User talk:PhoenixPrince

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - Adolphus79 04:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Sooo many, later
Hello Phoenix. Thanks for watching B'Day. I was the one who revamped the whole article to a very huge one. I intended to not edit it for some time so that I can spot errors in the page once Im back. I will go over the article once I'm done with this and hopefully, after its FAC. Im still editing one huge project other than that and will be back for B'Day after. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * B'Day now regained its stature, as promised. Will be passing it to GA soon. --Efe (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Also I appreciate your effort on protecting the article when Im still busy with other Beyonce-related stuffs. Yah. It must be deleted when there is no reliable source. That edit war must be avoided; they will fail it on GAN, probably. The only thing to do is to request semi-protection until it passes GA or FA, then we can trace easily those non-IPs who put back that unsourced figure. --Efe (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

B'Day sales
I got this but its only the sales in 2006, not until this year. I'll try to find. I'll ask to protect it. --Efe (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected for three days. --Efe (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Hmp..why lol? =) FYI, I know that IP now. Shortly after it was semi-protected. Nyahaha. --Efe (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Chopard Diamond Award for Celine
I notice you reverted my edits. The Chopard Diamond award is not given to the "Best selling artist" it is given to an artist who sales more then 100 million records worldwide, you can view this information a the WMA website. Celine Dion is not the best selling female artist, and it is close to impossible to prove who is but there are about five other women who have sold more then 200 million records worldwide, so to make that claim is just "un-encyclopedic" PhoenixPrince (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I, or did I not provide a clip of the show on the article talk page? Despite the information provided on the website, did the show not declare her as the best selling? Aren't there hundreds of credible sources in the article and on the web to back up the statement? It's really not my problem if you have an issue digesting this piece of information.
 * Now that I've gotten that out of my system, let me see if I can explain it more clearly. The major issue we're dealing with here is that of "attribution". Here on Wikipedia, when we make a claim, we cite sources to support that claim. Answer me this question: Do the sources not say that Dion is the best selling? Yes they do. The article does not state that Dion is truthfully and undoubtedly the best-selling. It said, according to these sources, she is the best selling, which is accurate; the sources actually stated this. Whether or not sales add up is not up to us to decide (there is a policy that says No original research). What matters is what the sources say.
 * Now, if you think that Madonna or Mariah Carey is the best selling, and can find sources to support that claim, then add it to these particular article. For example, if Time magazine had stated that Madonna is the best selling, then the Madonna article should read that "according to Time Magazine, Madonna is...", which, again, would be accurate, since the article did state this. However, this should, in no way, affect, or float over to another singer's article.
 * Believe it or not, here on Wikipedia, we don't care about "the truth". We care about what can be attributed to a credible source. Our official policy reads (Verifiability):
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
 * Is that in any way unclear? Oran e   (talk)  07:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I protected the article until you have familiarized yourself with how Wikipedia works. And in the future, don't just revert my edits. I have far more experience than you do regarding matters such as these, and if you ask anyone else, they will tell you that you are clearly in the wrong. Oran e   (talk)  07:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't have to use these particular words: "according to these sources...". The point nevertheless is attributed to the World Music Awards show, because it stated that the award and the title came from them. I didn't say that WMAs are the authority figure on worldwide sales. But neither is the Forbes list or the other magazines that claim that it's Madonna. As I said, if these magazines stated that Madonna is the best, then go and write it in the Madonna article (with the sources). However, the information on Celine Dion stays the same, because nothing has changed for her&mdash; these articles and the WMA clip (which I advise that you watch), and the CBC News site still list Celine Dion.
 * On a different note, I don't know why you're so concerned with meaningless titles. Does it really matter? All three artists (Madonna, CD, MC) are great. Leave it at that.  Oran e   (talk)  07:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And do you mind if we continued this tomorrow? It's 3 in the morning, and I'm a bit tired.  Oran e   (talk)  07:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Beyonce Knowles
Hi. Thanks for helping me reworking the article. Just be careful in doing it because some of the titles were improperly formatted, and punctuations were lost, etc. I will check the changes later and fix them myself. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ok
thats fine so leave it as over 22 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balto9902 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

About forums not bein reliable
Do you have a subscription to Musicweek??? If that's the case you could post the link to the direct article from this week where they mention the total sales of IASF in the UK.... Otherwise, this forum IS a reliable source as they just copy the original text from an article that is just available for members of the magazine. It's not like if anyone has written that stuff and I take a random comment by any user as the law, I posted that as a reference because is the exactly same text as published in Musicweek. Rub rb (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Mariah Carey
Why did you undo my revision? You can't get more reliable than her Label. Jayy008 (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, don't undo my edit! Her OFFICIAL record label stated she sold 175 million!! MTV and Sony (her OLD label) don't know anything at all.Bluesatellite (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Official record label? Do you mean it is Sony? Hello!! Mariah has left Sony Music since 2000, a decade ago. So they should not state anything about her records! Island Records is her OFFICIAL label and on September 2009, they report 175 million! View my source, it is the most reliable source! Bluesatellite (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning
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. &mdash;Kww(talk) 02:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sony figures
The reason I come down in favor of Island over Sony is that Sony has a history of grossly inflating sales for its artists. There's a similar problem with Michael Jackson. Sony claims 750M for Jackson, and all other researchers claim 300M to 350M. Sony's figure gets quoted a lot of places, but it's pretty obviously inflated (attempts to add all certified sales can't even reach 150M).

Given that, the most reasonable explanation is that Sony was exaggerating when it claimed 200M, and now, years later, her new label is refusing to go along with it. 175M is probably still exaggerated, just not as badly as Sony exaggerates.&mdash;Kww(talk) 08:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm persuadable. Show me your math to get to 190M. If you can do it, you've established her as bigger selling than Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson, and will have persuaded me that 200M is feasible in the process.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)