User talk:Markus WikiEditor/Archive 1

5476:. I'm not sure how many involved users or who took that decision or with what arguments?. Contrary, I think that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is applicable for many examples and without needing the mention of the agency in a third-party source (depending in the country and/or the "year"). Some examples: CAPIF doesn't work since 2010's but artists keep selling and getting certifications in Argentina. Same goes with non-existing certifications programs in countless countries (e,g Brazil before 1990, Turkey before 2003). We also know that there exist "bad information" and we should avoid that if the website from certification is available, for example "X album was certified Platinum" when in the authority source shows Gold. Not all the countries will be like United States with RIAA or United Kingdom with BPI but certainly those "certified units" are attributed by third-party sources in many acceptable examples. Regarding Chilean certification for "En Extasis", I think should remain without attribuiting "IFPI" as the certification body. -- 5505:. It should be clear that IFPI/CUD/CAPIF should not be mentioned if they are not involved. It should be clear that the amount "certified" is unknown, with every label making their own rules. It should be clear that we have no way to know if the "certification" includes streams, ringtones, or even YouTube views. All we have is the knowledge that the label gave the artist a plaque. Personally, I think the word "certification" does not apply in this case (who is certifying what?) and I don't trust labels. They have all the interest to lie, and nothing to stop them. If you still feel that "plaque being awarded to artist by label" is worth mentioning then I wont object, but it should be made clear. -- 4305:

confirm what was on the page. I would keep it, but do what you think is best. About this source in Africa, they put it on a Janet page of Ukmix, but the person who posted it doesn't even know if it's reliable, whoever edited the reference here said that the source is RISA, but there is no way to confirm it, in the single page of this site it thanks to "Five FM Top 40 and Music Globe" for "allowing me to use this information.", so it appears to be a blog that copied information that can be trusted, it's an unreliable source I would delete it.--

4696:, the 12kk claim seems really inflated, 8kk or 10kk would be more accurate for this release, albums like Justified by Justin Timberlake and Stripped by Christina Aguilra performed better and they have a 10kk worldwide claim in their articles. About the site T-Online it seemed more like a blog (not the site itself but this article) and many claims are very inflated like the Ray of light sales and also the certifications of Music and Something to Remember certs. I think it should b avoided.-- 1334: 4737: 4506: 4454: 4402: 3561: 3475: 1768: 1627: 1363: 1108: 1168:

mid-1983 and 12 June 1988; so it is fine to use as a source for Australian peaks during and before that period. From mid-1988, however, an ARIA source should be cited (and I've added one on this page, for example). However, there is a period from when ARIA commenced producing the chart (mid-1988) until the top 100 was first made available to the public in the ARIA Report (14 January 1990) where it's difficult to source ARIA peaks. This ARIA chart blog

3947: 1936: 1490: 1417: 746: 2444:

differently of many catalog albums it performed very well in the streaming era and sold another 1,7 million copies in equivalent sales, so the "as of... 2015/2016" in that case is not applied incorrectly. I try to find a recent source for the 7 million copies sold from 2018 and 2019 but I couldn't find nothing, but still the 10 million sold is way inflated and when appeared in the article I'll revert it.--

1227: 1279: 3691:) that Notitas Musicales is used as a chart for Mexico from before the Monitor Latino times and I was wondering if we could use it in articles as the official Mexican charts for older songs? The chart shows airplay charts in Mexico as well as the top spots in the U.S. Billboard charts. If this is a legit chart then you could even use it in the article for 4754:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 4523:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 4471:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 4419:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 3578:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 3492:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 1785:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 1644:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 1380:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 1125:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 3059:Éxtasis' or 'Arrasando', they were in countries where a gold record barely reaches 20 or 30 thousand copies. Let's face it, she doesn't sell more than 1.5 million with an album in her entire career. Try to find reliable sources the next time it occurs to you to keep contributing to your inflated sales. I hope you understand :) .-- 3369:

certification received, RIAA (and others companies) certificate an album based in shippments, not in sales. The article you send me says "Certifications should be sourced directly to certifying agencies, most of which provide a searchable database." it doesn't say nothing about the use of shippments besides the sales.--

2023:'s sales because of your own hypothesis on the album. Your reasons being that the certified certifications does not suggest that it's sold as much as it has been claimed to is not a strong argument at all; if albums were based on certified sales rather than commonly claimed sales by sources, then the entire top of the 4934:

that tmb sold but there is no sample of the quantities, if Avril Lavigne's sales increased from 16 to 24 million, why not Laundry Service? I request at least to go up to 15 million since it must go around when they update it even if other sources raise it to 20 million. I ask that you read and analyze my request.

5238:

in it after the concept of the album was created. It is different from "Desde esa noche" and "No me acuerdo" that were released already with the purpose of promoting the album that would follow. I've seen cases of releases like that but I don't remember which artist. But you can undo my editing, I may be wrong.--

1172:, however, contains ARIA peaks for Breakers (the 5 highest-charting singles moving up the chart outside the top 50 that usually have not previously entered the top 50) from this period, and will now be adding peaks for top 100-charting singles that did not become Breakers weekly for 1988 (and later 1989) charts. 5555:

Dear 88marcus, I will accept the reference you made to the sales of Gloria Estefan, but I do not understand why you make references to two figures 75 million and later 100 million, I do not understand the desire to put two figures, it seems a bit ridiculous because it contradicts the information from

4981:

Hi 88marcus I was looking at a page of best-selling albums and I checked that there are many albums of 40 million certified while estimates put 60, I wonder, can that happen with Laundry Service? I mean, we know that it has 13 million, 700 thousand certificates, but can 20 million be estimated? given

4357:

and also Ricky Martin's album performed better on charts. And while they were both released in 1998, Shakira's album total sales is estimated +7 Million copies and Vuelve sales is estimated 6 Million! If you can remember, Vuelve sales was written as 8 Million copies before and you said it's inflated.

