User talk:Harout72/Archive 1

856:. Content must be verifiable. And Knowledge can never be used as a source for itself. And right along with that... by common sense... websites that steal content from Knowledge can't be used as a ref because that's just using a third party pipe to try and use Knowledge as a source for itself. Hope that helps. Websites, in general, suck as far as reliable sources go. Notable books and notable pro publications are the best place to look for refs. My opinion is biased since I am a librarian. But I will go to printed paper for citations long before I resort to the internet. In this day and age where websites are concerned... if they don't list where there information os from or who the author is(and it must be a pro writer and not a blog)... assume it's been copied from Wiki... because it usually is. BTW. one of the other refs you added for Metallica is directly from metallica.com... a "self ref"... which is also frowned upon for being a good reliable source. A better one should be found to replace it ASAP. Hope that helps. 3820:

and singles is considered original research, even if each part of it is properly sourced. The Original Research page indicates original research "includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Knowledge is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." Clearly the information is not unpublished fact, argument, speculation or idea. It is not analysis. Does synthesis of published material mean just subjective argument, or objective data as well? I wouldn't have expected that using the definition of a word and some simple addition would have constituted original research. Is the statement, therefore, acceptable according to Knowledge standards?

3527: 2987: 2942: 3498:. But I reverted two of your edits in this article. The Dean Cushman story is true. How can you ask for reliable sources when the only printed source is a 1992 book by Larz Lundgren & Jan-Owe Wikström titled "Roxette: The Book." My local library doesn't carry it and why would they for a band that was hot for only 2 short years. Its not like they were the Beatles. This book was written 9 yrs before Marie's cancer. Without Cushman, no one in America would care about an obscure Swedish music duo named Roxette; Gessle & Marie openly note the Cushman story 906:

copy? I am a veteran Knowledge editor (formally logged in but have chosen the "purity" of anonymous editing for over a year and a half) with an edit count of close to 50000(thats combined user account/IP) edits. I can remember the ongoing history of the Metallica article quite well since I have a huge number of vandal rv's just on that one article. (it's a magnet for vandals) If you review the edit history of the Metallica article throughout 2006 you will see that the "then" lead-in was composed and fleshed out by certain key editors like

764:

have been sold in many major markets including US=17 million+, Germany=2 million+, (UK's database is under construction, where he must've sold at least 3-5 million), not to mention The Netherlands=320,000+, Canada=600,000. So, all in all, perhaps the total figure of Marley's records is exaggerated, but you have to admit that Marley's exaggeration can under no circumstances be compared to the exaggeration of Celentano's 200 million. In my opinion, Celentano's true figure is about 40-50 million records maximum worldwide.

2257: 2182: 2107: 2032: 1957: 1882: 1810:. You had no reason to call my edit vandalism, as it should have been clear to anyone familiar with Knowledge policies that the text had to be deleted as it was stolen from another source. Your edit, on the other hand, was a clear case of vandalism as it restored the text, including the theft. I will assume good faith and assume that you simply do not know the Knowledge policies, but I suggest you read them and start to edit in accordance with them. Further violations of 2941:, the sales of "Look Sharp" is actually just over 400,000 units, but let's count that as 1 million (and not 1,402,000) since that's how many units the record company has shipped out. So, "Look Sharp" (1 Million), "Joyride" (1.3 million), "Tourism" (273,000), "Crash! Boom! Bang!" (46,000), "Baladas En Espagnol" (13,000), "Don't Bore Us, Get to the Chorus-Greatest Hits" (78,000), "The Ballad Hits" (14,000), total is 2,724,000 million. However, Roxette has sold just 3596:

discographies don't list it. What I did change were the country codes because they were (and are, now that you reverted) all over the place. I changed the order in which the certifications were listed to coincide with the chart list. I did away with unnecessary bold text and redundancies. I reformatted to take advantage of the infobox page jump links. I added new information. Sure, I made changes, but your work remained the same. The certifications were

