User talk:Eight88

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Eight88, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! ■ MMXX^c.t 10:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

re: Madonna singles discography

Hey thanks for the heads-up. The page is on my watchlist so I'll keep an eye on it. Looks like the IP has been warned a bunch of times already in the past 24 hours and if needed I'll block the user or semi-protect the article again. - eo (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your out of line on what WP:RS is

Everything written in newspapers is written by a living person. The authors name being displayed does not make it unreliable. Reliability is based on where the source comes from, not who wrote it. — Realist² 19:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources like live daily are actually terrible in comparison. Find and use sources that comply with WP:RS. If there is a dispute amongst the sources than both figures can be presented for neutrality. — Realist² 19:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop edit warring on that article, I have added a legitimate source, that is actually better in quality than the ones currently there. Neutrality needs to be reached whereby both figures are present. — Realist² 20:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABBA screwup

Thanks for catching that. If you look at my contribs, you can imagine how bleary-eyed I'm getting in looking at references to the United World Chart. It's like a cancer.—Kww(talk) 04:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyonce Discography page

It's not sourced information. Perhaps if you paid attention and tried to look up the source you'd realize it's not real. 76.223.67.167 (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter if it was real...it's not cited properly. And if it's supposed to be a link to a website then it should actually link to a website. But it doesn't, so therefore, because it's A) not cited properly and B) Because it does not link anywhere, and C) Because there is no real way of accessing the source to verify it, it's being removed. 76.223.67.167 (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for pointing that out. Some vandal had removed the reference URL. All fixed. You were correct in your assessment to remove from what you saw. Eight88 (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Music Box (album). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. — Aitias // discussion 02:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have abided by the guidelines set for 3RR - ulike the other parties. I have added to dispute for this the reference and sought administrators help. I have consistantly added reasons in the reversals as well as the discussion page. All the other user has done has been revert, revert, revert. I have also tagged a note within the sockpuppet page, and had my talk page vandalised by the anoymous IP reversing. If I am abiding by the policies set in place by Wikipedia and they can do whatever, then why am I being blocked? For the page that I am said to have be blocked for, I have researched and andded details to the discussion page as to why I made the edit. All verified sources compared to one unverified source. Please review this decision as appears grossly unfair to this editor who has applied all the detail, research vs one vandal, one new user, one probable sockpuppet and one User who blanks out all their bad history on their talkpage. Also as per Wiki policy on Reliable Sources, why is a Printed Publication, New York Times, and Entertaintent Wire not considered a better source than some unknown reported in Australia. From the discussion page:

From TSort (1993 - 2008)[1] = 25 million Global claimed, 20 - 27 million claimed on Internet.

From Entertainment wire Press Release (1998) [2] - 24 million.

From New York Times Press Release (2002) [3] = 23 Million.

From Universal Music Group Korea (2004) [4] = 25 million.

From publication "The Story Behind 50 Years of Great Recordings": Outline Press Ltd (2005) - ISBN 1-59223-295-7 = 27 million.

From Undercover.au (2008) [5] = 32 million.

Therefore from all the verified sources (Press Releases, Record Company, publications) - the figure is 23-27 million. From one source that does not state where primary source detail is from (Undercover.au) - has highest figure, does not meet criteria as being a notible Press source compared to the others, and is so varient to the others, has limited credibility. Wikipedea has policy on using verified sources, as well as concensus WP:RS, and this has not been met by the one source being used. Therefore as the publication of 2005 meets all criteria, this should be adopted.Eight88 (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from blocking administrator

You have obviously violated the three-revert rule: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 reverts within 24 hours. Just FYI: User:LauraAndrade88 has been blocked for 24 hours as well, as they had also violated the three-revert rule on that article. — Aitias // discussion 04:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am aware of the 3RR, I have not seen this mention of multiple reversals by anybody constituting a failure. I therefore accept I have broken this rule. Eight88 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I remove the request for unblock? If an administrator comes to this page as a result of the request - please simply faul the request. I fully support the enforcement of policy Eight88 (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in joining?

We need good people: Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Charts - eo (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of best-selling albums in Australia

Yes, it's true, but at the time the singles were sold more than albums and the most selling albums pre-'80s were certified by ARIA, like The Dark Side, Beat Out Of Hell, Rumours and Jeff Wayne for to have a correct best selling list. We can to leave your modifie like is written in the article, but i don't think that there are other best selling albums pre-'80s weren't certified. The certifications are a good promotion for the sales. SJ (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles albums were certified ( http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display_physical_album.asp?chart=1A50 ) and they don't sell over 700,000 copies. This is a list of number ones in Australia: http://hitsofalldecades.com/chart_hits/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=706&Itemid=40 and the Beatles that still the 1 much times, don't won at least 10x Platinum. SJ (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Bing Crosby Discography

Yikes, the article as a whole is kinda, well, in need of help. The link you sent looks thorough and interesting but I have a feeling you may run into a problem with editors who feel that it's not reliable. I see the website author's source (The Crosby Years by Ken Barnes (St. Martin's Press, 1980)) and this could be good... have you done a search on this publication? Perhaps with an ISBN number it would hold up, especially if the bulk of that website is built on it. - eo (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Australian Music Reference Books

I think you'd be looking for the Kent Music Report, it was run before ARIA was created. Go to the further reading section, there are 3 books by David Kent. Hope this is what you were after, I think you can also order them from this website! Or there are a few users who own one or two of them I think. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]