User talk:Petergriffin9901/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Petergriffin9901. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

{{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:

1. No changing of figures or sources without my approval.
2. No anonymous editing
3. No alternate accounts
4. 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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))

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

No need to panic, but you should be aware that this discussion occurred. I don't think anything will come of it.—Kww(talk) 02:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Lescharts is one of the Hung Medien sites, and the Hung Medien sites are the best archives to use.

ch=Switzerland

at=Austria

be=Belgium (You'll see Be(Wa) and Be(Vl). Those are Wallonia and Flanders

se=Sweden

dk=Denmark

es=Spain

au=Australia

fr=France

nz=New Zealand

—Kww(talk) 18:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to add the new section? Leave E=MC2 in the other section though. Make the new section about Memoirs and Precious include Precious reviews and something about Carey's performance (Keep it brief though) and stuff about her pearl concert. Her movie Tennessee and singles from Memoirs very brief though.

Since I'm the only one that replied on the discussion though I'd talk to you in here (much easier) I'll do it if you don't want to? Jayy008 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I do agree yes, but I'm going to read the section first to see how short it would be removing certain things. I'll start it and if once it looks like I'm finished you can help because there's nothing more annoying than spending ages making an edit then it says "Edit conflict" lol Jayy008 (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you not think Conflict with Eminem should stay in the title? Also I've done quite alot and I'll do more tomorrow but I'm tired for now will you add some on Precious WITH citation though?? thanks Jayy008 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Eminem why did you delete from the page? I added a section about it which made it longer! It's too short at the moment and that needed to be there because it's part of her life and career. Please add it back, it's not just about "Obsessed" it's about her life so it should be included on the main page. I agree leave it out of the title but please return to the article! Jayy008 (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! If it's to big you can shorten it? I just really think it needs to be known. If you can't find anything for Precious by the way please let me know and I will have a look tomorrow! Jayy008 (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't include a source in the question, but, in general, you should only include certifications from the official certifications sites. I came in extremely close, with some allegations of tampering against me. The bureaucrats (the level above admins) are having to discuss what to do. We probably won't know until Tuesday.—Kww(talk) 01:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please wait until the RIAA certifies it. Your sources look good, but remember WP:RECENT: just because it is her most recent work, it isn't necessarily her most important work. You shouldn't add so much that it is given more weight than her other albums and films.—Kww(talk) 02:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add it to the discussion page, it's not fair I should decide, please add your opinion in there. Jayy008 (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Not Belgium Singles Chart, it charted on Ultratip chart in Belgium which is like a Bubbling Under Chart. It represents positions below the chart to I don't know which number Jayy008 (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep linking Wallonia and Flanders to a page? When you click on the Belgium link itself it tells you why it's split into 2 sectors. Highlighting Wallonia and Flanders to click on wouldn't be a chart or musical question, it would be geographical. Jayy008 (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to change it, I looked at the vote that you speak of. One person wants the one I put and one person (you) doesn't. I want the one I put. So the vote is 2 people against 1. So since you put the vote up the fair thing is to keep the one that's most voted. Jayy008 (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not bothered if it doesn't say airplay because Brazil doesn't have a singles chart. It has Brazil Hot 100 airplay, run by Billboard. Which is an airplay chart. Saying singles chart is misleading.Jayy008 (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be cautious. No real red flags, but it looks like a fairly run-of-the-mill fashion/music site. What do you want to use it for?—Kww(talk) 23:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. It is extremely elogical to make a vote on the artists page and when it doesn't come out how you want use the picture you wanted in the first place. The result was 2/1 so please keep the photo that's there now! Jayy008 (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the second picture, without that awful hand gesture... again!!! The first picture looks so GAY!!! --- That's what the user wrote. The only user to actually say which picture he prefered. I'm not going to argue. You shouldn't have re-opened the vote otherwise the picture you like would stay.

Me and the user both prefer the second one but none of them are particularly nice. So the vote stands at 2/1. If someone else comments on the fact they want the one you like it will take it to a tie, but for now leave it at the majority vote? Jayy008 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The picture itself is nicer, I don't care what she's doing with her hand lol. He preferes the second picture without the awful hand gesture, but the hand gesture is there, the first picture looks so GAY!!!, I think the capitals and the exclamation marks mean he doesn't like the photo or it wouldn't be in capitals or with the exclamation marks.

He prefers the second picture, without the hand gesture. I prefer the second picture, I don't care about the hand gesture. You prefere the other picture.

