User talk:Blastmaster11

The image pages with the archived review copies are from a WordPress blog called THIMK. The recent post for Death Certificate is at this link. The site has many similar posts with copies of reviews by The Source via jpg. images. Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've reverted this editor before, I thought you should know that he's reverted you on Reasonable Doubt. I've had a similar problem with this editor on Illmatic, and tried being civil about talking the matter out. Dan56 (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To editor: why did you delete the Allmusic quote? It's a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.180.32 (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You think having that gigantic table looks less messy than what I did? Look at In My Life Time, Vol 1, Vol 2...Hard Knock Life, Vol 3...Life And Times Of S. Carter..pretty much anyone's album that has sample credits listed. They're all listed the way I changed it to but you only felt it necessary to undo Reasonable Doubt? (13:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC))

And I see you did it to Doe or Die as well but left ALL the other albums alone. The track list table is much easier to read. Why would you want to jumble a table with a crap ton of information. The average user isn't looking for samples, they just want to see a clean track list. (Highbird2010 (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The reason why I "only felt it necessary to undo Reasonable Doubt and Doe or Die" and "left ALL the other albums alone" is because those other pages you listed aren't on my watchlist - therefore I didn't notice (nor do I care about) the changes you made to them.

I disagree that listing an abundance of samples in prose form is "easier to read" as opposed to "a table with a crap ton of information". For albums that have less samples and notes, I don't see anything wrong at all with the simple tracklisting format, but with a lot of these hip hop albums from the '80s/'90s that contain extensive performers, notes, samples, etc. I really don't see why not to use the table. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well I'm definitely not up for having a wikipedia internet battle. I guess I won't touch those albums since, somehow, you have the final say on it. But either way, happy editing! (Highbird2010 (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

If this is something you feel strongly about, we can start a discussion at the article's talk page (sorry for the late response). --Blastmaster11 (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I've forgetten about that. But I passed the article again and noticed three maximum ratings. I looked over other reviews with Google News archive search and it seemed to me that at least replacing the USA Today score with Pitchfork would make it reflect the reception a little more accurately. Would that be acceptable? Dan56 (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you rebuff my improved wording? H Bruthzoo (talk)

For unnecessary removal of content, and also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am having an issue with an editor to Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), who continues to remove certain content, claiming that the content's cited source is unverifiable speculation and he does not agree with it. The editor, 174.24.148.57, claims to be registered user who does not feel the need to sign in. Dan56 (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would mind commenting here? An editor has been unreasonable in removing an image in that article, so I have to be the one who finds consensus. Dan56 (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Supreme Clientele, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages DAT and FL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you like to comment at this discussion? Dan56 (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Life After Death, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gemini (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blowout Comb, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages George Clinton, Barbershops and Afros (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Geto Boys (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Remixed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for Marquee Moon, an article about a rock music album? Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I provided you with a source for ALL artists, thus far and actually lived through it... With the exception of the beatnuts, you have no latin artist, which contributed and influenced a whole generation of latino youth and made impacts on the culture, thats flat out racists and Im going to keep posting it up as long as you take it down! -Smoggy13

