User talk:Aeneiden-Rex

A Suggestion
Please read wikipedia's policy regarding "Weasel words". Statements like "some say" or "some people believe" are unencyclopedic and NOT ALLOWED by Wikipedia's standards. Please consider this before editing further. King Zeal 14:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever you say King ZealAeneiden-Rex 14:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jackson
Wacko Jacko has only sold 170 million records worldwide, while Elvis "The King" Presley has sold 1.1 billion.


 * 170 worldwide hahahahah, where di you get that number from?
 * give me good sources then I might change Aeneiden-Rex 09:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Jackson is not the biggest selling solo act ever.

Personal attacks
If you continue to communicate in an uncivil manner or post personal attacks such as this you will be blocked. Put the case and don't insult other editors. Tyrenius 13:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * personal attack? where do you see a personal attack? I didn't insult him, he insulted me.Aeneiden-Rex 13:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The link is to an edit of yours beginning "How old are you really? real american like you??" and is almost entirely a personal attack. You are not talking about the editorial matter. You are talking about the editor: this is known as "personal". You are being derogatory about him. This is known as "attack". I have posted a clear message on the article talk page insisting on civil conduct in what has been a very unpleasant environment. I would have blocked you already for the edit above, but I see you are a serious editor concerned for the subject, and I respect this. But you must curb your frustrations better. Tyrenius 13:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's frustrating when he/she keeps stating that the correct sales-figures are this and that without providing any sources, well thanks for not blocking me right away, I'm gonna take it easy now. Aeneiden-Rex 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I understand the frustration. Feel free to ask for intervention about the problem you stated. Sales figures without sources can be deleted immediately from the article. Simply ask for a verifiable source. It's that simple! I will leave a note on the talk page about verification. Tyrenius 13:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How is it frustrating? I didn't change the article (I have not touched the main artcile and have no plans to right now), I just dissagreed with you.


 * Once again, I NEVER edited the main article and WILL NOT DO SO, at least until my research is archived and excepted by Wikipedia! 74.65.39.59 14:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It does not matter if you did not change the article - the WIKI POLICY clearly states that unsource material is not allowed on the article OR talk pages. : ehmjay 14:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot more latitude on the talk page. It may be that an editor will, for example, suggest something and ask for responses or if anyone can help to reference it etc. However, unsourced, POV statements have got out of hand on the MJ talk page. Tyrenius 14:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed a lot more latitude on talk pages and I have made no out of hand statements, except argubably my response ot the personal attack that was made on me as disscused above. 74.65.39.59 20:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

J-J-J-Jacko
Please stop winding up the prats on the Jackson talk page. It's easier to outsmart them than insult them, be they overly pro or anti-Jackson. All that's going to happen is you'll anger them into vandelism or they'll goad you into personal attacks and you'll get blocked. By being overly protective of Jackson, you tend to make matters worse. For example, I love The Beatles another one of the worlds biggest selling acts, yet I never really feel the need to defend them. Then again, they were always intelligent and could stick up for themselves and were quite streetwise. And never got accused of kiddy-fiddling. So I can see the bind you're in. On a side note, I saw a funny Chris Rock show yesterday. He said "remeber those debates you used to have in the 80s about who was better, Prince or Michael Jackson? Prince won." Made me chuckle. Live large and long.--Crestville 20:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User page
See User page:
 * In general, if you have material that you do not wish for others to edit ... it should be placed on a personal web site ...
 * Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian. Examples of unrelated content include:
 * Personal statements that could be considered polemical ...
 * if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community ... it must be modified to prevent disruption.

The statement "Michael Jackson the biggest selling solo-artist ever" isn't verified, so it's polemical, is now disputed and is causing disruption, so should not be made in that form, if someone objects to it. Thanks. However, it would be good if 74.65.39.59, even if in the right here, concentrated on something more useful to wikipedia, instead of attending to what is a pretty trifling matter. It's obvious the user page is of a fan who wants to praise his favourite singer, and it's really not doing anyone any harm. I will support the amendment if you insist, but I'd prefer you to be a bit bigger than that and exercise some co-operation and tolerance by saying, "hey, it's not strictly correct, but I'm going to turn a blind eye, rather than cause a fuss and upset someone." If you're prepared to take that position, which would do you credit, please state that below. Tyrenius 00:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No i'm not prepared to take that stance and "turn a blind eye", this is only your point of view and as this is Wikipedia it should not be one rule for all, one for another. So I will not agree with you that it should be turn a blind eye for one of the wikirules but be hot on all the others. The rules are the rules. 74.65.39.59 15:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is it such a big deal for you? This is really just a "trifling matter" so why do you make such a big deal about it? "The rules are the rules", yes sure but still why won't you loosen up a bit?Aeneiden-Rex 08:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it is not factual. This isn't your own personal webspace. You say this isn't an important matter, so in that case let it go and just except the rules of this website. 74.65.39.59 19:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Shall we drop it now? It's settled. End of story. Move on! Tyrenius 19:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. However, if my actions are going to be questioned and i keep being potrayed as a party pooper then as a wikipedian I will defend myself. 74.65.39.59 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've done that, so all is OK, and let's let it drop and move on. Tyrenius 20:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no need to keep posting that you want it to drop. If you no longer want it active then avoid the subject, it probably isn't best to keep saying "let it drop" everytime someone responds in this. I see it as an even more waste of time than you said the origanal subject was in the first place 74.65.39.59 22:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased to say we are in agreement. Tyrenius 23:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fantastic! 74.65.39.59 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Quit posting then 74.65.39.59 Aeneiden-Rex 08:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of this discussion has been settled, as everyone has agreed. Aeneiden-Rex has co-operated by amending his user box, even though he plainly did not want to. Clearly a continuation of this discussion is irritating to him and he has asked 74.65.39.59 not to continue to post. As there is no need to discuss it further, any further comments can only serve to be a form of provocation and harrassment, and will be dealt with as such immediately. This is a warning. Tyrenius 13:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

MJ discussion
Hello, in the discussion page for the Michael Jackson article, under the "Lead statement" section (all the way at the bottom), I am proposing to include a statement from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Can you please check that statement out and give your opinion on whether it should be in the article or not? Thank you.UberCryxic 01:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I'm a MJ fan too, and he is way better than Prince. The comparison is almost an insult. Haha just kidding!UberCryxic 01:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started a vote at the end of the MJ discussion page about whether to include that statement. Go there and let people know what you think!UberCryxic 20:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in user space
Hello. It might be a good idea to remove Image:Michaeljacksonthriller.jpg and Image:Prince PurpleRain single.jpg from your user page, since fair use images should not be used in the user space according to Fair use criteria #9. Thanks. Khatru2 08:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)