Talk:Despina Vandi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

I removed this sentence from the article that I thought was quite POV:

Her irresistible pop / dance music, brought by long-time producer and friend Phoebus, in conjunction with her expensive shows and unrivaled vocal talents and beauty, make Despina the new international sensation to look out for and pave the way for a new decade of unrivalered hitmaking in Greece.

Feel free to put it back somehow rephrased.

-- Rune Welsh ταλκ 16:10, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

No. I hate to read advertising crap on WP. Well done. -andy 80.129.114.165 15:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

NEW CD!!!

HER NEW CD IS CALLED "SPECIAL EDITION"! ALSO THE CD"STIN AVLI TOY PARADEISOY" IT SOLD MORE THAN 80.000!UPDATE THAT PLEASE! WE WOULD LIKE,YOU,TO WRITE TO HER LINKS,HER FAN CLUB- WWW.VANDI.CJB.NET ,TOO!

thank you _very_ much (and please do not write in big letters, thanks!) By google'ing, I found an extremely old Tripod site (derkithira...) which was horrible in lay-out, outdated as hell and about 80% of photo links were not working. Seems orphaned. Will look on the CJB one, thank you guys! -vandifan 217.91.47.231 16:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sales

Please, do not add the sales. They are inofficial and keep changing. To meet with the wikipedia policy, only the platinum and gold status should be kept. Thank you. --Alexignatiou 08:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Despoina Nikolaidis

I removed the sentence "also known with her husband's name Despina Nikolaidis". This is not true. No one knows her as Despoina Nikolaidis. It is well known among Greeks that she is married with Demis Nikolaidis. But this may not be confused with how she is known and accepted to the collective consciousness. The fact that her husband is a famous football mentor does not mean that any soccer-fun of his can add his name wherever he likes and in meaningless sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madk (talk • contribs) 12:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Discography

Someone has got to clean it up, it's hard to read and i think it should be modelled after Keti Garbi's discography section. It's easy to read and looks better. I'd do it myself, but I don't know the years and such.

I am going to try to work on it to make it similar to Elena Paparizou's and Anna Vissi's. I'm making it my project for the next couple of weeks to upgrade most of the Greek discographies. Greekboy 02:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I spent about half an hour improving the wording and making the content seem ever so slightly more encyclopaedic. I hope people approve of the minor changes I made. I also added several citation needed tags where appropriate. On another note, I think we really need a better photo for the article, as you cannot even see her face - not good enough.Queer As Folk (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Since the Heaven Music website uses a system that only has one web address, meaning that it is impossible to link the exact page the information came from. Its there, you just have to search for it. Grk1011 (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Philanthropy

Does anyone have any evidence for the Philanthropy section? This is the first time I've read those things so just wondering. If there is no evidence, I suggest delete. Queer As Folk (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am deleting the philanthropy section. If anyone can find a source, please undo (I Googled for a long time and could not find anything - but I only searched English) Queer As Folk (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Start of Article

I am removing the brackets that say her international success is "(mainly in Europe)" as she did go to #1 on the US Billboard Dance charts, so I think that is unwarranted. Saying she has achieved moderate international success will suffice, in my opinion. Queer As Folk (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Image Captions

Every image caption uses the word "release" instead of 'album' or 'LP'. Is there a reason for this, or is it simply poor English? If the latter, I suggest replacing with "album". Queer As Folk (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is just a preference by an editor I suppose, but it isn't poor English. Grk1011 (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Iparhi Zoi

I think we should create a page for the Iparhi Zoi single, even though it is not a CD single (in similar fashion to Thelo). My rationale is as follows:

1) Nearing the end of the decade, e-singles are becoming increasingly common and Iparhi Zoi was released internationally as an e-single via iTunes on 13 July 2009

2) The single does not appear on any album (as of yet, it will most likely be included in Vandi's forthcoming album) and is not specified as a promotional single for the new album, so is thus a single in its own right.

3) As it stands, there is no page where the single can be added (apart from the singles discog.) so creating a page for it is the most logical solution; if needs be, the page can later be merged into the new album page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QueerAsFolk (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection: why?

I saw that this article is prtected until the 16th of May and/ or until disputes are resolved. Which disputes? I expected that it would be discussed on this page; the talk page. I would hope that some information will be required on this page. To whomever who created this protection: let 'us' know why. Thnx in advance. :) --Robster1983 (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This article was protected as a result of edit warring, with both this, the page protection, and the reason for it visible in the edit history. The idea of page protection is so disputes can be settled on the talk page, though unfortunately there has been little activity since the page protection has occurred. See Talk:Anna Vissi discography for more information. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Can we please stop the lazy refs on this page. If there can be enough initiative to find these references than I don't see why users can't take one minute out of their lives to properly format them. This page needs major clean-up. I'm putting a tag up.GreekStar12 (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ending this edit war

The edit warring on this article has now been going on for almost five months. I have tried protecting the article and asking disputes be resolved on the talk page, but when I do that everything goes quiet and edit warring just resumes when protection expires. Neither party seems to be interested in taking this to the talk page, possibly because both sides believe that consensus is on their side. The fact that edit warring has continued for so long, and has involved multiple parties on both sides, suggests that consensus is not established or needs to be made clearer.

I have been asked by both parties to "deal with" the other side. I think it needs to be emphasised that I am acting in administrator capacity here and it is not my job to resolve content disputes. Administrator tools are only supposed to be used for enforcing policy, such as that against edit warring. Ultimately, both sides in a content dispute must solve it themselves, though there is help available to make this process smoother. I am protecting the Despina Vandi and Despina Vandi discography articles from editing indefinitely until an effort is made by both parties to resolve this dispute. Edit warring, as shown that it has gone on for almost five months, is not achieving anything.

Content disputes are resolved by discussion. To kick start the process, I am leaving a note on the talk pages of all users involved in this edit war at some point, asking for a statement below on their position in this dispute, so each side at least understands each other some more, and we can move on from there. CT Cooper · talk 10:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It is very disturbing to see almost every day to argue about stupid things. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. It is not a fan club. Whatever is written must be correct. Now, if Vandi had or not a successful season, we can not judge because we read it in one website. First of all, when we want to write something we have to check if the source is valid or not. There are a lot of web pages who don't like some artists and write weird things. We have to see the general situation. All the singers don't sell CD's like 10 years before and this is due to the overall global piracy and the economic crisis in Greece. Also, we have to find official source for copies sold each CD. Maybe via IFPI. I will try to find a DVD-rom which they sell in stores, who have all the greek discography. So, if you like Despina Vandi please help to complete her bio. If you don't like her, just do other things and don't spend your life with useless things. tsironick · talk 21:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. CT Cooper · talk 11:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have several times rationalize the reason of reverts, which I do. The articles that the user Greekstar12 use, was written by a person and clearly by a negative point. Also, the aricles doesn't provide the sources that was used by the editor in order to support the same article. As I know Vlavianou and Serbos has no "contact" with music. How they know the sales of Vandi? How can Greekstar12 use them as sourced articles, although they aren't? Also, the same user, in the page of Vandi's discography use the site of phoebus as a sourced page in order to prove whatever he wrote. Although, in this page he don't accept the site of phoebus as sourced page. As a result he revert the reference from the site which prove the six-times platinum certification of single Ipofero. Although there are no rationalize for this. So, it isn't difficult to understand that the articles which the user use has no reason to exist there. --KatrinofGreece (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Providing a rationale for your actions, while a good idea, does not excuse edit warring. Also, it is worth pointing out that the edit summary is primarily there to state what changes you have made - discussion and justification should happen on the talk page - which it hasn't been up to now. I'm glad that more people are finally deciding to take this to the talk page, even if it has taken some time. I will reiterate that the zero tolerance rule is still in place on this article for the time being, so I hope other parties will comment here to allow us to make some progress. CT Cooper · talk 09:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel this whole discussion has gotten ridiculous. I think it is very clear who is initiating the warring, not cooperating, and which version of the page is more neutral. With the exception of Tsironick who has been very cooperative, the other two, Katrin and Teo have only been adding POV and glorifying statements to the article, reverting, vandalizing the article by removing reliably sourced content without rationale or consensus, attacking other artists' pages to make Vandi look better, refusing to respond to other users, and only say things like "I have rationalized my edits" when in fact never having done so and they just parrot whatever you say to them. Teo has broken 3rr on several occasions and I am really surprised he has not been blocked yet. I assume that they, like me, prefer to edit EN-wiki due to the state of music-related coverage on the Greek one, but if they want to do that they must be able to communicate with the other users. I think a lot of us have trouble understanding what they are writing. I've offered to discuss in Greek but they never took me up on that. Their version of the page is pure glorification and censorship. Anything remotely negative said about Vandi must be taken out, only sources that make her seem the most successful are reliable, and anything else is a conspiracy against the "great" artist that is Vandi. Wikipedia is not a fan club or a place for advocacy. What about a casual statement in time describing Vandi as queen of Greek pop, as Time readers will have no idea who she is, which was then placed in the lead and converted to Time called her "Queen of Greek Pop" as if it were capitalized in the text and an official title? Or how about on the discography a statement made by MAD saying that at that specific time she was the biggest female star was turned into "Biggest Greek Female Star" of all time. These are clearly taken out of context to make her seem more important. Most of this is just fans trying to find something to outrank Vissi. It is really childish that these things can go on for so many years, especially considering the state of both of their careers currently.

I will repeat again, that there was already a consensus on this issue, among myself, Greekboy, Grk1011, and Imperatore, while another user, Apau98 has also supported our version of the page. That consensus was, that seeing the abundance of reliable sources (four already in the article, here's another one [1]) and facts used to support these claims within these sources about the state of this artist's career etc, it would be censorship not to include them in the article. Basically if there are multiple reliable sources which support their content with relatively accurate facts rather than vague statements, information that could be considered contentious should be kept. In the case that there are not multiple sources to support a relatively controversial claim, it was decided that it could be kept as long as the author who made it was credited, as the average reader will see that it is based on their opinion/research and could potentially not represent the whole story. That last one tho is becoming irrelevant because here is another source supporting that the Rex show was a failure.[2] These methods are generally supported by Wikipedia policy. I agree that the validity of sources should be checked and some journalists may be biased, but there is not much you can do about it when there are facts supporting it. Are you all trying to say that so many varying, big name newspapers are all conspiring against Vandi? There has never been any question of the reliability of these publications before this dispute and they are far more reliable than the sources you guys use. Whether positive or negative, a journalist will always be a little bit biased because it is their objective to support a certain viewpoint, rather than sit on the fence. In fact a lot of the sources were used before to support positive info on Vandi (like Serbos/Tempo which is mostly positive in tone) but as soon as there is any negative information they try to take it off wiki completely, even removing non-contentious info. If the info was positive, no matter how ridiculous the claims or unreliable the source, I can guarantee nobody would have anything to say. And who said just because they are not rooted in music these journalists are completely irrelevant? They study media issues and one does not need to be a music executive to see how an artist's career is progressing, that claim is ridiculous. If they were judging Vandi's voice without having studied music that would make them less relevant but anyone can judge an artist's reception.

Many people use wiki as a primary source so it needs to be representative. If an alien who had no idea about Vandi were to read this, they should be able to understand what she is about. Obviously our version does that more than the fanclub bio supported by the other users. I generally try to work on sections about an artist's style or reception because they are more representative than saying "they released this and performed here". And Tsironick, why should only people who like Vandi be allowed to edit? Is that going to make the article NPOV? Just because Vandi's music is not my taste does not mean that I have an agenda against her, I would just like to see this page obtain a more representative view. I would be genuinely interested in expanding the article further if there weren't so much warring. And regardless, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, so it would be difficult to argue with so many sources. Our version does not go against BLP. Here is Mariah Carey which makes mention of a decline and the Japanese artists Ayumi Hamasaki and Kumi Koda both make mention of declines despite it being industry wide. If the decline was relatively small then perhaps it would be inappropriate to add, but you cannot tell me from 170k-100-30-less than 6k sales is not a notable decline, not to mention the decreased nightclub wages, small venues, and premature closing nights. Piracy etc have been a problem since the 80s and when Vandi began declining other artists were still selling fairly well, some still are. Vandi is not even selling at the level of the current thresholds, which serve as mediators. This is what the sources say about the decline that are specific to Vandi:

• they support that it is not industry wide but the laiko-pop artists and artists who based themselves on the bouzoukia scene, media coverage and gimmicks who are suffering most while entehno artists have remained consistent. Laiko-pop itself was a trend that arrived in the mid 90s, so if you are based on a trend obviously you will decline with the trend.
• Too much media attention around the Vissi-Vandi feud made people bored.
• Attempting an international career and thus neglecting Greek market.
• Several long hiatuses from the music scene.
• Lack of artistic evolution and repetitive trends in music.
• Artists like Vandi revolve more around instant hits than long-term ones.
• Younger artists, specifically Elena Paparizou, Peggy Zina etc gained popularity while Vissi and Vandi were absent.

As for the sales, the MAD TV spotlight is purely commercial and has several inaccuracies, such as saying Profities is her best-selling album. It also says Ipofero is 5x plat although you guys say six (despite there being no proof of this from the time of its release). You ignore that statement and use the other inflated sales in the article. You can't just pick which statements apply. Also why this tendency to only promote the higher claims? The mοst reliable sources support 100k for Profities, 170k for Gia, and 100K for SATP, the IFPI-endorsed numbers as you can see in the Eleftheros Typos article and [3] both from 2009. The other sources are unreliable, poorly researched and derivative of inflated claims over the years. Petros Dragoumenos is the only one who supports 200k for Gia and he is an independent researcher with no affiliation to IFPI. Also, Vandi was on Chart Show where they said she has 3 albums with 100k sales or more and that Deka Entoles sold 63K NOT 100k. Wouldn't she correct them if they were wrong? And she admitted herself her pre-Phoebus albums were unsuccessful. It's pretty sad when you start censoring the artist herself. I am writing all of this with plans not to have to respond again. GreekStar12 (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read all of this, and there are some points relating to administration and consensus that I need to respond to. I understand that some users might find the lack of decisive action frustrating, but it is not appropriate for admins to respond to content disputes by swooping in and blocking one side, as is often demanded. If one side is at fault that usually comes out with time, and it is good we are making some progress here. 3RR has been breached by Teo on at least one occasion, however blocks have not been given out based on technicalities related to warnings. Blocks can be given out for non-3RR breaching edit warring as well, but it has to be well justified, and the zero tolerance rules acts as a pre-emptive warning to make this easier.