3177:

Hey Marcus do you have the Oricon Album Chart book? If you do could you do me a favor please? Can you check Thalía's greatest hits DVD to see what its peak and sales were? The Oricon website says it entered charts but I think to see the peaks you need to have an account with them or something. If you

2908:

In some countries like Brazil the album was certified based in the date it was released but in others like Denmark it's based in the date of the certification, the certification table is already programmed to include the number of copies using the criteria of each country. About the source I think is

2418:

users put her sales with "as of... 2015/2016". I think this practice like in other discographies should be avoided, because its susceptible to attract more "fake sales"... you know the common cycle of vandalism/journalism without scrutinity and giving any user without common sense include "new sales"

1585:

You are an extended confirmed user and so we both know how refrences are important in writing articles in wikipedia. About Ricky Martin's albums' sales, again we both know Forbes is a reliable refrence and so we must trust it! Please instead of using your own idea and your own incomplete calculations

568:

Again, I'm not sure myself, but the same figure used in early 2002 to say "as of 2011", does not seem accurate when there are reliable sources with updated figures. And speculation about specific region sales isn't really helpful either when we don't know. I'm still wondering where this consensus was

553:

The sales double in UK, but you should know that the certifications are automatically made since 2013 there, that's why On the 6 was certified in 2013. That means that J-lo didn't sold 600,000 in UK till now, and after it was out of that charts its sales doesn't change considerably. It shipped 4kk in

3721:

I don't see problem in that at all. Even Billboard uses this chart in their Hits of the world compilations charts. Maybe someone could find problem in include it in the Singles table (in the discography page), if you include there you have to specify that it's from Notitas because the charts peak in

3324:

Clearly states you need to follow the RIAA source, only exception is if there wasn’t a source for sales regarding the RIAA that’s when you bring in a reliable source stating the sales. But evidently none of those sources on the albums state they were sourced from the RIAA. So you have to leave it as

3321:

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

1167:

in mid-1988 (13 June 1988 to be exact), and while the Kent/Australian Music Report continued to be published until 1998, it was not considered Australia's "official" chart thereafter. David Kent's book only contains peaks from the Kent Report chart, which ARIA licensed the top 50 portion of between

891:

Yes but why would you not list the ARIAA Hall of fame video as a reliable source if Kylie was there? Also the chart runs of Fever basically come to more than 6M and it's really obvious that 6M isn't Kylies best selling. also the CGYOOMH single sold 10M and it says that on her page but on the CGYOOMH

489:

Also, the 8 million cited in 2002 was probably shipments, if the album was out of the charts after that there's no way it outside that sales to more than 2 or 4 million copies. The consensus must come from all users, there's no rule to that, but seeing the most reliable about the album sales (charts

5429:

and not a reliable source. Furthermore, consensus is that sales by non-certifying authorities can be mentioned in the text with proper explanation, not that they can be listed in the certification table where no such explanations can be given, thus misleading the readers into thinking that this are

5295:

which came out 3 years and 8 months before the album while the second and third singles came out 2 years before the album. I didn't undo your edits because I had already done it but you changed it back again and I didn't want it to seem like I was edit warring so I preferred to speak to you on here

5237:

It is not just because of the time. These singles were not released to promote the album, you see, the concept of the album came months (almost a year) after these singles were released, Thalía did not appear anywhere saying that these singles would be from her new album and they were just included

5001:

I have been reviewing the reliable sources that can be used and Rolling Stones appears as reliable, if the same page commented that LS has 15 million I consider that it is simply left there to avoid conflicts. In addition, many pages also credit the 15 million. I strongly ask that it be left there.

1049:

There are forums and sites that estimate the sales of his albums based in chart performances, official sales that came from IFPI or Nielsen Soundscan and well know facts, you can search that in google. I think that the more accurate comes from Chartmasters website and Ukmix Forum. But you can't use

5536:

is committing acts of vandalism in the English and Spanish versions of Gloria Estefan. His bcc reference says that he has sold 120 million, but this goes against all wikipedia lists of best-selling artists, further considering that Estefan's certified sales are 45.7 million, his estimated sales in

5165:

Also those songs by Madonna that you used as examples don't work in the same way because they are songs from movies and were released as singles from the movie's soundtrack. Sure they were included on the album's later but they were not re-released when that happened so they don't count as singles

4933:

Hello Marcos, yes rather sorry for the edition war that I caused, however the sales gap is very outdated since by 2003 it already reached 13 million, in fact Laundry Service is already eligible for 4x platinum or x5 platinum in The United States also lacks sales from Peru, Egypt and more countries

3640:

so I was wondering, what is the actual rule about adding sales/certifications using YouTube as a source? I want to make sure we have a clear way of doing it otherwise fans might start using videos to inflate sales again. Example: If an artist "saying" they achieved certifications/sales counts as a

3368:

Again, it says that the certifications must be from the RIAA (BPI, IFPI, and so on) not the sales, and it's that way because many albums sold above the number of its certifications, but the record companies didn't pay for a new certification or as in many cases the album flopped and sold below the

2807:

and I would like to add some missed certifications: Philippines (Gold), Sweden (Gold), Denmark (Silver) and Ireland (Gold). But since all of them are prior of the official bodies entities, I have no idea how to put sales based on certifications/shipments in "Certified units/sales". Do you have any

652:

I would like to read the opinion of other users, but if you think is better take out the 8kk from the Discography page, I'll not revert. Stripped by Christina Aguilera and Music by Madonna performed way better than J-lO and are listed as 10kk and 11kk in their articles. I couldn't find some source

455:

Because it is, the same figure has been used since early 2002, and the album has sold since then, 0.7M in the US, its sales doubled in the UK in 2002, etc. Chart positions don't seem to be a great determiner either. Also, I've found sources for some of her other albums but am reluctant to use them

440:

Why do you think it's outdated?! I mean, do you think this album could sold 6 or 8 million copies out of USA (since its sales were listed in the article as 10 or 12 million copies worldwide?)! J-lo was certified 4 time platinum in 2003, and 10 year later its sales in US were 3,8 million copies. So

412:

rather than revert. The figure used in the 2011 article is definitely outdated – it's the same one that's been used since 2002, and the album did continue to sell after Dec. 2001 (the IFPI figure was only for that calendar year). Is there a consensus on what percentage of certifications (which are

5025:

that when it talks about "Te Daria Mi Vida" and "El Tiempo Es Oro" it mentions Platinum certifications in Mexico and Guatemala but I don't know if the source is reliable and also the way it's worded, it doesn't specify if those certifications were for the song or the album. Do you know if this is

3635:

