User talk:Petergriffin9901/Archive 4

I'm Requesting to be Given a Chance

{{Unblock|I made this account many months ago when i did not know and understand wiki rules,i made these vandalist edits as a newbie, i understand that is my fault but i did not realize my faults. Since then I have tried to make honest accounts and would actually make around 200 honest edits until someone would block me just bc of this account. I would like to be given an honest second chance with this, my original account, i dont mind if I'm to be put under surveilance, but please give me just one chance,thats all i ask for.If i make one vandalist edit,just one block me forever. But please give me one chance I'm really a sincere person and now i understand wiki rules and guidelines...thats all im asking for is a chance...Thank you}}--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the edits of his latest socks, it is apparent that Petergriffin9901 still doesn't quite grasp WP:RS. However, I don't see his edits as malicious. I would volunteer to be his probation officer for 90 days with a few conditions:

No changing of figures or sources without my approval.
No anonymous editing
No alternate accounts
0RR restriction

After that period is over, we can evaluate whether letting him loose is a wise idea. During the probation, I would expect violations to be punished by an immediate block.—Kww(talk) 19:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your help and your idea kww. I will have no problem having kww be my probation officer for the given time, i will not make any anonymous edits, i wont have any other accounts and i will go over all my changes with you. You will see with due time that i can be trusted and you wont regret this decision.thats all im asking for is 1 chance.Thank you so much.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If Kww wants to take this on as a project, I trust his judgment and am willing to unblock on the basis that the above terms are met. I'm also willing to act as a proxy admin for Kww, and will block this account at his request without question if he believes you have violated the restrictions. --auburnpilot talk 00:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help. I noticed that Petergriffin9901 didn't comment on the 0RR restriction, so I'll lay it out without the jargon. Peter, that means that you are agreeing not to revert anyone on any article, or make edits that basically revert someone else's edits: you can't get around the restriction by rewording your edit slightly and saying " ... but I didn't hit the undo button".—Kww(talk) 00:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly i didnt write ORR bc i didnt know what that stood for, but sure i wont revert anyones edits. Just so were clear, can you tell me exactly what i am allowed to do. From what i understand i cant revert anyones edits and can only make edits with your consent, but my question is what is someones edit was vandalizm,could i revert the edit then? and when i want to make an edit should i write on your talk page or is there a more effective way?or are you just going to closely monitor my edits?thanks--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking to review every edit you make. Your problem lies with sourcing and figures: you tend to choose unreliable sourcing, and use unreliable figures. That's rule 1: if you want to change a figure or a source, you need to clear it with me. Explain to me why you want to change the figure, or why you like your source better than the one that's already there, and don't make the change until after I agree with you. If you make a spelling or a phrasing correction, I don't need to get involved. I think you understand rules 2 and 3: no editing under a different account or without logging in. The 0RR rule is sweeping: you can't undo another editor's edits. We manage to handle vandalism without you, and there just isn't any reason for you to start. Your other big problem has always been edit-warring: the 0RR restriction is intended to make it so that if someone reverts one of your changes, you have to convince people that your way was better instead of just trying to make the same edit over and over.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand kww and im willing to comply with your guidelines, if i want to change a sales number or some sort of figure or want to replace a source i will request your consent first. And if i see vandalizm, ill let you know so you can deal with it as you wish.... and again thank you Kevin for your help and support and you will not regret this decision.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've lifted the block and noted the restrictions in your block log. Please be mindful to follow the restrictions to the letter and ask first before acting if you're unsure whether something runs contrary to the limits in place. I was unable to spot a autoblock, but please follow the instructions on {{autoblock}} if you are still unable to edit. --auburnpilot talk 02:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you auburnpilot, but my talk page still says im a sock, and i would like to put my real information in my userpage, so if you could please delete what it says. And im not sure how to deal with the autoblock, can you please undo it?thanks--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that you've tripped over an autoblock, either. You should get a message when you attempt to edit if you are, and that message contains data. Follow the instructions at {{autoblock}} to take care of it. If you can't figure it out, it should expire 24 hours after Maester Seymour was blocked.—Kww(talk) 03:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks!just one more question kww, i often like to edit(update) how much movies gross at the box office, but to make edits like that i dont need to change the source bc the source updates its figures almost daily, so do you mind if i make figure changes like that without your consent, if the source thats already there updates its figures?...and do you mind if i delete all this old stuff off my talkpage, so i can make a fresh start.?btw what date will you set for the probation to expire?thanks!--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No figure changes without my consent. Sales, grosses, anything of the kind. There really isn't a need to update these figures more than every week or so, and no reason to have them to more than 3 significant digits (i.e. $155M, not $154979365.63). You can delete everything from your talk page but this section, because this section lays out the conditions of your editing.—Kww(talk) 12:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Requests for updates