2776: 881:. If we are going to be as skeptical as your approach is especially when it comes to artists' official web sites then what you're basically suggesting is that 50% of wiki articles should be considered for deletion. I am, by the way, no fan of Metallica nor Mariah Carey, I am simply trying to help that page be as sourced as we possibly can keep it. Before we go after obviously popular acts like those we should look at this for example 189: 3308:. I used to 'police', for want of a better word, that article when I edited Knowledge regularly; I converted it from a random list of things people had written to the current categories system. I'm glad to see someone has continued watching it and has developed more stringent referencing criteria as well. If I could still log in, I'd give you a barnstar myself - but I'm not sure how much it would be widely appreciated due to 1023:. Moreover you also removed Hibari Misora, whose reference clearly states she sold 80 million records 通算８０００万枚のレコード売上実績を持ち although it does not list her single sales, so she can't be added into the 100 millon bracket where she belongs. Do not remove referenced information. Her reference is from the Shizuoka government website! I will have no hesitation about creating an incident report, if this is not promptly fixed. 3728:, I would need to see another highly reliable source other than Reuters claiming the figure for Whitesnake. Do you think you could locate one? And studying Certifications in larger territories gives you the chance to determine whether or not the published sales figure is close to what artists may have actually sold. And in the case of Whitesnake, I hate to repeat this, but the 100 million looks outright spurious. -- 3888: 3506:

really the only online source for Roxette...and I'd rather have an accessible source than nothing at all. We don't live in a perfect world with many published books on short lived music stars who shot to stardom and then winked away. At least with Roxette, they were definitely not your typical "on hit wonder" that one sees so many times. Regards, --

3943:

who-knows-what-else (kinda the same as when a label will go through its back-catalog and apply for certifications on a whole slew of past singles years after their release). If a release attains a platinum award then I don't think there is even a reason to mention gold in the article anymore since it already implies a higher level of shipments. -

707:

Gold/Platinum records since 1965. That sounds quite ludicrous, don't you think, because we are speaking of 100 million records outside of Italy. In addition, if the 200 million records worldwide were true, then we should be able to locate enough Certifications supporting at least 10-20% of his total sales. Such, however, is not the case.--

37:

Remember, all of them are from Holland. Rolling Stones' source is indeed reliable. You removed them entirely and THAT is vandalising the article. The Bee Gees' source is very reliable. There is no need for 3rd party sources; that is a ridiculous rule that should be removed. If not, then you can remove Elvis entirely as well.

2362:

there, and nothing more. Both bands are fully comprised of British and Dutch citizens respectively - birthplace, citizenship, nationality of parents and where the band members grew up all determine the origins of the band (after all, the band members originated from a different country, so their origins lie there also).

922:(another editor with several Featured Articles on his Wiki-resume)... along with a few other "vets". Are you saying that these editors copied content from an external source... or that they were blind not to spot that copyvio content was being added in to that article? I highly doubt it. It's just another mirror site. 427:

4) Why the Hall of Fame aren't realiable? In this list there are other artists with source an Hall of Fame, for example The Carpenters has got the Hit Parade Hall of Fame. 5) Why when i posted high sources like ABC wasn't good? Only one high source is not enough? 6) Why the official web site is not realiable?

3858:. If it is then I would have to disagree with her/him as supporting a single statement by using multiple third party reliable sources should not be considered original research, as long as the content of one doesn't contradict with the content of the other, it's no problem. Original research would be 3719:

I don't know if you noticed or not, but Michael Jackson has three other highly reliable sources claiming the same figure. Truthfully, Fox news is more reliable than Reuters, besides I have studied Black Sabbath's sales (just like I studied Whitesnakes's ) and the 50 million looks quite reasonable. As

2880:

I have added some sales figures stated 7 (I hope) reliable sources. One newspaper (aftonbladet), MTV.de, and a source which was also used for the swiss charts and others. I hope that is fine with you. I have to admit I was a little bit angry that people repeatedly erase information from this site. If

2335:

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

674:

etc.. I don't know if you are familiar with some of the tools that record companies use to promote their artists, but one of their main promotional tactics is to draw people's attention by bringing up artists' Certifications. And in the case of Celentano 120 million in Italy alone (which I don't buy

426:

Hi Harout, i've got some question for you so, i will ready for this list: 1) Why only the Britannica Encyclopedia and not also the Canadian? 2) Why MSNBC and Times are more realiable than Musica & Dischi that's a sort of Billboard in Italy? 3) Why Xohah Records is not realiable for Boney M sales?