Hi Smoggy13. Where in the MTV source does it say that Kid Frost was a notable artist from the golden age? Secondly, the other websites that you added are on the top hip hop songs from the golden age ... not top artists. Also, these are from user-submitted blogs, and according to reliable sources, blogs aren't adequate. To say "... you have no latin artist [...] thats flat out racists" is utterly asinine. Pulling the race card in situations like this is a brainless cop-out for someone in desperate need of an argument. The notable artists section isn't for people to list their favorites, or artists whom they feel were important - it's for artists who were at the forefront of this era (backed up by reliable sources). If you're gonna edit war and "keep posting it up as long as (I) take it down", then Wikipedia administrators will get involved and I'll have to request a lock on this page. Either get reliable sources, or don't add material ... it's very simple. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Your homework of when kid frost, among the others rappers I have listed, were active and blew up to a major latin audience around the country and then tell me... what era there music was from? When were they active from? The golden Era as its described right here in this section states... "everyone offered something innovative, like every new single re invented the genre" There is a genre called Chicano and Latin which does have a large fan base and following, and every single artists I listed Has pioneered therefore contributing a starting role into the culture. If you know anything about rap, hip hop in general... You'd know kid frost Had a major impact amongst the west coast/gangster rap... and his hit "La Raza" is considered to be one of the first successful latino rap songs and YES a Lighter Shade Of Brown did infact have the first Platinum selling single with "On a Sunday Afternoon", YES before cypress hill and beanuts which you both have listen...So do you research on the genre and follow your sources a little more accurately cause who knows maybe you might you might actually know what your talking about in a future conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoggy13 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Golden age hip hop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subject matter. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you rejected my edition of 6 Feet Deep's years of production. I found this info in the interview with Prince Paul here. He said that they'd started the demo in '91. ("we started the demo in ’91 and the actual album came out in ’94"). He said later they'd been recording it for six months ("Right after we signed the deal it probably took us about six months to record it."), but he also mentioned that "2 Cups Of Blood" had been recorded in 1991 at his house and it hadn't been re-recorded on the album. ("A lot of stuff that you hear on the demo tape is actually on the album. So yeah, “2 Cups Of Blood” was recorded at my house, it was recorded on an 8-track cassette Tascam, I had an SM58 microphone, everything that you hear on that record is low budget and we just mixed it at a decent studio to make it sound good"). To me, if the track was recorded in 1991, we should add information that the album was being recorded from 1991 to 1994 Tashivana (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for touching base. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hii, since you're one of the major contributors to The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill, how would you feel about nominating it for good article review? It seems comprehensive and well-put together enough to qualify. Dan56 (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Blastmaster, can you check my FA nomination on Master of Puppets? I'm struggling to fine reviewers, so your input is more than welcomed.--Retrohead (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Supreme Clientele, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ironman (album) and 60 Second Assassin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly, I have that issue of RS (cited as source) and he didn't even mention her. Btw, Google only shows "AB salms/blasts KL", tho she didn't get a response. His name shouldn't be there. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for touching base and being civil - no need to edit war here:). Anyways, Azealia went on socail media here and called Kendricks' sediments in a Billboard interview "The dumbest shit I've ever heard a black man say". She even went on to say "HOW DARE YOU open ur face to a white publication and tell them that we don't respect ourselves.... Speak for your fucking self". Kendrick retorted with "I know the history. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking from a personal standpoint. I'm talking about gangbanging". --Blastmaster11 (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't a response to her (at least not directly). He received other critics about the song 1 2. Saying "Banks had an online dispute with KL" is incorrect since he didn't acknowledge it, or even online. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back and read the RS article, that was a response to Azealia's remarks. Also, several of the artists listed in the Azealia Banks controversy section never directly acknowledged her (such as Pharell). I re-worded it though on her page. Hope this helps. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Havoc production discography, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Streetlife and Crystal Johnson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prince Paul production discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daryl Mitchell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whut? Thee Album, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Head Banger. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Balls and My Word, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compilation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why did you change the release date of Life Is...Too Short from 1989 back to 1988? The 1989 release date was correct. 2602:306:BDA9:8610:2145:8168:1215:FB87 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited RZA production discography, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Black Knights and The Last Shall Be First. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 8 Diagrams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Porter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best before to establish a new consensus before continuing to implement an inconsistent numbering system. Please take it to Talk:Janelle Monáe or Talk:Janelle Monáe discography because all her articles appear to support the fact that The Audition is considered her first album, and the subsequent albums follow this numbering system. Dirty Computer should fall in line with those, not say something different. Thanks. Ss112 18:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll also find most users won't care that The Audition was self-released—self-released projects still count as albums. Generally EPs also aren't 52 minutes in length. However, I didn't establish that this was an album—it already appears to be in place. I don't think going around and changing all the articles would be the best course of action either. It should just be sorted out on one of Monáe's talk pages first. Ss112 18:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a discussion here on the matter. Please feel free to comment. Thanks Ss112. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of StewdioMACK -- StewdioMACK (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of StewdioMACK -- StewdioMACK (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of StewdioMACK -- StewdioMACK (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a source confirming that The Lady of Rage provides the background vocals on "Bitches Ain't Shit." However, there are some sources that name Jewell as the vocalist, including the "Bitches Ain't Shit" Wikipedia page. Genius credits the outro to Jewell (https://genius.com/Dr-dre-bitches-aint-shit-lyrics) as does Ego Trip's Book of Rap Lists (you can search Google Books using the song's name).