First: mariahcarey.com cannot be used as a source for a claim like "best-selling artist", even if they say it. It's a self-serving claim by the artist. For a claim like that, you need to find a completely independent source that doesn't make any money from selling Mariah Carey items.

As for the grosses: please be more explicit when you ask: "I want to change x to y in article z", with wikilinks. That makes if faster for me to verify. Anyway, Up can change to $253M, 17 again to $127M, The Proposal to $49M, The Hangover to $190M, Night at the Museum to $353M. Don't be any more precise than that: these exact dollar figures that people put in are wrong before they hit the save button. There just isn't any way to measure movie grosses to the dollar in real-time.

As for the 17 million worldwide, place it in the lead, not in the chart. If you try to put it in the chart, people will try to add worldwide certifications and worldwide ranks, and there are no reliable sources for such things.—Kww(talk) 00:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

ok,thanks i will be more specific, but i dont understand why i cant use it as a source,Max24 used it for saying her total album sales, so why can ti use it,its the same one Max24 claims...if i cant use it for that claim why can he for a claim of album sales numbers..--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have preferred it if Max24 had used a different source for sales figures, too. Those at least look reasonable, and don't seem to be inflated. The use of self-serving statements is always a bad thing. If I made a website and said that I was the smartest and wisest person on Bonaire, would it make sense to go to the Bonaire article and add that? Of course not. This is the same kind of thing.—Kww(talk) 13:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

World's Best Selling Music Artists

As said in Britney Spears she has sold over 107 million albums and 75 million singles equaliong over 150 million records sold, so i would like to put her in the 100 million and more categorie for the above mentioned page. the source i would add would be the same as her page has which is http://www.rapartists.com/labels/46/Jive_Records ..thanks!

Find a few more sources for those kind of figures. I'm not happy about using rapartists.com as a source in either article.—Kww(talk) 13:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about wikipedia , but between you and me Mariah carey has sold over 200 million albums worldwide not 160....:D--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel

Yes it was. MaJic (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Yea it looks pretty cool! MaJic (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Britney (album)

Hi there. About your edit in the Britney album, you wrote "hads" instead of "has". I saw it as a simple typo and didn't realize you meant to write "has". Otherwise I would have just fixed it instead of reverting it. My bad. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 05:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Warning

This edit was clearly a revert of this edit. One more time, and parole is revoked.—Kww(talk) 04:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Always check the edit history before making a change. If the text has been sitting in there for a few weeks with a pile of edits in-between, I'm not going to call it a revert. Completely undoing the text of the immediately preceding edit is a revert.—Kww(talk) 18:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Revenge of the Fallen