Hey I see that you recently added back sales on a few albums. Thalía (1990) and 24 Kilates seem fine to me since the first one is a video of her receiving the certification and the second is from a tv news show (third party) talking about the certification and sales, but when it comes to La Chica

2853:

Thanks, that's help. I think I'll add just the certifications status in "Commercial reception" because in table section, sales could be a primary information. Also, I know you're a good researcher in certifications reached by many artists prior the official entites came out. If you find something

2834:

I included an info about certifications too all info is included in the booklet of her compilation Just for the record, I didn't have probleam till now (it's a primary source too), but I included in the commercial performace section not in the certification table. But if you want to include those

2343:

Hi Marcus, I think Shakira deserves a proper and better version on Knowledge than the actual main article. At least in "Legacy section", with the "female, general or in latin records" that she has. The same with Thalía and other huge musicians in Latin Music (J Balvin, Rubio etc etc). What do you

2142:

What? Again, you're not talking any sense. No fans inflated sales, because there are sources that actually support the claim of 45 million. The 35 million claims were completely made up because users believed that 45 million was inflated - their own hypothesis rather than looking at what a lot of

1730:

album 6 times platinum, it's not something I want to put on the page. That is the reality, why not just accept it? Do you know what corruption is to edit with lies? I don't want to report you or anything, but I want you to know that you are leading to the pathetic point of fanaticism. The Paulina

2732:

The Decca albums are comprised of studio recordings made at the Decca studios. They were studio versions of songs for release as singles & albums. Soundtracks are comprised of songs/scoring prerecorded and used in films. The Decca albums have always been known as studio albums. The first

2664:

I tried after you message but I didn't find anything. Possible with an advanced research is possible, but I don't have time too. So far we can stay with the 5 million figure, which probably includes streamings. Other amount beyond 5 will be primary source and exaggerate. Per IFPI this album sold

1238:. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at 4304:

Oh, now I see. Since it is a dead url what we can do is wait for it to come back to life. lol It is used in many articles so it should contain something important in it, I already used some dead urls, like some Thalía chart positions that I found on Ukmix, but I didn't find that source there to

3058:

It is the first time that I have reviewed Thalía's sales on those inflated sales that the media continue to print on all kinds of artists. Most of the sales of those albums from the source it includes are completely unrealistic. Although she certified in different countries with albums like 'En

2876:

Hello, uhm, when it comes to album certifications if an album gets recertified, certification goes by the level/figure of certification of that time when the album was originally released (Denmark, Nirvana Nevermind for an example 5x platinum in 2018) or it goes by the new standards that is now

2681:

neither. Anyway, i'll try later verify her other albums, that I know that had suffered a lot of vandalism. It's difficult when media made a "woozle effect" and vandalism dont help. Active users in her WikiProject neither.... you can see in all her articles a non-neutral writing; simple details,

1233:

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files)

41:

Hi, Marcus. I know that you are good in searching and researching references about all best-seller musicians. Those references sometimes has multiple content to referring many articles. So can you help me (in your time and if you wanna, no problem) to find missed certifications and awards about

3296:

No, I don't. And that's why you'll find sales in almost all certification tables in Knowledge, the shippments are used only when there's no info about the album sales. The article says that the table must contain the certifications from the RIAA (BPI, IFPI, etc), but the sales must be from any

1911:

where the source is used as a source for the album's certifications in Chile, Ecuador, and Perú. You should look into that article if the source is unreliable which is probably true because it also states that the album was certified Diamond + 3x Platinum in Mexico but Amprofon says otherwise.

1819:

Hey 88Marcus I'm new to wikipedia and I'm trying to make edits to latin pop artists articles the best that I can while following wikipedia rules. I recently saw that you reversed the edit I did on Thalía's 1990 self titled album regarding the album sales and asked if I could provide a reliable

864:

Okay would you stop undoing edits? In the Hall of Fame video it literally says it sold 8.5M, it also says Light Years sold 4M in it. There's a whole host of stuff wrong on every Kylie album page, Fever sold 10M and it was confirmed later last year. Almost. Every page hasn't got any sales on it

852:

Hi, like do you even stan Kylie Minogue?? Rhythm of Love was a success selling 30M ww omg and also literally it did inspire people and I don't know if you can't speak English but you need to get a grip and stop discrediting Kylie's legacy because every time I make an edit to a Kylie page I get

5540:

Me ha llamado "descarado", "mentiroso patológico", entre otras ofensas y ha revertido más de 8 veces mis ediciones, le he informado sobre la política de Knowledge y lo que es y no es y aún así me dijo que "no te metas con el artículo de Gloria". Quisiera saber qué puedo hacer aquí, él ya fue

2127:

It's exactly the contrary. Fans and non registered users in general came here to inflate Michael Jackson's sales not to decrease them. Even Michael Jackson's official site claims 35 million copies, but we can't use it and also his manager comment as a source, they're primary sources and they

2443:

I understand your point of view and agree with the fact that "as of..." is used to created fake and inflated sales for many artists. In case of albums sales I think the Chartmasters website does a very accurate study of them, according to it Sasha has sold 7,5 million copies worldwide, but

2214:

There are references showing many of his sales are inflated by media, publicists and fans. Including "Bad". Also, see procedures from Knowledge and the edit summary by users like 88marcus. We already had previous consensus about his sales. Don't change his sales, use the talk page first.

758:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

5420:

First, the edit you reinstated specifically lists IFPI Chile as certifying Gold in Chile and CUD as certifying Gold in Uruguay. The sources do not mention IFPI Chile nor CUD so you reinstated unsourced facts. Please either provide a source that IFPI/CUD did the certifying or correct

4358:

so if you think 8 was inflated for Vuelve, please also change Dónde Están los Ladrones?'s sales to make sense. Or if you think Dónde Están los Ladrones? sales is accurate, so please let me use another reference for Vuelve's 8 Million copies. Because the numbers should be comparable.

2689:

I in the article or discography section, just because was her lowest album in sales. It's common to see discographies like Beyonce or Rihanna (I guess are usually the same editors), in the first paragrah mentioned her records sales etc, etc. That's different with discographies like

1502:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1429:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3200:

Unfortunally I don't have. :( There's a forum called Ukmix, and there is a topic about this book there, that includes almost all informations about its content, included chart runs. People don't answer questions there a long time, and I couldn't find nothing about the Thalía's DVD.

