XtinoFrost
|
Thank you for your contribution to this list, but unfortunately it doesn't conform with the list's source. While your edits may reflect more up-to-date figures, as the article says, "This is the list of the top 100 best-selling music artists in the United States only...based on certifications of albums by the RIAA." Figures in the article must conform to that source ([1]).
If you want to discuss this or the list, please feel free to leave a note at my talk page or at the article's talk page. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I understand now. I'm a new editor, still learning lol.
Your recent edits
edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
-I understand, thank you very much.--XtinoFrost (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Christina Aguilera
editHello, since i am not yet to edit on protected pages i need your help on Christina Aguileras dicography page. Soemone added all the certifications there can be on the singels, some are sourced some not, but their should ONLY be shown certification that are shown on the chart bord on the discography page, this looks sloppy and messy and having certification that you dont even see charting on her discography page. Can you remove them?, all you can do is revert the one edtit. :)
--212.226.50.149 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
And also somone has changed the ww sales on her albums, and are incorrect, BTB has sold 5m ww not 6, Mi Reflejo and My Kind of Christmas are also very wrong, MR has sold 3 m not 5 and MKC has sold 2,5 m and not 4m ww. These are incorrect sales and should be removed, can you remove them? :)
--212.226.50.149 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Done :), do I couldn't revert it -.- I had to do it manually. I hate all these people messing with the discography page. o.O
tanx very much, but theres one thing, the certifications on the singels, Denmark certifications needs to removed from Aint No Other Man and Candyman, while Sweden and Belgien needs to be removed from What a Girl wants and. :)
--(talk) 09:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Done, again ;) I love Christina, and I have work a lot on that page. I don't want it to be messed up :) You should create a wikipedia account so that you can help me :) --XtinoFrost (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 8
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christina Aguilera discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Warning
editIf you continue to post false sales and unreliable sources to Aguilera's articles, you will be blocked.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
-First, those are not false and unrealiable sources. I, and a lot of people before me, have worked a lot on that page. So please, respect her discography page.
- Well, with the slap in the face you deserve, your "work" is adding crappy and false information (ruining the article). If you continue adding blogs and other unreliable sources to that page, you will be blocked.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- First, you can't block me. Second, you're deleting all her worldwide sales. Third, not all of them are blogs, feel free to delete the ones that are, not the ones "that you want" Fourth, why are you deleting "Somos Novios" as featured artist? Fifth, you can't tell me what is pollution on that page, since you haven't contributed in anything to this page. Calling the work that we do on Christina's page "crap" is not very professional, is it? Those are NOT blogs, Rudy Perez Official page OBVIOUSLY is not a blog. Toonari Post, Epagini, Fil Laureate are news pages. Do you understand the difference between a blog and a news page? I don't care if you are a great editor on Mariah's page, this is Christina Aguilera's discography page.
- No, I can't block you. Fortunately, I know many people that can. Understand that you need reliable sources for her sales. If you don't know what that entails (I'm guessing you don't), then look at the "Mariah" pages you keep yapping about and see what it takes! None of those sources can stay. And yes, by adding crappy sources you are diminishing the quality of the article.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Then please, help us "raise the quality" of the page. If you care so much about this one to delete the WW, then replace them with reliable sources. Contribute here just like you do on the Mariah's or Beyonce's page, or in anyone that you mention except from Xtina. This is a real important section of the article, so until this isn't discussed in the Talk Page, it won't be changed.
No, this will not be negotiated or discussed. I've already notified an administrator. Did you even give a damn to notice the last source you put is a Wikipedia mirror? The source took the Wiki page and just copied it... And no, I don't have to do any research for you. Stop making crappy edits and find them yourself.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Of course you don't give a damm for this page, it wouldn't surprise anyone that a fan of Mariah, Beyonce or Britney (predictable) delete ALL the sales of Christina. I already did, those ARE NOT BLOGS, tell me otherwise they are. And YES, you do have to discuss it in order to make the edit. You can't just call an administrador to let you do whatever you want.
- I've seen your work on Xtina page, you just delete most of the sources and call her songs "a flop" Very professional editor I should say,you are here to smear her career. I don't care if you are the greates editor of your idols, you won't get away with this. Me and other editors will make sure of that.
3RR
editHi. Thank you for coming to my talk page to ask for advice on this conflict. That was the right thing to do. :) I'm working on a reply but this is important enough for me to say it immediately: you need to stop "reverting" the other editor. Both you and Petergriffin9901 are at "three reverts" on Christina Aguilera discography. Per policy, reversing the actions of another editor more than three times in a 24 hour period generally leads to a temporary block for "edit warring." I have also cautioned him that you are both on the edge of violating this rule, but I know he is familiar with the policy. I do not know if you are. The general idea that it is damaging to the encyclopedia for us to go back and forth without reaching agreement on the content of articles. There are a wide variety of dispute resolution mechanisms when you disagree with another editor that can help you continue your dedication to improving an article without crossing this line. In a few minutes, I will leave you some thoughts on the matter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
My reply to your request
editI'm copying this over just to be sure you see it. If you have questions, please come back to my talk page. :)
- Hi. Sorry to hear you're having trouble. I see that you and User:Petergriffin9901 have been talking at your talk pages. This is generally not the best place to discuss content issues, since other editors with an interest in the article may be able to help settle disagreements. Its a very good idea for you to open the discussion at the talk page of the article focusing on the content questions. Explain why you think each of the sources being used is reliable. Ideally, he will discuss them with you, individually, and either will convince you that you are wrong or be convinced that he is. If after discussing the policies related to the links, neither of you can agree, you would generally seek other opinions. You could start with third opinion. If that doesn't help settle the matter, you could move to the reliable sources noticeboard, to get more uninvolved editors.
- Before you post your argument, I would first recommend reading WP:USERGENERATED and perhaps searching the archives at WP:RSN to see if consensus has been established on a given source before. (Do check the dates; this may not reflect current thinking about the blogcritic site, for instance...although it might. It depends on whether or not the site has evolved in four years. Because of "other stuff", you can't read too much into usage on Wikipedia, but searching to see how often a site is cited can help evaluate it: [2].) Once you open the discussion, let him know; drop him a note at his talk page and tell him that you want to talk about his issues with the sites at the article talk page.
- Most importantly, as I noted at your talk page, you should not continue undoing him. This is considered edit warring and is a blockable action. You are on the edge of going over the three-revert rule. Once you have established consensus, either between yourselves or with a wider group of people, everybody needs to abide by it. Consensus is not exactly a head-count, but a consideration of how policy applies to specific problems. If somebody says, "I agree (or disagree) with the source", that wouldn't count towards consensus because that's not policy. :) Consensus may be that some of the sources are okay, that all of them are, or that none of them are. However it lands, continuing to edit the article to put in your own point of view outside of consensus is disruptive and may be cause for administrator intervention. It shouldn't ever have to come to that between experienced Wikimedians. :) Consensus is one of our most important policies to keep us functional as a website of disparate contributors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, first, thanks for taking your time and replying. Is really apreciated. Consensus seems to be the ideal option. I send him a message on his Talk page so that we could make one, but he ignored it. Instead, he called the work done by a lot of editors on the Christina page "crap" I would really like a neutral administrador to review the sources, and let her or him decide if they can stay. Can that be done? I know the people that really concern about Christina's page won't get into an agreement with that user.
- I'm sorry, but administrators do not have that authority. Decisions are made by editors, and administrators help implement them. You should open a discussion at the article's talk page and explain the issues there. If you guys can't agree, you bring in others to discuss it with you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits
edit Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)