User talk:Therein8383

List of best-selling music artists

Your recent edit has been reverted. Please be informed that the List of best-selling music artists as all other pages does have a discussion page; therefore, should you have any concerns about sales figures of any artists, feel free to open up a discussion. However, posting your comments as you have done in this edit of yours is not acceptable. We have had a discussion on Lady Gaga not long ago which you can find in Archive 15 here. Please be advised, however, that you can not post comments in the archived discussion, instead you should start a new thread if you wish. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

SIR I ALREADY DISCUSS ON LADY GAGAS SECTION OF DISCUSSION. HAVE A GREAT DAY AND I APOLOGIZE FOR EDITING IN THAT WAY I DID NOT KNOW THE RIGHT PROCEDURE. (UPPERCASE BUTTON IS BROKE, HOPE TO FIX IT THIS WEEKEND, SORRY)

I believe I informed you above that you should not post anything in the archived and closed discussion page. You should open a new thread in the current discussion page at the List of best-selling music artists. And I did read your comments, and you should know that the list is based on all record sales, that is albums, singles and videos, not just albums. Lady Gaga has achieved 80% of her fame and record sales mainly with her singles. Please do not change anything on the List of best-selling music artists without first discussing. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Iron Maiden

Please view the talk page on the article. The section you changed has reached a consensus among all editors involved. Please bring up your suggested changes there before making such changes. Please do not vandalize articles by placing stuff like "...dont vandalize this..." IN an article. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

OK SIR, LET DISCUSS ON IRON MAIDEN PAGE RIGHT AWAY. ATTN THEREIN8383

Removing valid citations from reliable sources could indeed be considered vandalism. You've been similarly reverted and asked to stop once for another article. I am willing to assume it was not intended as vandalism by you though, and suggest you go to the article's talk page and read the discussion on this very subject (Iron Maiden's sales figures). One thing you will also notice is that the RIAA has refused to certify Iron Maiden's sales ever since they told the RIAA member companies to go "f" themselves when asked if IM would jump in to their lawsuit to sue fans. Think about it... they sold gold and platinum levels when their albums were released on CASSETTE. Do you honestly think that since then, they haven't reach gold or platinum at least once on their BETTER selling albums?

That aside, a consensus has already been reached. I kinda doubt that you will manage to sway things. You also ignored the note in the article (the one you changed) that pointed out that a consensus had been reached. Some might consider that to be disruptive. Repeated disruptive editing can be grounds for being blocked from editing. So, if you truly think you can change the consensus, to visit the article's talk page (see the archives). If you (after reading the previous discussion on this) think you cant, then let it drop.

As for the CAPS, please stop typing in caps. You typed your article changes in normal case, so it seems very unlikely that your keyboard only malfunctions when you are typing in talk page messages. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the message you removed from the article without first discussing it: "Note: Please Not To CHANGE this Data State, we've got so many sources about the state like cited, EMI confirmed their sales status of over 80 mln under the label of manufactory(EMI Ltd) - changes shall be recognised as wiki-vandalism. Thank you." ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you will need to "fix" your caps lock key and then re-post on the Iron Maiden talk page (no, I didnt delete your post, someone else did). And be less nasty in your choice of wording.

Anyway, EMI claims they've sold 80 million under their label (and EMI does not handle all of their worldwide sales, nor do they handle the pre-orders), and here are a few more cites for the 100 million figure (some are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, some are not considered such):

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].

And now something to remember. (1) Wikipedia is NOT about The Truth - it's about verifiability in a reliable source. (2) It is up to Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines (or consensus in some cases - or both) as to what's considered a reliable source - not you. (3) attacking sources or other editors is not permitted (or anyone), which may be part of the reason your post on the Iron Maiden talk page was deleted.

Hope that helps. Now... hopefully you will figure out why your caps lock is only stuck when you type on talk pages... in the meantime, here's some good reading to make your time on Wikipedia go a lot more smoothly. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 06:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Therein here, When I changed that article I was doing it in other PC, I dont need to get attention as you refered lol.... Hey don't you see the new topic of dicussion I posted on Maiden's board, guess not. Im pasting it here so you can read it.