The hand gesture is there, it can't be removed, he prefers the second photo. You shouldn't have re-opened the vote, the previous vote was for the picture you like but as you re-opened it, I guess the new vote has to remain in effect. Jayy008 (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How do I? You asked the user to choose which one he prefered, that's the first thing he did. That's all I'm saying. Jayy008 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're adamanet you want the image changed, move the vote to the bottom of the discussion page and keep doing it everytime it's moved up. Jayy008 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No I will not. Someone else will remove it eventually, it is not Platinum in the U.S. but I'm aware it's sold 1.2 million copies if you find me a source I'll add it back but if it's unsourced someone will delete it anyway. Jayy008 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think your probation will expire on schedule. You've become a better editor. Not perfect, but much better.—Kww(talk) 13:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Somebody has removed the Legacy part? As I've seen you edit most of it, do you wanna add it back? Jayy008 (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added some citation needed boxes if you could put sources for all the artists who cite her as influences that will good I will look too Jayy008 (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please join the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mariah_Carey#Legacy Reidlos (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ticketspecialist.com is not a reliable source. Check Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Well, I'm sorry about the source from 1998, but If you could provide a reliable source I'll accept it happily. I'm still trying to search other reliable sources for Mimi's record sales. And also for legacy section, please expand it on sandbox first. Mariah Carey is a featured article, so don't make it mess with 'underdeveloped section'.Bluesatellite (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw your edit on LilUniques page, I have put a discussion on the record charts page, please join ( I don't know how to directly link lol) the user claims it has that template on there, I've never seen it before, have you? & I've never heard before only 18 charts are allowed so please join Peter. Jayy008 (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you took the time to look at Chart Macro Redux and the comments left on Jay's user page you would see that this is in the process of becomming new policy. Please check your facts before making claims. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