3819:

This doesn't directly have to do with any page you're currently editing, but there is a user who wrote on the discussion page of List of Best Selling Music Artists in Section 50, What's up with Sarah Brightman?, that the 73 million record sales formed by the combination of soundtracks, albums, DVDs,

3595:

It's interesting you dismissed my edit, because I took great care to maintain the information you added to the list (Yes, I do acknowledge/appreciate your hard work). The only problem was the citation for the Spanish certifications. I did omit the European IFPI certification. Most featured artist

2361:

Both sources you provided are irrelevant; the simple fact that they were FORMED in Australia or America does not mean they are from there. Considering that NONE of them are from either Australia or America, the only thing keeping them being listed as from those countries is the fact that they formed

36:

I'm not the vandal, the only vandalising I see is your reverts. AC/DC is a British/Australian band. It's actually just British, and I can find a source for that too. Van Halen is a band from The Netherlands, but it was more reasonable to simply state that it was both from The Netherlands and the US.

3552:

OK. thank you. I'm in Canada and I can't read German but thanks for the source. I can always use Babelfish to translate it anyway. I notice most music articles here have few sources because the stars are minor hits or one hit wonders. The only accessible info is usually from the musician's web site

3400:

So please, stop with this nonsense. It isn't going to go away. I can find numerous sources stating that the Bee Gees are at least Anglo-Australian, and considering that wikipedia is to be editted according to sources instead of opinions, then that is what we should be using. Please stop incorrectly

3236:

that I was talking about removing sourced third party information, which even experienced editors should not do (exept in special cases). In this case you could have added your source as a third opinion (or second if you insist to remove Miguel's website from the sources). If that weren't enough in

3032:

is much faster for basic vandalism like that. Warn them (you can go from 2nd or 3rd to 4th if you need to) and post it there. However at this point it has stopped and any blocking would probably be pointless (and maybe counterproductive). You can message my talk page if they start up immediately

1310:

an so on). Didn't you see the "See Eros Ramzzotti discography" link? I spent lots of time into doing this, so it doesn't feel nice when some clueless person shows up and tags everything as vandalism. So please, try understanding what you're doing before sending nice little templates labelling other

690:

Yes i know, but not always. For example, Bad by Michael Jackson is 8x Multi-Platinum until 1994. It's from 1994 that's not updated. The majors don't certifie always, for example Ben by Michael Jackson, that's at least 2x Multi-Platinum in US, is not certified in this country, also Fearles by Taylor

3799:

Really? I happen to be a music analyst myself, you should have gone through my edits to see what kind of articles I edit before labeling me with a statement of that kind. And no, when it comes to chart-tables within wikipedia, it's unnecessary to have positions other than those that are taken from

3781:

It is very important. Probably you don't know anything about music genres. you will also soon be reported if you don't stop. All edits will soon be reverted, because there is nothing wrong with the original versions. You made the article longer using useless words like "Verify Miley Cyrus Canadian

3665:

of the certifications to coincide with the chart list. I didn't replace one certification for another. And again, I omitted the European IFPI certifications because most all featured artist discographies don't include them. The way I understand it, it's more of an award for sales than an actual

2661:

In my opinion it doesn't make sense to take the time to find a third party source. Why? Because where do the third party get the information? Yes! From the band itself or from the record company. So the official homepage is a reliable source. Show me here a rule where to find a THIRD PARTY SOURCE.