IRON MAIDEN THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR SALES RECORDS (ULTIMATE DISCUSSION)

FIRST OF ALL SORRY MY UPPERCASE BUTTON IS BROKE. (HOPE FIX IT THIS WEEKEND OR BUY A NEW KEYBOARD)

I`M SURPRISED PEOPLE CALLED "VANDALISM" THE FACTS. RECENTLY I WAS TOLD I WAS VANDALIZED BECAUSE I CHANGE AN EXAGGERETING FAN DESIRE STATEMENT FOR A FACT.

OK THEN DISCUSS BECAUSE ACCORDING TO ROBERTMFROMLI THERE WAS A CONSENSUS AMONG ALL EDITORS. REALLY? THE EDITORS WERE IRON MAIDEN FANS OF COURSE THEY WANT IRON MAIDEN RECORD SALES APPEARS JUST AS HIGHER AS MICHAEL JACKSON OR ELVIS. THERE WAS NOT A NEUTRAL OPINION INTO THE DISCUSS. JUST STATING FROM THE POOR BAD SOURCES THEY GOT TO BACK UP THAT STATEMENT WHICH ARE RIDICULOUS HAVING IN MIND THAT REFERENCES ARE PULLED FROM ONE GUY FROM THE WORD MAGAZINE (NOT HEARD SUCH MAGAZINE BEFORE), ONE BLOGGER, ONE REPORTER FROM THE CREDIBILITY AND FAITFULL SKYNEWS... HURRAY.... THE LAST REFERENCE ITS THE BAND'S BIO FROM THEIR WEBPAGE THAT SAYS 80 MILLION NOT 100 MILLION (WHICH ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA THIS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS A REFERENCE GRANTED BECAUSE THE SOURCE ITS NOT FROM AN EXTERNAL PARTY) AND I AGREE WITH THAT REMARK OF WIKIPEDIA BECAUSE RECORD COMPANIES ARE NOT DUMB, THEY INFLATED SALES FIGURES TO PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES... CAN YOU IMAGINE AN IRON MAIDEN FAN READING IT AND SAY -WOW MY BAND SOLD 100 MILLION RECORDS WITHOUT MTV, RADIO, COMMERCIALS,ETC,ETC.. THAT'S AN OLD COMPANY MARKETING STRATEGY THAT WORKS PERFECTLY WELL.

ANYWAY. I *DARE* ANYONE WHO PROVES IRON MAIDEN SELL RECORDS BY EACH ALBUM AND THEIR CERTIFICATION FOR IT EACH BY EACH AND MATCH 100 MILLION RECORDS, I JUST WANT TO SEE WHO`'S GOING TO FINISH THIS DISCUSSION FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL, BECAUSE AS I SAID BEFORE, PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS WERE A JOKE (NO OFFENSE) IRON MAIDEN FANS SEARCHING ON GOOGLE SOURCES, YES YOU FOUND 3 SOURCES, EVEN YOU CAN FIND 10 BUT ARE ANY OF THOSE A GOOD SOURCE?, **FROM A MUSIC INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION**? PROVING THE SALES RECORDS ARE CERTIFIED? ITS FUNNY HOW IRON MAIDEN DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIAA CERTIFICATION AND THE U.S. REPRESENT THE 40% OF WORLDWIDE RECORDS., ANY IFPI CERTIFICATION? OR SOUNDSCAN CERTIFICATION? PLEASE SOMEONE LET US KNOW. I ALREADY DID THE EXERCISE GOING ALBUM BY ALBUM AND I WOULD TELL YOU IRON MAIDEN COULD HARDLY TOUCH 50 MILLION COPIES, WELL I'M NOT A FAN OF MAIDEN (MAYBE LIKE THE FIRST TWO ALBUMS) THAT'S WHY I'M NEUTRAL BUT THAT'S IT. 100 MILLION RECORDS? EVEN 80 MILLION, REALLY? LETS DISCUSS THIS PEOPLE RIGHT AWAY!!! BECAUSE VANDALISM ITS WHAT IS SHOWING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE RIGHT NOW. WIKIPEDIA ITS NOT A FORUM OF FANS IT IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA I REMEMBER THIS TO ALL THE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE DUTY FOR IT, NOT BECAUSE YOU DID A CONSENSUS WITH A COUPLE OF GUYS THAT MEANS TAKE IT AS A FACT GRANTED. GOOD DAY.