There have been repeated references to a consensus on this issue, though it would be helpful if someone would point me and other users to this discussion. Discussion about the content of an article should take place on the talk page, and it seems quite clear to me that this edit war has been going on for almost six months with virtually no talk page discussion until I made otherwise, which is very troubling for both parties in this dispute. I remember being told on at least one occasion that there was a discussion offsite on this, but the Wikipedia:Consensus policy is quite clear on this point:

“

• Off-wiki discussions. Discussions on other websites, web forums, IRC, by email, or otherwise off the project are generally discouraged. They are not taken into account when determining consensus "on-wiki", and may generate suspicion and mistrust if they are discovered. While there is an occasional need for privacy on some issues, most Wikipedia-related discussions should be held on Wikipedia where they can be viewed by all participants.

”

So any offsite consensus doesn't count as far as policy, and hence myself, is concerned. For the fairness of all parties discussion should be on this talk page, or at least somewhere on Wikipedia. I am aware of communication issues as well, as I also have a lot of trouble understanding what KatrinofGreece is saying some of the time, as I have already mentioned on her talk page. I hope we can get round this and resolve it in a friendly way - as it is a rather personal issue, but if not, I might have to consult other venues on finding a solution, if it becomes clear that it is blocking dispute resolution. CT Cooper · talk 14:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that discussions should be on the talk page but some of the other users preferred a private one. Here is something from my talk page referencing the discussion:

Per our discussion on AIM, we were to keep the majority of your changes to Despina Vandi, however, there were to be some wording tweaks to address generalization issues. You seem to keep reverting other users to get back to your version and keep citing our consensus, but fail to actually make the tweaks. The way I see it, we are going from a positive pov to a negative pov, so neither side is right until those changes are made and I assume that unless those changes are made, these other users will keep reverting you. Grk1011 (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the page? I made the tweaks similar to Anna Vissi which you said seemed fine. I was just waiting for your opinion.GreekStar12 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have addressed some of the issues based on a diff of your first version compared to now, which I missed. [4] I'll have to read through the article completely before I can say for sure that everything is all set. Grk1011 (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The tweaks were made in the same fashion as on Anna Vissi where there has not been a problem since. As for the communication issue, if you look at the last paragraph in the bio Katrin added something saying "Despina Vandi...as revealed by the same" which is a Greek expression that has obviously been translated with an online translator and makes no sense. Another issue is fancruft and insignificant information. Like the fact that Vandi had the first video to reach 1 million views on youtube (which has since been deleted) is definitely not lead material. Also, the three sources used are the exact same article reprinted to sister sites, which these users commonly do. The list of celebrities that saw her at Thalassa is definitely not relevant biographical information. The addition of such fancruft only makes the artist seem irrelevant and I don't understand how some users can think that is biographically relevant or encyclopaedic but a significant decline, dropping out of college etc are not. The other day I added a source saying Vandi was criticized for saying she would have rather died than be left paralyzed after her accident, criticism which she acknowledged and responded to, only to be reverted by katrin who says "here we have the biography of Vandi not her statements". Really? Since when are controversial statements that received heavy media attention not relevant? More censorship. Again there is no issue with the verifiability of the abundant sources or BLP issues and the users have never supported their arguments legitimately with reference to policy. Also, I personally feel that unregistered users should be indefinitely blocked from editing even after the dispute is resolved as there is too much Vissi-Vandi etc feuds and they will just revert any progress. GreekStar12 (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not removing the semi-protection on this article before it is set to expire in July, and if there is further disruption on either this article or Anna Vissi I will consider indefinite semi-protection. I have warned Katrin about her recent revert, and she appears to have received it, but has not yet responded. If tries to edit war again without making any meaningful contribution to the talk page, then I have made clear she will be blocked. CT Cooper · talk 12:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I read this whole litany of slander and I do not see anywhere any credible argument for what it says that user. Do you have any evidence to prove what you say or all of these just words? Still, articles and lists a "yellow paper (I do not know how is the term in English)" as it features writing from them, so it is not acceptable as reliable. Still, users who said that the claim is obvious that they follow the same vile tactics followed by the user TEO. If there is anything negative about the career Anna Vissi it is not accepted. Still, there is an element that shows that I am not fan Vandi is the fact that the article concerning the single of Jambi though I went to remove the reference to a single platinum, which was not true, the user Grk1011 if I am not accidentally revert the change. You can see from the page history. Still, whatever the user says the sales of the disc Gia and deka entoles is a lie and can easily be proven as the emission of chart show in which Vandi had found exist on you tube and you can heard clearly that Vandi has 4 discs that have sold more than 100.000 copies and one who has sold up to 200.000 copies(specifically state the disk Gia). [5] It is worth noting that Peter Dragoumanos is mathematical analyst and formerly a member of ifpi. Still, on Wikipedia page must be biographical information and not statements of the artists. Finally, we ask that user to show us when he asked me to dialogue in Greek. I speak with arguments and not with simply words. --KatrinofGreece (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the above, and while I get the gist of some of it, other parts of it just don't make sense to a native English speaker. I've asked this previously, and I am going to ask it again, are you using an automated translator to contribute? As for the claim by GreekStar12 that he asked to communicate in Greek, I can find that myself here, and it is still present on your talk page. If you wish to talk in Greek, I'm not going to stop you, but it is not ideal as discussions on the English Wikipedia are supposed to be held in English so all users can follow them. Unfortunately very few native English speakers, including myself, speak Greek. Non-native English speakers are welcome to contribute to this project, but they have be able to speak the language fluently, or near fluently, and not be reliant on automated translators or anything similar. The truth is that if users can't understand each other, a dispute will never be resolved, and as I said earlier, I am concerned that communication is a problem here. CT Cooper · talk 22:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I can definitely say this has been translated; when I put it through the translator to Greek to comprehend what she was saying it translated almost perfectly to Greek. BTW CT, Star is a she ;) Katrin I do have proof and that would be all the edit and discussion histories, as CT already just proved. Sorry, what is yellow journalism that is used here? I don't see any tabloids - unless you are saying that the biggest newspapers in Greece - Eleftheros Typos, Kathimerini, To Vima, and Proto Thema - all with more or less the same opinion are yellow journalism but your little blog posts and advertising crap are reliable. The other sites such as Tempo etc are online media news sites and none of these sources have ever had any question of reliability on Wikipedia until they were used to source negative info, very convenient. I really don't understand what you are trying to say when you say they are articles written by people. Who are they supposed to be written by robots? Opinions of published authors are certainly permitted. If an artist makes a controversial statement that receives harsh media backlash then that is definitely notable, unlike a list of celebrities that came to her show. Anyway, she herself acknowledged the criticism and responded to it and it's only one sentence so it's not like there's undue weight; this is not Wikipedia according to what Katrin wants to include as there is nothing in policy against including quotes. It seems you just don't want to include statements because Vandi has a long history of foot in mouth syndrome.

You can clearly see here on that show that 1) Deka Endoles sold 63,000 2)she has 11 platinum records and 3 gold. [6] In your video that only proves that she said her period of commercial success was in essence only ten years as pre-Phoebus she had low sales and she hadn't released anything for several years recently. Dragoumanos later in the show clearly says diskoi which is equivalent to records; Vandi does indeed have four 100k+ selling records: the three albums and the single Ipofero. She made a casual statement that her total sales were raised to 90-somethingK, and Deka was close to the threshold of 2x platinum NOT that it was actually certified. Two different things. Anyway who cares if Dragoumenos thinks it sold 200k? Who is he and who says he is the most reliable source? He is an independent researcher meaning as soon as we get another source his word is out the window. Eleftheros Typos and Orfeas, a very reliable in-depth music network, are much more reliable than some sketchy old man who used to work for IFPI before "leaving". Typos and Orfeas and most other sources say 100k for profities and 170k for gia, the ifpi endorsed/most commonly cited sales. There is another example where in the same article Orfeas refutes the 2mil+ claims of the album Dromos and supports the widely endorsed 1 mil claim, which clearly shows reliability rather than sensationalism. I personally don't think an independent researcher who releases dvds should be given a lot of weight but I included his research in the article anyway, but you Katrin don't want to include both, but just whatever number is the highest.

As for Vissi that claim is ridiculous. I was the one who recently expanded the lead and it mentions that her albums since she went more commercial have received mixed reviews, how since the 2000s her popularity declined, and how most of her international attempts have not succeeded and actually damaged her domestic career. Not to mention that Nylon, Apagorevmeno were considered relative failures, how younger artists replaced her, and her recent concert was a major flop that put the charity 60k euros in debt. Fans on that page initially didn't like the contents but it's hard to argue with verifiable facts/wide public perceptions and if you actually looked at the page you can see it is still included. GreekStar12 (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As a can see there is a problem of understanding I'm going to answer with Greek. Ι hope that someone translate, everything I'm going to write, in English. Τα άρθρα τα οποία αναφέρεις, τα οποία έχουν γραφτεί και από ανθρώπους όπως λες πολύ απλά δεν αναφέρουν τα ονόματα αυτών των ανθρώπων, οπότε πως μπορούμε να βασιστούμε στην αξιοπιστία τους, εφόσον ο ίδιος ο αρθρογράφος δεν αναφέρει που βασίστηκε για να συντάξει το συγκεκριμένο κείμενο; Ακόμα, κάποιος λόγος υπάρχει και δεν αναφέρεται το όνομά του. Μήπως γιατί φοβάται τις επιπτώσεις όλων των συκοφαντιών που γράφει; Όλοι ξέρουμε πως στην Ελλάδα η δημοσιογραφία βρίσκεται σε άθλια κατάσταση και ο καθένας μπορεί να γράψει ό,τι θέλει. Μιλάω για κίτρινο τύπο συγκεκριμένα στο άρθρο που μιλάς για αποτυχία στο Rex όπου αναφέρεται χαρακτηριστικά η φράση "Διαβάστε, τα τελευταία (κίτρινα) νέα, εδώ!". Ακόμα, το γεγονός ότι παρέμεινε δύο ακόμα χρόνια στο Rex από τότε που γράφτηκε το άρθρο αναιρεί την αξιοπιστία των λεγομένων σου. Άρα, τα άρθρα δεν μπορούν να γίνουν αποδεχτά ως αξιόπιστα για τους παραπάνω λόγους.

Επιπλέον, αν δεν δεχτούμε την αλήθεια ενός ειδικού για τις πωλήσεις τότε τι θα δεχτούμε;;; Την αναξιοπιστία αστοιχείωτων περί μουσικής δημοσιογραφίσκων οι οποίοι κρύβονται πίσω από την ανωνυμία τους για να γράψουν ό,τι τους κατεβαίνει προκειμένου να επωφεληθούν;;;; Ο Δραγουμάνος δεν μελετά τις πωλήσεις των single (λογικά επειδή δεν έχουν τα ίδια επίπεδα πωλήσεων) αλλά τις πωλήσεις των άλμπουμ και γι' αυτό αναφέρει, στην πηγή που πρόσθεσα, μόνο 15 χρυσούς και πλατινένιους (Δέκα εντολές 2 φορές, Προφητείες 3 φορές, Γεια 5 φορές, Live 1 φορά, Στην αυλή του Παραδείσου 2 φορές, 10 Χρόνια Μαζί 1 φορά και το best of της που έγινε χρυσό μας κάνει σύνολο 14 πλατινένιους και μια πλατίνα) αριθμός ο οποίος θα ανέβαινε κατά πολύ με την προσθήκη όλων των single της Δέσποινας οι οποίοι αποτελούν από μόνοι τους έναν αριθμό της τάξης των 12 πλατινένιων και ενός χρυσού. Άρα, συμπεραίνεις ότι αυτοαναιρείσαι.

Ακόμα, η Βανδή αναφέρει 95,000 δίσκους την περίοδο που το cd κυκλοφόρησε. Δεν είναι λογικό με το πέρας του χρόνου και την άνοδο της καριέρας της το cd να πούλησε άλλες 5,000 δίσκους, όπως ανέφερε και το ίδιος της το επίσημο site και άλλες πηγές;; Επιπλέον, για ποιο λόγο ανώνυμοι δημοσιογράφοι θεωρούνται αξιόπιστοι ενώ άνθρωποι της ίδιας της ifpi όχι;;; Είναι λογικό, λοιπόν, μιας και οι πηγές του Δραγουμάνου είναι επώνυμες, οι πιο σύγχρονες σε σχέση με τις υπόλοιπες (αρκεί να κοιτάξει κανείς της ημερομηνίες του κάθε άρθρο) οι πηγές του να θεωρούνται οι πιο αξιόπιστες (άλλωστε μην ξεχνάμε: με την πάροδο του χρόνου οι πωλήσεις αλλάζουν) και τις έχει γράψει ένας άνθρωπος ο οποίος είναι ειδικός με τέτοιου είδους θέματα και τα μελετούσε εκ των έσω (ifpi). Αν βρεθεί μια πηγή πιο σύγχρονη και επώνυμη που να κάνει αναφορά σε χαμηλότερες πωλήσεις δεν θα είχα κανένα πρόβλημα να προστεθούν. Απ' όλες αυτές τις πηγές που αναφέρεις μόνο αυτή του Σέρβου είναι επώνυμη αλλά ο ίδιος αναφέρει απλώς ότι η καριέρα της Βανδή έχει δεκτή παρακμή αποφεύγει, όμως, να τεκμηριώσει τα λεγόμενά του προκειμένου να γίνουν πειστικά δεν παραθέτει καν από που άντλησε όσα λέει. Παράδειγμα, αναξιοπιστίας: αναφέρει το 2 φορές πλατινένιο single "Άντε Γεια" ως 3 φορές πλατινένιο. Που το στηρίζει αυτό;;; Αν ήμουν fan, όπως λες θα το πρόσθετα κι αν ήσουν κι εσύ αντικειμενικός θα το πρόσθετες, επίσης. Τίποτα, απ' αυτά δεν έγινε όμως.