Dig through the edit history and find out the history of the budget number: a casual search found four different figures referenced to multiple places. Once you've done that, explain why you think the $200M figure is the most reliable.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking about reliablility i'm not sure, but since all pages in wiki that have to do with movies use box office mojo i believe thats the one we should use. What about the other pages ive asked for your approval for, and for if you could explain to me the other mentioned stuff that would be greatly appreciated...thanx!--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The others look OK. Waiting on the results of your research.—Kww(talk) 18:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont know how to check previous edits, there are so many i really dont know how, i only know how to check the most recent,the last one made.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you click on the "history" tab, it will display a list of the last 100 edits made to the article. There are little buttons to allow you to compare various version. This is a big part of what this probation is supposed to help you get in the habit of, so give it a try. It's very important to check to find out when your edit was changed, and why. Sometimes (and this is one of those times), it takes some searching. Look 50 edits back, then 25, then 35, etc., until you find when and why your edit was pulled.—Kww(talk) 19:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I researched it and found that an editor didnt think 250M was correct, i agree and that is why i wanted to change it to 200M...it already says that but i just want to add the source....is there anything else you want me to research?thanks and if you could talk to me about the other issue,thanks--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How about the $194M figure? How reliable was the source for that one? Did it meet WP:RS, or not?—Kww(talk) 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the 194M figure had the same source as the 200 million meaning that the editor vandalized, i hope i am correct bc when i looked at this old version from days ago, it showed the same source as now...thanks!--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Look here, and tell me what you think. Does that source meet WP:RS for that piece of information? Why or why not? Should you have looked here before asking me if you could update? Should you have put a message here or here and discussed it? I'm sorry to sound so cranky, but this is an important point: never just put your content back without examining the history of changes. That's why you got blocked in the first place, and that's what people saw about all of your other accounts that made us want to block them. If you don't break that habit, things will never go well.—Kww(talk) 23:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What your saying makes alot of sense, so here are my answers. Im really not sure if that is a reliable source, at first i thought it wasnt beacase i see that its just a random interview,and we dont know if the interview is real or if the site is reliable with what it tells us. But then i see the link you showed me that shows the discussion board and an admin says it's good,so i guess it must be reliable...but then again why was it removed then?im really not 100% sure,to be honest with u. Now about the discussion board, you are right i shoulve checked the discussion board first, i didnt think of that one. And yes i think that i shouldve commented on the discussiion board and also discussed it with the editor as well, so i can understand why he thinks so or why not and be able to understand his reasoning and maybe come to a conclusion. the only issue is that doesnt work with some editors as they dont want to come to a conclusion ..:(.....thanks for all the advice and i hope you like and are satisfied with the answers i presented...thanks and all the best and let me know what u think!--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point, the best thing to do is start a discussion on the talk page: give the two figures, give the two sources, and ask people to discuss which they think should be included. If you don't get agreement there, ask about the interview on WP:RSN, and see what people say.—Kww(talk) 14:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Question About a Source

It seems to have an on-staff set of reporters and rely on standard wire-services, so it isn't obviously a bad source, but I'm not aware of it having any particular reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy", which is what WP:RS calls for. Not many people make reference to the site, which also calls it into question. I'd proceed cautiously, and I would be extremely careful about replacing any existing figures with figures from this site.—Kww(talk) 19:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Roughly equivalent. In the event of a conflict, I'd start surveying multiple sources and see if I couldn't find one clearly better than either. If there wasn't a clear winner, I'd list out the choices on the talk page and start a discussion.—Kww(talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Go through the discussion steps first. Don't change any figures to match undercover.com.au until you get people to agree that it is the best source.—Kww(talk) 23:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not An Admin

Nope, not an admin. Probably won't run again, either. If I do, it won't be until October.—Kww(talk) 21:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

well if you do run let me know, id be glad to vote for you or however its done on wikipedia..:)--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My Love: Essential Collection

The article sources sales of about 1.2 million (add up the sourced sales in the table). Double check my math, and change it to " ...1.2 million<ref>Sum of sourced sales from table</ref>". Good catch.—Kww(talk) 01:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Its done,thanks!--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Source

Looks like a big gossip blog to me, so no, not reliable. If you could find a credible source, it's probably worthy of inclusion.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Probably impossible. Do you have a picture of Mariah Carey that you have taken personally or have written permission to release?—Kww(talk) 23:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely you can't just put any picture of her there. To illustrate a living person on Wikipedia, it has to be a picture that the copyright holder has released for free publication. There aren't many of those, and that's why people keep rotating around the same three .... that's all there are of Mariah Carey that anyone knows about. To illustrate a person, you can't use publicity shots, downloaded pictures, album covers, video screenshots, any of that. If you want to read all the policies, you can read WP:IUP, WP:FU, and WP:NFCC.—Kww(talk) 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We have a few professional photographers that donate from time to time. Your choices are here. You can include any of those just by saying something like [[File:Mariah Carey 2 by David Shankbone.jpg]]. Click on the image to find the full title. A lot of those take advantage of a little loophole: all pictures by US military photographers taken while on-duty are automatically free.—Kww(talk) 23:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mariah Carey Albums