2512:

formely wikified Yahoo/US Weekly reference and was permanent accepted by users.... I don't know how reliable can be US Weelky/Yahoo reference (at least in sales matters)... but with this background and with all those certification even until now, seems like is unreliable. SINCE

913:

Well excluding all them the Kylie sales still should be up there because if it was confirmed in The Hall of Fame then it is real sales. It probably has sold more but I know for a fact that Kylies best selling is higher than 6M and that the Kylie sales are more than 5M

456:

before starting a discussion, edit wars are annoying and pointless. But again, I'm not an expert on sales. Is there a consensus on what % should be used? Not to use WP:OTHER, but other albums from the same period have sales figures that aren't supported by as much. —

4660:

has a notorious gap between sales available/certified units vs claimed sales for a 2000s album. This a gap of 5.2 million or what do you think? I know album ended as fifth best-selling in 2002 according to IFPI, but they don't showed up the sales. Also, do you think

4274:

Sure, 2M report is considering reliable and it's used by our certification system for Russia. My specific inquiry with it was to that link (2001 report) whom even with archived versions doesn't show anything but it still used in several articles (take the example of

1837:

I do know about the video of Thalía receiving the 2x gold certification but I couldn't find a source for it but I was able to find a source for the sales being 200,000 that's why I only changed the sales number and I did provide a source. This is the source I found:

5433:

Third, I don't speak the language, but where are the numbers from? I don't see the numbers 10,000 and 2,000 in the source (although they might be there and I'm missing them). In fact, unsourced numbers is what brought me to the article to begin with, it appears in

2967:

If the info in the source is only about one week of sales I don't think this is reliable (my opinion). But if he includes sales of all weeks in one ref would be better, people do that in K-pop articles, like that ref used in the Wings album of BTS in that article:

5048:

It doesn't seem reliable, there are few info about this website on internet and when Paulina appeared in Veronica Castro's show there was no mention about this album's platinum certification. All that I know is that it didn't have the same success of her previous

5182:

wasn't originally in Nandito Ako and was not re-released when the 2007 version of the album came out so it's not considered to be from the album but some of her other songs from Telenovelas were either released as singles at the same time as Thalía's album like

2621:

I tried to find a source of "4 million copies sold" but I couldn't find anything. I think is the more accurate, Chartmasters did a great job with her records and listed Beyonce as having sold around 3,8 copies (not included streamings), but we can't use that

2235:

Hi Marcus, nice to see you. I always thought some singles/albums of Shakira suffers inflated sales and Knowledge it has been a part of it (With vandalism in her multiple language versions has been easier) or the media exaggeration. Do you think "Loca" sold

820:

to your watchlist. The list was just recently promoted FL and I just know at some point someone is going to inflate the sales without it being backed up by Nielsen SoundScan. Since you do a edits on sales, would you mind watching over this one too? Thanks!

2092:

The claims that 88marcus is making regarding sources stating 35 million copies is also not a strong argument as those sources evidently got their information from Knowledge - where 35 million was put by a user without any source that supports that figure.

935:

How is the HOF not reliable? It went gold in USA, it sold 2.1M in the UK alone and that was only like two years after it released, it sold well in Australia. Those sales are clearly obvious that it can sell outside 6M because those sales are old as well.

1324: 524:, for instance, were only updated in 2016 and 2013. Again, certifications aren't always a great determiner as they're often not updated. Also, album doesn't need to be charting in a region to sell overall either. Where was this consensus reached? — 2414:. But the thing is... also, her sales. Someone put 10 million and reference shows 7 million. My concern is about this practice is really old, specially in her articles. Maybe we need to review each of her albums sales. And I don't know why in her 3854:

Hey there. I was curious how you were able to access the articles on El Siglo de Torreon. Ever since they've been subscription-only last August, I've been having trouble access them. Could you tell how you were able to get them like you did on

1586:

and old not that much trustable refrences, such as what you are using!, accept what has been clearly written in Forbes article and do not discuss about it anymore. Please, please, please, I beg you, please do not continue doing this. Regards.

4255:

I saw both of this websites being used as a source many times but I never reverted them. The Russian one seems reliable, it has reports about Sony, IFPI and many other record companies. You can see some certs in it (from 2003 to 2008) here:

271:

This boy is a fanatic! I even changed Madonna's Music album sales from 15 to 10 million copies worldwide. I don't understand that necessity to put numbers so unrealistic to prove Janet Jackson is a great star, I have all her albums, by the

2517:

the 5 million figure was more accepted and placed by user ThirdWard, because we know, OCC used it and they are a "reliable source" in our politics. But.... the thing beyond the background on Knowledge, OCC used the iconic phrase used here

4323:(7x Platinum) supposed to be certified but any of all archived version doesn't work and personally don't wanna used something who can't be verifiably by anyone. Yeah, reference for South African certs seems to be unreliable. Thanks :D -- 4463: 1264: 5424:

Second, I think you are misrepresenting the consensus. The consensus is that awards can be listed if they are supported by a reliable source. Surely EMI, the label representing the artist and the advertising agency for an artist are

4515: 4448: 3038:

Can you revert all recent edits at Shakira discography? I have already reverted three times. The editor who inflated the sales figure is already blocked for edit-warring, he/she edit-warred using an IP account and the registered

608:

So, what do you prefer?! We put "as of 2002 the album sold more than 8 million copies worldwide" or "the album sold between 8 and 10/12 million copies worldwide (we have to provide refs for both") or don't include anything about

554:

USA, and 2kk in Europe, it didn't performed that well outside there, only 2x Platinum in Canada and gold in a few countries where you get a cert with less than 50k sold. Which sales do you think its more accurate to that album?--

679:

13 million when their certifications don't account for even a third of the reported figure. But referring to a consensus or a source with an updated figure seems better than drawing conclusions by comparing to other examples. —

42:

Madonna. I know that probably she has in Colombia and Asian countries and awards like Los 40 Principales, Edison, MTV ASIA, etc that in her articles don't listed. If you accept, you can post those references/information in this

5416:, if you reinstate a fact the burden of proof is on you. Your edit summary said that "for consensus we're using other sources for Latin america territories since there was no organization to certified those sales at the time." 4500: 4953:

Okay, but I think that the gap of 13 million is very outdated. I think we leave it at 15 million since many reliable sources have used that figure and it is very likely that until today it has already certified much more.