Όσον αφορά το θέμα της Βίσση δεν έχω να πω κάτι περαιτέρω παρά μόνο ότι δεν θα μπορούσε να θεωρηθεί εμπορική αποτυχία το άλμπουμ της Απαγορευμένο, βέβαια, αυτό είναι σχετικό, αν συγκρίνεις το άλμπουμ με παλιότερά της που έκαναν περισσότερες πωλήσεις είναι αποτυχία αλλά αν το συγκρίνει με τα επίπεδα πωλήσεων και τις πωλήσεις άλλων άλμπουμ είναι επιτυχία. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatrinofGreece (talk • contribs) 09:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies to GreekStar for the gender error on my part - Wikipedia is so overwhelmingly male I often just assume any user I'm talking to is a he. As for responding in Greek, here is translation from Google translate:

“ The articles that mention, which were written by people like you say simply does not mention the names of these people, so that we can rely on their credibility if he does not mention the columnist who relied on to prepare this document? Still, one reason there is no mention of the name. Is it because he fears the consequences of all the slander that says? We all know that in Greece that journalism is in a terrible situation and everyone can write whatever he wants. Speaking of yellow type specific to the article talk about failure at Rex features indicating the words "Read the last (yellow) new here!". Still, the fact remained that two more years to Rex since the article was written undermine the credibility of what you. Thus, the articles can not be admissible in reliably for the above reasons.

Moreover, if we do not accept the truth for a specific sales then what will we accept??? The unreliability of the music illiterate dimosiografiskon who hide behind their anonymity to write what they descend to benefit???? The Dragoumanos not considering the sale of single (logical because they have the same level of sales) but the sales of albums and therefore indicate the source added, only 15 gold and platinum (Ten Commandments 2 times, 3 times Prophecies, Hi 5 times , Live 1 time in the courtyard of Paradise 2 times, 10 Years Together 1 time and the best of the gold made us a total of 14 platinum and a platinum) number which would rise significantly by the addition of all the single Despina which are themselves a number of about 12 platinum and one gold. Thus, it concludes that aftoanaireisai.

Still, Vandi 95.000 records indicate the time when the cd was released. It makes no sense at the end of the year and the rise of her career to the cd sold 5.000 other records, he said, and he's the official site and other sources?? Furthermore, why anonymous reporters are reliable and people's own ifpi not??? It makes sense, then, since the source is named Dragoumanou, more modern than the other (as long as you look at the dates of each article) to the sources are considered more reliable (also not forget : Over the years sales change) and has written a man who is an expert in such matters and studied the inside (ifpi). If you find a source of latest and high profile that makes reference to lower sales I would have no problem to add. From all these sources mention only that the Serbs are named, but he says only that her career has allowed Vandi avoid decline, however, to substantiate his words in order to be convincing not explain even drawn from what he says. For example, unreliable: report of 2 times platinum single "Ante Gia" as 3 times platinum. That supports this??? If I fan, as you say will add you and you were the additional objective will, too. Nothing of them was not though.

On the issue of Vissi I have to say anything further except that it could be considered commercial failure of the album banned, of course, is relative, if compare with previous albums made the most sales is a failure but if you compare the levels of sales and sales of other albums are successful.

”

I have a lot of trouble understanding some of it, but if GreekStar can understand the Greek version then we can make some progress. CT Cooper · talk 11:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've stayed out of this for a while, but have been reading everyone's replies as they've come in. This started when Greekstar attempted to remove some of the glorification of Vandi from the article. Other editors were offended by this and reverted. I too was against the way Greekstar added the information as well since she was passing off the opinions of some authors as being the universal opinion held by everyone. We talked and addressed this, which resulted in "according to so and so of..." or similar which allows the criticism (which does exist) to be included without being presented as an undeniable fact. It's not only the Vandi article that is having issues, but the Vissi one as well. For Katrin to come here and accuse us of being Vissi supporters of whatever is irrelevant. The same exact thing is happening there: other editors are reverting Greekstar's attempts to make the article more neutral. This position that well the Vissi article is more positive at this second than Vandi is just childish.

In response to Katrin's claims about "yellow" press, what does that have anything to do with anything? Are they lying? The information added was found in more than one source by multiple authors. Also, I am a little surprised at the amount of reverts and undos over the passed two days considering the zero tolerance rule below. Grk1011 (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I understood the Greek but I'm not quite sure what the point is. Basically, Katrin is claiming that these are anonymous writers, which they are not: Savvopoulou, Serbos, Vlavianou, and Sykka, and they don't "provide a source" for their statements or something, which is ridiculous because they are from newspapers, they are primary sources and they back up their claims through their own research and facts within the article and are then published by major newspapers. Then she says something about the journalism being terrible in Greece and the yellow press. Which, I somewhat agree, but I believe the problem is more so with censorship, so if even the "terrible" Greek journalism is picking up on Vandi's failures it must be quite obvious ;) Either way, if wiki is about verifiability, unfortunately majority perception wins, and a dozen sources is quite the majority. Supposedly the fact that she stayed at Rex 2 more years is supposed to prove it was successful; with that logic, after the 2006-07 show she left there, which obviously proves the show was a failure right? She thinks that for sales we should trust professionals and not journalists who are not based in music, but forgets that Dragoumanos as previously mentioned is no longer affiliated with IFPI, meaning he researches independently and is not backed up by a company. This means that Typos and Orfeas (the latter is a music journalist for your information) published in 2009 are the most reliable sources as they take the IFPI endorsed #s. It has already been established here on Wikipedia that Dragoumanos' research is not the most reliable (as it actually conflicts with some information presented by IFPI itself). It is also wiki policy to represent the majority opinion and to a lesser extent the minorities. Very small minorities should not be represented. The later part of the video is casual talk; I believe Vandi said her TOTAL sales including her first two albums were raised to 90k which is "almost" equivalent to a 2x plat. The logic that the album must have sold more over time and certified is pure speculation. That's a big problem in Greece, that instead of sales they just take the sales divide by the threshold and say the album is X times platinum (even recently with newspapers covermount sales which are not counted by ifpi), when in reality, despite sales an album can only obtain a certification when awarded by ifpi. Same thing with "Ipofero"; MAD TV only said it was close to 6x plat but no update was ever given. There has never been any proof (a picture, a news article) from the time that it was ever certified 6x plat and this makes sense since Vandi-Phoebus left EMI very soon after the 5x plat cert, so why would EMI waste money applying for a cert? With the exception of Ipofero, none of your sales claims are supported by Phoebus' site even. That episode of chart show counted the women with the most golds and platinums, regardless of the varying thresholds, and counted albums, singles, and dvds. This can be proven in the beginning of the video where they show the covers of her albums and singles and also they claimed ie that Paparizou has seven platinums; at the time she only had 1 2x plat and 3 plat albums, meaning they included her singles. In the video introduction it also clearly says she has 11 platinum records : 1)Deka entoles 2)Spania 3)Profities 4)Ipofero 5)Gia 6)Ante Gia 7)Live 8)Stin Avli Tou Paradeisou 9)Come Along Now 10)10 HM and 11)Kalanta and three gold: 1)The Best 2)Gia (single) and 3)The Video Collection. Makes perfect sense. The magazine Difono compiled a list of albums that had sold over 100k by the end of the 90s; there were 37 and nothing of Vandi's was on there.

Also, a single editor does not get to decide what sources are reliable or should be used; none of the newspapers are tabloids or sold in the tabloid section even, so if your point was that this is "yellow" journalism you should have begun a discussion in the first place so it could be decided if the sources are reliable, even though there is no way that Kathimerini etc would be voted unreliable, that's like saying the New York Times is unreliable for wiki. As for Serbos, perhaps the certifications are not well researched and clearly other sources trump them, but that is statistical and does not make the biographical info obsolete, especially since it is supported by the other sites/papers. It is generally accepted on Wikipedia for a statement with multiple sources be presented as fact and single opinions attribute the author. I still don't see though what this has to do with taking out Vandi's ill statements etc. GreekStar12 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've deliberately stayed out of the content debate in order to remain WP:UNINVOLVED, however things are beginning to fall into place now on this, and I do get the gist of Katrin's points. On the point raised by Grk1011, there is a rather large loophole in it with the exemption of "The reverting editor has recently commented on this talk page, and the user they are reverting has not done so.", and while "recently" is open to debate, when I wrote that I wasn't thinking that users should revert every time they comment on the talk page. There should be a waiting period to allow another party to respond before implementing the comments they have made on the article. I am hence amending this rule as set out at the bottom of the page, which now gives 72 hours for the other party to respond before reverts are permitted. I admit I was being bold by unilaterally imposing the "zero tolerance rule", but really is just the Wikipedia:Edit warring policy with clearer red lines, and has on the whole been effective.

My advice to Katrin here would be that her argument would be stronger if she illustrated and explained how her opinions on the content of the article fall in line with the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, in particular WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:IRS. CT Cooper · talk 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Αν όντως τα άρθρα τους προέρχονται από αναζητήσεις, όπως, λες τότε γιατί δεν αναγράφονται τα site ή τα βιβλία ή γενικά οτιδήποτε στο οποίο ανέτρεξαν έτσι ώστε να αυξηθεί η αξιοπιστία του άρθρου;; Πάντως πολλές φορές τα γραφόμενά τους και οι πωλήσεις στις οποίες αναφέρονται δεν συνάδουν με τις πιστοποιημένες από την ifpi απονομές όχι μόνο για τις πωλήσεις δίσκων της Βανδή αλλά και της Άννας Βίσση (για παράδειγμα κάποιο άρθρο αναφέρει ότι το Τραύμα πούλησε 350,000 αντίτυπα ενώ έχει πιστοποιηθεί 3 φορές πλατινένιο πράγμα που σημαίνει πως έχει πουλήσει πάνω από 150,000 αντίτυπα και κάτω από 200,000, δηλαδή τις πρέπουσες πωλήσεις για να πιστοποιηθεί ένα άλμπουμ 4πλα πλατινένιο) εν' αντιθέσει με το άρθρο που υπάρχει στην σελίδα του δίσκου "Γεια" ([7]) το οποίο είναι το μόνο που αναφέρει ξεκάθαρα από που άντλησε τις πηγές του. Ακόμα, ποιος καθιστά έγκυρο το γεγονός πως ο Δραγουμάνος δεν βασίζει τα γραφόμενά του στην ιfpi;; Νομίζω πως εφόσον κανένας μας δεν έχει δει την βιβλιογραφία του βιβλίου του δεν μπορεί να ξέρει που βασίζεται. Άλλωστε, και στην ifpi να μην βασίζεται ας μην ξεχνάμε πως ο Δραγουμάνος είναι ειδικός σε θέματα μουσικής και ειδικός μαθηματικός. Ακόμα, αν όντως όσα έλεγε (και στην εκπομπή Chart Show και στα βιβλία του) δεν βασίζονταν σε πραγματικές πωλήσεις δεν θα είχε επέμβει η ifpi με την κατηγορία της δυσφήμισης και της παραποίησης στοιχείων εφόσον ο ίδιος δούλευε στην ifpi και γνώριζε τις πραγματικές πωλήσεις. Επιπλέον, πως μπορείς να αποδείξεις ότι το site Ορφέας έχει λάβει έγκριση από την ifpi; Μπήκα στο site και δεν παρατήρησα κάτι τέτοιο οπότε θα σε παρακαλούσα να με διαφωτίσεις περί του θέματος για ό,τι γνωρίζεις. Αναφέρεις ότι η βικιπέδια δεν δέχεται ότι η έρευνα του Δραγουμάνου είναι η πιο αξιόπιστη γιατί κάποια στοιχεία έρχονται σε σύγκρουση με την ifpi: α) ποια ακριβώς στοιχεία έρχονται σε σύγκρουση; Γιατί απο το προηγούμενο μήνυμά μου προκύπτει ότι οι απονομές της Βανδή σύμφωνα με τα λεγόμενα του Δραγουμάνου, έρχονται σε πλήρη ταύτιση με τις πιστοποιημένες απονομές της ifpi β) με την ίδια λογική τα άρθρα που παρέθεσες δεν μπορούν, εξίσου, να θεωρηθούν αξιόπιστα γιατί, όπως επιχειρηματολόγησα παραπάνω (εννοώ αυτά που ανέφερα γι τις πωλήσεις του άλμπουμ "Τραύμα") αυτά είναι που πραγματικά έρχοντα σε σύγκρουση με τις απονομές της ifpi. Αυτά που αναφέρεις (ότι η Βανδή μιλούσε για τις συνολικές πωλήσεις των δύο άλμπουμ της): α) αποτελεί δικιά σου πεποίθηση και όχι πραγματικό στοιχείο και β) είναι ξεκάθαρο ότι η Βανδή μιλάει για το άλμπουμ της "Δέκα εντολές", άλλωστε στην εκπομπή της Άννας Δρούζας το 1998 είχε αναφέρει και τότε ότι το άλμπουμ είχε φτάσει τις 95,000 πωλήσεις. Ακόμα, τα λεγόμενα της Βανδή πιστοποιούνται και από μια τρίτη πηγή, την Έλενα Παπαρίζου (δες την παραπομπή που θα δώσω και θα καταλάβεις [8]) η οποία μιλάει κι αυτήν για πωλήσεις του άλμπουμ της τάξης των 95,000 δίσκων. Επιπρόσθετα, να σε ενημερώσω ότι ο δίσκος "Δέκα Εντολές" δεν έχει κυκλοφορήσει ποτέ ως δίσκος σε εφημερίδα και πως στην Ελλάδα μετά το πέρας αρκετών χρόνων δεν γίνονται απονομές παλιότερων άλμπουμ. Ακόμα, δεν υπάρχει ξεχωριστή ιστοσελίδα της ifpi στην οποία να αναρτούνται οι απονομές των δίσκων οπότε αυτό που αναφέρεις ως κερδοσκοπία αποτελεί πρόβλημα οργάνωσης της ifpi με αποτέλεσμα να δημιουργείται προβλήματα. Η απονομή ως 6πλα πλατινένιο του Υποφέρω πιστοποιείται και από άλλο site εκτός του Φοίβου, επίσης υπάρχουν άρθρα που πιστοποιούν και τις πωλήσεις του Υποφέρω οι οποίες αντιστοιχούν σε 6πλη πλατίνα, ακόμα και οι 400,000 πωλήσεις του Γεια πιστοποιούνται [9] [10] . Επίσης, κι εσύ εκτός από την αναφορά στο Υποφέρω υποστηρίζεις όλες τις άλλες αναφορές του site. Αυτό που λες για την Παπαρίζου και για την Βανδή ισχύει, στα βίντεο ανέφεραν και τα άλμπουμ και τα singles που έχουν πιστοποιηθεί χρυσά ή πλατινένια, ανεξαρτήτως πόσες φορές ενώ όταν ο Δραγουμάνος μίλησε στην Βανδή αναφέρθηκε στο σύνολο των πλατινένιων ΔΙΣΚΩΝ (όπως ο ίδιος ανέφερε), δηλαδή στο πόσοι είναι οι συνολικοί πλατινένιοι που έχει αποκτήσει από τα άλμπουμ τις όλα μαζί. Γι' αυτό ο αριθμός των πλατινένιων στο ένα βίντεο διαφοροποιείται από τον αριθμό των πλατινένιων από το άλλο βίντεο. Και τα γραφόμενα του περιοδικού Διφώνου αληθεύουν. Κανένα άλμπουμ της Βανδή δεν μπόρεσε να πουλήσει πάνω από 100,000 αντίτυπα μέσα στην δεκαετία του 1990-1999. Ο δίσκος "Δέκα Εντολές" κατάφερε να τις πλησιάσει (οι 95,000 που αναφέρθηκαν), ωστόσο μέσα στην δεκαετία του 2000 το κατάφερε και ο δίσκος "Προφητείες" δεν πρόλαβε να πουλήσει τα απαραίτητα αντίτυπα καθώς κυκλοφόρησε 1 μήνα πριν το τέλος της χιλιετίας. Καταλαβαίνεις, λοιπόν, πως όσα έχω γράψει σχετικά με τις απονομές και τις πωλήσεις τις Βανδή δεν προκύπτουν από το γεγονός πως είμαι φαν της (πράγμα που δεν ισχύει) αλλά από το γεγονός πως μου αρέσει η Ελληνική μουσική και έχω μελετήσει πάρα πολλά όσων αφορά τους καλλιτέχνες που σημάδευσαν και σημαδεύουν την μουσική της Ελλάδος (είτε είναι ξένοι είτε Έλληνες). Όλες αυτές οι προσθαφαιρέσεις μου δεν προκύπτουν από κάποια αντιπάθεια προς εσένα απλά εγώ, λόγω του γεγονότος ότι ζω στην Ελλάδα τυχαίνει να γνωρίζω κάποια επιπλέον πράγματα για τον τρόπο με τον οποίο λειτουργούν τα πράγματα εδώ, τα οποία εσύ αγνοείς όχι εσκεμμένα αλλά εξαιτίας του ότι ζεις στο εξωτερικό.--KatrinofGreece (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ι do some further changes in order to become the article more "neutral" and finally to find a solution. Please if you have another opinion for some points mention them here in order to discuss them. --KatrinofGreece (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Since there is already been one violation, I am re-iterating now that the "zero tolerance rule" as amended below is now in force on this article. If there are any doubts on any part of it, don't revert, ask me. CT Cooper · talk 18:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Again Katrin, unlike my edits, you did not try to make the article more neutral but just to prove your points. First of all please don't jump to conclusions about people you don't know. I am from Greece and have lived there for most of my life. I study here but I live there almost half the year every year so I doubt you really know anything more than I. Basically this whole response is about the sales issue. She agrees with the validity of Difono and that that for that episode Chart Show counted all types of certifications but says that Vandi's albums surpassed 100k after the end of the 90s and that in the end of the show Dragoumanos was specifically talking about albums and Vandi claimed 95k for Deka. However she also agrees that IFPI does not usually update certifications after a certain period of time, which would disprove that Deka or Ipofero were eventually certified higher. Also this would also make the eventual sales of her 90s albums speculation. We do not have any reliable sources for updated sales. Also if Dragoumanos was talking about records or albums is subjective. If he was specifically talking about albums he should have said "albums" which is a widely recognized term in Greece. I personally believe Vandi was talking about her total album sales and you say just the one album so it is subjective. In either case she never said it actually was certified. The only part of the video that is not subjective casual talk is the beginning where it clearly states 63k. And what does Paparizou have to do with this? Is she supposed to be a reliable source lol? Paparizou cited Vandi's claims on the show about the market issues that in general nobody could sell 95k/album anymore; she did not say a specific album sold that much. The whole piece was Paparizou trying to justify her own declining sales and decision to release albums in newspapers and had NOTHING to do with Vandi.