Go ahead. Remember your revert rule, though: if people fight, you'll have to take it to the talk pages.—Kww(talk) 11:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you weren't on probation, it probably would be acceptable. You're doing well (actually better than I expected), but you are still on a 0RR rule.—Kww(talk) 16:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Discography article

What do we gain from having it unprotected? She hasn't released anything that isn't on the discography, has she?—Kww(talk) 21:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=302518321#Mariah_Carey_discography_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 —Kww(talk) 01:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones

Please do not re-add this [1] as it is not a Hot 100 move. The song debuted this week. - eo (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Telus

It's an ISP, not a news source. Any story you find on it, you should be able to find on a primary news site. All they are doing is reprinting articles from Reuters, the Associated Press, and similar places. It's a good place to start, but you should look for the original source.—Kww(talk) 17:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

E=MC2 (Mariah Carey album)

Go for it.—Kww(talk) 23:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Shakira

Go ahead. I couldn't respond quickly because I was on Curacao for a doctor's appointment today. When I'm off-island, I can't communicate as promptly as usual.—Kww(talk) 01:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It was an MRI, so I got to spend an hour strapped down inside a coffin with my head immobilized. I'm still feeling nervous and rattled today.—Kww(talk) 16:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

14 vs 8 million

Sounds good.—Kww(talk) 03:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oral fixation

Go ahead.—Kww(talk) 00:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous edits

Please undo them and redo them while logged in.—Kww(talk) 02:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism reversion

OK. Limited vandalism reversion. You can revert edits that have modified figures so that the figures contradict the source referenced on the page.—Kww(talk) 01:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet reports

For some reason that I don't understand, your case has been mixed up with another one, and you've been officially listed as having sock-puppeted again. I don't think that's true, and have requested that a fresh set of checkusers be run to get things straightened out.—Kww(talk) 03:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

All straightened out.—Kww(talk) 01:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

blogspot

If it's a blogspot site, it isn't reliable enough to include.—Kww(talk) 13:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

E=MC2 (Mariah Carey album)

OK. I agree, that's a better source.—Kww(talk) 02:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The Fame

On the first issue, Legolas is right: since the 2.3M figure is sourced in the main body, it doesn't have to be sourced in the lead. I think that's kind of a screwy policy, but that's what it is.

On the second issue, I would like you to explain to me why you think "The album received mostly positive reviews with critics commending Gaga's ability to discover a mnumber four on theelodious hook" was a good addition to the article.—Kww(talk) 12:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I didnt add that, The only thing i changed was, in the openening paragraph it said In the United States the album went as high as position four on the billboard 200...i thought this sounded kind of wierd, so I changed it to In the united states the album peaked at number four on the billboard 200. That was the only change i made, ive never seen this change you posted here,....let me know which of the 2 sound better to u..thanks!--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I just dug through the history and i see where it says that wierd statement. I really dont know how that was put there bc the only change i wanted to make was the formentioned. I would like to edit the line again, with what i want to put, and i want u to tell me what u think.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your change (or a problem with the way it was, either). The incident is something you should learn from: if someone reverts one of your changes, read over the diffs and the explanation of the revert carefully. It may be a typo or some other kind of accident that's causing the problem.—Kww(talk) 02:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I really dont know how that other line got in there.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of your recent edits

Before I dig in too deeply, please explain the edits referred to here, and explain to me why you believe that they fall inside your editing restrictions.—Kww(talk) 13:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you believe that books are valid sources?—Kww(talk) 21:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So in these edits, you changed the figures without checking out a hard copy of the book and seeing that the figures contradicted the text in the book? That's a pretty blatant violation of your editing restrictions, isn't it?—Kww(talk) 21:38, 1 September 2009 (U

ISBNs work with libraries and bookstores: any librarian can get you a copy of a book based on its ISBN number. It doesn't allow you to see the contents on-line. I'm pretty torqued over this, and will take some time to consider the appropriate next step. You've been doing well so far, but this is pretty far over what your editing restrictions permit.—Kww(talk) 21:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