PS: DO YOU THINK LADY GAGA HAS SOLD 55 MILLION RECORDS?... WITH JUST ONE ALBUM?..... DO YOU BELIEVE THAT? RED HOT CHILLI PEPPERS, MOTLEY CRUE AND OTHER BANDS WHICH HAS BEEN THERE AROUND 30 YEARS HAS SOLD 50 MILLION, SO LADY GAGA BEATS ALL THESE ARTIST WITH ONE ALBUM (THE HALF OF WHAT MAIDEN SUPPOSEDLY HAS SOLD IN 30 YEARS AND LIKE 20 DISCS)... SO, WHAT DO YOU THINK? WELL ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA SHE DOES :) AND THE SOURCE?....NO COMMENT. THINK ABOUT IT.

..please do not dicuss here with me, lets discussed on Maidens board. let share it with other people i dont need to debate with you alone and lecture me what "less nasty" do I cursed or threat anybody?

Hey I take the oportunity to reply a couple things here.

1) One thing you will also notice is that the RIAA has refused to certify Iron Maiden's sales ever since they told the RIAA member companies to go "f" themselves when asked if IM would jump in to their lawsuit to sue fans. --- Where are your sources? , you think RIAA the biggest music administrator in world its going to take it personal with Iron Maiden? so what's happened with all artists that have said the same?, RIAA or any certificated agency has banned them because of that, as far as I know sex pistols are the ultimate non-conformist band towards certifications and music adm, and they have their RIAA and RIAJ certifications. Your statement looks like a personal feeling. 2)Do you honestly think that since then, they haven't reach gold or platinum at least once on their BETTER selling albums? I doubt it, besides Number of the beast as their best selling album (which is the only one that was awarded with a certification) I dont think... brave new world would sell 10 million records. 3) That aside, a consensus has already been reached. -- Yes. a concensus with iron maiden fans without debate. Im huge fan of led zeppelin so I would do the best to keep this guys up whatever it takes. 4)EMI claims 80 million. That's correct, but as I said before record companies tend to inflates their records sales as an strategy as I explain before. Look at the article the "personal reference someone did" .."and a total of over 100 million records worldwide with almost no radio or television support." That part its fully 100% arguably. Iron maiden has not the looks of backstreet boys or something they are not attractive to mainstream, record companies know that, so what they do, let put it this way , we dont need tv, no radio, we are true musician and loook we have sold 100 million records. any misfit teenager (I was one) will be hook by this. 5) About the sources. You did a good work on google last night, are they good sources? (Im sorry I have to put this on caps) ARGUABLY AS THE BEST. Look robert, how can you put a reference of Amazon, really? You know what could possibly would fix that statement. said EMI claims 80 million, not saying Iron maiden has sold 80 million records. Don't you think? 6):::And now something to remember. (1) Wikipedia is NOT about The Truth - it's about verifiability in a reliable source. -- 100% agreed nobody has the truth but Im discussing the maiden record salles cos' the sources are not reliable from a competent musci organization but magazines, bloggers and tribute web pages.

