User talk:WarehouseMusic

Janet Jackson Talk

There is more below from an iceberg peak.

Hi! I see your talk page was not created, and there's a discussion involving you, so I'm leaving you this message. Israell (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm still figuring out my way around Wikipedia, feels like the late 90's all over again, lol. I left my response.

Thx, WarehouseMusic! You've provided very detailed information, and I commend you for it. That said, the discussion is getting heated due to some opposing views. As I've told an editor, I will not be bullied into accepting their point of view (they've resorted to some personal attacks and flaming). Feel free to weigh in some more, and never let anyone bully you. Israell (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Israell,

It seems to be a lost cause over the subject matter of updating Janet Jackson's numbers as a whole after reading the continuing conversation over at "How many millions sold? Revisiting the math" or even with individual album updates like with the "janet" album, 14 million to 20 million. No matter how many recent or latest resources I provide, seems to be talking to a brick wall, but I agree with TruthGuardians and castorbailey who mentioned, "should include something like sources vary on how many Jackson sold since there reliable sources state that her career sales are over 160 million or even 180 million. -WarehouseMusic 22:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not gonna happen. Your sources are wildly out of sync with reality. Other sources are much closer to reality, but you are cherry-picking the highest numbers you find. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To: Mr. Bink

Are you the one that has seniority over Janet Jackson's page because last I checked, there's supposed to be a round table discussion among editors to come to a final decision, right?

"Your sources are wildly out of sync with reality," stated Bink. So, a press release, a statement Rolling Stone magazine and quote from Rock & Roll Hall of Fame are not all valid sources yet Guinness World Record is for Madonna despite that organization is fraudulent. Most would say Madonna's numbers are over exaggerated too. Nobody believes she actually sold 300 million albums worldwide for the fact she doesn't even have at least one 30x Multi-Platinum certifications like Michael Jackson. Not even overseas music industry certification numbers for Madonna add to up to 300 million and were suppose to believe Guinness World Record because of their name sake.It seems that Wikipedia has problem with black success. Especially when it comes to Janet & Michael Jackson. RIAA actually states Michael Jackson's Thriller album sold 1 billion dollars alone but there's no word of that here. So, if I update those statistics on the assigned Michael Jackson "Thriller" Wikipedia pages, am I going to get drama over that too like I'm having with Miss Jackson?

That's why NOBODY takes this public encyclopedia platform seriously. It doesn't adapt to change or doesn't fit a narrative.

Sincerely, WarehouseMusic

It's amazing how Madonna's name always comes up when Janet Jackson's sales figures are challenged. Janet's people are sure obsessed about Madonna. The giant, glaring difference between them is that Madonna has a huge worldwide audience, more than tripling her power, while about 85% of Janet's audience is the United States by itself, and only 15% sales to other countries. So the Janet lovers should not be Madonna haters just because Madonna is globally popular while Janet is basically domestic. And if you look at just US album sales, Madonna has two Diamond-certified albums while Janet never got that high.

Again, you are cherry-picking your sources to find the ones willing to publish unrealistic numbers. There are much better sources published around the same time that are not as gullible.

Disputes on Wikipedia are solved by discussion which comes to consensus. Your viewpoint was rejected in the discussion. The multi-editor consensus about Janet's sales total was settled by the editors who were making better arguments than you. Binksternet (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only spoke my opinion once on the subject in a great, mini essay that made the logistics completely clear for a 6-year old to understand while the rest was a just a dick contest of shit show of bickering back and fourth. Which by the way, the conversation hasn't really ended over at How many millions sold? Revisiting the math either. It's clear as day that you are the judge of court and for the record, Madonna came into the discussion because I was making a valid point on "over exaggerating" numbers as you once put it about another artist and by your profile, I understand why her name hit nerve. The refusal to use first hand sources (UMG press release, Billboard, Rolling Stone) is just mind-blowing and really petty!

As University of Georgia said, "Wikipedia entries tend to be conservative, reflecting traditional views over newer research and a waste of time."

Sincerely, Warehouse Music 08:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)~~

Sorry for the intromision. But with respect, Warehouse, your eyes are only seeing the peak of an iceberg citing those arguments and cherry-picking a policy of "stick to the sources". The deep of that iceberg includes many facts that you're ignoring over and over again. I usually agree with Binksternet and he's right once again in this Janet's case. He's a neutral person whom patrol tons of music articles and I know he's only following our routine process that's generally accepted by the Wikipedia community in regards topics of sales report/complains like in your case.

Back with Janet's case I usually do research all the time and neither in English, French, Italian, Spanish (etc) sources I've never see missing certifications in her case (last year I remember I saw two/three —I don't have at this moment available— but were tiny markets and not meets the criteria for an inclusion in our list of best-selling artists). Even if I'm wrong, sources from certifications-databases around the world don't lie. Her performance in chart positions even in her usually markets are generally inestable and that speaks a lot. Personally, I'm ok with her current gap of 50 million "missing" because as I said before there are numbers we can't see. And if her main market is the United States with no more than 40-45 million certified units, I don't see how you can even accept a jump of 100 million with that background. Even how simple facts like this can be disregarded?:

In the IFPI Europe Platinum Award (at least coverage works when she was in her peak-era) she only has two/three works and are only platinum-level (1 million mark). Maybe she had her biggest sales in Asia and sold a million individually with multiple albums and multiple countries? Personally I've never saw her name in-out side of Wikipedia in all-time bestseller lists: albums worldwide (or individual countries), diamond certifications, best-selling singles etc. Including your favorite topic Madonna, she has highest sales report, even from GWR but I don't justify a jump or I don't believe you will accept in your analogy an inclusion of a 500 million claimed or an addition of 5 million in many of her albums because there are "references" and could be accepted by our rules. That's for everyone so don't take personal imaginary and "racial bias" and stuffs like that. This only pushing a fan point-of-view and that's dishonest. Is not our goal. And criticism of Wikipedia in many sides and topic always have existed, even from those sources that Wikipedia consider "reliables". But thanks for that point of view. Cheers,

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Janet (album). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Album release dates

As indicated at Template:Infobox album#released "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified". The date that you keep adding is the one for the US release and it's already added at All for You (Janet Jackson album)#Release history, where you can see that it was released in three other countries prior to the US release. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]