How about a one-month extension and' you use the ISBN number to go to a library and get a copy of the book so you can validate the figures. Makes it a learning experience.—Kww(talk) 22:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dead serious.—Kww(talk) 22:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

60-day extension, cut to 30 anytime you decide to try to validate the book.—Kww(talk) 23:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Glatzer, Jenna (2005). Céline Dion: For Keeps. Andrews McMeel Publishing. ISBN 0-7407-5559-5. You might even luck out, because a lot of it is online at http://books.google.com/books?id=CAvRv-Myw08C&printsec=frontcover&dq=C%C3%A9line+Dion:+For+Keeps&as_brr=3&hl=ja#v=onepage&q=&f=false. Google Books only has sections of books, so the pages you need may be there and may not. The references really should have the page numbers on them as part of the citation, so that's what I would like you to add. I'll look into the other article in the morning.—Kww(talk) 01:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's taking forever

The chart is so poorly sourced, I can't figure out what to do. All the Billboard links have expired, and whover did the archive links didn't bother to link individually. There's a list of 200 possibilities, all of which take 5 minutes to load. I'm tempted to erase the whole chart, but I know that isn't the right answer.—Kww(talk) 18:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if I can dig through the Wayback machine links, I think they do. It's a matter of manually searching through 200 pages, though, which I'm not going to get done quickly.—Kww(talk) 00:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed totals myself.—Kww(talk) 04:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Metacritic

Adding the score is fine. Be careful about describing the score, though: the number pretty much speaks for itself, so don't use strong language to describe it.—Kww(talk) 12:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing Figures

Removing a figure is a change to a figure, so it's a part of your restriction. Removing unsourced figures that have been in an article a long time is probably a bad idea, too. Search for a source, first. If you can't find a sourced figure, then maybe a {{cn}} tag if you think it's really important that the figure be sourced. If someone has just added an unsourced figure, it may be vandalism. Let me know what you want to do, and, if you do it well, I'll consider giving you an exception so that you don't have to come to me every time.—Kww(talk) 11:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you should take some time and search to see if there is any reliable figure for the gross. If you honestly can't find one, remove it.—Kww(talk) 17:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just Whitney

Please explain how this source justifies this edit.—Kww(talk) 01:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to be exceedingly careful about things like this. A quick scan of my talk page shows that there are editors concerned about you having an editing bias, namely that you work to increase Mariah Carey's position relative to other other artists. So long as you are perceived that way, mistakes like that are going to cause friction.—Kww(talk) 12:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Eminem

That article repeats the "Best selling artist of the decade" claim. What source do you have that anyone else sold more records between Jan 1 2001 and now?—Kww(talk) 12:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/34074/chart-watch-extra-the-top-20-album-sellers-of-the-2000s confirms Eminem, and clearly says that it isn't Britney. —Kww(talk) 13:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, that is the kind of thing that makes people suspect your motives. Your first statement was that you were going to remove the reference, now you are going to clarify "the decade" to "the 2000s". Your first statement involved a false claim about Britney, your second doesn't. Part of the reason for this probationary period is for you to get people to trust you again, so you need to be sure you have your facts straight before you make statements.

On the actual meat of the edit: yes, 80 to 75, "the decade" to "the 2000s" is fine.—Kww(talk) 13:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"The 2000s" is better, and yes, clarify that this is a US rank.—Kww(talk) 13:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, a lot of people talking at me today, and I missed your message. Please try to find a more recent source first: 2005 is pretty old. If you can't, go ahead.—Kww(talk) 02:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Petergriffin9901, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! eric dilettante' (mailbox) 14:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Mariah Carey sources

Those are all copies of old Wikipedia articles, so they can't be used to source Wikipedia. Look closely at the bottom of http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/494e8d09-f85b-4543-892f-a5096aed1cd4, and the rest are just slight rewordings of this same thing. They probably copied us at different times.—Kww(talk) 02:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The section and is well-known for her vocal range, power, melismatic style, and use of the whistle register. She is ranked as the best-selling female artist of the U.S. Nielsen SoundScan era (third-best-selling artist overall), with shipments of over 62.5 million albums in the U.S. and has sold more than 200 million albums worldwide. is a dead giveaway. It's in reviewartists.com and vegastickets.com. That leaves you with one press release, republished by the insider. I'd stick with the lower figure.—Kww(talk) 03:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's Reuters carrying PRNewswire, so that's not very good: it's Sony advertising its own artist. PRNewswire doesn't get fact checked at all, they just print what you tell them to. I've done a few myself, and I can promise you they just took what I wrote. Amazon is notoriously unreliable (they even get their own availability wrong). Canadatop is a blog. FuseTV stands a chance.