128:

Maybe you could give like "Option 1: 32 million and 25 million" and "Option 2: 28 million and 20 million" at the opening sentence, so users can either vote for option 1 or 2. People can get confused at the figure hahaha.

441:

it's not even a great catalog seller there. If you click in each of the charts you'll see that after 2002 this album was not in the charts anymore, in Australia it was out in Februray 2002, in UK in March, and so on...--

4380:

ok, I erased the inflated info. I don't understand why fans of artists like to inflate sales like that, nobody believes in these numbers and the more they appear here on Knowledge, the more it becomes less reliable for

5109:

where released before the album but they actually were singles from album. The songs don't have to be released at the same time or after the album's release in order to be considered singles from the album otherwise

490:

and certifications). I can't see how this album could sold 10 or 12 million copies out there. It probably has less than 500,000 copies worldwide, with streamings, like most of Christina Aguilera and Britney albums.--

1777: 1762: 3384:

The sales from the certifications are exact same thing. Hence the reason if an album is 3x platinum = 3,000,000 units not 1,300,000 from a random source. Clearly states must say it’s being sourced from the RIAA.

3322:

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.

2077:

I didn't correct any links, I just removed therichest.com links. I'm guessing there's an LATimes article you meant to include, but I didn't look for it beyond quickly glancing at therichest.com article for it.

3796:

Yeah, but when I said table I was talking about The general in the discography page. I think you can include that in the article too. I prefer the Top Airplay "Notitas Musicales" use than the "Top Airplay".--

2128:

obviously use the sales to commercial purposes. Also, is not because the list of best selling album is not accuratte according to you that we have to also inflate MJ sales to keep him in the high position.--

1235: 5582:

has already been blocked in the Spanish version due to repeated vandalism, several users hope that the same will also be done in its English version due to its slightly neutral and reluctant editions. --

1242:, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the 1881: 3974:. 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 1963:. 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 1514:. 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 1441:. 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 770:. 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 5472:. I understand your point and I can see is based on the "recomendations" made in WP:CHARTS (the point when the source must indicate the "certification body"). I guess this recomendation came before 1884:

I made for information. If you know the certification levels, I think we should improve the Asincol article, or create one for the new certifying organization. Can you please share these sources? --

5435: 5063:

Okay. I had my doubts about the website since I also don't remember her receiving a certification with this album so I wanted to double check before using it as a source. Thanks for helping me out

2694:

for example, which the first paragraph is used to explain about her releases, peak and certifications. The last one its perfectly for her record sales achiviements. I mean, everyone Diva among the

4411: 1352: 4547: 4495: 3613: 1220: 4396: 1357: 1163:, that you've cited David Kent's book for Australian chart peaks below #50. I know it's a few years ago now, but in case you weren't aware, the Kent Music Report chart was superseded by the 2492:

saying 3.7 million but 5 million remained at "Commercial performance" (later in lead section). The first actual reference saying 5 million figure on Knowledge was used on November 4 and is

2237: 966:. I was working in my sandbox and copied/pasted the single infobox template for in order to produce an article for "Night of My Life" but must have confused the two articles. Thanks haha, 5537:

all versions or in most are in 75 million sales. This person has incurred in treating me very badly verbally, among other things. --Universal Writer (talk) 02:38, September 1, 2021 (UTC)

1102: 43: 4221:. Do you think it's approppriate or should be removed? I haven't started to find another better source, tbh, but sadly in South Africa get sales and certifications it's hard. I also saw 2410:

it's curious! Since the album received "mixed reviews" (per source), someone deleted it in the lead... And that's a basic thing of any album to show in lead that information. I already

1809: 3990: 1979: 1530: 1457: 786: 3099:

He didn't appear in the album charts and hasn't any certification in the book. But three of his songs appears in the chart Los principales (which you can use here, it's a bad chart):

2466:

I think we may consider evaluate all her albums sales. Believe me... too much vandalism in her articles and active users in her Wikiproject even didn't change it. See the example of

1751:' were in 2000 for 2x Platinum, in 2001 it reached the status of 4x Platinum. It is clear and logical. I don't believe in your word, I believe in the facts and actions of AMPROFON.-- 2800: 1083:

If these sites that estimate the sales of albums/records based in chart performances, official sales that came from IFPI or Nielsen Soundscan why won't we use these as a source? -

3960: 2519: 1949: 1820:

source. I thought I had already provided a source for it so I was wondering why the source I used wasn't reliable and how I can know which sources are reliable and which aren't?

4443: 3570: 2381: 1404: 4746: 3696: 3484: 1636: 1149: 4233:

with same result. Do you know something about it? or if there is another way to verify those Russian certs at that time (seems it was a 2001 report). Thanks in advance, --

3555: 4982:

that they have not been certified for a long time and if they are updated they pass on those sales. Nice to know what you say to me. Sorry for the interruption. Good day

2733:

soundtrack album was in 1947 (Till The Clouds Roll By). It is historically known as the first soundtrack album ever released. I run The Judy Garland Online Discography

1548: 4731: 4710:

I also agree, 8 or 10 million seems accurate. I don't have another reliable source showing those figures, btw. Understood with the Brazilian claims sales, seems kind of

4016: 3469: 1621: 2854:

about Madonna's albums, specially for generally "uncoverage" countries and region like Latin America, East Europe, Asia-Pacific could be great and helpful. Thanks =) --

2005: 1475: 804: 1300: 5596: 3602: 3521: 1907:

because you say the source is unreliable. Like I said in my edit, that source is one that I found on another article. I got this source in the article for the album

5625: 4778: 4610: 3550: 3516: 1668: 347:, remind me again who that user is? This video is proof of outside-wiki harassment and enough for banning. Any sock of his should be immediately reverted as well. — 5560: 4971: 4644: 4615: 4054: 3844: 2333: 4962:

Yesterday I was talking to 2 people who gave me approval and so I decided to base myself on the websites. It is open to any edition, I just want to expand pages.

4552: 4025: 3899:

Oooh, I see. I was using a different link that linked to an older version of the archives, which was why none of the articles were loading. Thank you very much!