Discogs is certainly not a reliable source for sales. They have nothing to do with the Greek indsutry and just take their info from other sites. I do not support Phoebus' site as reliable for sales but I mentioned that you use all of the MAD Spotlight as a source for the higher claims and then Phoebus for Ipofero as MAD cited it as 5x plat. You cannot just pick which ones apply. Also, over time sensationalism usually triumphs in journalism and misrepresents the facts. I'm sure there are a lot of sites saying Ipofero is 6x plat but can you actually find a source for this from back then? No. Considering the amount of debate on this issue I believe one should be provided instead of a bunch of random sites that re-print the same misinformed info. All the sources back then stated Branson awarded Vandi for the best-selling single ever AT VIRGIN MEGASTORES which was later generalized to best-selling single of all time. Virgin MS is now out of business and they were never around earlier so that claim is highly unrepresentative to make from a single retailer. Have you ever heard of circular sourcing? Tralala is known to derive their articles from other publishers. Apart that the sales contradict some other sources it says Kravgi sold 340,000 copies/units (it sold 375k and is 7x plat) the article lists it as 3x plat. Even if those sales were accurate prior to 1/1/2002 all double albums were certified twice meaning that it would be at least 6x plat. For the singles the only one of those that is truly a single by worldwide standards is "Shake It" which they say sold 80k but we have multiple sources confirming 110k. All they did was convert 4x plat by the thresholds then. This is also proven by the fact that Rouvas won the World Music Award that year and no other Greek artist has won it for sales under 100k. Also as far as I know Sfakianakis' Anixis was never 5x plat. His EP Pro-Dia-Fimin, which by Greek standards is a single was certified 5x plat and was one of the best-selling records of the 90s according to Difono. Discogs does say Ipofero is 6x plat but it says it has sold 300k not 150k and contains several other mistakes. MAD Spotlight says that by single unit sales Profities is Vandi's best-selling album when even the single unit sales of Gia are higher. Even the most reliable sources may contain errors but when using the source for a very specific element they cannot contain such blatant errors. Regardless of content, my sources just in name of publication are much more reliable than yours. They are unique, original works and not derivative from site to site. There is nothing in policy that states that a source needs to provide the exact source of their information especially when it is backed up by claims made by other reliable sources. Yupi also supports Plat for Deka and while it says 3x plat for Profities which may be correct, it claims the 100k sales like the others;[11] it is not uncommon for labels to ship more to stores than will actually sell. Going by the policy of majority of reliable sources it is impossible to present a single independed researcher's (who only claims to use ifpi sources) finding as fact. Regardless of sales, you still have not proven how policy supports your opinion that the other opinions/claims/quotes should not be included, most likely as it doesn't. GreekStar12 (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Το tralala δεν είναι το μόνο site που υποστηρίζει τα γραφόμενά του από άλλους εκδότες, ούτε το discogs είναι το μόνο. Όλα αυτά τα άρθρα που παρέχεις από εφημερίδες προέρχονται και αυτά από άλλους εκδότες και μάλιστα από μεροληπτικούς εκδότες, όπως φαίνεται παραπάνω από τις χιλιάδες αιτιολογήσεις που έχω κάνει. Αυτό, όμως, δεν σε εμπόδισε από το να τις χρησιμοποιήσεις ως πηγές για να αιτιολογήσεις τα λεγόμενά σου. Ακόμα, το site του tralala αναφέρει στο συγκεκριμένο άρθρο πως έγινε έρευνα. Πως μπορείς με τόση σιγουριά να λες ότι tralala αντλεί πηγές από άλλα sites, πράγμα που δεν ισχύει διότι θα έπρεπε να αναγράφονται τα sites απ' όπου άντλησε τις πηγές. Επίσης, όλες οι πηγές που αναφέρουν το Υποφέρω ως 5 φορές πλατινένιο είναι τουλάχιστον πέντε χρόνο. Οι σύγχρονες αναφορές στο Υποφέρω γίνονται με τον χαρακτηρισμό "6 φορές πλατινένιο" και "το εμπορικότερο cd-single όλων των εποχών στην Ελλάδα". To άλμπουμ Κραυγή στο συγκεκριμένο άρθρο αναφέρεται ως 3 φορές πλατινένιο καθώς δεν μετρήθηκε ο διπλασιασμός του cd, αν και 'ηταν διπλό. Οπότε και πάλι αν σκεφτεί κανείς τον διπλασιασμό του cd θα δει ότι όντως η πηγή ισχύει καθώς το cd έγινε 6 φορές πλατινένιο, όπως αναφέρει και η sony BMG στην ελληνική ιστοσελίδα της. Όσο για το single του Ρουβά εσύ ο ίδιος είπες πως καμιά πηγή του εξωτερικού δεν μπορεί να επιβεβαιώσει τις πωλήσεις στην Ελλάδα. Άλλο ένα πράγμα το οποίο είπες και τώρα το αναστρέφεις. Ακόμα, κανείς δεν είπε πως όσοι έχουν πουλήσει πάνω από 100,000 αντίτυπα κερδίζουν το World Music Award. Ακόμα και έτσι να είναι ο Ρουβάς υποτίθεται ότι το κέρδισε με το άλμπουμ του "Τον χρόνο σταματάω". Όντως η αναφορά των "Προφητειών" ως το εμπορικότερο της Βανδή αποτελεί λάθος γι' αυτό δεν συμπεριλαμβάνεται στην βιογραφία της στην Βικιπέδια. Και τα άρθρα των εφημερίδων που αναφέρεις, όμως, όπως είπα και στο προηγούμενο μήνυμα έχουν πιο κραυγαλέα λάθη. Άρα, με τα λεγόμενά σου ούτε αυτά δεν μπορούν να συμπεριληφθούν. Καταλήγουμε πάλι πως το μόνο άθρο που μπορεί να χρησιμοποιηθεί, μιας και δεν περιέχει λάθη καθώς οι πηγές του επιβεβαιώνονται από πληθώρα άλλων είναι όχι μόνο αυτό του tralala αλλά και αυτό που υπάρχει ήδη στην σελίδα του άλμπουμ "Γεια". Όσο για το άρθρο του yupi είναι σαφές πως πρόκειται για λάθος. Δεν γίνεται ένα άλμπουμ να είναι 3πλα πλατινένιο και να έχει πουλήσει 100,000 αντίτυπα γιατί και για τοποθετήσεις να μιλάμε πάλι στην Ελλάδα οι τοποθετήσεις συγχέονται με τις πωλήσεις. Άρα, το μόνο μας πρόβλημα έγκειται στις πωλήσεις. Προτείνω, λοιπόν, κάτι που είχα απορρίψει παλιότερα: να χρησιμοποιήσουμε για την απονομή και τις πωλήσεις των "Δέκα Εντολών" όλες τις πηγές και να το αναφέρουμε και ως πλατινένιο που οι πωλήσεις του αγγίζουν τις 63,000 αντίτυπα ενώ με μια αναφορά της Βανδή το 1998 και το 2010 στο Chart Show αγγίζουν τα 95,000 αντίτυπα και πως υπάρχουν και αναφορές από το επίσημο site της Βανδή και το αφιέρωμα του Mad ως διπλά πλατινένιο με πωλήσεις άνω των 100,000 αντιτύπων. Για τις Προφητείες πιστεύω πως πρέπει να παραμείνει η αναφορά τριπλά πλατινένιο όλες σχεδόν οι πηγές αυτό αναφέρουν οι μόνες διαφορές είναι στις πωλήσεις που πιστεύω πως κι αυτές μιας και το άλμπουμ αναφέρεται 3πλα πλατινένιο πρέπει να υπάρχει και για αυτές αναφορά της τάξης των 150,000 αντιτύπων. Για το "Γεια" νομίζω πως πρέπει να αναφέρουμε ότι υπάρχουν πηγές που αναφέρονται για πωλήσεις της τάξης των 340,000 πωλήσεων, ωστόσο οι περισσότερες αναφέρονται σε πωλήσεις των 400,000 αντιτύπων. Για το "Υποφέρω" υπάρχουν αναφορές πωλήσεων της τάξης μόνο των 150,000 αντιτύπων και άνω γι' αυτό πιστεύω πως πρέπει να κρατήσουμε μόνο την αναφορά για 6πλα πλατινένιο single. Και νομίζω πως αν συμφωνήσουμε ουσιαστικά σε αυτά το πρόβλημά μας έχει λυθεί. Περιμένω την απάντησή σου για να δω αν είσαι σύμφωνος. --KatrinofGreece (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Katrin, looking at the diff for your last three edits [12], you did a complete blanket undo of a number of cumulative edits from other editors; that is unacceptable at this point in the discussion. I see random changes like undoing bot title completions, etc. And why was something like she never attained a degree at the university taken out? You maintained use of the same source in the article in other places so I don't understand why information that makes events more complete was just taken out when adequately sourced. Grk1011 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

H ίδια η Βανδή στην εκπομπή του Αρναούτογλού στις 13 Δεκεμβρίου του 2007 παραδέχτηκε ότι έχει πάρει κανονικά το πτυχίο της οπότε είναι αναληθές. Επίσης, εσύ δεν δύνασαι να μιλάς για απαράδεχτα έχεις πράξει κατά καιρός χειρότερα. Έχω αιτιολογήσει γιατί έχπουν βγει έξω κάποια πράγματα στις παραπάνω απαντήσεις μας. --KatrinofGreece (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Katrin, I'm not going to respond again the same things over and over all of the arguments you made in this last response are irrelevant and disproven by my previous comment. It is only your opinion that the newspapers contain mistakes and you cannot prove it. You're sources are clearly inferior than ours and contain many mistakes which makes them obsolete. You keep saying that you can find sources for certain sales but again the reliability of these sites is questionable and due to sensationalism over time. If it were true than more reputable sources should be reporting it. Greek sites copy information from each other all the time, and often do not source the original. There is so much derivative crap. The only record I agree should mention both sales is Gia because there is strong debate, but still 170k is the most widely sourced # and should be treated as such. There is NO reliable source for any of the other sales and they have not produced significant debate outside of Wikipedia so we will have to use the most reliable and widely used sources, which are the lower sales/certs. It is very possible for an album to be certified a couple of levels higher than it actually sells when the market is based on shipments. Stop trying to justify the blatant mistakes of your sources. You can find one million sources but if they are of that quality and those publications they will never be as reliable as our sources. Also if you can find a source that Vandi obtained a degree add it, something that is not just her own claims. Besides even if she does have a degree she could have completed the remaining courses later so that doesn't mean the source is incorrect. Your arguments are irrelevant and you still have not said how your wish to not include the other opinions fits in with policy. Please stop trying to justify these sensationalist sales and talk about the other issues. GreekStar12 (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Μα ήδη έχω αποδείξει ότι τα συγκεκριμένα άρθρα περιέχουν λάθη δεν χρειάζεται λοιπόν να αποδείξω τίποτα καθώς το έχω ήδη κάνει. Κατώτερες νομίζω πως, όπως σου είπα, έχουν αποδειχτεί οι δικές σου και το ξαναλέω μήπως το καταλάβεις το έχω αποδείξει με επιχειρήματα εσύ πάλι όχι απλά αυτά που λες προκύπτουν ως λανθασμένα συμπεράσματα και δεν έχουν λογική σειρά. Έχω παρατηρήσει, επίσης, ότι μιλάς για κραυγαλέα λάθη στις πηγές μου αλλά όταν σε καλό να τα αναφέρεις αποφεύγεις να απαντήσεις. Εγώ, από την άλλη, έχω ήδη αποδείξει πως πολλά από τα άρθρα σου έχουν στα αλήθεια κραυγαλέα λάθη. Εγώ πρόσφερα μια συμβιβαστική λύση στο θέμα των πωλήσεων με βάση τις πηγές και δεν πρόκειται να δεχτώ τίποτα περισσότερο ή τίποτα λιγότερο. Και νομίζω πως είναι μεγάλη υποχώρηση το γεγονός πως δέχτηκα να συμπεριληφθούν τα άρθρα σου δεδομένου ότι έχω μειώσει την πειστικότητά τους. Sites που μαρτυρούν και την απόκτηση πτυχίου αλλά και την διπλή πλατίνα των 10 εντολών αλλά και την 3πλή των Προφητειών: [13]