One, I already told you that some of the links I listed were not reliable sources. On the other hand, more than enough are. And just so you understand, if you remove reliably sourced info (that's applicable to the article) just because you disagree, some may deem it disruptive or vandalism. Two, you've already been warned about the tone of your posts, comments and such. Dont take my word for it, I'm not the one who most recently warned you. Personally, I dont care - I was just trying to help you out by pointing out how your tone may be perceived. Next, certifications mean absolutely nothing. Even if they are issued on time and fully in line with actual sales. Let me point out why:

• Artist A earns 10 Platinum certs. Have they sold 10 million or 19.9 million (ie: virtually double) records? Guess what? You dont know. The certs dont tell you, and that's a very big discrepency.
• Artist B releases 20 albums at 499,999 sales each. They have earned NO certifications. By your reasoning, they had NO sales. But the reality is, they have sold almost 10 million albums (just 20 shy).

As for Iron Maiden's certs... they have 19 RIAA certs if memory serves. Sorry you dont seem to know how to research it.

Anyway, I am not going to debate this with you... you've been warned about removing content that has been reliably sourced simply because you disagree. You've been told the difference between the truth and verifiability via using a reliable source. You've been told that your opinion does not change whether Wikipedia as a community considers a source reliable or not. I'd suggest not repeating an action that others may consider vandalism, disruption or edit warring.

Take my advice, dont take it... up to you... but I'm done with this. Your opinion does not trump wikipedia's policies, guidelines and reliably sourced info done in a fashion that adheres to those policies and guidelines. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Indented line

Why you are afraid to discuss? 80% of your comments are personal towards me, because I use uppercaps, amigo drop it. I writing from another keyboard.

So if you already told me those references are not reliable why you keep insisting on it. You found 4 more, any good one? I don't think so.

• I'd suggest not repeating an action that others may consider vandalism, disruption or edit warring.* I edit the information putting reliable source and to be honest according of what common sense would be. According to what you said I could consider vandalism you editing my source.

- certifications mean absolutely nothing. Really? so do you think a doctor could be consider as a real one without a diploma because a certifications means nothing?. Thanks for the RIAA example and platinum cert but I already know about that.

We are going to discuss this on Iron Maiden discussion board, article 2 and 4 been told, even I read the whole stuff about you convincing the administrator of (best selling artist) to change the bracket for iron maiden, the guy was fed up with you though. That was not a discussion but you insisting about editing with just ONE supposedly reliable source from this called Eric a journalist from Paris.

By the way I edit recently iron maiden article until this is discussed. Just because you loved this band and have many rights and permissions on wikipedia does not mean you are the owner of that article. The article its build between everybody through the best reliable sources and I think you have not the best ones as other users noted on article 2 and 4, even on the discussion board of best selling artist.

Lets discuss it. So far you have not answer any of stuff but warning me and lecture of how should I use wikipedia.--Therein8383 (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to point out to RobertMfromLI, that certifications issued by RIAA can very easily cover 50% of the actual sales regardless of whether one uses your theory above (Artist A, Artist B) or any other theory. It's true that the US has the largest music market in the world and the certification-award-levels (referring the remainder units between Gold and Platinum awards) are far apart from each other, this still means that certifications can cover 50% of the actual sales. In other words, for example, if an artist has released 10 albums and each album (based on your theory) has sold 999,999 respectively, the actual sales for all of which combined would be 9,999,990, for all of this we'd have 10 Gold awards covering easily 5,000,000 units of the actual sales. As for Iron Maiden's US certifications, we have only (as I pointed out at the List of best-selling music artists) 7,350,000 in certified sales (that is albums and videos combined). That would never turn into some 30-35 million records (in actual sales) in US which has the largest market in the world and covers 30% of the entire global actual sales, see page 23 on this IFPI report for annual units each market generates in the world. Had Iron Maiden really sold 100 million in actual sales worldwide, we would have seen at least 30 million records (15 million in certified sales) coming from the US market alone. But such is not the case, and Iron Maiden's popularity in other parts of the world (based on what the certified sales suggest) is not any better than it is in the US, that is if we want to assume that they have sold more in other markets than in US. I apologize for making this long.--Harout72 (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you sir for being the first the one to really discuss this matter, what you said is certainly true where you get those 100 million out of your pocket without being certified by the largest musical market. Take in consideration Japan is one of the largest too, Iron maiden has not platinum certifications, and assuming that maiden its popular in other parts of the world, do these countries have capacity of adquire cds take in mind piracy its running wild (citation: I know for experience, Im from one of those contries). Just because of english journalist posted 85 million record for maiden that does it mean we have to take it for granted, I have found plenty of other sources saying iron maiden worldwide records from 50 million to 70 million.