3815: 2281: 1154: 4132:

Thank you and please, when you can, let me know about the performances of Thalía's old singles on the charts., I'm trying to do articles to each one of it. ;)--

3650: 3625: 1181: 817: 102: 3028: 319:

I would like to change Britney Spears sales too. Her albums Britney and In the Zone are very inflated too. I only found sources for Britney, 9 million copies

5259:

but you're still not making sense. You say it's not just the time but that the concept of the album came out a lot many months after the singles. If you see

5162:

by Ariana Grande wouldn't have released any songs as singles since they all came out before the album. That's why those 3 songs are singles from the album.

5035: 4792:

be used as a source? I'm wondering because it's a "blog" so technically we can't use it, but I see someone has recently been using it a lot so I'm not sure.

4363: 3415: 1591: 4922: 2224: 2203: 1877: 667:

Even when comparing to other albums from the same era it's still not clear how much needs to be supported by certifications. E.g. the sales figure used for

5393: 5372: 5351: 5305: 5247: 5203:

is not the lead single from the album just because it was released closer to the release date of its album. It is the fourth single with the first 3 being

5080: 5058: 4847: 4202: 4141: 4120: 4099: 3805: 3731: 3672: 3239: 3214: 3162: 3147: 389: 4390: 4165:

Hi 88marcus. I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but if you create or update a certification table, so that it does not have any footnotes, like you did

3378: 3306: 2863: 2848: 2707: 2631: 2609: 2577: 2544: 2493: 2453: 2393: 2275: 2189: 1742: 1214: 335: 307: 281: 190: 138: 123: 4991: 3931: 3908: 3894: 3452: 2991: 1842:

If you read the source you will find where it mentions the sales. If you could read it and tell me what's wrong with this source I would appreciate it.

235: 5514: 5485: 4723: 4705: 4332: 4314: 4292: 4269: 3436: 853:

unedited because it's 'false' but like I actually am a fan of hers so like you need to get a grip and stop discrediting Kylegend Minogue.. thanks bitch

3882: 3607: 2168: 1259: 1234:

normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to

1092: 1072: 2774:

Knowledge keeps cutting off my message so I'm not sure how to get the explanation to you. My email is ozianscott@gmail.com (sorry for the confusion)

360: 5455: 2981: 2947: 2918: 2756: 1084: 1044: 1026: 998: 618: 1605:

How do I know which ones are exact paid ads? And I am serious, some pages just go through albums and certifications I just don't know the details.

4359: 2051: 1587: 697: 662: 640: 586: 563: 541: 499: 473: 5556:

the music portals and also from the Sony Music label. Please check this, so that we do not get to the battle of information changes on Wikepedia.

5260: 4900: 3868: 4151: 3636:

Dorada it had been removed since it's Paulina saying that she achieved those sales (primary source) and even you yourself have removed it in the

2137: 2087: 2072: 4943: 4242: 3092: 623:

That could work better for the main article. But I'm not sure how that would look for her discography page, what are you suggesting for that? —

485:

J-Lo was only certified Platinum in UK in 2001, there's no evidence that the album was selling a lot after that. You can see its chart run here

5541:

informado sobre lo qué es una guerra de ediciones y por ende no revertiré sus ediciones sin que algún bibliotecario tome una acción. Saludos --

3630: 1731:

album sold 900,000 copies in Mexico and AMPROFON certified it nine times platinum, I repeat once again, the AMPROFON page has put it, not me.--

153:

Hi, Marcus. Thanks for let me know. If the user still with disruptive edits, report it or try to reach a concensus, and ping me please. Cheers

5224: 4867: 1893: 1219: 1186: 409: 196: 208: 5568: 4957: 4814: 3641:

valid source, then fans could just cite a video of Paulina or Thalía "saying" they sold 40 million records and we would have to allow it.

1482: 286:

The fact that he got time to make a video, LOL. User:Godney*bjs on Avril Lavigne is another fanatic to be handled, gosh! I also downgraded

213:

These are the official stats and most up to date sources with correct information about the albums sales. Please do not change them again.

23: 5550: 5272: 3202: 3123: 2880:

Also I would like to ask I have noticed the previous talk about Madonna - True Blue, stuff like that is usable? Would this be usable too:

2253: 5016: 4367: 4065: 3937: 3283: 830: 5329: 5011: 4226: 3779: 3708: 2895: 4662: 3427:

about the LP certification I actually don't know, couldn't find nothing about Mexican LP certs in El siglo de Terron or using google.--

3394: 3355: 3334: 3269: 3187: 3048: 1926: 1409: 738: 1711: 202: 168: 5591: 5403: 3075:

Hey Marcus you have the book with the certifications in Spain up to 2005 right? If you do, could you please check if Peruvian singer

2365:

It's s good idea but I don't know about awards, I'm more into sales and certifications, but if I can help you in something tell me.--

2353: 2313: 1861: 1829: 1063:

Ukmix: (use google to searchfor "Michael Jackson :: Charts & Sales History" there, the link can't be posted here, it's a forum)--

61: 4682: 4077: 1921: 258: 3684: 2747: 4801: 4766: 4535: 4483: 4431: 3590: 3504: 2909:

the same case as True Blue and Guilty, I think if you included in the table probably someone will revert, it's a primary source.--

2817: 2764: 1797: 1656: 1616: 1595: 1392: 1137: 2194:

What are you exactly basing inflated sales on? It's not good just keep on claiming "inflated sales" with out sources yourselves.

2036: 1160: 5097:

about the singles because they where released before the album and you also used some songs by Madonna as examples. I know that

2374: 951: 929: 907: 4222: 1575: 975: 87: 3464: 2428: 1034: 880: 4179:

is incorrect. It either creates an empty line, or, as it was in the case above, creates unrequired footnotes. In such cases,

2309: 1904: 1022: 509: 505: 4825: 4012: 2524:. Copy+Paste, you know... And since then... the history about the sales of this album is the same and same... you can view 2299: 2151:

were saying. You seem to have an issue with trying to change as many sale figures on albums as possible; you did this with

2001: 1857: 1544: 1471: 1372: 1117: 800: 4225:

used in some articles for Russian certs. However, doesn't show up anything in Archive.org. Additionally some of them used

5267:

plus she actually had planned to release the album earlier but do to the coronavirus pandemic decided to instead release

4173: 4156: 2674: 2666: 2102: 1014: 943: 921: 899: 872: 733: 450: 4858:

But Rolling Stones has confirmed that Shakira has sold 15 million of copies with Laundry Service, is a reliable source.