1418:

in order to avoid figures such as the one for Frank Sinatra which you seem to be drawn to. Perhaps, "Indianexpress" could be used for other pages as long as the significance of the entire material is not relied upon it. Having said that, we can't use "indianexpress" (which is only weakly reliable)

999:

Give me one example please. I, in fact, so far have not removed anything from the list that didn't need to be removed. I have, moreover, been trying to keep that page as fairly sourced as one could possibly do. Having said that, I am now beginning to think that perhaps you are the kind of "sneaky"

763:

I do have my eye on Bob Marley's 300 million records which in my opinion is an exaggerated figure as well; I am hoping to find a highly regarded news service one of these days to degrade him as I believe his actual sales should be around 100 tops. But again, Marley is someone many of whose records

722:

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

93:

Why would anyone think of flag icons as reluctant? Such an interpretation could drive a person to assume that one has a difficult time glancing at a foreign country-flag other than his/her own. Or perhaps it is simply: Why does a car need to be covered with red or green paint when it simply could

3525:

within and supporting it with blogs makes the article even more doubtful. Since, Roxette is not a one-hit-wonder act, there should always be an article about pretty much everything that has played a significant role within their career. The information about the exchange student may not have been

2431:

You can read on the back cover: "Manufactured and marketed by PolyGram Latino U.S., a division of PolyGram Records Inc. New York; Printed in the USA" Latin America could be defined as all those parts of the Americas that that speak languages stemming from Latin. Under this definition, much of the

3840:

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

1491:

I find it rather hard to believe that singles could have sold more than albums back then. The sales of singles became quite strong mostly in European territory on dance projects after 1990, the reason of which largely lies beneath either getting hold of all remixes or because no album ever being

905:

Trust me, in my opinion, Knowledge could only be improved by deleting half the articles that are here. Not only am I a staunch IP editor... I am an even stricter "deletionist". 2 million articles on English Knowledge and 75% of them are pure junk. Why do I not think that the article is a reverse

3505:

Please be reasonable about sources. For the past 15+ years, there has been little literature here since they are no longer popular....as you likely know. Some of the Daily Roxette's articles consist of important interviews with Marie and Per from the mid-1990s. As an aside, The Daily Roxette is

3395:

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

769:

Keep in mind that A.R. Rahman is from India where the population is 1.1 billion and the volume of their Platinum certification was much higher than the present 200,000 units (as all music markets experienced great shrinkage due to music piracy). Currently, India's music industry doesn't offer a

596:

is an exaggerated figure tossed in most probably in the direction of Germans by Celentano's label for promotional purposes. Also, Italy does not have a huge music market for Celentano to have been able to sell as many as 120 million records in Italy alone. I could somehow swallow it, if the 120

3958:

I understand the logic you're using and I know the shipment-values of the awards but I do not believe a smaller award (Gold) is issued after the larger one (Platinum) in order to "add on" to Platinum. It's never been done this way. The next award given after platinum is double-platinum, not

2739:

Yes, I am very strict when it comes to sales-figures; therefore, I also went through the Certifications one by one checking to see if they all corresponded with what's being claimed on that page. I also corrected the way the re-directions should be for Switzerland in order to verify the Swiss

3942:

What I meant was that no certification exists for multiple-gold. Platinum is the the RIAA award that is multiplied. Golds aren't stacked on top of platinum awards. Since labels have to apply for RIAA certs, it's very feasible that the gold award was added later by accident or oversight or

3557:

who was a former classmate of mine (same high school) before she went to Nashville in 1991 (after graduating in my class) but unless one is a real fan of hers, the same lack of sources issue occurs there too. I sourced a picture for her article...by contacting someone on flickr. Thank You,

706:

Eventually all certifications get updated. Often times people get to read about non-existing Certifications in unreliable sources and they believe that RIAA or IFPI have failed to update their databases. Are you saying that no country has bothered to update Celentano's so-called countless

3574:

No problem, I will try and help that page more in the near future as it has lots of unsourced chart positions, which need to be verified and referenced. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the Swedish language as I am sure Swedish prominent news services must have covered all Roxette's

3643:, the same surreptitious deletion of the European Certification. If you are going to help, you may do so and I will really appreciate it as that page needs a lot of work, but please don't change the way the Certifications are, it's not an easy task to go back and correct them. -- 3201:

Let me put it in a simpler format before you make another attempt in reprimanding me on such matter. First, I am not new to wikipedia, so please invest your time in giving lessons to people who may need it. Second, I had the page semi-protected for one week due to high vandalism

3386:

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

2502:

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

2415: 3328:

I agree with the user above. :) and regarding Janet, its not that I wanted a less reliable source, its just that since I'm a watchdog on BLPs, in tend to prefer using articles which put the subject's best foot forward, rather than focusing on a recent mishap in their lives.