What's your objection to the template?—Kww(talk) 23:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Certifications are not automatic and shouldn't be added until RIAA OR BPI has them listed thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle. Jayy008 (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• The RIAA designates albums as gold, platinum, and multi-platinum (2x Platinum, 3x Platinum, etc). Although the term, "diamond" is used to showcase albums having more than 10 million shipped copies, it isn't the correct or proper term to use. The RIAA, which gives out the certifications, places albums as 10x Platinum, not diamond. Now, if you want to show her albums as being certified "diamond" then you can put that in parentheses, after the 10x Platinum designated certification. BalticPat22Patrick 19:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please join this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mariah_Carey_discography#Glitter_and_Merry_Christmas I thought you might be interested. Thank you Jayy008 (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter. It seems to me that the page is semi-protected now, so it is too late to join the discussion...am I wrong? --Angel (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's far to much information to be honest. Atleast a third of it should be removed. Gramatically it's fine as far as I can see but things like "In 1991 Carey released Emotions which was certified 4x Platinum by the RIAA" because all that information is in the table I don't think it's needed. I suggest adding templates for copyedit and sources for now and I will go through and remove uneccessary information when I get a chance. Thank you for expanding it though, it was far to short, I won't remove alot Jayy008 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please try to keep it brief though I haven't got around to copyediting the albums discography yet so I don't want my work to build up. Jayy008 (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see your question. There's an upload link on the left-hand toolbar (for me, it's "bestand uploaden", I forget the actual words in the English interface). It will allow you to upload from your computer. As you go, one of the license choices will be "cover of a musical recording" or something similar. Choose that. There will be some blanks to fill out. Be sure you know exactly where you downloaded the image from, and what music company is the copyright holder. Pretty simple, actually.—Kww(talk) 19:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please join this discussion Jayy008 (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just click on the old version in the edit history, click the edit tab, and then save it with an appropriate edit summary.—Kww(talk) 15:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstood. If you click on two different versions, you can then "compare versions". The "undo" button is displayed after you compare, and you can click it to revert the multiple summaries. If you just want to go back to an older version, click the date on the version you want. That will open that version, which you can then edit and save.—Kww(talk) 23:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I think you may be interested in joining the discussion HERE. Thank You.—Iknow23 (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not revert things without a valid reason all sources are from dates even earlier than that. That was over a year after the albums release, the album was a flop, the likelyhood it sold millions more years after is ridiculous. The article needs reliable sources for WW sales and I've been looking. I know you might want to believe it sold more than it did, I do too because Glitter is my favourite album, but unreliable sources like "ticket websites" exxagerate sales to sell the tickets. BBC is the most reliable source I can find. The sales are up to date to a few months after Carey was dropped, no more singles after that, no more promotion, sales are possibly exactly as they are now. Jayy008 (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way you can't just remove sources because they're old, just because they're old doesn't make it unreliable. Unless a source later than that with Glitter WW sales exists then it shouldn't be removed. Jayy008 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL they're my two favs haha! Strange! I agree with Kevin also, it supports two million in sales. Why don't you put a "+" because we know it sold a few more after that date, but can't source it and don't know a number. Jayy008 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Butterfly ok that's my second fav after Glitter, I can't choose my favs but I think her worst are Emotions & Rainbow but they have my fav songs "Against All Odds" "Can't Take That Away" "Heartbreaker" "Emotions" but not good as albums. I agree with Memoirs it takes a LONG time to grow but the remix album will be amazing. OMG you're SO lucky, I'm really jelous! Ha, yeah right though she never comes to the UK unless she's promoting something :(. I won't hold my breath. I've seen her sing one song live but that's about it. A full tour would be the best! I really hope she does come! Was Angels Cry fully mimed or just backing track and sung over? I know it's one of them but I can't tell... Jayy008 (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'm the only one likes Glitter lol. Agree, Emotions her voice was at it's peak. Well I really hope you're right about that. I'm there front seats as soon as they come on sale! Hmmm, although it's a hard song, I think she could definitley sing it totally live! Jayy008 (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's good enough to support 2M in sales. People won't have given them back, so the sales won't be less than that. If you have a source for higher sales, that would have to be evaluated independently.—Kww(talk) 20:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might like the source with the eight million albums. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/2010/02/07/2010-02-07_how_lady_gaga_took_stefani_germanotta_from_new_yorks_convent_of_the_sacred_heart.html?page=1. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You should know that component charts aren't allowed when it charted on the main chart. Angels Cry reached #153 so far on the main chart, which means the position of #4 for the international isn't allowed. And yes international is component per recent discussion on Record Charts. Jayy008 (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it wasn't you, I was just reverting like crazy because of the user IP beginning with 207 really annoying me, keeps vandalising every single Mariah album. The user's been reporting but I don't know how long the admin will take to see it, so if you see the edits please just revert no matter what, it's always vandalism. The user keeps changing things like Platinum to 5 xPlatinum on every album. Jayy008 (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I had to go through and revert every single one, was quite irritating... Thanks for the info on multiple revert, someone tried to help me before and I never got it, your explanation seems more clear though. Thanks so much, I should be able to do it now lol but if I can't thanks for your offer to help! Jayy008 (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh god here he goes again, debut album to 17 million instead of 15, I'm just going to leave it until Eo sorts it, it's going to wind me up keep reverting. Btw, I just tried what you said, and it sais "this edit can not be undone" :/ Jayy008 (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I did it! lol, finally! But it's weird, when other people do it says for example "reverted edit 8090 by jayy008 to last edit by PeterGriffin" why doesn't it say that for this way? Jayy008 (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh strange, meh oh well I'm just glad I figured it out. Has Angels Advocate been advertised in the US? I have a feeling it's going to be pushed back or cancelled alltogether. Jayy008 (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, she hasn't done enough and nor as her label promo wise. Angels Cry began receiving ALOT of airplay over here on music channels but is falling rapidly off the airplay chart and hasn't been playlisted by Radio 1 (The only station that covers the whole of the UK) so it has no chance really and I hope it isn't cancelled, I really want some of those remixes! Why would you say CD's aren't selling that sell in America anymore? Credit crunch? Jayy008 (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I like IWTKWLI lol but I agree, Obsessed was picking up ALOT of airplay over here and I mean alot, but then they cancelled it I was like wth, big mistake if she performed that on X factor she would have got the top 10. I think Angels Cry would have taken off better than H.A.T.E.U. and IWTKWLI for some reason it has more of a hit factor. It's lost it's chance now though, she needs a whole new team behind her! Jayy008 (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at your edits and history (sockpuppet, blocking, probation, Mariah Carey obsession) I thought you've learned something. Unfortunatelly your edits regarding Celine Dion show you're still the same. I will point out the mistakes you have made by lowering or removing Dion's numbers in the last days:
1. You have removed/lowered sales numbers dispite the fact that the some sources were in the articles in the "Chart success" section. Read before changing.
2. You have changed all the certification levels to the current ones (2010). Dion's albums were certified since the 80s and the levels have changed over the years. For example France: now gold is 50,000 and platinum 100,000, and back in 2005 it was gold 100,000, platinum 300,000. The fact that the levels change is a common knowledge. Think before changing or do a research.
3. You have removed/changed some numbers that were in the articles for 4 years. If they were there that long, the best way is to find a source and not remove the data. Discuss before changing.
4. Celine Dion albums discography article had a statement that Dion has sold 200 million albums and it was sourced by SonyMusic.ch article. However you have change it to 175 million albums, and removed that source. That's vandalism.
5. If Sony Music says "over 30 million" and we can find various sources saying 31 or 32, that means that articles with 31 or 32 are correct and more specific. If the article would say "almost 30 million" I would agree with you and left 30 million.

