Certification. Line 126 , the same surreptitious deletion of the European Certification. If you are going to help, you may do so and I will really appreciate it as that page needs a lot of work, but please don't change the way the Certifications are, it's not an easy task to go back and correct them. --Harout72 (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any new arguments: As I stated before, I changed the order of the certifications to coincide with the chart list. I didn't replace one certification for another. And again, I omitted the European IFPI certifications because most all featured artist discographies don't include them. The way I understand it, it's more of an award for sales than an actual certification. You've obviously assumed ownership of the list, so my justifications don't really matter. I'll stay out of your list/article. Oskarg956 (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you allow this as a source? (the host is asking a question and she tells ozzy they've sold more than 50 million records... it's an interview!!) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275497,00.html

and for micheal jacksson you accept reuters - how do you know that 750 is a reasonable sum of all records sold? Rolling stones reuters Cher reuters Sinatra reuters Motley Crue reuters

so it seems as it all comes down to what you think is 'reasonable'.. one person, instead of a source.. then what's the point of haing the "list of best-selling..." ? It will not be credible.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.51.158 (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you noticed or not, but Michael Jackson has three other highly reliable sources claiming the same figure. Truthfully, Fox news is more reliable than Reuters, besides I have studied Black Sabbath's sales (just like I studied Whitesnakes's ) and the 50 million looks quite reasonable. As for Cher, again you are failing to acknowledge the fact that she has two other highly reliable sources besides Reuters claiming the same figure. Therefore, as I said before within the talk page of List of best-selling music artists, I would need to see another highly reliable source other than Reuters claiming the figure for Whitesnake. Do you think you could locate one? And studying Certifications in larger territories gives you the chance to determine whether or not the published sales figure is close to what artists may have actually sold. And in the case of Whitesnake, I hate to repeat this, but the 100 million looks outright spurious. --Harout72 (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to tell you that you did not really put anything new there. Country charts need to be mentioned. Langdon (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country charts do not need to be there, it's not significant to include anything other than official single/album charts. --Harout72 (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very important. Probably you don't know anything about music genres. you will also soon be reported if you don't stop. All edits will soon be reverted, because there is nothing wrong with the original versions. You made the article longer using useless words like "Verify Miley Cyrus Canadian charts etc. Langdon (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I happen to be a music analyst myself, you should have gone through my edits to see what kind of articles I edit before labeling me with a statement of that kind. And no, when it comes to chart-tables within wikipedia, it's unnecessary to have positions other than those that are taken from official charts. My edits gave an easier access to the the sources. Not to mention that I provided sources that are more reliable.--Harout72 (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't directly have to do with any page you're currently editing, but there is a user who wrote on the discussion page of List of Best Selling Music Artists in Section 50, What's up with Sarah Brightman?, that the 73 million record sales formed by the combination of soundtracks, albums, DVDs, and singles is considered original research, even if each part of it is properly sourced. The Original Research page indicates original research "includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." Clearly the information is not unpublished fact, argument, speculation or idea. It is not analysis. Does synthesis of published material mean just subjective argument, or objective data as well? I wouldn't have expected that using the definition of a word and some simple addition would have constituted original research. Is the statement, therefore, acceptable according to Wikipedia standards?

As well, I believe you indicated some time ago that soundtracks are not to be included in record sales for the List of Best Selling Music Artists page. Is this correct?

Chaos47 (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, let me first answer your last question. Yes I have indicated several times in my arguments in the past that soundtracks should not be included when counting worldwide record sales for artists, unless of course an artist in question has provided vocals within each track on the soundtrack. Has Brightman provided vocals on all of the numbers on The Phantom of the Opera? I am not sure if she has.

To answer your first question, I am not sure if you are referring to this statement Bear in mind, adding multiple sources together would be considerd Original Research by user: k.i.a.c on the Talk:List of best-selling music artists. If it is then I would have to disagree with her/him as supporting a single statement by using multiple third party reliable sources should not be considered original research, as long as the content of one doesn't contradict with the content of the other, it's no problem. Original research would be unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas as well as unpublished analysis as it is stated within Wikipedia:No original research. --Harout72 (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Pink discography (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! (Report bot mistakes here) // VoABot II (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that no certification exists for multiple-gold. Platinum is the the RIAA award that is multiplied. Golds aren't stacked on top of platinum awards. Since labels have to apply for RIAA certs, it's very feasible that the gold award was added later by accident or oversight or who-knows-what-else (kinda the same as when a label will go through its back-catalog and apply for certifications on a whole slew of past singles years after their release). If a release attains a platinum award then I don't think there is even a reason to mention gold in the article anymore since it already implies a higher level of shipments. - eo (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the logic you're using and I know the shipment-values of the awards but I do not believe a smaller award (Gold) is issued after the larger one (Platinum) in order to "add on" to Platinum. It's never been done this way. The next award given after platinum is double-platinum, not "platinum + gold". - eo (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here, and still learning... This is a proof that Culcure Beat "I Like You" song made entry to UK Top 100: http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/culture%20beat%20with%20lana%20e%20and%20jay%20supreme Please add url and entry to the table. Thanx.