4578:

Thank you for this article. Link 7 is a dead link. Keep in mind that Facebook links are generally treated as unreliable.

2669:

in 2013, and according to the wiki-article in 2014, was ranked as "20th-best-selling album" (without any amount given).

5602: 4976: 3849: 2695: 2477: 2156: 1692:, a disambiguation page. Please don't remove disambiguated links. Thank you for your editing and your support in this. 1010: 669: 5026:

true? Do you remember or have you seen any video where she received a certification for either the song or the album?

4750:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4519:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4467:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4415:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 3574:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 3488:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1781:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1640:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1376:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1121:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4280: 4257: 4214: 4207: 2514: 2505: 2484:

was added since same date without changing any reference.... look the old version in "Commercial performance" said: "

2411: 1867: 5473: 2881: 1560:

The user is blocked for continuing the edit warring. If he/she comes back and edit wars again, please report to the

5022: 4887: 3885:, choose my kind of connection and in "Busca" I add "Thalía" and changed the date for 1990, 1991, 1992 and so on.-- 2600:

Thanks. It's fine. I'm busy too actually, but when you comeback you can ping-me to help with proofs etc. Cheers, --

1680: 1296: 1192: 1564:

noticeboard and let admin Longhair know. Pretty sure he/she is moving themselves to a longer block duration now. —

892:

it says 5M. Kylie Minogue 1994 album was 2M selling and it was confirmed ages ago and was on Knowledge ages ago.

4872: 4350: 4008: 2831: 1997: 1540: 1467: 1314: 1266: 1247: 796: 2835:

Madonna's certifications maybe you can put something like that which is used in this Luis Miguel album article:

3070: 3009: 2533:(album) it's just an example how infected her sales are by vandalism/poor journalism research and other factors 1839: 231: 5533: 4755: 4524: 4472: 4420: 3579: 3493: 1786: 1645: 1381: 1161:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Everybody_Move&type=revision&diff=709475189&oldid=709026244

1126: 5007: 4987: 4967: 4939: 4863: 2042:

And TheRichest.com is not a reliable source. I'm not sure why you attributed it to the LATimes as you did. --

1310: 1018: 76: 1058: 5088: 4878: 4595: 3983: 3403: 3344: 3316: 3257: 2871: 2295: 1972: 1523: 1450: 779: 2230: 5564: 3995: 3033: 2024: 1984: 1535: 1462: 1285: 1270: 791: 209:

http://www.janetjackson.com/news/news/janet-jacksons-greatest-hits-celebrated-on-number-ones#.Wfp67WhSyM8

17: 1756: 1736: 294:

from 12 million to 10 million. And I didn't oppose when User:Binksternett made a RfC to change sales of

207:

Janet Jackson's official website reports that her "Control" album has sold 14 million copies worldwide:

201:

Billboard, an official source, reports Janet Jackson's "Control" has sold 14 million copies worldwide:

93:

Hey, would you help to keep eyes on Christina Aguilera sales. I am afraid of another fanbase attack lol

5587: 5546: 1853: 1239: 653:

with 9 million copies for J-lo, so is better don't include don't anything than something inflated...--

4928: 4896: 2488:

Beyoncé has sold 5 million copies worldwide". Figure was changed just in the lead a few edits after,

2344:

think?. I can create a sandbox with their "records" or statements about their legacy (individual). --

2286:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

1880:, which I think about an organisation which is non-functional since 2003 or something like that. See 1708: 947: 925: 903: 876: 811: 3614:

Knowledge:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Santiago Lodré and all the Paulina Rubio related articles

5389: 5347: 5301: 5220: 5076: 5031: 5003: 4983: 4963: 4935: 4859: 4843: 4797: 4344: 4116: 4073: 3775: 3704: 3646: 3235: 3183: 3143: 3088: 1917: 1825: 963: 203:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/6866860/janet-jackson-control-30-year-anniversary

2525: 2509: 2501: 2497: 2489: 2481: 2473: 249:

Big LOL... Keep up the great work! Stick to the closer truth and keep all those fanboys pissed :)

5409: 4853: 3390: 3351: 3340: 3330: 3312: 3279: 3265: 3253: 2859: 2813: 2703: 2605: 2540: 2424: 2389: 2349: 2249: 2220: 2185: 385: 303: 254: 159: 134: 98: 83: 52: 4375: 2496:

signed by US Weekly. An IP changed again to 3.7 million but JennKR placed 5 million figure with

2384:

where I can include every reference If I see something. You can use it as well, if you wanna. --

5527: 4190: 4166: 3904: 3864: 3678: 3247: 3005: 2969: 2760: 2678: 1873: 1600: 826: 323: 3260:

evidently you clearly missed it. It absolutely says to follow the RIAA source. No exceptions.

3064: 3060: 2415: 1752: 1732: 5583: 5542: 5481: 4719: 4711: 4678: 4649: 4561: 4328: 4288: 4238: 3971: 3411: 3172: 3053: 2691: 2287: 1960: 1511: 1438: 767: 148: 5534:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Rodriguito_frocos&action=edit&redlink=1

5368: 5325: 5243: 5054: 4918: 4908: 4892: 4821: 4701: 4386: 4319:

Yes, I noticed it was used in several articles accross several Wikis versions. Albums like

4310: 4265: 4137: 4095: 3982:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3927: 3890: 3801: 3727: 3668: 3432: 3374: 3302: 3210: 3158: 3119: 2977: 2914: 2844: 2727: 2627: 2573: 2449: 2406: 2370: 2338: 2303: 2271: 2199: 2164: 2133: 2110: 2068: 2032: 1971:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1845: 1695: 1522:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1449:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1088: 1068: 1030: 994: 939: 917: 895: 868: 778:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 729: 658: 614: 559: 495: 446: 331: 277: 227: 219: 186: 119: 36: 3079:

ever charted or received a certification in Spain? He traveled there to promote his album

2934:

Thanks for clarification. I have wanted to ask, I have seen a user Geegeeyee using this:

8: 5385: 5358: 5343: 5315: 5297: 5232: 5216: 5178:

doesn't count as a single from the album. Thalía's case if different though, for example