I want you to discuss before changing anything in Dion related articles. If you keep on lowering her sales (what you don't do with Mariah Carey), I will look closer to all your edits and I'm sure I will find more proof that you're still the same Petergriffin9901, with whom we had so much problem here in Wikipedia.

If you have questions about charts or sales/certifications you can ask me, I will gladly help you If I can. Max24 (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm getting annoyed with uber-fans that keep growing sales, removed things etc. It's making so much extra work for people who take editing seriously. Jayy008 (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:112.201.78.149 is still posting false information on the Greg Plitt page. I noticed you posted a final warning on his/her talk page, so I'm not sure what to do other than notify you. Help? Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. - Zhang He (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I regret edititing the Eminem discography page in the way that I did, the info I stated was true but I should've added the sources. In the past I've done alot of work for the page by improving it but after a while someone would revert it or edit in a way that fills the page with false and/or incomplete imformation.

Now, I want to work on the page but I need to know that when I'm doing a good job (when we, for example both agree on it) my work doesn't get deleted for any good reason causing me to do the work all over again.

Jens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jens14 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think BMG should count towards the total sales, I think they should be in brackets for example (An extra 403,000 sold at BMG music clubs) and Nielson SoundScan doesn't count towards their data, I don't think we should merge them as they are separate, look at what I've done on the Daydream and the Music Box pages and tell me what you think. Jayy008 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, where I just looked on his talk page? Yeah but maybe instead of saying sold I'll say (Sold in retail) or can you think of something smaller? It's just people may assume that the 700,000 from BMG are actually included in the main sales but written separately also, hard to explain, hope you get me? Oh no :(... Where did you hear that? I know you're in America so you're more down with the info lol, a surprise performance of Love Takes Time would be amazing! Must have been a long time since she last did it? I won't be surprised if it's cancelled, she hasn't even sang one of the singles live, which is weird, and it's pushed back in the UK **Already*** :/ Jayy008 (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, mid may? Everyone would have forgotten about Memoirs by then, it should either be released after one more single or not at all, I think she needs 3 years baby (inspiration) and make a comeback releasing an album at Christmas so she's guaranteed Platinum. But yeah deffo let me know about the performance, I'd like to see it, almost as much as I'd hold hopes for a UK tour lol. I found it earlier, it must have hurt alot haha! Jayy008 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You constantly remove the ARIA accreditation for The Colour of My Love. Why Mariah Carey albums released before 1997 (except Merry Christmas) still have ARIA accreditations in their articles? Max24 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think ARIA certifications should be removed before 1997 on any articles. Jayy008 (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's as simple as this Max, all I'm looking for the Certifications to be sourced. On almost all of Celine Dion's pages before around 97' all your ARIA sources are just taking us to the Home Page. Can't you find a source for it. If you really think it belongs even without a source, then lets discuss this. Do you think we should allow albums in general that were released before 1997 be allowed to be unsourced? And again what does this have to do with Mariah Carey, I don't own her pages, I edit as I go. Yesterday I went through many articles and corrected and upgraded many sales in charts Including Celine Dion.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, now that you know, you can remove all of Carey's certifications and sales before 1997, right?
I agree with Jayy008. I will revert your edit on The Colour of My Love and explain it to you why:
1. The fact that ARIA website gives certifications since 1997 doesn't mean that all before that should be removed from Wikipedia. And these accreditations are in so many articles of so many artists included.
2. If you want to know if the informations are true, you can always pay and become a member of ARIA.
3. You can eventually buy ARIA books, for example Australian Chart Book 1993-2005 by David Kent, ISBN 0646458892 and read it.
4. I have posted a link [2] where you can check some of the accreditations before 1997, but you removed it anyway.
5. As it goes for The Colour of My Love, it was certified gold in May 1994, platinum in February 1995, 2x platinum in April 1995, 3x platinum in May 1995, 4x platinum in June 1995, 5 and 6x platinum in August 1995, 7x platinum in October 1995 and 8x platinum in March 1996. I know this from an ARIA member, so I can't give the direct link.
6. Also a source from Billboard [3] from January 1996 says that The Colour of My Love has sold over half million copies in Australia.
7.On the End of Year charts in Australia The Colour of My Love was #48 in 1994, #2 in 1995 and #22 in 1996.[4]
So I will add all the links, including the book, and restore the 8x platinum, which is 560,000 copies. Max24 (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's quite good Max, that's all I was really asking for, and now that you and Jayy agree on that, I don't see why not. I was just something that needed to be discussed. Did you get a chance to fix D'eux?.--PeterGriffin Talk • Cont. 01:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have re-opened discussion, Nielson doesn't include club data Jayy008 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please. The references must at least show the material claimed before even considering if reliable.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please click the 'history' tab at the top of Mariah Carey albums discography to see what I wrote in the Edit summary, "...follow the asterisk at Actual sales column "Estimate (yet!) Made by our team." Fails 'verifiable' test." (SEE Google translate)
Their estimate can hardly be used as a reliable source.
But yes, when a source can be used...you need to point the ref directly to the url that will show the material claimed, and not just to any page of the website.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please NEVER round off (or increase or decrease by any amount) numbers listed at a source. We are citing (quoting) sources, so we cannot alter the material they provide. We are reporting what they say. Just like when we use a DIRECT QUOTE made by a person (with source, of course), we cannot alter it; even if to 'correct' spelling errors they have made, etc.
Thanks.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean it was something new. My 'NEVER round off' comment above is in reply to yours at my talk. This portion of yours, "Secondly the only thing I did was round them off by 1000 or so, if you'd like we can write the exact number, it doesn't bother me."—Iknow23 (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Don't let other's persuade you into something you know is wrong. Btw, I was confused that you had added the BMG back again after you had said "if we are able to find this answer" at the Talk? I don't see any resolution there?—Iknow23 (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Since conflicting 'reliable' sources have been found, it is NOT verifiable.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: apologies the edit i was referring to you had used a edit summary and then edited again to alter spelling. that's fine.