[14] [15] [16]

Και κάτι ακόμα που πρόσεξα τώρα το site e-orfeas βασίζει τα γραφόμενά του και στο βιβλίο του Δραγουμάνου το οποίο θεωρείς ως αναξιόπιστο. Άρα, θεωρείς και το συγκεκριμένο άρθρο ως αναξιόπιστο πράγμα με το οποίο κι εγώ συμφωνώ. Οπότε συγκλίνουμε πως το άρθρο του συγκεκριμένου site δεν συμπεριλαμβάνεται στην βιογραφία.

Βρήκα και κάτι ακόμα από την ελληνική σελίδα της ΑΕΠΙ η οποία παραθέτει στην ιστοσελίδα της το βιβλίο του Δραγουμάνου, το οποίο και αναγνωρίζει και το οποίο αναφέρεται στις 400,000 πωλήσεις του "Γεια" -------> [17] Σύμφωνα, λοιπόν, με την ΑΕΠΙ το βιβλίο αποτελεί την πιο αξιόπιστη πηγή. --KatrinofGreece (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What are these delusions? How can you say I have not proven the blatant mistakes in your sources when I wrote a whole paragraph specifically addressing them? How can you say you have stated the mistakes in mine? Where was that? Everything you have stated has just been your opinion. All of the Tralala sales are rounded and based on certification thresholds and they should know better than to claim single certs for double albums and know which Sfakianakis single was his best-selling. I think Anixis was only gold or smthing like that. Also you can't just divide the discogs number by half because that would prove your point. You keep writing shipments as equivalent to sales which they are not. And MAD should know which is her best-selling album. Idiotic mistakes like that take away the credibility of the source. In general, all of your sources prove one of your points but disprove another. Like one of the last ones says 3x plat for Profities but 4x plat for Gia. Phoebus and MAD also contradict each other. All you do is try to find something to prove a point and then take another site to prove another, taking whatever you like, which goes against WP:Synthesis. Your sources need to directly state your claims. None of my sources have this inconsisency issue within themselves or with the others. Two of your last sources are also the exact same bio published to another site and the other is a derivative version. None of your sources are original articles unique to one author which brings up suspicion of derivativeness, circular sourcing, and also the sensasionalism/exaggeration over time I mentioned. Although your sources generally pass reliability, they are on the lower end of it, particularly for contentious material. I still don't see why you can't find a more reputable source or a source from back then to back up your claims if they are so accurate but keep offering these insignificant, derivative sites.

Also, so what if one of my sources uses Dragoumanos as ONE of their sources? They don't agree with everything he claims. In response to your belief that if Dragoumanos was using info that contradicted IFPI that they would disclaim him, that is completely inaccurate. For example Zina and Hatzigiannis both recently received certifications with IFPI seals on them but on the chart there is no award beside their album titles. This is because the IFPI charts only show the certifications that have been verified by them, which is why there are currently so few. Labels were doing this in the past as well, awarding before verification was given. Through personal e-mails to their representative we found that they are aware of this problem but are not pursuing it at the time. Considering since you "live in Greece and have more access to information" you should have known this right ;) Anyway, there has already been a consensus against Dragoumanos, which I was not a part of, I just agree with, you need to take this up with the community. Using a single researcher's findings as fact however goes completely against Wikipedia policy.

You still have not proven why Vandi's statements and information about her decline should not be included. You keep putting words in people's mouths and saying you rationalize things and speak with facts but this has been disproven several times, including by the administrator and you consistently fail to represent how your arguments are supported by EN-wiki's policy. GreekStar12 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Λυπάμαι, αλλά δεν έχεις αποδείξει απολύτως τίποτα απ' όσα λες. Όλα αυτα που γράφεις για τα επίπεδα πωλήσεων σχετικά με το tralala, το mad και το site του Φοίβου αποτελούν απλά δικές σου απόψεις πάνω στο θέμα και δεν μπορείς να τις θεωρείς ως αναληθείς χωρίς να τεκμηριώσεις αυτά που λες. Αντίθετα, εγώ σε κάθε τι που γράφω δίνω ένα παράδειγμα για να το στηρίξω εσύ πάλι βγάζεις ασυνάρτητα συμπεράσματα. Επίσης, λες πως ταυτίζω τις πωλήσεις με τις τοποθετήσεις κάτι το οποίο δεν ισχύει γιατί όλα τα άρθρα μιλάνε για πωλήσεις. Βλέπεις πουθενά εσύ την λέξη τοποθετήσεις;;; Εγώ όχι. Ακόμα, για τo single του Σφακιανάκη έχεις δίκιο. Το single έγινε 2πλα πλατινένιο και ο συντάκτης του άρθρου το μπέρδεψε με το single Προάγγελο που έγινε 5πλα πλατινένιο---- [18] Επίσης, εκτός από τα λάθη του mad μην ξεχνάς ότι παραπάνω έχω αποδείξει, από την αρχή κιόλας της συζήτησης, ότι όλα τα άρθρα που έχεις παραθέσει έχουν λάθη ή ολόκληρα αποτελούν λάθη. Αν, λοιπόν, οι δικές που πηγές σε αξιοπιστία είναι κάτω του μετρίου στις δικές σου η λέξη αξιοπιστία είναι άγνωστος όρος. Είναι φανερό ότι τα στοιχεία που παραθέτω εγώ τα τεκμηριώνουν πολλά άλλα. Τα δικά σας όμως κανένα.

Τώρα όσο για τα παραδειγματα των πλατινένιων που λες ΥΠΆΡΧΕΙ ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΙΔΙΑ ΤΗΝ IFPI, η οποία λέει πως πολλοί δίσκοι έχουν γίνει πλατινένιοι ή χρυσοί αλλά επειδή οι δισκογραφικές δεν πληρώνουν ορκωτούς ελεγκτές για να τοποθετηθούν οι πιστοποιήσεις στο site της ifpi πολλά άλμπουμ φαίνεται ότι δεν έχουν γίνει τίποτα. Αν δεν με πιστεύεις μπορείς να στείλεις μήνυμα στην ίδια την ifpi. Γι' αυτό και το άλμπουμ 10 Χρόνια Μαζί ενώ το 2007 αναγραφόταν ως πλατινένιο στο site της ifpi τώρα δεν αναγράφεται τίποτα.

Το βιβλίο του Δραγουμάνου αναγνωρίζεται από την ΑΕΠΙ οπότε αποτελεί το νούμερο 1 πειστήριο για τα δεδομένα πωλήσεων

Επιπλέον, χαίρομαι που παραδέχεσαι πως έχω αποδείξει όλα τα υπόλοιπα και χαίρομαι που μου επισημαίνεις ότι μου έχει ξεφύγει ένα πράγμα.

Εσύ πάλι γιατί υποστηρίζεις ότι οι αναφορές για την παρακμή πρέπει να συμπεριληφθούν;;; Βλέπεις εσύ πολλούς που να υποστηρίζουν τέτοιο πράγμα; Ακόμα, γιατί η αναφορά σσχετικά με το δεύτερο παιδί;;; Αποτελεί αυτό βιογραφία;; Επίσης, ξεχνάς ότι η Βανδή πραγματοποίησε την πιο επιτυχημένη περιοδεία για το 2009 αυτό το θεωρείς παρακμή;; Οι δηλώσεις σου είναι ελλειπείς.

The same message in English by Google:

Sorry, but you have not shown anything of what you say. All that writing on the levels of sales on the tralala, the mad and the site of Phoebus are just your own views on the topic and can not consider them as untrue without any documentation that you say. Instead, I am in everything I write I give an example to support you once you make incoherent conclusions. Also, say that sales associate it with the placements which is not true because all the articles talking about sales. Anywhere you see the word placements??? I do not. Still, the sections of single Sfakianakis you're right. The single was certified platinum 2pla and the author of this article confused with the single precursor, which was certified platinum 5pla ---- . htm Also, apart from the mistakes of mad not to forget that I have demonstrated above, from the very beginning of the debate, that all the articles you cite have errors or mistakes are intact. So, if their own sources of reliability is below average in your own words the term reliability is unknown. It is obvious that the figures I quote the document more. Your own but no.

Now as for examples of platinum to say no reply from the very IFPI, which tells how many discs have been platinum or gold but because record companies do not pay auditors to put the credentials on the site of many ifpi album seems not have done nothing. If I do not think you can send itself ifpi. Hence the album 10 Years Together and in 2007 listed as the site of platinum ifpi now not on anything.

The book Dragoumanou recognized by AEPI, according to the website quoted above is the result Exhibit No. 1 for the sales data and included in the biography.

Moreover, I am glad you admit that I have proven everything else and I am pleased to point out that I have been away a thing, this one for the decline.

You again for supporting that reports of the decline should be included??? You see many who support such a thing? Still, because the reference to the second child??? Is this biography?? Also forget that out Vandi the most successful tour in 2009 think that declining?? The statements you are missing. --KatrinofGreece (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Katrin it is really difficult to maintain etiquette with you when everything you say is so delusional and makes no sense. How is it only my opinion when I have clearly pointed out their inconsistencies and blatant mistakes and you yourself agree about them? You keep saying you support that my sources have inaccuracies with facts but where was this? The only thing you have said is that they themselves don't provide their sources, which they are not required to do, so that is in fact your opinion. A lot of sites just base the "sales" on shipment thresholds because they do not have sources for real sales. This is exactly what happened for "Shake It" they just said "oh ok 4x plat times 40K for one plat = 80k" when we in fact have two sources that say 110k. I never said Greek artists only get a WMA for sales higher than 100k, but if what Tralala is saying were true he would have been the only one under that and definitely wouldn't have been the year's best-selling artist. And no his album did not contribute very much because it was released the year before and is actually one of his lower selling. Isn't it suspicious that every single source you have cites the sales as being exactly the same as the threshold when mine offer more specific sales? Isn't it also suspicious that no major reliable source with a published author claims your sales? You keep saying you can find multiple sources to support your claims but they are all crappy, derivative sites that often contradict each other. You cannot seriously compare your sources to Eleftheros Typos etc. And so what if AEPI cites his book as one of their sources? AEPI does not certify, that is irrelevant and it is also irrelevant to him being the #1 source for Wiki because there is a policy against self-published sources. And when did I ever say that I agree with everything else you said??? I have consistently disproven all of your claims.

Of course the decline should be included and IT IS encyclopaedic. I provided Featured Articles above that include such content. It is very notable of her and unless you cannot read you can see that very many support this claim, I think there is already six good sources which is much more than is needed to determine reliability. Also there is nothing in the article saying it was relative to her second child. The header just states that in the period of 2007-09 the most notable events were her 2nd child and commercial decline, I don't know where you are coming up with these conclusions. And assuming she did have the most successful tour of 2009 so what? It was only 150k people attending which over 20+ stops only averages out to 2000 ppl a show which is not good at all, even young artists can beat that. Apart from she is not even selling enough to receive a gold album even with the current ridiculously low thresholds, her songs aren't exactly dominating the radio and have a very short lifespan, she herself said she does not want to do big venues anymore, and the public has in general lost interest in her. It's not a coincidence that in articles about the declining market Vandi always has her own section and they have all cited reasons that are specific to her rather than the market. As an encyclopaedia, we cannot ignore so many authors saying the same thing because wikipedia is not censored or about endorsement. And what does this have to do with taking out something like she suggested retiring from Athens nightclubs? She herself said it. These are just your own feelings of what is appropriate and most of this dispute could have been avoided if you would have just read about policy.

All of my additions to the article can be supported by these policies: NPOV

“

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as "widespread views", etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." (Done. Single opinions attributed to author/publisher)
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
• Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. (Done. Majority of sources cite decline so it is not a mere opinion)
• Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.
• Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. (So a single researcher's such as Dragoumanos' findings cannot be presented as equivalent to a majority.

”

Verifiability

“ The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. (Clearly this has been done.)

To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. In practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material.[1]

”

IRS

“ News sources often contain both reporting content and editorial content. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting occasionally contains errors. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

• When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.
• For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name.
• While the reporting of rumors has a limited news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.
• Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.[2]
• Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis.

”

BLP

“ BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself. BLPs should not have trivia sections.

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.

”

Now how are your claims and opinions backed up by these? GreekStar12 (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And another thing I just noticed, of the four sources you use to source Ipofero's 6x plat and 150k sales, one is my Eleftheros Typos source which says nothing of the sort, the other is the unreliable Tralala source, the third is from a 2001 ANT1 news article that says it was 5X PLAT and had sold 100K copies, and the other is Phoebus' site which only says it was 6x plat but does not offer any sales. And none of them say it is the best-selling single of all time. You present a lot of sources but they are all useless, all quantity over quality. Additionally, one of the sources you used to cite the sales of Deka Entoles is a TRIVIA GAME!!! That certainly does not count as a reliable source. I've played several of those MAD Games and they are filled with mistakes. Your edits are highly POV, misleading, and break the rules of WP:Synthesis. And to whoever added that that Turkish newspaper called Vandi "Queen of Greek Pop", that is a suspicious photo from image shack and nevertheless you have misquoted it as it is not capitalized in the title and meant to be an official title. GreekStar12 (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Καταρχάς, η πηγή του tralala θεωρείται μόνο από εσένα αναξιόπιστη, οπότε όσα λες για τις πωλήσεις του Υποφέρω δεν δεν ισχύουν. Για τα λάθη που λες για το trivia παιχνίδι αυτό αποτελεί δική σου άποψη. Ακόμα, η αναφορά βασίλισσα της ποπ είναι ξεκάθαρο ότι προκύπτει από την εφημερίδα hurriyet και υπάρχουν πιο μεγενθυμένα άρθρα που το επιβεβαιώνουν.

Ξέρεις κι εγώ έχω επισημάνει αντιφάσεις στα άρθρα σου πολύ πιο νωρίς από σένα αλλά επιμένεις να τα θεωρείς αξιόπιστα. Ακόμα, για να μιλήσω συγκεκριμένα το λάθος του tralala δεν σχετίζεται με την Βανδή οπότε δεν έχει κάποια επίπτωση στη βιογραφία. Ακόμα, εγώ έχω την ωριμότητα να παραδέχομαι σε ποια περίπτωση υπάρχει λάθος και σε ποια όχι σε αντίθεση με σένα που έχω αποδείξει πως τα άρθρα σου περιέχουν τόσα λάθη κι όμως απέφυγες να αναφέρεις το οτιδήποτε. Μπορείς να δεις παραπάνω στα μηνύματάμου πως έχω αναφέρει με κάθε λεπτομέρεια στοιχεία που αποδεικνύουν την σαθρότητα των πηγών σου. Ακόμα, όσον αφορά τις πωλήσεις του Ρουβά έχω να σου πω πως εκτός από το "Shake it" μέτρησαν και οι πωλήσεις του άλμπουμ του παρά το γεγονός ότι πούλησε λίγο. Μπορεί αν έχεις δίκιο σε αυτό που λες για τις τοποθετήσεις και τις πωλήσεις, ωστόσο κάτι τέτοιο δεν μπορούμε να το γνωρίζουμε και αφού τα άρθρα μιλανε για πωλήσεις και όχι τοποθετήσεις στη βιογραφία θα γραφεί η λέξη πώληση. Ακόμα, έστω κι αν αντιτίθεται η πολιτική της βικιπέδιας όπως λες αφού το βιβλίο του Δργουμάνου αποτελεί κομμάτι του επισήμου φορέα πωλήσεων στην Ελλάδα δεν υπάρχει καμία περίτπωση να μην θεωρηθεί ως η πιο αξιόπιστη πηγή και θα συμπεριληφθεί στη βιογραφία.

Επίσης, δεν έχω πρόβλημα με την προσθήκη της παρακμής αλλά να τοποθετηθεί στο σημείο της βιογαρφίας από το 2010 και μετά όχι από το 2007 έως το 2009 καθώς την περίοδο εκείνη οι καριέρα της ήταν ακόμα ανοδική πράγμα που φαίνεται από την απονομή πλατινένιου δίσκου στο 10 Χρόνια Μαζί, την θέση νούμερο 1 που κατέλαβαν τα τραγούδια Θέλω και Υπάρχει ζωή στα i-tunes και airplay charts καθώς και την εμπορικότερη περιοδεία που έκανε για το 2009. Επίσης, 150,0000 δια 20+ κάνει 7,500, εκτός αν δεν ξέρεις μαθηματικά. Απ΄ότι έχω καταλάβει όμως κι εσύ αναφέρεσαι στην περίοδο από το 2010 καθώς τα γραφόμενά σου αυτό υποδηλώνουν. Ακόμα, παραποιείς τα λόγια της Βανδή η οποία μίλησε για αποχή από τις πίστες εξαιτίας του musical που θα ανεβάσει τον επόμενο χειμώνα και για τον λόγο αυτό δεν θα εμφανιστεί πουθενά.

Επίσης, συμφωνώ με την πολτική της Βικιπέδιας εξάλλου σε μερικά απ' αυτά είχα αναφερθεί κι εγώ κι εσύ είτε να απέρριψες είτε τα αγνόησες. Οι παραπανω διάλογοι το αποδεικνύουν.

Ακόμα, για ποιον λόγο πρόσθεσες νέα στοιχεία στο άρθρο. Μάλιστα, παρατήρησα ότι τα στοιχεία αυτά παραβαίνουνς τους εξής κανόνες της πολιτικής της Βικιπέδια:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as "widespread views", etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." (Done. Single opinions attributed to author/publisher)

• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Φαίνεται ότι πολύ γρήγορα λησμόνησες όσα εσύ η ίδια έγραψες.--KatrinofGreece (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have violated the zero tolerance rule again, no surprise there. It is not my opinion that the Tralala source is unreliable, you yourself agree that the info about Vissi and Sfakianakis is inaccurate but you say as long as the Vandi info is not inaccurate it can be used in her bio. That is simply your opinion, I think the Vandi info is inaccurate too. The fact that we know the real sales of Shake It prove that they are using shipments thresholds rather than real sales. Why is it that all of your sources claim sales that are exactly the same as the threshold when that is rarely the case and mine show more exact sales? When there are so many other blatant mistakes/questionable content then you can't use that source for seriously contested material. You can see that Orfeas uses several different sources for their sales as you previously pointed out. Funny how that article and Eleftheros Typos agree about all of the sales they cite, including other Vandi and Vissi albums apart from Gia and Kravgi, when all of yours contradict each other on at least one thing. Stop saying you have proven mistakes in my articles. The only wrong thing you have proven is saying 350k for an old vissi album, which is probably a typing error and regardless, that source is not even used in the article for specific sales. I've also disproved what you say about my articles not citing their sources (even though they are not required to) because Orfeas uses about 10 different sources, not just one, like the articles who support Dragoumanos. And thank you for pointing out the sources in the Orfeas article to me because I had not noticed them before, so basically you disproved your own claims. So if that article is professionally-written, by a published author from a reliable network and they use several sources for their claims AND another one of my sources from a different reliable source with a published author says the exact same thing, then those sales numbers must be the most reliable right? About the Hurriyet it says "Greek Queen of pop" NOT "Greek Queen of Pop", you are misquoting it to elevate Vandi and the source is just an image anyway. Who would a third party find more reliable? A bunch of random sites that don't even look professional in appearance, lack authors, contain trivial, blatant mistakes, derive content from each other and contradict each other, and use a single publisher for a source, or several professional, unique, newspaper articles, written by published authors, that cite several sources, and agree with each other? I am glad you agree about mentioning the decline, finally some progress. However, you do not get to decide when the decline happened. Almost all of the articles citing her decline are after 2007 and before 2010, meaning it is perfect where it is now, especially since 10 HM was considered a commercial failure relatively and was her last release to be certified. So what if she had a couple of songs top the chart? This isn't the UK Singles Chart/Hot 100, any prominent Greek artist can get a relatively good position with a single, the hard part is longevity. And let's not forget the real decline started with SATP, which despite all the promo and singles only managed to attain 2x plat after the multiple re-releases. As for the tour, that brings up the point that the label "most successful tour of 2009" is too vague. What was it most successful in, box office gross? Attendance? I meant to write 6000 above, it was a typo, but still even Paparizou had similar numbers the year before. That same year Rouvas had 40k just at one show (almost a third of Vandi's total tour with 25 stops) and all of his shows averaged to about 10k but he did not do as many total shows as Vandi. Was her tour really more successful because she has to visit every village to make a living? And the tour was a joint one anyway with Goin' Through. There is nothing wrong with the new informationI added about the comparisons to Vissi because multiple sources agree, so it is not just an opinion and the quote is attributed to the author. And, I'm sorry but if you think that a trivia game being an unreliable source is just my opinion then you shouldn't even be allowed to edit Wikipedia. GreekStar12 (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to clear something up. Gia was certified 4x platinum in 11 days, meaning it was certified before the end of 2001 (this + sales of Ipofero gave her the WMA for World's Best Selling Greek Artist of 2001), at that time the thresholds were 50k for platinum and double albums were certified twice, meaning it was certified 4x platinum for shipments of 100k (not that it actually sold that much). After 1/1/2002 IFPI stopped certifying double albums twice and by the end of 2002 the threshold had dropped to 40k for platinum. Here [19] you can see that by February 2003, with the re-release of the Gia + Ante Gia Collector's Edition, it was still 4x plat which would either mean that it was not converted or was converted for shipments of 160k. The Billboard article that alleges Gia is 5x plat was dated June 2003, which would mean shipments of 200k, meaning that it is perfectly reasonable for it to have sold 170k (as even ANT1, owner of Vandi's label confirmed in late 2006) because due to demand there are always more than necessary shipments for high selling albums. To say it sold 200k would mean there were no copies left in stores. However there is no indication from the IFPI charts that it was ever certified 5x plat even. Also, the label one of best-selling albums of all time is very objective. What is considered of all time? Top 10? Top 20? Top 100? I have no problem including that it is in the top 10 in terms of units, but IFPI stopped counting this as their method of best-selling albums. Sfakianakis, Garbi, and Vissi have all had sales similar to or greater than 170k with single albums and without dozens of singles, EPs, re-releases and the international promotion, so the number is not as high as some would like to think. GreekStar12 (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Καλά το ποιος έσπασε πρώτος τον κανόνα νομίζω δεν χρειάζεται εξήγηση. Μην αυταπατάσαι ποτέ δεν παραδέχτηκα κάτι τέτοιο για την Βίσση υπάροχυν κι άλλες πηγές που επιβεβαιώνουν τις ίδιες πωλήσεις. Άρα, δεν στέκουν όσα λες. Μπορείς μια φορά να γράψεις κάτι με σαφήνεια, ειλικρίνεια και πειστικότητα; Μέχρι τώρα πάντως δεν το έχεις κάνει. Μας λες ότι τα στοιχεία για την Βανδή πιστεύεις ότι είναι αναληθή δεν μας λες πως, όμως. Κι εγώ πιστεύω πως είμαι ο Πάπας, και λοιπόν; Επίσης, είναι φανερό γιατί οι πωλήσεις συνάδουν με τις τοποθετήσεις: γιατί οι δισκογραφικές στην Ελλάδα δεν ανακοινώνουν ποτέ επίσημες πωλήσεις. Δεν χρειάζεται να αναφέρω ότι ο μόνος επίσημος κατάλογος πωλήσεων, αναγνωρισμένος από την ifpi, είναι το βιβλίο του Δραγουμάνου. Δεν καταλαβαίνω, ακόμα, που βλέπεις να πολλά λάθη, επειδή απλά ο αρθρογράφος μπέρδεψε τον προηγούμενο με τον επόμενο δίσκο του Σφακιανάκη;; Και πάλι οι πωλήσεις παραμένουν οι ίδιες. Ακόμα, αυτό δεν επηρρεάζει την υπόλοιπη συνοχή του άρθρου. Μην το χρησιμοποιείς ως πρόφαση. Δεν χρησιμοποιείται ως πηγή για τον Σφακιανάκη αλλά για την Βανδή και καλά θα κάνεις να επικεντρώνεσαι εκεί. Όντως ο Ορφέας χρησιμοποιεί πολλές διάφορες πηγές ωστόσο τα γραφόμενά του είναι διαφορετικά. Πως γίνεται το βιβλίο του Δραγουμάνο να μιλάει για 400.000 πωλήσεις στο "Γεια" και το orfeas να γράφει λιγότερες;;;; Αυτό είναι παραποίηση. Ακόμα, από όλες αυτές τις πηγές η μόνη που μπορεί να βρεθεί ακόμα είναι αυτή του βιβλίου του Δραγουμάνου οι υπόλοιπες όχι. Επίσης, ο orfeas αντλεί της πηγές του από το άρθρο του Ελεύθερου Τύπου και χρησιμοποιεί μόνον αυτήν ως πηγή. Γιατί άραγε να χρησημοποιεί την πηγή με τις χαμηλότερες πωλήσεις και όχι την επίσημα αναγνωρισμένη;;; Αυτό γεννά ερωτήματα. Επίσης, είναι τυχαίο που αναφέρεται με αρνητικά σχόλια για την Βανδη; Μήπως αυτό δημιουργεί αμφιβολίες για τις αντικειμενικές προθέσεις του αρθρογάφου;; Πολύ πιθανό μιας και το site αυτό πρόκειται για site "ποιοτικού τραγουδιού" και η Βανδή ως η εκπρόσωπος της pop στο top-10 (όπως αναφέρει και το άρθρο) γίνεται αντικείμενο αρνητικού σχολιασμού. Επιτέλους, παραδέχτηκες το λάθος σου ωστόσο έχω αποδείξει ακόμα περισσότερα λάθη στα άρθρο που παραθέτεις. Με την ίδια λογική τώρα πρέπει κι εγώ να πω πως δεν πρέπει να συμπεριληφθεί το άρθρο έτσι;;; Επίσης, να σου πω ότι ο Δραγουμάνος χρησιμοποιεί όντως μία πηγή στα άρθρα του αλλά ποια μία: την εγκυρότερη όλων IFPI χίλιες φορές να το πω ποια για να το εμπεδώσεις;;; Από την άλλη ο orfeas χρησιμοποιεί άρθρα τα οποία δεν μπορούν να βρεθούν πλέον, τουλάχιστον εγώ προσπάθησα να βρω κάτι αλλά δεν μπόρεσα. Όσο για τις πηγές νόμιζα πως τις είχες δει και εκεί βάσιζες το άρθρο σου αλλά εσύ απ' ότι φαίνεται βάσιζες όλα αυτά που έγραψες σε ένα απλό άρθρο και κατηγόρησες εμένα για λίγες πηγές. Αυτό νομίζω αγγίζει τα όρια της σχιζοφρένειας. Όχι, αυτό που λες για την αξιοπιστία δεν ισχύει σε έχω προλάβει και στις παραπάνω σειρές του μηνύματός μου έχει απαντήσει γιατί, λυπάμαι. Eπίσης, λυπάμαι αλλά είμαι σύμφωνος με την αναφορά παρακμής μόνο από το 2010 και μετά. Πριν το 2007 η μόνη αναφορά είναι από το Σερβό του οποίο το άρθρο δεν θα συμπεριληφθεί στην βιογραφία, έχω αναφέρει τους λόγους. Επίσης, το 10 Χρόνια Μαζί θεωρήθηκε αποτυχία μόνο από τον Σερβό οπότε έχω αναφέρει τι συμβαίνει σε αυτήν την περίπτωση. Πολλοί μπορούν να πάρουν την πρώτη θέση αλλά λίγοι είναι τελικά αυτοί. Ακόμα, λιγότεροι είναι αυτοί που μένουν για ένα μήνα στο top όπως η Βανδή. Νομίζω πως είναι γελοίο να χαρακτηρίζεις την Αυλή του Παραδείσου αποτυχία καθώς ήταν, μετά τον δίσκο της Αλεξίου και του Χατζηγιάννης ο τρίτος εμπορικότερος δίσκος. Μάλιστα ένα site μιλούσε για πωλήσεις της τάξης των 110,000 αντιτύπων. Ο Ρουβάς δεν κάνει συναυλίες οπότε είναι λογικό μετά από αρκετό καιρό προπώλησης εισητηρίων να βάζεψε τόσο κόσμο. Η Βανδή κάνει κάθε χρόνο συναυλίες. Όσο για την Παπαρίζου ήταν το πρώτος της tour ενώ της Βανδή ήταν το ένατο tour της μετά από 16 χρόνια καριέρας. Συγκρίνεις που συγκρίνεις ανόμοια πράγματα σύγκρινέ τα τουλάχιστον σωστά. Και μην ξεχνάς ότι οι παπαρίζου στην περιοδεία της είχε και τους stavento που το 2008 έκαναν θραύση στην Ελλάδα. Και σωστή να είναι η σύγκριση με την Βίσση αντιβαίνει στους κανόνες της Βικιπέδια, τους οποίους καταπατάς. Να ποιος θα πρεπε να μην επιτρέπεται στην Βικιπέδια. Επίσης, όσον αφορά τις πωλήσεις του Γεια που αναφέρουν το άλμπουμ ως 5πλα πλατινένιο μόλις τώρα απέδειξες την αξιοπιστία στις πωλήσεις των 200,000 αντιτύπων. Η παραπομπή από την ifpi που έβαλες δείχνει το άλμπουμ είναι 4πλα πλατινένιο ενώ αυτό ακόμα βρίσκεται στην δεύτερη θέση και συνεχίζει ακόμα να πουλάει σε μια περίοδο που τα cd πουλούσαν ασταμάτητα. Οπότε είναι λογικό μετά από καιρό πωλήσεων το cd να έφτασε στην 5πλη πλατίνα μέχρι τον Ιούνιο του 2003 όπως αναφέρει η πηγή άρα ισχύουν όλα τα άρθρα που παρέθεσα.. Επίσης, όντως, να σε ενημερώσω, ότι πλέον δεν υπάρχει σε κανένα κατάστημα το άλμπουμ "Γεια" γιατί έχει εξαντληθεί και δεν έχει κυκλοφορήσει από τότε. Ακόμα, και στα ηλεκτρονικά site που αναγράφεται αν πατήσεις "παραγγελία" θα σε ενημερώσουν πως έχει εξαντληθεί. Σε όποιο κατάστημα κι αν πας δεν πρόκειται να το βρεις. Επίσης, το εμπορικότερο άλμπουμ της εταιρίας εννοούν το καλύτερο άλμπουμ της Heaven. --KatrinofGreece (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I must say you are becoming increasingly irrelevant in your arguments. First of all, I have never broken zero tolerance or 3RR, unlike you for a third time now, so perhaps you should read the rules a little more clearly. You are not allowed to revert but there was nothing against adding new information. I feel we still have communication issues because you are still misunderstanding some things I said. When the Sfakianakis and Vissi information is incorrect, you yourself admit, then who is to say that the Vandi information isn't also incorrect? We don't know. So that article's reliability is out, especially since this issue has so much debate. And a "professional" writer should not be mixing up his facts about which Sfakianakis single is his best-selling etc (BTW both Proangelos and Pro-Dia-Fimin sold 100k so the information is incorrect anyway) because trivial mistakes like that are just idiotic, oh but I forgot the article does not even have its own writer since it is not an original piece. You still have not proven that Dragoumanos uses IFPI sources. And where are you getting this info that Orfeas is derivative of Typos? And so what if their claims do not completely match Dragoumanos who is ONE of their sources. They clearly took what several sources said and weighed them out and came to the conclusion that his claims were sensationalist or incompetent and did not comply with the others. In any case, like I said a source is not required to show its own sources according to Wikipedia policy. Even if they support the "quality" music, who's to say their opinion as representatives of that mentality is not notable? Vandi is NOT a pop singer, she is a commercial laiko artist like everyone else in Greece so again what is with these cospiracy theories? Have you ever thought that the reason why she gets criticized is because she deserves it? The comparisons with Vissi are definitely notable and there is nothing in policy against it, ie Britney Spears features comparisons with Christina Aguilera. Perhaps you are biased from the policies of the Greek wiki but if you want to edit here those are irrelevant. I never said your issue was not having enough sources, it's the quality of the sources which is poor and they contradict each other on at least one point. Again you do not get to decide which sources can be used and there is no consensus against Serbos. Additionally you can also see that Typos and To Vima also cite Vandi's decline prior to 2010 so it would be impossible to source it after 2010. And btw lots of artists can stay at #1 for a month or more, have you heard of Rouvas, Hatzigiannis, Paparizou, Stratis, & Rous? Stratis had the biggest hit of recent years but that doesn't mean he is commercially successful. SATP may have been successful, but relative to Gia it was not and they expected more sales. It didn't even meet the 100k mark until the re-release and her shows weren't going as expected so there was already sign of decline before 2007. Sfakianakis for example has also had huge albums but his follow-ups did not decline that much. For your information, Rouvas does concerts every single year and he's been doing them since everybody else was performing in nightclubs in the 1990s. Not to mention he has a 20 year career and has been relevant for all of them unlike Vandi who has only been relevant for half, so your point is irrelevant. Not to mention that if it was Paparizou's first tour (which was solo not joint like Vandi's) it may be less successful than the future ones, so these are just your opinions and please don't say it was because of Stavento because they can barely sell their own albums. In any case, Paparizou's success level at its peak has only been moderate, so someone like Vandi should not even be within the realm of comparison. Your "logical" thinking that the album eventually reached 5x plat is at this point only speculation, but even if it was that would mean that it has sold more than 160k but less than 200k, meaning 170k is perfectly reasonable. Excessive shipments are ordered for high-selling albums. Klima Tropiko sold 105k and is 3x plat and I can disprove that Gia is out of print as you can see sites still sell it [20] [21] [22] At this point, it is you against everybody else and your arguments are not very strong or convincing. Additionally, I'm pretty sure accusing another user of being schizofrenic goes against conduct and the no personal attacks policy so I would be completely in the right to file a complaint. GreekStar12 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Κι εγώ πρέπει να πω πως έχεις ξεμείνει από πειστική επιχειρηματολογία και προσπαθείς μέσα από ψευτοδιθυραμβικά λόγια να κερδίσεις τις εντυπώσεις. Όντως, έσπασα τους κανόνες από δικό μου λάθος καθώς δεν μου έγινε ξεκάθαρο για το τι ακριβώς πρόκειται. Αλλά γι' αυτό φταις εσύ γιατί παρότι δεν έχουμε καταλήξει σε κάποια απόφαση για τα ήδη ζητήματα προσπαθείς να δημιουργήσεις κι άλλα προβλήματα για να βγεις μέσα από δόλιους τρόπους κερδισμένη. Πίστεψε με ήταν το μόνο που έχω μπερδέψει. Τα προβλήματα επικοινωνίας συνεχίζονται χάρη στην προσκόλλησή σου σε στοιχεία ελλειπή. Ακόμα, και το παράδειγμα που θέτεις για τις πληροφορίες σχετικά με Βίσση-Σφακιανάκη το αποδεικνύουν. Είπα ότι οι πληροφορίες για την Βίσση είναι σωστές μόνο για τον Σφακιανάκη είπα ότι είναι λάθος. Το συμπέρασμα που βγάζεις πως οι πληροφορίες της Βανδή είναι ενθύμημα. Δεν στέκει να πεις πως επειδή οι πληροφορίες άλλων είναι λάθος, είναι και της Βανδή. Έτσι, παραδέχεσαι ότι και το άρθρο e-orfeas, για το οποίο είπες ότι οι πωλήσεις της Βίσση είναι λάθος, έχει και αυτό λάθη σχετικά με αυτά που παραθέτει για την Βανδή. Άλλα σύμφωνα με σένα ότι ισχύει για το άρθρο που παρέθεσα, ισχύει και για το δικό σου. Άρα, και τα δύο άρθρα είναι έξω. Επίσης, και τα λάθη που είπες πως έχεις το άρθρο του e-orfeas δεν αποδεικνύουν ότι είναι γραμμένο από ιδιώτη;; Άρα, θέλοντα να μην χρησιμοποιηθεί το ένα δεν θα χρησιμοποιηθεί και το άλλο. Απλό. Έχω αποδείξει ξεκάθαρα ότι ο Δραγουμάνος χρησιμοποιεί πηγές τις IFPI καθως το βιβλίο του αποτελεί μέρος της IFPI γι' αυτό και βρίσκεται στην ιστοσελίδα της ένωσης. Έχω παραθέσει και την ιστοσελίδα παραπάνω που το αποδεικνύει τι δεν μπορείς να καταλάβεις δηλαδή; Με αυτά που γράφεις για τον τρόπο με τον οποίο το άρθρο του e-orfeas κατέληξε σε ποιες πωλήσεις θα χρησιμοποιήσει κάνεις ξεκάθαρο ότι το άρθρο είναι λάθος καθώς μπορεί να χρησιμοποιήσε και λάθος στοιχεία. Πως μπορούμε να βασιστούμε σε ένα άρθρο που θεωρεί πιο αξιόπιστη πηγή ένα ελλιπές άρθρο παρά τον πληρέστερο οδηγό των πωλήσεων της ελληνικής δισκογραφίας από τα γενοφάσια της, αναγνωρισμένο μάλιστα από την IFPI; Το άρθρο "μπάζει" από παντού είναι τόσο δύσκολο να το δεις; Επίσης, οι κανόνες τις Βικιπέδια λένε και πολλά άλλα που εσυ αν σε συμφέρουν να ενστερνίζεσαι και αν δεν σε συμφέρουν τα παραγκωνίζεις. Μια ακρόαση ενός δίσκου της Βανδή θα σε πείσει για το αν είναι pop ή λαϊκή τραγουδίστρια. Ακόμα, και το άρθρο σου την χαρακτηρίζει pop αλλά τώρα που το άρθρο δεν εξυπηρετεί τις σκοπιμότητες σου γραφεις πράγματα που δεν συνάδουν με το άρθρο. Τι λογική είναι αυτή;;;; Δεν μπορώ να καταλάβω τι ακριβώς προσπαθείς να πετύχεις. Νομίζω πως έγω εξηγήσει κάποια πράγματα σχετικά με την σύγκριση. Βασίζεσαι σε αυτήν καταπατώντας βασικούς κανόνες της Βικιπέδια τους οποίους εσύ μου τους υπενθύμισες. Δεν καταλαβαίνω γιατί πρέπει να εξηγώ τα ίδια πράγματα συνέχεια. Αν δεν τα καταλαβαίνεις μπορώ να προσπαθήσω να γράψω στα αγγλικά πάλι. Επίσης, εσύ όχι μόνο δεν έχεις πολλές πληροφορίες αλλά έχεις λίγες και μάλιστα ούτε αυτές έχουν ποιότητα. Επίσης, ούτε εσύ θα αποφασίσεις ποιες πηγές να χρησιμοποιηθούν. Επίσης, να σου θυμίζω ότι τα ονόματα των Ελλήνων καλλιτεχνών που αναφέρεις είναι τα μόνα που από το 2009 και μετά έχουν καταφέρει να κατακτήσουν την πρωτιά στο airplay. Κι απ' όλους αυτούς μόνο ο Στρατής και ο Ρους δεν είναι γενικά επιτυχημένοι και αναφέρεις το χειρότερο παράδειγμα για να στηρίξεις τις απόψεις σου. Επίσης και η Παπαρίζου πρόσφατα έφτασε νούμερο 1 στο chart και είχει 4 χρόνια να μπει πρώτη αυτό σημαίνει ότι δεν είναι πετυχημένη;;; Όσο για την Αυλή του Παραδείσου δεν μπορείς να την συγκρίνεις με το Γεια που κυκλοφόρησε πριν 3 χρόνια. Μέσα σε αυτά τα χρόνια η πειρατεία αυξήθηκε και η δισκογραφία αυξήθηκε. Για να δούμε αν ένα άλμπουμ είναι επιτυχημένο ή όχι το συγκρίνουμε με αυτά που κυκλοφόρησαν την ίδια εποχή με αυτό. Επίσης, μιλάς για παρακμή πριν το 2007 αλλά επειδή αυτό δεν μπορείς να το αποδείξεις, φανερώνει την εμπάθειά σου προς το πρόσωπο της Βανδή. Και για να θυμάσαι ότι τα show της πριν 7-8 χρόνια δεν πήγαιναν καλά ενώ η Βανδή ήταν πρώτο όνομα τότε στην νυχτερινή Αθήνα μάλλον πρέπει να διακατέχεσαι από πολύ εχθρικά αισθήματα γι' αυτήν κι αν κρίνω και την εμμονή σου για να συμπεριλάβεις την σύγκριση με την Βίσση τότε μάλλον είσαι κάποια φανατισμένη θαυμάστρια της Βίσση. Άρα, κρίνεις αμερόληπτα. Που στηρίζεις ότι ο Ρουβάς έκανε συναυλίες κάθε χρόνο;; Πρέπει πάντα να βασίζεσαι σε λόγια, αποδείξεις δεν έχεις;;; Απ' ότι φαίνεται είσαι και φαν του Ρουβά όχι μόνο της Βίσση. Αλλά, απ' ότι θυμάμαι ο Ψινάκης σε συνέντευξή του είπε ότι όταν έμειναν άνεργοι με τον Ρουβά η Βανδή τον βοήθησε και τον πήρε στο Rex [23] [24] [25]. Αρα, και τα περί επιτυχίας του Ρουβά αναιρούνται. Ήδη ο Ρουβάς είχε 10 χρόνια καριέρας και δεν έβρισκε δουλειά και αν έβρισκε δουλειά ήταν ως δεύτερο όνομα. Αναρωτιέμαι υπάρχει κάτι άλλο που να μπορώ να αναιρέσω;; Για τις συναυλίες της Παπαρίζου έχω να πω πως μεγάλο μέρος του κοινό προσέλκυσαν οι Stavento και αυτό το ξέρεις κι εσύ γι' αυτό άλλωστε μου είπες να μην το αναφερω γιατί ήξερες ότι θα το πω καθώς ισχύει. Τώρα για το άλμπουμ της Βανδή, το οτι έφτασε στη 5πλα πλατίνα σημαίνει πωλήσεις μεγαλύτερες από 200,000 και λιγότερες από 240,000 χιλιάδες νομίζω είναι ξεκάθαρο. Επίσης, παραθέτεις site που λες πως το έχουν. Εγώ σε προτρέπω να πατήσεις "αγορά" του cd και θα δεις πως θα σου σταλεί μήνυμα πως το cd είναι εξαντλημένο. Επίσης, στην πρώτη ιστοσελίδα που παρέθεσες υπάρχει το σήμα "!" μέσα σε κόκκινο πλαίσιο. Αυτό το site το χρησιμοποιεί το σήμα αυτό για να δηλώσει πως το cd δεν κυκλοφορεί. Το δεύτερο site αναφέρει άλλο cd κυκλοφορίας του εξωτερικού. Το "Γεια" δεν περιείχε ποτέ το Opa opa στην ελληνική έκδοση. Επίσης, το συγκεκριμένο site φαίνεται πως έχει χρόνια να ανανεωθεί και βρίσκεται στο εξωτερικό οπότε δεν έχει άμεση επικοινωνία με την ελληνική αγορά. Άρα, εγώ "disprove" αυτά που γράφεις. Μήπως τελικά εσύ δεν έχεις τίποτα πειστικό να μας πεις και η επιθυμία σου για "καλυτέρευση", όπως λες, του άρθρου τροφοδοτείται από τον φανατισμό σου για άλλους καλλιτέχνες και την εμπάθεια για την Βανδή;;; Γιατί μόνο σε αυτό το άρθρο σε απασχολεί η "καλυτέρευση" σε άλλα πάλι όχι. Κανένα πρόβλημα να υποβάλεις ό,τι θες αλλά εγώ γράφω πράγματα με βάση αυτά που διαβάζω αν λοιπόν έγραψα κάτι είναι γιατί αυτό προκύπτει από αυτά που γράφεις και εσύ μου έδωσες το δικαίωμα. --KatrinofGreece (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you saying? Your arguments are completely irrelevant. First of all, I can add new information if I want whether you like it or not because that is not breaking the rules. You have broken the rules multiple times and the burden is on you to learn them or understand English well enough to edit here. Secondly, unless you live in a cave you should know that it is unacceptable to personally attack someone regardless of how "justified" you think you are. You clearly have too many issues understanding the language as I can see you are saying I said things I never said. You agreed that as a double album Vissi's should be 6x not 3 and I never said that there were any mistakes on the Orfeas article. I said none of your articles have an author because they are all derivatives. It is really obvious that when an article has huge mistakes in it like Tralala does we can not use it for similar information especially on a highly debated topic. How can you not understand that? AEPI does not prove that Dragoumanos uses direct IFPI sources, and they have never endorsed him themselves! And no 5x platinum does not mean that the album sold more than 200k it could easily mean less because there are always more shipments than ever sold. Everything you have said is just based on your own speculations. Regardless of whether you agree with my sources or not they are all consistent with each other and yours are not.