5072: 5043: 5027: 4839: 4808: 4793: 4625: 4606: 4127: 4112: 4085: 4069: 3791: 3771: 3716: 3700: 3658: 3642: 3621: 3231: 3195: 3179: 3139: 3084: 2935: 2014: 1913: 1849: 1821: 1814: 1673: 1309:. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 1243: 1210: 957: 569:

reached, as in what % of certifications needs to be present to support a sales figure. —

320: 241: 2306:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 5510: 5451: 4789: 4656: 4198: 4183: 4059: 3460: 3446: 3386: 3363: 3347: 3326: 3291: 3275: 3261: 3044: 2943: 2891: 2855: 2825: 2809: 2699: 2683: 2616: 2601: 2563: 2536: 2438: 2420: 2385: 2360: 2345: 2261: 2245: 2216: 2181: 1898: 1889: 1612: 1555: 971: 711: 520: 381: 342: 314: 299: 266: 250: 176: 154: 130: 109: 94: 79: 47: 5291:

which had four singles released many months before the album with the first one being

2836: 2468: 2103:

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/08/29/michael-jackson-bad/slide/the-release-of-bad/

1747:

Are you saying that AMPROFON executives are incompetent? The first certifications of '

377: 5621: 5573: 5532:

Hello, I've been editing Gloria Estefan's article in Spanish for a while. The person

5426: 4996: 4640: 4621: 4050: 3954: 3917: 3900: 3876: 3860: 3840: 3546: 3024: 2794: 2329: 2320:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2148: 1943: 1580: 1498: 1425: 1348: 838: 822: 754: 486: 5492: 5477: 5413: 4783: 4715: 4691: 4674: 4324: 4299: 4284: 4250: 4234: 4002: 3967: 3825: 3527: 3422: 3407: 1991: 1956: 1507: 1434: 1255: 1202: 1004: 763: 689: 632: 578: 533: 465: 422: 298:

from 20 million to 16 million. I mean, what is the satisfaction of staying in lie?

4449:

Orphaned non-free image File:The Right Kind of Love (Jeremy Jordan) screenshot.jpg

5606: 4774: 4543: 4491: 4439: 3598: 3512: 2882:

https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-Billboard/80s/1981/BB-1981-12-05.pdf

2568:

You're right about it. I'll change those sales soon (I'm too busy right now...)--

2419:

because has been passed 10 years... or something like that. What do you think? --

2195: 2175: 2160: 2144: 2122: 2106: 2098: 2028: 1908: 1805: 1748: 1727: 1664: 1400: 1333: 1145: 886: 675: 5263:

Thalía had mentioned that the album was ready at the time that she had released

4501:

Orphaned non-free image File:Leonard Whiting (Romeo and Juliet trailer 1968).jpg

5279:

by Shakira which came out 7 months before the album, for Ariana Grande's album

4602: 4567: 4354: 4218: 3979: 3617: 2083: 2047: 1968: 1565: 1519: 1446: 1206: 1177: 775: 719: 365: 348: 66: 2938:

he calculates it all over the weeks, and adds it everywhere? Is this any good?

1236:

Category:Knowledge non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing

378:

5 platinum in the US, platinum in Canada and UK, and only gold in NZ and Japan

246: 5506: 5467: 5447: 5379: 5364: 5337: 5321: 5254: 5239: 5066: 5050: 4914: 4833: 4817: 4697: 4571: 4382: 4306: 4261: 4194: 4133: 4106: 4091: 3975: 3923: 3886: 3797: 3738: 3723: 3664: 3456: 3428: 3370: 3298: 3225: 3206: 3154: 3133: 3115: 3040: 2973: 2962: 2939: 2929: 2910: 2903: 2887: 2840: 2623: 2569: 2445: 2399: 2366: 2267: 2240:

or "Underneath Your Clothes". The last single has a peculiar reference about

2152: 2129: 2064: 1964: 1885: 1608: 1561: 1515: 1442: 1197: 1064: 990: 984: 967: 859: 771: 725: 654: 610: 555: 491: 442: 403: 327: 273: 223: 182: 115: 72: 4948: 1840:

https://elsolnewsmedia.com/thalia-mantiene-su-brillo-y-triunfa-con-valiente/

5617: 5613: 5502: 5275:. You also didn't pay attention to the other artists that I mentioned like 5094: 4882: 4751: 4636: 4632: 4520: 4468: 4416: 4046: 4042: 3836: 3832: 3637: 3575: 3542: 3538: 3489: 3020: 3016: 3001: 2325: 2321: 2291: 2241: 1782: 1641: 1377: 1344: 1122: 75:

to ask for consensus. It's pointless and exhausting to debate with a fan.

5498: 5436:

Category:Certification Table Entry usages of salesamount without salesref

4111:

unfortunately I was unable to find one. If I find one I'll let you know.

4090:

Thank you. Do you have a link for En la Intimidad single by Thalía too?--

3821: 2094: 2020: 1251: 1164: 682: 647: 625: 603: 571: 548: 526: 480: 458: 435: 415: 326:, but I couldn't found anything for In the Zone that it's not inflated.-- 4276: 4031: 3986:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1975:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1526:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1453:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1313:

without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to

782:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

413:

often not updated for many years) should be used to support a figure? —

5271:

which was actually supposed to come out on January 2021 as you can see

4770: 4539: 4487: 4435: 3964:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3594: 3508: 1953:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1801: 1763:

Orphaned non-free image File:In This Skin Collector's Edition cover.jpg

1660: 1396: 1141: 368:

I have no idea who that person is, lol. All I know is that people with

5464:

Sorry for the intromision. I don't think 88marcus is wrong after all,

2769: 1305:

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

847: 5579: 3946: 2997: 2079: 2058: 2043: 1935: 1489: 1416: 1306: 1173: 745: 3274:

And I will be reverting all of the edits you seem to be reverting.

4666: 3531: 1723: 1332:

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

514: 5438:. So, at the very list, remove the unsourced sales amount (using 5199:

were re-released as singles from their albums. The point is that

5093:

Hey man I see that you recently undid my edits on Thalía's album

3083:. If you could check that for me I would appreciate it. Thanks! ( 2528:

for example, saying 8 million without any reference saying that.

1288:, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. 1169: 5601: