User talk:Veritas Blue

re:Archive Records
I found some German-language ones yesterday, I will look for some more, but I'm sure, there soon will be more of the logical figure (350m), since Jackson has passed away and Sony Music has no reason to spend the kind of money on marketing Jackson. All the 750m figures were the results of Jackson's record company, record companies are known for throwing money to achieve anything they want. But I guess it's working, because it seems like they have fooled many people. Thanks for your help by the way, I really appreciate that. --Harout72 (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,. You have new messages at  Chzz's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the template. File:Ico specie.png       Chzz  ►  01:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

if you read Thugs-n-Harmonyharout section in best selling artist Harout72 says articles published by major record companies such as Sony Music are acceptable but for michael jackson its different why is this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.6.43 (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Calculations of certifications
Hi JFonseka, how's everything going? I thought I'd drop by at your talk and leave a few tips for certification-calculations. I noticed you converted Cat Stevens' certifications into figures.

1) There is this page you could refer to while calculating the German Certifications as their certification-volumes have dropped over 100% on albums since September of 1999. Scroll about 90% of the page down, you should see a table entitled "Gold und Platinauszeichnungen" (Gold and Platinum Awards). Note that platinum certification-award-level on albums before Sep. '99 was 500,000, and 300,000 before January 1st, 2003. So I see 2,750,000 for Cat Stevens in the German database.

2)Also, when looking at US database, count only the total which includes the most recently issued certification. So for example, in the case of Cat Stevens here, see all the way at the bottom where it says CAT STEVENS GREATEST HITS has been certified 4 x platinum (4 million)? That's the total sales that particular albums represents. So if you do it this way, your total for Cat Stevens including the platinum video (100,000) should be 15.6 million.

3)When converting UK's albums into figures, note that the certification-volume on albums before 2005 was 400,000. So,the total for Cat Stevens for UK should look something like 1.2 million.

I hope this didn't sound like a lecture :) I just thought you might be interested in knowing this stuff. Cheers.--Harout72 (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, ARIA has this page where I normally go to, see at the top they also have their certification-award-levels. It's 70,000 for platinum albums/singles, and 35,000 for gold albums/singles. I recently contacted ARIA, because I wanted to know if they have experienced a decline within the volumes of their certifications, they replied saying there hasn't been any changes since 1989. But she didn't mention anything about what the levels looked like before then. So I sent another e-mail, asking if she could provide me with volumes prior to 1989. So how's the whether in Australia during this time of the year? I've heard Australia has it's cold season when it's summer pretty much every where else, it that right:) And you're right my talk-page is usually a mess, trouble seems to follow me after every page I edit lol. Later.--Harout72 (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Just got your message, I have an e-mail listed for wikipedia. Click on E-Mail this user on the left side of my page.--Harout72 (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be there, I get e-mails from users every now and then. I don't wanna type it out in the open. You know what I mean? If you still can't find it, just leave the info here.--Harout72 (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know man, 277m for UK alone looks very high.--Harout72 (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the date? Is is supposed to be a correct date 1966? 'Cause these guys began just a few years before that, 277m within 5 or 6 years? That's still quite a number if the date is of course correct. But let me know what you get in your hand, it's always beneficial to get as much idea about artists actual sales as we can get.--Harout72 (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Matthewlocke.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Matthewlocke.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Matthewlocke.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Matthewlocke.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks very much, I really appreciate it.--Harout72 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that you have changed your user-name, I didn't recognize your newer name :). Well, thanks again and happy new year. --Harout72 (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Wow, I really never expected a barnstar, since my contibs are pretty "low-key". Thank you! Happy editing!  WordyGirl90  18:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:How goes it?
Hey buddy, it's certainly been a long time. Yeah, I'm still trying to improve it whenever I can. No worries, you helped a lot during the most critical times of the list's development.--Harout72 (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of talk pages
Please stop coming to my talk page to present your theories about horsepower. You need to to go Talk:Honda CBR600RR to discuss changes you would like to make to that article. If you are proposing changes in the way we handle horsepower of all motorcycles, you should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling. I am not the owner of the Honda CBR600RR article, and there are are others who have just as much interest as me in how we write these articles. If someone five years from now wants to know how we decided to write the CBR600RR the way we did, they will come looking at the article's talk page. They will have no idea to come looking on my talk page for that discussion. If you want to discuss something that is only about me, then us my talk page. If you want to discuss a motorcycle, or motorcycles, or horsepower, then go to the talk page of that topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not accuse me of presenting my theories of horsepower, these are not my theories but fundamentals of how engines and motors work. It is not my problem if you can't understand it, you asked me to clarify on your talkpage, remember? I will indeed go to that page you listed. Veritas Blue (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)