btw what do you think about the whole Angels Advocate thing? i've heard murmerings online that its been cancelled but official sources like Universal Music Japan posted it on their website yesterday saying that its due March 29-31? Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an old article which had many versions and took many weeks of my life to create it. Once there was a version which included sales from many countries but there was so much data that in final the article became what it is now. All the details are in each album's article. Why the U.S. SoundScan sales is so important in case of Dion? I would understand it in case of Carey/Madonna - they're both American. But Dion is from Quebec, Canada and she is the only one from Carey/Madonna/Dion trio to release her albums in French. She is specific and U.S. is not the most important market for her. And that is what the article was suggesting when only SoundScan sales was added. I have removed it, especially that there seem to be a problem to know the real sales of the albums from the 90s. in the U.S. Max24 (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Go to my archive, and right at the bottom Legolas explained to me how to do it, I'd rather you go there because I'd explain it horribly lol. PS. next time I'm on I will voice my opinion. Jayy008 (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You have added Infodic.fr source to Dion articles and changed the numbers. After finding out it was a bad source, you have removed it only form the artciles where the Infodisc number was bigger than the certification number and left it in the articles: On ne change pas, Au cœur du stade and A New Day Has Come, where the number was smaller. This is another example out of many that you don't want the articles to be well sourced. You just want Mariah Carey to look good and all her competition to look bad. Max24 (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the good article criteria, lists can't be nominated for GA. Frcm1988 (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (I am referring to your comments at Talk:Mariah Carey) ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 09:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"I guess someone like yourself who goes around spreading fan-cruft" and "Shows you are as foolish as they come" are a couple of comments you made to user:Baratayuda that constitute personal attacks. Whether you think the user is accusing you of something first doesn't matter, it doesn't mean you should reply in like. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 09:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The other user was significantly less attacking in their disposition than you, which is which I warned you. I am not biased, but reading the discussion I'm afraid it was your comments that stood out as being overly hostile. Reading your talk page I see you have a history of disputes. Please just try to keep a cool head when editing, next time someone offends you try responding calmly instead. Just some friendly advice. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 09:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Also the editor did not tell you you were going to be reported to an admin, they said you could. Try not to see it as a threat. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 09:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Just don't want to see a hard working editor get in trouble for getting riled up! Happy editing :) ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 10:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I've been reading it too, but MDJ says it won't go to waste. Jayy008 (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed some of your edits were done on the basis that sales must match certifications as only certifications have proof/sources, but what about sales from music clubs - in the 90's millions of albums were sold at music clubs. I'm pretty sure I've seen official press releases for music club sales as well. I realize that soundscan does not count music club sales, but some seem to speculate that the riaa does - since it would seem to explain why some albums have such inflated certifications (as compared to their soundscan figure)Poetttyirnop (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC).

It would be appreciated if you could add your opinion to the above discussion to try and resolve the situation and if you could please vote on this non-consensus binding survey. Official Telephone Cover Conflict Resolution.

Thanks Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did you change all the certifications? The sales column isn't there for a reason, when it's only listing shipments, a link is provided to the shipments page. Also did you inflame the sales? They have all grown and was your edits made it from "United Kingdom" to "UK albums chart" with a source when the charts column already has that? Please reply quick because I've reverted some. I want to remove to shipments column unless you can give me a reason why it should stay. Jayy008 (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought after all the stuff with user Max, you wouldn't do the same, but you've done it for all of them. E=MC2 Canada is 1xPlatinum. Emancipation: Brazil is gold, Aus is Plat, New Zealand is plat. Butterfly UK is gold. Yet all of them have been inflamed, I went through and sorted all her pages out before that to make sure they wasn't and I removed the certifications column because it's been deemed "redundent" Jayy008 (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I had to revert your edits on The Emancipation Of Mimi because it completely ruined the Asian links and I couldn't get them back, please reply with a reason why the certifications need to be shown, (correct levels this time). Jayy008 (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for those but what about Butterfly and E=MC2? You was the only person to touch E=MC2. Please bring the sales/shipments up for discussion because so far, I've been removing it based on my opinion and the opinion of a respectable admin, but I do think it should be discussed to see the broader picture. I apologize if there's been a mis-understanding, but The Emancipation of Mimi must be kept the same for now. Jayy008 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already done it, I did it at Record Charts because more people use that feature. Btw, please don't remove warnings, whether they're justified or not. Jayy008 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry but the point is everytime you edit, you never deflate the sales to normal afterwards. Jayy008 (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for that, I know nothing about European certifications or worldwide certifications, no I never touch them, if you could point me somewhere where I can get get up to speed, I'd greatly appreciate it! And yes, that would be unfortunate, I'm becoming very annoyed about his tedious edits! Jayy008 (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed, I won't touch Celine Dion articles anymore because five minutes later my edits are reverted because he's added a correct souce that time around or something and then I look stupid, I revert his edits on MC pages usually because they're unconstructive but edit warring will occur, I'll report him again soon! Jayy008 (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, typical! Erm, well because it's on Wikipedia:GOODCHARTS and there's not a conflicting source, and I mention "sales estimate", I will use it, if he removed it, I'm going to issue a warning then report him. Jayy008 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'll support that, I mean I've told him he has a problem bring it up for discussion, you know, what you're supposed to do? lol, but nothing, so he can't say I didn't warn him. Jayy008 (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, anything kills him that doesn't show her as the queen of the world, it's silly, it doesn't help the artist lieing about their sales on Wikipedia. Any updates on AA? Jayy008 (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please "voice" your opinion in form of agree or disagree please Jayy008 (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Two things:

1) RIAA awarded "All I Want for Christmas Is You" digital single gold on December 13, 2005. Next certifications are for a ringtone (gold: 12/11/2006, platinum 12/12/2007, 2x platinum 12/15/2009). You can see that by reading the type which is "MT". The digital singles are indicated with "DI". See RIAA website to know what I'm talking about.

2) The offical site source says here: ""All I Want For Christmas Is You" has become the first holiday song to sell one million digital downloads", not two million.

Please, do not inflate sales despite the given sources. Max24 (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You have posted the same as I'm telling you: "Artist CAREY, MARIAH Title ALL I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS IS YOU Certification Date 12/15/2009 Label COLUMBIA Award Description 2.00x MULTI PLATINUM Format SINGLE Category SOLO Type MT" - this is ringtone, indicated by "MT". Max24 (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't let the user intimidate you PeterGriffin9901, RIAA says 2x Platinum as a single, so that's what I'm listing on here. I am reporting the user for vandalism. Jayy008 (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reporting him now, I can't be bothered to keep looking on MC pages because there's always a vandalism by the user who clearly things they own Wikipedia. Jayy008 (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, PeterGriffin just to help your argument, removing it is basically saying if the CD is certified it's not allowed, or if only the digital it's not allowed. You list the certification it recievs by the certifying body for whichever format it is, where's a guidline saying otherwise? Don't you agree? Jayy008 (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Following our conversations on the talk page i've created a mock up of the information we could merge into Memoirs. My hope is that it is near complete. If not i suggest we edit it on the talk page first then when happy we can move it to memoirs and redirect the article. Angels Advocate (Mock Memoirs Page Section) Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, give me some time and I will change the table. Max24 (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, erm well I didn't check the link to be honest. I went onto the discussion page where people were determining it's WW sales and that was from Universal Music Korea (It claimed) so I thought that was the most reliable. I'll check it in future! Jayy008 (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I will do, please voice opinion over at "Live at The Pearl" guess who nominated it for deletion? I think it should be deleted aswell but the info re-directed to Angels Advocate Tour. Jayy008 (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Celine Dion singles discography, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. You have removed the Swedish, Australian, New Zealand and Belgian certifications despite the given sources.

The Swedish certifications links direct to the .pdf files on the IFPI official website [5].

The Australian certifications before 1997 are taken from the Australian Chart Book 1993-2005 isbn=0646458892. "The Power of Love" was certified gold in March 1994 and platinum in April 1994. "Think Twice" was certified gold in March 1995 and platinum in April 1995, "Because You Loved Me" was certified gold in June 1996, platinum in July 1996 and 2x platinum in August 1996. "It's All Coming Back to Me Now" was certified gold in November 1996.

The New Zealand certifications are taken from the book The Complete New Zealand Music Charts 1966-2006 isbn=978-1-877443-00-8. "The Power of Love" was certified gold in 1994, "Because You Loved Me" gold & platinum in 1996, "It's All Coming Back to Me Now" gold in 1997.

The Belgian certifications are taken from the book Ultratop 1995-2005 isbn=90-5720-232-8. "Tell Him" was certified gold & platinum in 1997, "My Herat Will Go On" was certified gold, platinum, 2x platinum and 3x platinum in 1998, "Zora Sourit" was certified gold in 1998, "S'il Suffisait d'aimer" was certified gold in 1999, "That's the Way it Is" was certified gold in 1999, "Sous le vent" was certified gold & platinum in 2001, "I'm Alive" was certified gold & platinum in 2002, and "I Drove All Night" was certified gold & platinum in 2003.

In September 2009, your probation was extended because of removing material despite the given book sources. As Kww said to you then: "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." Max24 (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have doubts about a specific book, WP:RSN is the place to ask. In general, if it's published by a reliable publisher and not written by someone related to the topic, it's going to be considered to be reliable. Publishers tend to be very careful about libel, slander, and related laws.

Please give me a specific example of your ISBN problem.—Kww(talk) 20:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! Be happy, it's her birthday today! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I do find it funny. He accused me to an Admin of "inflating Mariah Carey's sales" news to me, I don't think I've ever done that. Even when I report him he always wriggles out of it, it's becoming a joke! Jayy008 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

PS, I moved the archive to a clearer place of Pior, then I'm doing month by month so here it is Legolas explain archiving! Jayy008 (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

When you are complaining about Max24, you are coming across as bickering, which doesn't help your case. If you think something needs to be done, the appropriate path is Wikipedia:RFC#Request comment on users. Follow the instructions, and I'll review the result for proper tone/attitude.—Kww(talk) 15:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Petergriffin9901, on March 23, 2010 Jayy008 gave you a warning, which you have removed from your talk page. I admit, I have brought it back as I thought you are not allowed to do that. Yet, you have removed this warning anyway on March 23, 2010. I don't understand your concern now that I have done the same? I did it because I've found this WP:UW/FAQ, which I wasn't aware of before: "users are free to remove content from their talk page".

I can only add that in the last days I have improved many articles, especially Celine Dion singles discography. After adding a lot of new material there, formatting the table and adding new sources, only Japan is to be checked again. Japan was just a small part of the body of work. I hope you can appreciate this. Max24(talk) 19:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing Max, I don't believe warnings should be given unless the user is unknown or an anonymous IP. Otherwise i think the problem should be resolved with calm discussion. If the problem persists and turns into vandalism. I would have never given you a warning for Japan, had you not given me one for the discography. I would have removed it or spoke to you about it via talk page. However you chose the more belligerent road, so i followed. The thing is Jay's warning to me was a mistake and unjustified and he has noticed it. The one I left you was not, as you placed false and fake information. As you see I did not remove your, even though I don't think is was necessary, just because it's not completely unjustified.--PeterGriffin • Talk 13:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi PeterGriffin, will you do me a favour? Go and add sources to every certification on Carey's #1's album please, I have had enough of reverting DarthVadars edits, I've reported him but I don't know how long it will take. Jayy008 (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked thank god someones removed all the French certifications from MC discography, more work for us! Jayy008 (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you do the above please? Thanks Jayy008 (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's brilliant thanks, can't you do the archive? I will do it if you like. Jayy008 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem! By the way next time I edit alot, I'm going through all her singles making sure it's all sourced (certifications and charts), let me know if you spot a mistake I make! Jayy008 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, that's all we need, most others are quite easily sourced. Let me know when you've find the sources, I wouldn't mind taking a look! Jayy008 (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

According to MDJ (Which I know is always correct because of Billboard subscription), sales of the album jumped by 87% and climbed 55 places on the albums chart this week, any idea why? A TV appearance in the U.S.?? Jayy008 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

hmmm, that's so strange :S! Maybe people in the U.S. are starting to appreciate Angels Cry and Up Out My Face? lol. Either way it's too weird. Jayy008 (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

hey, just a couple of things,

• i didnt deflate the sales of merry christmas, the ask billboard source, which you left there, says 4,993,000, and still says it.
• i removed the sales from her official website because i have been told previously that first person sources like official websites cant be used as they are biased. but if this has now changed then my apologies.
• also, japan and ireland arent included anywhere else in the entire article, so why include their certifications? and ireland's is just one for the ballads, seems odd to me.
• oh and in every flc ive participated in the reviewers and admins always say that the sales and certifications text should be normal size, thats why i changed that. not to make it look "untidy".

anyways, there really is no need to be uncivil, i'm sure we can work together :) Mister sparky (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

i completely forgot about the yahoo one! well you added it back, i formatted it lol. what about the irish and japanese certs i mentioned above? Mister sparky (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

oh and DK for germany makes no sense for germany or deutschland? Mister sparky (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well as for Dk that is the legal ABB for Germany not GE or GER, so that is what should be used. As for Japan, I belive that the main markets for Carey should be mentioned, not just every certification. Like US, UK, AU, CA, JP, FR, DK, sonething like that.--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

its DE for germany. DK is denmark. Mister sparky (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

problem is tho the japensese ref u posted just goes to a homepage, so it doesnt actually verify anything. Mister sparky (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, where is the Yahoo! source? I can't find it, I know it was used in a Celine Dion article too but I can't find that either :/ Jayy008 (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No need, it's been added back! :) Jayy008 (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Good good :). Jayy008 (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please join this discussion Jayy008 (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'd like us to have a new start here so I decided to help you a bit with the RIAJ certifications. Here is the page where you can choose from the list all the certifications since Januray 2003. Since this date Mariah Carey received the following certifications: gold for The Emancipation of Mimi (March 2005) link, platinum for The Emancipation of Mimi (July 2005) link, and gold for E=MC² (April 2008) link.

Here you can choose the Million certifications since 1989, but the lists include only albums/singles which were certified Million in the year they were released. You can find there the following Million certifications for Mariah Carey: "All I Want for Christmas Is You" (1994) link, Merry Christmas (1994) link, Daydream (1995) link, Butterfly (1997) link, and #1's (1998) link.

In addition, in September 2005 RIAJ announced the list of Million certified albums, which included the following certifications for Mariah Carey: Mariah Carey - 1x Million, Emotions - 1x Million, Music Box - 1x Million, Merry Christmas - 2x Million, Daydream - 1x Million, Butterfly - 1x Million, #1's - 3x Million, Rainbow - 1x Million. Here is the link to this list which is also updated with Million certifications after September 2005.

Other Mariah Carey certifications prior 2003 include: MTV Unplugged - gold, Glitter - platinum, Greatest Hits - platinum, and Charmbracelet - platinum, but I can't give you the direct link you could use here.

Mariah Carey in Japanese is マライア・キャリー and that's how you can find her searching the RIAJ links.

So this is the complete list of RIAJ certifications in Japan for Mariah Carey:
Mariah Carey - 1x Million
Emotions - 1x Million
MTV Unplugged - Gold
Music Box - 1x Million
Merry Christmas - 2x Million
"All I Want for Christmas Is You" - 1x Million
Daydream - 1x Million
Butterfly - 1x Million
#1's - 3x Million
Rainbow - 1x Million
Glitter - 1x Platinum
Greatest Hits - 1x Platinum
Charmbracelet - 1x Platinum
The Remixes - not certified
The Emancipation of Mimi - 1x Platinum
E=MC² - gold
The Ballads - not certified
Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel - not certified
From what I've seen the incorrect information is in the Daydream article, as it says 2x Million. If you have any more questions about it, just ask. I will tell you all I know about Mariah in Japan. Max24 (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, I'll do it for you now, if it let's me! Jayy008 (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)