User talk:MJDangerous

MJDangerous, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi MJDangerous! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Amy Winehouse discography. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. snαp • snαp ^(talk) 17:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is MJDangerous, the most well known chart expert in the world. @snap snap thanks to STOP editing page Amy Winehouse discography to put the bullshit claim saying it sold 20 million copies worlwide. FYI as per the official recording worlwide organization, the IFPI, it shipped 400k in 2006, 5,6m in 2007 and 3,7m in 2008, bringing its total to 9,7m shipped up to the end of its promotional campaign, there is NO WAY it sold anything close to 20m. While this is a place opened for edition the aim of wikipedia is not to copy the most absurd claim find on internet. Thanks in advance.MJDangerous (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Amy Winehouse discography, you may be blocked from editing.

Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable. If you replace reliably sourced content with unsourced claims based on your own personal beliefs, that is original research. Billboard, a reputable source, reports the album has sold 20 million copies. If you believe the 20 million sales claim is "bullshit", then provide a reliable source that supports whatever amount of copies you claim the album has sold, otherwise stop adding original research. snαp • snαp ^(talk) 01:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me?? Reliably sourced content posting a bullshit website link?? The IFPI rankings are all available on IFPI website. It last charted on worldwide chart in late 2011 with still only 12 million sold (^[1]). This 20 million claim is utterly ludicrous. YOU are the one vandalizing wikipedia at the moment, grow up. MJDangerous (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Amy Winehouse discography.

Please be civil and stop cursing. How am I the one vandalizing Wikipedia when you have yet to provide a reliable source to support your claims? Media Traffic has no affiliation whatsoever with the IFPI and is listed as unreliable at WP:BADCHARTS, unlike Billboard, which actually is a reputable source. What you think is "utterly ludicrous" is completely irrelevant unless you have a source to back it up. snαp • snαp ^(talk) 02:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't YOU be the one being blocked?! I DID provide the ONLY reliable source for chart and sales, meaning the IFPI organization. The album sold 5.6 million copies in 2007 and 3.6 million copies in 2008. PLUS the BPI as well provided detailed information as they always do posting every year the Top 20 highest shipped UK releases worldwide. There is NO OFFICIAL data or whatsoever supporting the ABSURD claim of 20 million compies. The album sold 3m in the US, 8m in EU and irrelevant amounts pretty much everywhere else, WHERE are the missing 9 million copies?! YOU have to provide valid source for such a stupid claim. MJDangerous (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PLUS, I'll let you know that your link is NOT FROM BILLBOARD. "This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter." (^[2]) which is anything EXCEPT RELIABLE. MJDangerous (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HERE^[3] is a REAL Billboard article refering to what is utterly obvious, e.g. the album sold TWELVE million copies worldwide. Now stop with your fanatics claims. MJDangerous (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Amy Winehouse discography shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. KungAvSand (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MJDangerous (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

All I did was putting VALID information on a page. I can't help if a fanatic is refusing the reality of facts that I proved. Also, why are all my recent updates reverted? They are all valid updates, with proper references. It took me an awful lot of time to go on all pages and edit them to add valid information, all that to end removed because a fanatic is refusing a fact, is that the way wikipedia works?MJDangerous (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear case of edit warring. You have not addressed what you'll do differently if you are unblocked to avoid edit warring. I suggest you look at WP:DR to get insight on how to properly handle a dispute. only (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

[1] ttp://www.mediatraffic.de/albums-week43-2011.htm

[2] ttp://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/a24-acquires-amy-winehouse-documentary-785790

[3] ttp://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1559242/amy-winehouse-documentary-in-the-works

[1]

[2]

[3]