The next part is the part you are going to hate. You are still under a 0RR restriction, so even if I told you you could make this change, if Max24 doesn't agree, he'll revert. Then you are stuck, because I'm not going to diddle the figure back and forth. Take your two sources (FuseTV and the press release on the insider), and find out what the source is in Mariah Carey. Talk to Max24 about it on his talk page. Finding some more sources will help, so you might want to search a while longer and bring back a few more candidates for me to look over. If you want the number to stick, you have to convince other people before you make the change.—Kww(talk) 04:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tower isn't bad. Sonymusic.com is really the same source as the press release, because they all come from Sony. If you want to try your hand on the talk page for the article instead, feel free.

I'll get between you and Max24 if you have an issue where I think there's a right answer, or if the name-calling starts up again. I honestly think the problem here is one of bias, and I believe that's what you will get told. Max24 searched for a figure that he found believable, and you seem to be searching for the highest number you think people will believe. His search led him to a low number, and yours lead you to a higher one. Try an experiment: add up every certification you can find in the world for every record released by Mariah Carey, and I can promise you that you won't reach 200 million. If you get to 120 million, I'd be surprised. Look at List of best-selling music artists, where they tried it for the Beatles: record company claims 1 billion sold, certifications add up to 244 million. Jackson claims 750M, adding the certifications reaches 126M. They list the 200M figure for Carey there, using http://www.vh1.com/news/editorial/?page=1&contentId=1583255 .

When you argue this, consistency is a good point: we really shouldn't have the Mariah Carey article, the discography article, and the list all using different sources for different figures. Beware, though: if you lose that one, you might wind up with every article claiming 160M.—Kww(talk) 04:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.vh1.com/news/editorial/?page=1&contentId=1583255 isn't too bad. The rest are repeats. Its 1AM, time for me to go to bed.—Kww(talk) 05:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Certifications vs. Sales

Technically your edits are correct. Not a good point to push, however, as the practice of conflating certified shipments with sales is widespread. It's made worse by the fact that in some countries, certifications are based on sales, and in others, like the US, it's based on shipments to retailers. I've thought about pushing the point in the past, but it's an unwinnable fight.—Kww(talk) 03:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A 10X certification would generally contradict 12M in sales. If it's a really recent, extremely rapid seller, it's possible that Nielsen could certify 12M in sales before the RIAA could certify 11M in shipments, because Nielsen is faster. For sales, the best thing to do is see if you can find someone quoting Nielsen certified figures. If not, and the certification contradicts an otherwise unsourced sales figure, it's best to remove the sales figure and quote only the certification.—Kww(talk) 14:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandals

Reported one to AIV, gave the other a properly formatted warning so that the block doesn't get refused on a technicality. Do yourself a favor, and use {{subst:uw-vandalism1|article|reason}}, {{subst:uw-vandalism2|article|reason}}, {{subst:uw-vandalism3|article|reason}}, and {{subst:uw-vandalism4|article|reason}}. That makes it more likely that people will issue blocks.—Kww(talk) 02:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Marshall Mathers

First, search around for a new source, because 10M isn't true (it would be diamond certified ... they haven't even shipped 10M to retailers in the US, much less sold them). The real answer is closer to 9M. If you can't, then change to 10.—Kww(talk) 22:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's old, and not clear as to whether it is talking about worldwide or US sales. Stick with the 10. If it sold 9.4M by 2003, and never made diamond, it must still be a number like 9.7M or 9.8M today, making 10M close enough.—Kww(talk) 00:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Certs

Ask at WT:Record charts. Someone will know for sure. I think it's changed back and forth a few times.—Kww(talk) 04:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, i love that song alot -- Havingatypicalemotionalupset (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry ...