Lets keep discussing until then I think its fair leave the article empty.--Therein8383 (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally agree that Iron Maiden could not have sold more than 70 million records (that is albums, singles, and videos combined), but you should establish a consensus at the talk-page first, as changing the figure from 100 million to 70 million will upset the long time contributers of that article. And you should not use sources that speak of album sales only, that would automatically mean more sales as it doesn't include the sales of the singles and videos.--Harout72 (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Therein8383, take it to the article's talk page if you are intent on changing the figure. I had nothing to do with that conversation on the Iron Maiden page. When you go there, perhaps you may wish to have this [9] as a reference for the certifications you claim Iron Maiden does not have (no platinum? there are 12 (or more) in the US alone.). Or check out each album's pages to get the full list of certifications to fill out the list on that page. But regardless, really, I am done with this discussion here. Others (as they have) will keep reverting you, until you discuss it. Dunno why you are so upset with me, as I simply pointed you to the situation, where to discuss it and the problems others seemed to perceive in your edits. I'm not the one who issued you the warning you removed from your talk page, nor the one who keeps reverting you (I reverted you once, with a rather thorough explanation - I've ignored your edits since). Good luck to you... ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem I have not nothing towards you, That is the thing. NO ONE wnat to discuss, even when tried to invite the discussion, there is already the topic and one wants to talk so then I, ll be editing wikipedia every day until this get discuss. --Therein8383 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely nothing against you either. :-) I would definitely suggest leaving that section as it is (and as it was when you agreed to talk about it) for at least a week. You need to give the people you invited time to respond. Some people are on a lot... some people are on once a week. And, please, don't take this personally, it's not intended to be... but inviting others, then changing it a few hours later after little to no response has often backfired in the past for the reasons I give earlier in this paragraph. Give people some time. I (always) will agree to whatever the majority agree to or compromise on.

Side note, I was not the person who stuck that message in the Iron Maiden article. I dont know who did. Just so you know.

And one final note, I agree that Sky News isn't the best source, so I added 4 others (The Sun (x2 - one of which being by the Deputy Editor for their entertainment section; a pretty reliable source), a big paper in canada, and the BBC) that are deemed reliable on numerous other artist and album pages. If consensus is to leave the 80/100 figure we should remove the shaky sources and just leave the better ones. If consensus is to change it back to 70, then of course it doesnt matter. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Man but you deletem my stuff again, the thing about I editing before discussion was because nobody were doing it, meanwhile I found 6 sources which I consideer strong (And I will glad to discuss them) and you changed again by the original. The thing is the 100 million records has not been discuss yet so why should we leave the 100 million records for one week (or until this its over, hope soon) and change it when we get this ultimate discussion (Believe its going to be huge cos' im inviting a lot of people specailly neutral cos' most of the people who is going to be discussing are maiden fans so there not balance of discussion. I suggest leave that info blank until we get a real concensus or how should it be written. For example for its right to said EMI claim iron maiden has sold 80 million than says Iron maiden has sold 80 million that's a fully different context. I think we should get that info blank, just saying maiden its a great band... next line. Its fair for me and for you. --Therein8383 (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It was at 80/100 when you agreed to talk about it before changing it. You cant simply wait a few hours and think that discussion is over and change it again. So I simply reverted it back to the state it was at when you agreed to discuss it. I wont (and hope you dont) revert it again, otherwise it will be edit warring. Possibly looking worse for you since it was at 80/100 when you agreed to discuss before changing (and then didnt wait a few days for discussion). But that's up to you if you want to take that risk. I wont, and I wouldnt. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Side note: while I agree Maiden is a great band, you have no idea how many times I have had to remove that from the article. :-) So... I suspect that is not the way to do it either.

But... you bring up a good point. Perhaps rewording the whole section to say "(blah...)at least ## million in certified... EMI claims 80 million distributed by them, with various news outlets claiming 100 million worldwide" or something... may be a way of covering all bases. Harout72 has a thorough breakdown of the certified sales, and we've got now actual reliable sources for the 100 million, as well as EMI's press release for the 80 million published via them. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Piece of Mind

Hi, I have added some additional text to the section you commented out on Piece of Mind to hopefully clarify things for anyone else who edited it. Nice catch on that one, btw. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 06:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I think you misunderstood my message about clarifying what you wrote in Piece of Mind. Wow, we're getting off on the wrong foot... I wrote this, without changing your message:

Therein8383 (who left the above note and removed this section) is correct in that the reference does not cite a 13.5 mil figure for PoM, which kinda makes the rest that's been commented irrelevant. Please find a ref for the PoM sales claim or discuss on talk page. Regarding albums, the ref only covers NotB sales. (RobertMfromLI)

Inotherwords, I just explained in more detail what it was that the ref didnt cover, so people wouldn't be guessing. Since the text was gone, it makes it a lot easier for people to understand what text was not supported by the ref.

Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nymf _hideliho! 18:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for say what was wrong with the article, Why should i be banned when I'm giving sources and follow the instructions? The other user just delete my work without explain THAT IS VANDALISM. OK you want further information you will get it. Even I open a discussion on the article.--Therein8383 (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Also I think you missed read the whole citation, he played Gibson during his whole career 1983 and 1984 was a world tour and the other reference goes from 1987 to 1990 world tour, I`m talking about world tour of a famous band, this is not a garage band sir.--Therein8383 (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do not wrote the same message to the other user?--Therein8383 (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Therein8383, I haven't looked at the situation above that you got warned for, but maybe I can explain the reason for the warning. Whether you are 100% correct or 100% wrong on your edit, you still cannot engage in an edit war. Safest is after the second revert (yours, the other editor's, doesnt matter) that you engage in a conversation on the talk page, and give the conversation a week or so to unfold (and then, longer if it's ongoing), leaving the article as it is. The only time the three revert rule or edit warring usually doesnt come into play is for blatant vandalism or serious BLP violations. Content disputes or citation disputes or "my cites are better than yours" or anything else like that all count towards violations of 3RR or the edit war policy.

Hope that makes some sense of things for you. If you've got any questions about it, check out the links I left in my first paragraph. If you still need some clarification, please let me or someone else know. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 18:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rob, I'm just new here and learning wiki rules, I just want to know what Nymf will bring to the table instead of deleting stuff.--Therein8383 (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I dont know Nymf, but I do know there are people who solely work on improving Wikipedia by looking for vandalism or looking for edit wars to stop. So, as that is in-and-of-itself a lot to bring to the table, Nymf may not jump in with article assistance (or may... as I said, I've not followed that editor, so I've got no idea). When it comes to edit wars, unless it's on many reverts (or the person has a long history of such - which you do not), I try to handle it differently. I usually drop polite requests on all the editors' talk pages asking them to go to the article page before they revert again - then I'll follow the conversation for a bit to try to keep it civil and somewhat constructive. Usually that works... done that for Atheism, Andre Geim, Mariah Carey and a bunch of other articles. Doesnt mean Nymf's or my method is right or wrong - just the method I choose. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 20:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiTip

Hiya. Noticed you thought I deleted your sources. Almost nothing ever gets truly deleted here (exceptions being copyvio stuff or serious personal attacks). You can always find any version of the article, including cites, in it's history. Though it wont let you directly save an edit to a previous version, you can still click the edit link to copy links/cites or anything else in the previous version. Hope that helps, and hope I didnt cause you to have to dig back up that info... I kinda take such knowledge for granted, which I shouldn't have. Sorry I didnt leave you a note when I did it telling you where to find the info easily. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 22:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the week vacation!!!!

--Therein8383 (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)