As for the touring, you can't be serious. Stavento might have a hit from time to time but they are a low selling act so obviously people are not paying money just to see the opening act for 15 minutes. I don't see why you keep trying to bring other artists into this to try to make your artist look better. For your information, Rouvas has done concerts every year for the last few years, and he was first name at all the summer shows from the beginning of his career making him one of the very few to do that, even though the headliner is usually 1)the one performing the longest 2)the older one 3)the laiko singer and he was a pop/rock singer and the youngest one on the scene. Most artists in Greece then were at least 25 when they released their first album, not 19 like him, including Vandi who did not become known for several years after that even. The situation you are referring to he was scheduled to perform with Sfakianakis, who everyone knows is insane, and decided he didn't want to work with Rouvas at the last minute when all collaborations and venues were already booked, not because he couldn't find work, get your facts straight. Are you kidding me? Circa 1999 there was not a single name more relevant in entertainment than Rouvas and there still isn't today, get a life. You keep accusing everyone of being supporters of Vissi or whatever which really shows your immaturity. I dislike all of the laiko "trash" singers and you can clearly see that I have added similar information to their articles as well. Media calls them pop singers to make them appear more contemporary, but Vandi is a laiko singer, she herself and critics define her as that. 80% of her repertoire is laiko, the rest is dance made specifically for clubs, only a couple of songs are pure pop, ie "Oti Oneirevomoun. Paparizou who you mentioned is also losing sales/popularity rapidly and that info is in her article, it is just not as noticeable with her because 1)she never had high sales 2) she is newer. Why does everything have to be a conspiracy theory with you that everyone is trying to disgrace the "great" Vandi? Have you ever just thought that the criticisms/claims are legitimate and the majority opinion? The burden is on you to prove that your sources/claims are legitimate which you haven't done. If we were to vote on the issue right now you would lose, and I propose that is what we do since this isn't going anywhere. GreekStar12 (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Νομίζω πως δεν μπορείς να μιλάς εσύ για άσχετα επιχειρήματα. Και ο οποιοσδήποτε να παρακολουθούσε την συζήτησή θα καταλάβαινε κάποια βασικά πράγματα. Όσο για τους κανόνες μην ανησυχείς αλλά πλέον βρήκα τον χρόνο και τους διάβασα, προς λύπην σου, καθώς εκεί πόνταρες. Ακόμα, μιλάς για προσωπική επίθεση, ενώ αυτήν την στιγμή εσύ επιτίθεσαι σε μένα. Επίσης, μην ανησυχείς, ό,τι έχω πει είναι παρμένο από τα γραφόμενά σου, αυτό, δυστυχώς δεν μπορείς να το διαψεύσεις, κοίταξε παραπάνω και θα δεις τι γράφεις, αλλά απ' ότι φαίνεται ούτε εσύ δεν δίνεις σημασία σ' αυτά. Το άλμπουμ της Βίσση είναι 7 φορέ πλατινένιο κι όχι 6, άλλο ένα στοιχείο, από τα πολλά μέχρι στιγμής, που υποδηλώνει πως γνωρίζεις εσφαλμένα τα πεπραγμένα της ελληνικής δισκογραφίας. Κανένα άρθρο που έχω παραθέσει δεν είναι παράγωγο όλα αναγράφουν τους συγγραφείς τους, οι ιστοσελίδες είναι διαθέσιμες, μπες και δες. Αυτή που δεν μπορεί να καταλάβει καποια πράγματα μάλλον είσαι εσύ, το λάθος στο άρθρο δεν αφορά την Βανδή, οπότε το άρθρο καθίσταται μη αξιοποιήσιμο μόνο για τον καλλιτέχνη τον οποίο επηρρεάζει το άρθρο. Μην ξεχνάς, όμως, ότι και το άρθρο ορφέας περιέχει λάθη σύμφωνα με την λογική σου: Πως γίνεται το άλμπουμ της Βίσση "Κραυγή" να αναγράφεται στο άρθρο του ορφέα με πωλήσεις 350,000 αντιτύπων που ισοδυναμούν ΑΚΡΙΒΩΣ με απονομή 7 πλατινένιων;;; Άρα, δεν πρόκειται για πωλήσεις αλλά για τοποθετήσεις. Άρα, σύμφωνα με όσα έχεις πει και σε προηγούμενες απαντήσεις σου δεν γίνεται να χρησιμοποιήσουμε το άρθρο σου. Κι όλα αυτά προκύπτουν απ' όσα έχεις ισχυριστεί εσύ. Ακόμα, πως γίνεται το άλμπουμ του Σφακιανάκη που βρίσκεται στην λίστα να έχει γίνει επίσημα 7πλα πλατινένιο και να αναγράφονται πωλήσεις που αντιστοιχούν σε πωλήσεις άνω των 8 πλατινένιων. Πάρα πολλά λάθη στο άρθρο που παραπέμπεις, και, αν το συνδιάσει κανείς και με το γεγονός ότι αυτά που αναγράφει έρχονται σε σύγκρουση με αυτά που γράφουν τα άρθρα που αποτελούν πηγή έρευνας, τότε κατανοεί κανείς ότι το άρθρο του Ορφέα έχει περισσότερα λάθη παρά σωστά. Πόσο ακόμα να υποβαθμίσω την πειστικότητα των επιχειρημάτων σου, σχεδόν έχει φτάσει στα Τάρταρα. Εγώ, λοιπόν, δεν βλέπω καμιά συνεκτικότητα στα άρθρα σου, μόνο εσύ την βλέπεις. Για το "Γεια" δεν έχω να πω κατι παραπάνω μιλούσες για την ifpi, ως την μόνη αξιόπιστη πηγή τώρα που σου δίνω σύνδεσμο κατευθείαν από την σελίδα της πάλι αναιρείς όσα έλεγες. Γενικά όσα λες κυμαίνονται στα λόγια-ελλιπείς υποθέσεις, αναίρεση αυτών και ξανά λόγια-ελλιπείς υποθέσεις αναίρεση αυτών. Και να μαντέψω; Έτσι, θα συνεχίσει. Περί Stavento τώρα, να πω απλά ότι το άλμπουμ τους πρόσφατα έγινε πλατινένιο σε περίοδο που τα cd δεν πουλάνε και τα τραγούδια τους βρίσκονται πάντα στην 10άδα των ραδιοφωνικών charts. Εσύ έφερες ως παράδειγμα την κατωτερότητα της Βανδή έναντι άλλων καλλιτεχνών τώρα που την αντιστρέφω και δείχνω την ανωτερότητά της τώρα πάλι αναιρείς αυτά που εσύ η ίδια ανέφερες πρώτη;;; Πως φαίνεται ότι δεν έχεις κάτι αξιόλογο να πεις, απλά κινήσαι από το μένος σου για την Βανδή, είναι φανερό πλέον. Άλλο ένα πράγμα που φαίνεται εδώ: Ο θαυμασμός για τον Ρουβά. Λυπάμαι αλλά εδώ δεν είναι ιστοσελίδα θαυμαστών του Ρουβά. Απλά να αναφέρω ότι άλλοι καλλιτέχνες δεν είχαν έναν Ψινάκη να τους προωθήσει, ούτε έδειχναν τους κοιλιακούς τους για να κάνουν καριέρα, ούτε προσθάησαν να λιποταχτήσουν ενάντια στην πατρίδα. Ακόμα, δεν επιτρέπεται να επιτίθεσαι προσωπικά σε πρόσωπα, χωρίς μάλιστα να έχεις στοιχεία που το αποδεικνύουν. Φαίνεται πως ο υπέρμετρος θαυμασμός σου για έναν τραγουδιστή σε κάνει να λες πράγματα χωρίς να σκεφτείς. Όσα λες περί Σφακιανάκη και Ρουβα μπορείς να τα αποδείξεις;;;; Δεν διάβασα ο Ψινάκης να μίλησε πουθενά περί ακύρωσης της τελευταίας στιγμής. Όντως δεν ήταν σωστό να σας αποκαλέσω υποστηρίκτρια της Βίσση είναι φανερό ότι είστε του Ρουβά. Τώρα περί λαϊκότητας της Βανδή δεν έχω να πω κάτι αν ακούσεις τα τραγούδια της θα καταλάβεις τι είδους τραγουδίστρια είναι. Για Παπαρίζου συμφωνώ. Κλείνοντας να πω ότι κρίνω με βάση αυτά που γράφονται για την Βανδή, και, πως εσύ δεν μπορείς να κατηγορείς κάποιον άλλον, το ότι είσαι θαυμάστρια του Ρουβά για μένα εξηγεί τα πάντα. --KatrinofGreece (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Zero tolerance

It has now been a week and a half since I fully protected the article. Only one user has responded, and as I suspected would happen, all other parties have gone quiet. I could unprotect the article, but I have no doubt edit warring will just resume. The Wikipedia:Edit warring policy allows administrators to block editors for persistent edit warring, even if they have not violated the three revert rule. Since edit warring on this article has been so out of control, I am interpreting policy to allow me to implement the following:

• The page protection on Despina Vandi and Despina Vandi discography is reduced to semi-protection, though not unprotected to prevent edit warring by IP address, as has previously happened. This will allow constructive edits to be made which are not related to the content dispute.
• A blanket final warning is given to all parties of this dispute on edit warring to apply indefinitely.
• A "zero tolerance rule" will apply to any further edit warring on either articles. Any further reverts (reversing another editors edits in whole or in part) on either article will result in a block of at least 24 hours for the editor(s) responsible, regardless of whether 3RR has been breached, or if the number of reverts is one or more. Significant leeway however will be given when:
  • The reverting editor has recently commented on this talk page, and the user they are reverting has not done so. Amended: The reverting editor commented on the talk page and at least 72 hours (3 days) have passed in which the editer they have reverted has not responded. CT Cooper · talk 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • For the very narrow range of edits exempt from 3RR.
• All parties in this dispute will be notified of the "zero tolerance rule" via their user talk page, and will have this apply to them once this has been done. Any new editor that attempts to edit war on this article will be notified about the "zero tolerance rule" personally before it will apply to them.
• An edit notice will be created as an additional reminder about the "zero tolerance rule".

This is rather draconian, but I feel I have been left no choice given the unwillingness of parties to settle this by discussion. If an editor is in doubt on if an edit they are planning will constitute edit warring, they are welcome to raise it here or on my user talk page. CT Cooper · talk 11:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The edit notice and page protection informing users about the zero tolerance rule expired on the 13 July 2011. Due to a resumption of edit warring I am reinstating the rule for another three months, or as long as is needed. I will the page unprotected for now, though this may change if IP disruption resumes. CT Cooper · talk 21:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that one major party, KatrinofGreece (talk · contribs), has been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user Plouton2 (talk · contribs), who I was not previously aware of. Given this and that things have quietened down, I am lifting the "zero tolerance rule", though I will keep an eye on this page for some time to see how things go. CT Cooper · talk 11:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)