I have no idea how I missed your message. Go ahead, but remember your 0RR restriction: if someone puts the old sources back, I wouldn't view that as vandalism.—Kww(talk) 11:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Take a look here : Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Review_sites to see which review sites are prefered on Wikipedia. Thank u!(MariAna Mimi)

175M

I changed the source to point directly at the press release from Def Jam Records. It's the latest official source, and more credible than Sony. I warned you that I thought the figures you were quoting were inflated. The white-on-white garbage from MariahCarey.com really is a source of a bad web designer, but that doesn't directly influence the reliability of the information.—Kww(talk) 21:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The 200M figure came from Sony, and Sony inflates figures. 200M isn't a credible figure, and with her current record label denying that it is true, I can't see a reason to go with it. Why would Def Jam understate her sales? It isn't in their own best interest.—Kww(talk) 14:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Laundry Service and Memoirs reviews

Requested protection for Laundry Service. As for the Memoirs reviews, which of the existing reviews would you replace, and why?—Kww(talk) 01:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your Newsday review is really an Associated Press review (look at the credit) and is already in the infobox (press the link on the "Associated Press" review). As a rule, this is an area you need to pay a bit more attention to: trace the credits on an article, and find the original source. It helps clear up mysteries like why Newsday has two different reviews on one album. The Toronto Sun review seems pretty trivial. Be a bit more persuasive: explain why you think the Boston Herald review should replace one of the other two. Your 0RR restriction would apply here, so if you just change it, someone will change it back and you are stuck. Give me a preview: if that happened, how would you try to convince that editor that he should accept your change?—Kww(talk) 13:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you give me two more links to the Associated Press review? It's all the same review, word for word.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My point was that it is already listed in the article with http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gpU3MXdvTVy0YwiVZk6j-w-pB9kAD9B0FRD00 so there's no reason to add a second copy. You can try swapping out the other review if you want, but remember your 0RR restriction. I don't find your argument very convincing, and I don't think many other people will either.—Kww(talk) 16:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

you should check who is actually replacing the reviews. I only removed billboard because there was 11 reviews (rules state a maximum of 10) and was the least comprehensive review - the smallest. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

prince.org

It's a blog, so it can't be used.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and remove.—Kww(talk) 23:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

BF101

Long form is at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Bambifan101. Short form: long term sockpuppeting, widespread vandalism across multiple wikis.—Kww(talk) 14:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

New review

It's the AllMusic review that is already included in the article.—Kww(talk) 02:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

13.5 vs. 15

Given his history, I'm willing to believe it was a simple mistake.—Kww(talk) 18:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sales

The Billboard article is probably the most reliable recent source anyone is going to find for Madonna, so fine.

As for the Celine discography, please tell me, album by album, what the difference in the figures is, and why you would consider the ticketspecialists.com number to be better.—Kww(talk) 01:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with either printed or foreign language sources. In a lot of ways, printed material is more reliable: the very fact that it costs more to produce makes people more careful. As for languages, you're young yet. I hope you live the kind of life that allows you to learn three of four languages. Once you get that done, foreign language sources don't seem so scary anymore. Ticketspecialists.com isn't really a great source. If I knew of a better one, I'd replace it in the places it is used. I really can't see replacing a reliable print source with it.—Kww(talk) 04:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey kww, would you say this is a reliable source for Celine Dion album sales?Look Here--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not more reliable than the printed sources already used.—Kww(talk) 17:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I ask because someone replaced the ticketspecialist.com listing the 13.5 and switched it for this listing 15. Is there one of them thats clearly better than the other?--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not obvious to me that one is. Probably worth a discussion on the talk page, or perhaps on Max24's. You two really are going to have to learn to get along someday. Might as well be over something small.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Technically, you haven't violated WP:CANVAS, but please don't place notices on other people's talk pages discussing my RFA. I know you meant well, but it isn't done, and could cause me trouble. No need to revert the one you've placed, but please, not more.—Kww(talk) 01:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I wasnt familiar with that rule. I wish you luck though, hopefully we'll be having a as an admin soon...:)--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)