User talk:Hedatari

Your edits to Mr. Children

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. A few words of advice: In order to keep the edit history of an article more readable, you might want to limit the number of consecutive edits to the same page a little. That's what the preview function is for. Also, you already came rather close to breaking the three-revert rule, though you probably were not aware of that one yet. - Cyrus XIII 23:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I got in trouble by an admin on another wiki article for making too large of an edit without giving a proper summary for all the edits I made, and thus the whole thing got reverted by them. (I'm not sure if you're an admin too) I also request that you please at least discuss some of the edits and such you make on the Mr.Children article. I know you're not trying to make any trouble/etc. for the article, and I am happy that someone else is helping out with fixing small typos and error, but some of your revisions and edits seem to be based on a personal preference. A heads up on the major things you change to the article would be extremely helpful. I just want to add though, I will make an effort to reduce the amounts of edits I make to the article, so it doesn't look like I've gone crazy or something. Hedatari 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wide-reaching changes to an article can always be done in a single step. Edit summaries can still remain brief, either by limiting them to the rationale behind potentially controversial edits or by directing fellow editors to a respective talk page entry that has all the details (usually prepared in advance, using a tabbed browser helps quite a bit). Take a look at WP:BOLD for further reading on editing scale.

Regarding personal preferences: Well, Wikipedia is an online publication, so readers are usually just one click away from the next topic they're interested in. Hence there is no point in listing a sizable portion of a discography more than once, especially since that information was moved to a separate page to conserve space in the main article in the first place. As for fansites, it is next to impossible to draw a line on that matter. As soon as we list one, others will want their favorite page to be included as well (that argument might not apply to the one with the booklet translation, as it fulfills an immediate purpose - I'm not so sure about the other one). Official sites are much easier to handle in that respect. - Cyrus XIII 00:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well then I guess the admin was wrong for doing that then... With the discography thing, it was agreed to be a nice thing to at least list the albums for a general overview. I've been using Mariah Carey's wiki as an example since it's a FA article, and her wiki's listed the albums on the main page (as a general overview) with no issues, so it seems a little odd that there would be one on a B article (hahaha). As for the websites, according to WP:EL: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews" can be in the external links. I've used the Innocent World site translations of the Oricon articles the person has done, the translation notes they did for some of the magazines (like R&R Newsmaker), and also got a good portion of the reference links from their site, so that's why I think their site should be linked too. Hedatari 00:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits about sales information of various Japanese musicians

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 220.253.31.178 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: the above warning is baseless and the user appeared to have given it based on a content dispute. Thank you. Aran|heru|nar 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hedatari, the above statement by me is a level 2 Wikipedia template. You made a rude reply in that articles talk page, and continued to re-enter information that was proven to be wrong. It was a friendly template warning to stop an edit war. 220.253.31.178 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Children comment

My comment on that articles talk page is not rude. It is blunt and to the point. Various people have been adding references to Oricon (in many different articles) and "misinterpreting" them. This has caused false information in many articles relating to Japanese music. I'm guessing its because those editors can't read Japanese. I find it strange that some people outside Japan seem to regard Oricon as an offical source or something. I'm not sure these persons know what Oricon actually does. Oricon is just a marketing company funded by Johnny Kitagawa, and they have been in a court of law many times. The only company that knows how many records an artist is selling/shipping, is the record label that has signed them. 220.253.31.178 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I found it to be rude. You just came out of no where and started accussing people of making things up. I do think you could have gone for a more calmer way to express yourself and your concerns about the accuracy of these articles. I mean I know what you're saying, but unfortunately Oricon is all anyone has. It'd be fantastic if their was another source we could all reference for sales, but Oricon is the only one putting one out and other places like yahoo.co.jp echo what they write (ex: they quoted Mr.Children's 50 million sales that Oricon reported). I've seen a many times B'z refered to as the best selling artist in Japan, and hey maybe that has to do with the fact that no one can find another source to say differently. I'm not trying to start some war with you, but I'm just trying to explain it's hard to find a better source. No one considers Oricon the official source. I personally consider RIAJ the official source, but they don't give out numbers. And record labels like to add shipped items onto artists sales and not just those that were sold, thus making numbers larger than what they really are, thus making them less trust worthy in a sense since they can report an artist "selling" one million copies of something when in fact it actually only sold 500,000. However technically someone could write "B'z is the #1 selling artist according to Oricon" and just reference that article, since according to Oricon in that article they are placed as #1 in their ranking. As long as they don't say "in all of Japan" it's not lying or vandalism since the source clearly shows them as #1 with the table drawn. Anyways just because Oricon has been sued doesn't mean anything. Tons of businesses/etc.. have been sued. That's life for you. - Hedatari (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That Oricon article does not say that B'z is the highest selling musician. 220.253.146.104 (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify. The table that is provided in the article clearly shows them at the #1 position. It says 順位 = order/rank, and then proceeds to list the top 5 artists in a ranking from 1 through 5. Next it says 総売上(万枚) = total sales (ten thousand count), followed by アーティスト = artist. The title of that table says アーティスト別総売上枚数(シングル＋アルバム) = the number of total sales by other artists (singles + albums). The table clearly shows a 1 next to B'z. If Oricon didn't consider them #1, then they shouldn't have put a #1 next to their name or ranked a top 5. This is the point I am trying to make. According to that article provided by Oricon, they are ranked as #1. You can not dispute that is what is written there. Who knows why they ranked it like that. Maybe they just base the sales off of currently active/living artists. I don't know. I don't work for them. All I'm trying to say is that according to that Oricon article, that's how they're ranked. That's all I'm trying to say. Which is why someone can say "According to Oricon B'z is #1", because unfortunately, according to that article Oricon released, that's what they're saying. There is a ranking of 1 next to the artist B'z, a rank of 5 next to DREAMS COME TRUE, a rank of 3 next to Southern All Stars, etc... - Hedatari (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, thats why I mentioned that the article had been misinterpreted as a best selling artist chart. 220.253.44.239 (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The similar data based on the Oricon have broadcast on television several times for many years, but their statistics includes some deceased musicians and disbanded groups such as The Checkers, Princess Princess, Yutaka Ozaki, and Zard. By the way, the IP user have argued that Hibari Misora, Michiya Mihashi and the Yellow Magic Orchestra are more successful music acts than Mr.Children and B'z , but each of their artists have sold less than 20 million copies of records since the launch of Oricon charts in 1968. In addition, I've never heard that Oricon was established by the founder of Johnny and Association. Soko Koike, the first president of the Oricon, was the former promoter of the Snow Brand Milk Products Company. It is merely IP user's insistences were not truth.- zoizoiz2 22:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a really bad problem with reading context Zoizoiz2, and appear to be making spiteful arguements due to being proven wrong from your comment "It is impossible for specific person or group to sell more than 100 million albums in only Asian countries." I guess you have never heard of Wei Wei (among others) only because you don't know certain musicians, doesn't mean other people don't. Furthermore (in regards to not being able to read context) where was it written that Oricon was established by the founder of Johnny and Associates? and where is this source that states those three musicians sold less than 20 million records since 1968? 220.253.44.239 (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)