The "Bitches Ain't Shit" page doesn't have a source, so that's obsolete. Genius is a user-submitted site, therefore not a reliable source. Ego Trip's Book of Rap Lists, however; I'll take that. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and add your report accordingly. Bots read that page and administrators need information the correctly used template provide. Cheers. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

robvanvee@gmail.com Robvanvee 17:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and blocked as a sock just as we suspected. Robvanvee 06:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I see you have reverted the edits I made on Tupac’s discography. Your excuse for every one of them is “Per whats clearly sourced” you should absolutely be following the RIAA website which is the actual source that is LISTED on every one of them. As I previously mentioned in every one of them especially the Diamond certified albums, If an album is certified Diamond it clearly means it’s sold 10,000,000 units, nothing higher or lower. It absolutely should not be anywhere between 5,000,000 this is common sense. The sources that you seem to be following should not be even listed, every music editor on here knows you follow the RIAA website. I will be reverting them back and if I catch you starting an edit war I will be taking this straight to an admin. Pillowdelight (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is also clear you are not following WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE Which is the RIAA website. Pillowdelight (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pillowdelight: "every music editor on here knows you follow the RIAA website" - I don't know that and I don't agree. When there are newer sales figures available from a reliable source (e.g. covering several additional years after a Diamond certification), they should absolutely be mentioned, as it has been done in these 2Pac album article for many years. Also, as Blastmaster11 said, edits such as this contradict the source that is actually cited, and fail to take into account the RIAA's counting method for double albums (cf. RIAA certification#Multi-disc). Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to know why you don’t agree? The RIAA is the official certification company in the US. If his albums have gone “Diamond” meaning sold 10,000,000 units, 5,000,000 shouldn’t even be listed in the box. I’m not sure how this is confusing you, you are not following the correct source. The source you’re following is from a magazine from 2011 that has absolutely no ties to the RIAA. Pillowdelight (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated the source you’re following is from 2011. Per the RIAA website that is sourced states his album “All Eyez on Me” hit 10,000,000 units (Diamond) in 2014. Pillowdelight (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: as I do recall the xxl mag is considered a reliable source regarding music, it isn’t the official source for album certifications. Pillowdelight (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pillowdelight: The RIAA certifications are by no means the only suitable source; Nielsen SoundScan (which, as the article notes, forms the basis for the Billboard charts) is an industry standard as well. If you disagree, start a discussion on WP:RSN or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but what I’m saying is why are we sourcing albums from the RIAA on here if we’re not even going to follow it? I’m sure other music editors on here would agree with me. Nielsen Soundscan doesn’t even fall in the reliable sources for WP:RSMUSIC Pillowdelight (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: Coming from the RIAA website itself and I quote “ For accuracy’s sake, we require that you send us sales figures directly from your databases. We have been asked why we don’t use sales figures from SoundScan. SoundScan measures over-the-counter sales at music retail locations, while our certification levels are based on unit shipments and digital sales/streams (minus returns) from record labels and manufacturers to a wide range of accounts, including non-retail record clubs, mail order houses, specialty stores, units shipped for Internet fulfillment or direct marketing sales, such as TV-advertised albums. In addition, SoundScan’s archive begins in 1991, while the RIAA has tracked artists’ sales levels for nearly 60 years.”

As you can see yourself Nielsen Soundscan is not a reliable source. Pillowdelight (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pillowdelight: Yes I did revert your edits. I'm going by what's clearly sourced for certifications, and what's clearly sourced for pure sales. Often times certifications numbers and pure album sales do not match up (one purchase of a double album counts as two separate units for certification. Also, this is the digital age, so streams are now factored into certification... a stream is not an album sale!). Thus, the reason why certifications have their own column in the table, and why pure sales have their own column in the table! With that said, I am indeed "following WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE" for certifications, as well as for sales. Lol, I’m not sure how this is confusing you. If you want to tell on your own self and "take this straight to an admin", then please, be my guest (you're the one whose changing sourced content with out prior discussion on these album talk pages). --Blastmaster11 (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: Like I previously said why are we following certifications from the RIAA itself if we’re not even going to follow it. You say “Thus, the reason why certifications have their own column in the table, and why pure sales have their own column in the table” the column is not supposed to be for “pure sales” it’s supposed to be coming from what ever the certification is on whether it’s Gold = 500K, Platinum = 1M, or Diamond = 10M. I mean why on earth would we be adding in certifications that are “6X Platinum” = 6,000,000 if were only adding in pure sales of 3,000,000. Pure sales aren’t even supposed to be added in. This is common sense. The sources your following have absolutely nothing to do with knowing the sales amount of albums. Your sources have been either coming from Billboard which again manages chart positions, XXL Magazine that only manages Hip Hop related news. None of these sources would even know the actual amount of his sales. And I have reached out to you, I’m literally discussing this with you, not sure how you find this funny. Please by all means show me where it physically states we need to add in pure sales only and not the actual amount of the certification coming from the main source itself. Pillowdelight (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Blastmaster11: ^^ was supposed to be directed towards you. Pillowdelight (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Record charts (via Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums), it states: Certifications should be sourced directly to certifying agencies, most of which provide a searchable database. When such a database is not available, other reliable sources may be used, but they must directly state that the certifying agency has granted the certification. Many popular press articles will contain statements such as "... has gone gold ..." or "... has gone platinum ..." based on a sales figure, when, in fact, the certifying agency has not yet verified those sales and granted a certification.

As you both can see it clearly states you must follow the RIAA source. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* I still don't understand how you can't comprehend how this works. Certifications and pure album sales do not always match up. The RIA also factors in STREAMS AND DOWNLOADS with sales. Here's some other examples: here, here, here, here, here, etc. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still don’t understand how you can’t comprehend this, it clearly states you need to follow the RIAA. Doesn’t matter. Again, the sources you are providing must physically say it has been certified by the RIAA. No excuses. You would clearly be violating Wikipedia:Record charts (via Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums it literally says it. All of the sources you just sent are severely incorrect. Per the RIAA website Nielsen Soundscan is not a source for certifications. Which I seemly also added into this thread, which I’m very much assuming you ignored. If this is something you can’t comprehend after I literally just showed you than maybe you shouldn’t be editing on here. Pillowdelight (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blastmaster11. At some point in these situations, you should realize that there is an issue of comprehension (WP:COMPETENCE). At which point, there is nothing more that can be said. Naturally, other editors have taken action, as I saw here, for instance. So I expect this issue to die down. isento (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record and possible later reference, this discussion has since continued at Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Nielsen_Soundscan_not_reliable, which seems a more suitable place. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Only Built 4 Cuban Linx..., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Coyne. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you spare some time and review my nomination of this article? Here is the featured article criteria for guidance, in case you choose to do so. Thanks. isento (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Lauryn had a lawsuit against those producers doesn’t mean they need to be included. It states on the Rolling Stone articles While Hill’s spokesman at Columbia Records confirmed that a settlement had been reached, he said the terms are undisclosed, which is typical in such cases. and Miseducation‘s liner notes mostly credit Hill with producing, writing and arranging the entire album. It was, in fact, a huge group effort, as underlined by a lawsuit settled out of court in 2001 for a reported $5 million. — where exactly does that confirm or state that they were granted producer credits? If there’s no source that states they were granted credits than there is absolutely no reason for them to be in the infobox. Pillowdelight (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lauryn didn't have a lawsuit against those producers, they had one against her; for which she didn't win. This would indicate that their production/writing contributions were greater than what they were initially credited for in the album's liner notes. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"This would indicate that their production/writing contributions were greater than what they were initially credited for in the album's liner notes." — okay and? That literally doesn’t mean Wikipedia needs to give them credits. No sources indicate they were granted credits after the lawsuit was settled. You’re just assuming it. Pillowdelight (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This says otherwise. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That still does not confirm they were granted credits. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. It's a reliable source that's literally crediting Che, and Vada as producers (in addition to the co-producer credits they initially received). --Blastmaster11 (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do recall that discussion and if you read the last message from @FanDePopLatino: quite sums up why the edit was changed. The Billboard source is outdated, the albums cert was updated 2 months after the article was published. Which is what I even stated in my edit summary. I’ve changed several albums/songs sales after a cert has been updated and nobody has complained. I get that you like to bring up that discussion from 3 years ago but I’m actually following what you all stated in it. Pillowdelight (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion clearly expounds that RIAA's certifications, and actual physical sales numbers aren't necessarily the same. Just because RIAA changed the certification does not mean that the source for physical sales numbers is, by default, "outdated", and we remove it. So no, you aren't "following what we all stated" in that discussion. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blastmaster11: Share your thoughts regarding the album if you wish to. 183.171.122.250 (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]