1543:

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

796:

Beatles and Elvis Presley certifications don't arrive to say 1 billion records. At the limit 400/500 million records. For the ABBA, it'impossible that ABBA sold more than Michael Jackson. Their certifications arrives at the limit at 200 million records. Also Nana Mouskouri.

1341:

What makes you believe that discography section mentions every single chart position of both the albums and singles? Keeping the table serves a detailed information about how well an album or a single has charted in a particular country the reader would be interested

63:

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

2834:

board then an admin would probably block you both and I wouldn't recommend filing a report there either. Basically, just cut it out and discuss it. I'll have a word with the other guy. If you have any questions or need any help, please don't hesitate to contact me.

2465:, it would be incorrect to say that it has been released in Latin America only. The scan of the print that you are providing above is the U.S. print released through the Latin division of Polygram, in other words, the license belongs to Germany's Universal Polydor 1657:

as much as I could through the help of Google-Language-Tools and it seems like it mentions 20 million singles and 50 million albums having been sold. Let me know please if I have mistranslated the content of the source then I will go ahead and remove her from the

3436:

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

2998:

units through help of Nielsen SoundScan (which was developed in 1991). After 1991, however, no matter how many units were shipped out RIAA would certify Gold or Platinum only those records which actually sold either 500,000 for Gold or 1 million for Platinum.

3143:

and ask the folks to state their opinion and tell you which one of the two can be regarded as reliable. And lastly, I did not make a mistake about AC/DC, you simply need to familiarize yourself with the difference that stands between nationality and origin.

3441:

Yte you have constantly reverted my correct edits and replaced with, effectively, vandalism and lies. When will you learn some common sense? The Bee Gees are a British band; please stop listening to your opinions and edit the article based on the facts.

775:

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

3391:

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

411:

I posted Adriano Celentano in the 200 million list at the 220 million records, because the first source claims 200 million records worldwide (100 million only in Italy), the second source claims 120 million in Italy, so i wrote 220 million records.

851:

It happens all the time. Lots of low-end websites steal content from Knowledge all the time. Many will note that the content comes from Wiki. Some, like your activemusician.com link, tend will hide the source of the text. It's pretty simple. Read

2641:

Hello, Mr. Harout72, Sorry for unnoticed by me Talk page of this article, I really forgot to see that. I have added to the talk page of this article 2 reliable sources of 2 artists: Alanis Morissette and Green Day. I'm waiting for your reaction.

2791:

prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the

2662:

That doesn't make sense in this case as it isn't a political site or something to argue about. So please be so kind to stay away from remove the sales figures.... otherwise I will take this dispute to a edit-war-court. Then will they decide!

2416:

http://repertoire.bmi.com/writer.asp?page=1&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&fromrow=1&torow=25&affiliation=GEMA&cae=232570884&keyID=547135&keyname=COPPERFIELD%20CHRIS&querytype=WriterID

1114: 1195: 1019:

Removing Michiya Mihashi whose reference was already confirmed before, moreover Katsuya provided all requested information, and sentence translation. Michiya Mihashi is indeed entitled to remain there according to this incident report.

381:

You are right, I took a closer look at the the edits done by user:84.198.70.215 as they look clear vandalism, I first thought you had simply reverted when I read your "rv repeated vandalism by user Koshi Inaba". I apologize for the

3363:

Thanks for the citation. It's one of those things I know I read years ago, but couldn't find a citation when I put it in the article so hoped someone familiar with him would know where to look instead of just deleting it. Best,

3183:

I will not reverse your edit, because I agree that the 90mln was probably a misunderstanding or just plain wrong, in view of two other sources stating 50mln and 52mln. But you should be more carefull about your edits next time.

303:

I never heard that about the colour before and doubt if it is true. The image is too large for use as a fair use image; 250 or 300 px would be better. If you can edit it down to that size I would have no problem about using it.

3018:

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

465:

happens to be one of the most difficult pages that one can keep straight I choose to keep the most highly regarded sources in order to avoid inflated figures. Therefore, I allow only Britannica as far as Encyclopedic sources

184:

Thanks for replying. This is not a good use of flags though. They are useful as space savers in a long list but not in an infobox for a band. "Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative." Tell me what

1735:? It clearly has Nessaja listed as the final track, and if that weren't enough the picture of the cover includes a bright yellow circle with the words "Inc. No-1 Hit Nessaja!". Also, you'll be interested to know that on the 675:

a second) or another 80-100 million abroad would mean countless Gold and Platinum records, which his record company based in Italy or the ones outside of Italy would definitely use to promote his next/upcoming materials.--

477:

are highly regarded sources. Therefore, there is no need to replace them with anything else. Not to mention that we are only to use foreign language sources only when there is not an English language source available. See

3052:, but you are right. Semi-protection is probably necessary. However, it looks like the IP addresses are coming from Spain and then Mexico, so it's probably more than one person. I'll add a comment to the talk page. -- 59:

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

254:, reversion is used against vandalism or vandal-like edits. Using it when (as your edit summary indicates) you don't understand the policy involved is a bad idea. Secondly, the image was removed on copyright grounds. 3205:. You should have familiarized yourself with all the recent edits that have taken place within the page of Luis Miguel before finding your way to my talk page to drop off a ludicrous rebuke of this kind. Regards. -- 3170:. Let me put it simple. You can't just delete sourced information in Knowledge (exept in specific cases). Especially since the information was presented clearly as another opinion. At most you could have added the 1344:...It doesn't. That's why there is a link to the discography article, for a more extensive listing. And that's why we all can contribute to the discography article, to put up as many chart positions as possible!!! 2939:"Look Sharp!" (1989; certified platinum for U.S. shipments of 1 million units by the Recording Industry Association of America in 1990; it has sold 402,000 since Nielsen SoundScan began tracking data in 1991) 1413:

does include Sinatra's Greatest Hits and Compilation albums. The sales figures within indianexpress.com are poorly studied and awfully inflated. We are to accept only highly reliable third party sources for

223:

I guess we could live with without having a flag icon plastered next to the name of a country. The wiki policy is in a way right and so are you honestly, it does stand as sort of a decoration. That's fine.--

539:

Hall of Fame, please understand, cannot be used as a primary source, it can only be used a secondary source. I mentioned this above. And I would rather if you listed your sources first at the talk page of

1492:

released. As for the sales of DVDs and Box sets, they ordinarily don't comprise even the 5% of artists' entire record sales. Anyways, if we could get a hold of an article coming from alike arenas such as

255: 2419: 3697:

so it seems as it all comes down to what you think is 'reasonable'.. one person, instead of a source.. then what's the point of haing the "list of best-selling..." ? It will not be credible..

2174: 1457:

Are you under the impression that Sinatra's sold 450 million singles? In other words, are you saying that 75% of his sales is based on singles? That sounds quite ludicrous, don't you think? --

2249: 2193: 2986:

would simply rely- as far as the Certifications go- on as many units as the Record Companies would ship out regardless of whether they necessarily sold or not. In the same vein, as you see

2268: 1859:

Then please stop filling Knowledge articles with nonsense texts. And you still don't understand copyright rules, crediting a source does not allow copying to the extent you are engaged in.

1211: 1189: 1175: 1153: 1133:

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

1041:

You replaced the Hibari Misora reference with the 20 year old NY Times article, the NY Times article says she sold 68 million records, including 45 million singles. That is 113 million.

3694:

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

3720:

for Cher, again you are failing to acknowledge the fact that she has two other highly reliable sources besides Reuters claiming the same figure. Therefore, as I said before within the

3499: 1326:

Ok, you can't be serious. There is no point in keeping all those tables which are already present his discography article. PLEASE, LISTEN. That's what a discography article is for...

2295:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 2220:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 2145:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 2070:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 1995:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 1920:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 1600: 1298:

article, that's why I removed the most of the tables in that section, and keeping a list of his albums, just like for all articles of major artists with an extensive discography (

812:

Let's be patient with this page please as it's not an easy task to study the sales of all artists at once. I will get to all those artists the sales of whose looks suspicious. --

1949: 1874: 2291: