Moh8213

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

February 2021

Hello, I'm Dr Salvus. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Dr Salvus (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for being a cautious and careful Wikipedian but I've checked all the sources and none of them mention that album was certified such, probably they were added by anonymous users. So I guess it's safe to remove it. Moh8213 (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 01:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

little mix inflated sales figure

Hi. I recently looked at a previous edit that you made on the "list of best selling girl groups" and saw that you left a comment on an edit that you made about inflated sales figures. Next time please be careful in how you word your edits and to use professionalism. Wikipedia is all about using reliable sources that follows Wikipedia guidelines. Rustyleigh (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey. I think what I said on that comment was comprehensible and clear, but since you refuse to "understand" on what I commented. Lemme give u a brief explanation. I've calculated all of Little Mix's certified sales (including the claimed sales in the UK) and the total came up 30.105 million records, while that's a substantial amount of records, it's definitely not enough to support the 65 million records claim, let alone 60 million claim. In fact, their claimed sales figure in March, 2021 was 50 million records, in which it's definitely a much more ideal claimed sales figure than the 60 or 65, and if you notice, the 60 and 65 million records claim were added by either anonymous users or users who literally created an account just so they can change those claimed sales figure, and since that article was poorly maintained, nobody tried to revert those edits. Also, to put that into comparison, TLC, who are an older act, have a certified sales of 45.190 million records, far more than Little Mix. And btw, the 65 million records claim was published by their record label and so it should be avoided since record labels are known for inflating their artists' record sales for promotional purposes, so basically that source wasn't so "reliable". So I guess the 50 million records claim is much more suitable since it was already listed by a reliable source and that claim is still being used on their Spotify page. Moh8213 (talk) 09:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

You calculating little mix sales has nothing to do with it. the reason why their sales went from 50 million to 65 million is because the sales have been recently updated. The worldwide sales are also included from sales from other countries and not just the uk. the reason why I keep bringing up the 70 million sales is because that was put there either by an anonymous editor or another editor without using the appropriate sources to back up the sales claim. However the 65 million sales has already been included by reliable editors with reliable sources however you keep changing it back to 50 million because you think the sales are "inflated". Please stop removing the 65 million sales when its already been backed up by a reliable source, hence why I restored your edit again and used another editor edit for the 65 million sales because they've been on this platform a very long time and are considered very reliable with their edits. Rustyleigh (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Because they've been on this platform a very long time??? This is the edit that was made for the 65 million sales claim on May 9, 2022 (12 days ago) by an ANONYMOUS USER, not what you so call "reliable editors", and as I've said before, the 65 million sales claim is just a trick made by their record label in order to inflate their record sales and trying to convince the public that those are their factual record sales when in reality it's not. And by this way, other music articles (especially the highly reliable ones) will use the sales claim that was published by their record label. And I keep bringing the "calculating certified sales" because while the certified sales can't bring the total worldwide sales of an artist, it can at least measures whether the claimed sales are inflated or not, that's basically depends on an artist's debut on charts and the certified sales itself. This method is used on the List of best-selling music artists so I highly recommend u to check it out. Because I don't want this dispute to get outta hand, I'll ping the regulators Harout72 and Muhandes for their opinions since they're experts on these type of topics. Moh8213 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The person who i was referring too in terms of being on the platform longer was by user: Richard312. If you look at the editing history page they also restored an edit not so long ago that was made by anonymous editor claiming the 70 million sales even though it wasn't backed up by a reliable source. That user then restored the edit back to the 65 million sales claim because those sales was used by a reliable source. However if you also look at the references used there are a few there that needs to be removed because they aren't reliable but there is another one used that is a reliable source Rustyleigh (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

And what about the even 65 million sales claim that were also added by an anonymous user? Just because no one reverted that edit doesn't mean it's an accurate nor reliable source, and as I've said before, that article was and still is poorly maintained so in order to avoid such errors, there has to be limits. For e.g., there are numerous RELIABLE sources that claim that Michael Jackson has sold over a billion records, but in reality, that sales claim is nothing but a hoax, kind of like the situation we have now. So I highly recommend to not waste both of our time on this. Moh8213 (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Little Mix's 65 million claim was reported by their label so we can't do nothing about it, the 65 million claim has to stay, however i highly agree with you, they don't even past 30 million in pure sales from sales analysis by experts, its just their label inflating to give them a prestigious name. Moonlight Entm (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your work on fixing the table and other fixes on List of best-selling Latin albums, I proudly present this barnstar to you! Erick (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Canada Nielsen SoundScan decade-end

Hello, please don't add the supposed Nielsen SoundScan Canada 1990s decade-end singles list. The author combines SoundScan chart figures with The Record's, making it unusable. It is disingenuous to list it as Nielsen SoundScan (1990-1999) when in reality it is The Record (1990-1996) and SoundScan (1996-1999). Heartfox (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Heartfox, thanks for reaching me regarding this. tbh, I don't see any problems with the NSS decade-end chart, as a matter of fact, they're technically the same singles chart, the only thing that was changed was the sales tracker, other than that, NSS was more like a successor to The Record than a seperate chart, and furthermore, NSS kept going on till 2007 when it was changed to the Canadian Hot 100, which is basically still the same chart, but only renamed to match US' Billboard Hot 100. In conclusion, I think it's okay to include the chart. Moh8213 (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, there is a gap from when The Record stopped publishing its physical singles chart (Feb 1996) and when SoundScan began (Nov 1996). You may not know, but RPM (which editors treat as the definitive Canadian chart), was actually airplay-only from September 1988 until its closure. That is why The Record / SoundScan physical singles charts are included in charts tables after RPM was no longer multi-metric. If the decade-end chart is to be included then it should at least be given as "Canada (The Record/Nielsen SoundScan) not "Canada (Nielsen SoundScan)". Heartfox (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Then that'll cause a lot of confusion and WP:Too much detail, plus The Record ceased publication in 1999 and by that time SoundScan was already in charge for Albums and Singles charting in Canada, so what's the point of including The Record? Moh8213 (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The majority of the years in the decade-end chart are based on The Record chart, not SoundScan chart. Heartfox (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Italian certifications from the 1980s

Hi, thanks for your explanation regarding the sales figures for Brothers in Arms... I've been having a look at the certifications from 1986 and 1987 published in Music & Media and come to the conclusion that you are correct: despite what it says in the magazine for the certification levels for each year, they must be based on the album's release year rather than the certification year... otherwise it wouldn't explain how Madonna's Like a Virgin was certified platinum for 500,000 sales in 1986 and double platinum for 400,000 sales in 1987, without all the other 1986 platinum albums also being certified double platinum in 1987.

It would be good if these levels could be added to {{Certification Table Entry}} for Italy to add the shipment figures automatically, although this may need some discussion on the talk page first... we probably have a big gap during the 1990s where certification levels in the country are not known. Richard3120 (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for understanding, I was even confused at first but it made sense that they would certify albums based on relyear rather than certyear, and tbh I wish if they certify records (specifically albums) based on relyear today. Cuz literally the Italian certification system is the most pointless and stupid certification system I've come across, but that's another topic.

Actually we do have certification thresholds for albums released in the 90s, apparently throughout most of the 90s (at least since 1990) cert levels for albums were (50,000/100,000/500,000) for (Gold/Platinum/Diamond) and they've been this way till 2005, when they finally decided to lower their cert levels to adapt with the music market at the time. Unfortunately we don't have a proper source that explicitly states that those were the thresholds for albums released in Italy in the 90s, but there's few articles during that period states that X album has been certified Gold (50,000) or Platinum (100,000), but idk man. Moh8213 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

List of best selling girl groups suggestion

Hi. I just wanted to get your opinion on something. Do you think it would be a good idea on "the list of best selling girl groups" to have two separate lists? This is just a suggestion but gg like fh & lm, who are added in the best selling girl groups section come from a time where they debut before or during the streaming era. The streaming era now knows plays a big role in acts gaining sales. I know other editors have chosen to stick with the 50M sales figure for LM but picking an estimated sales claim for other gg like them who come from the 2010s is rather difficult, considering most of their sales will be heavily influenced by streaming. There could be one list with gg who debuted before streaming (e.g TLC, Spice girls, the supremes etc) and another list for gg which debuted during the streaming era (e.g LM, FH, Girls generation etc). I know other groups like DC who came before streaming will have sales from streaming added to their official sales once their updated but it won't be heavily influenced compared to the gg who debuted when streaming first came out. This is just a suggestion but I'd love your feedback! Escmix (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for reaching out, there aren't a lot of girl groups that are present in the list of best-selling girl groups so what's the point of making 2 lists for girl groups who debuted before/after streaming? Plus it's inconvenient to make a change like this. The problem is it's not that difficult to pick sales claim for any artists, in fact it's a lot easier to find sales claim for recent artists rather than older artists, the problem is that some artists have a pretty toxic fanbase and management; it seems that LM are one of those artists, so it's natural that they'd get mad for the significant changes that are occurring on their article/discography/lists. But eventually these changes should be made regardless of how mad they get. Moh8213 (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

AC/DC back in black is still 2nd best selling albums. Your updates are wrong.

AC/DC. Back in black is still the 2nd best selling album of all time.

It has over 60 million claimed sales and over 30 millions verified. 2A00:23C6:8D94:F401:8C9C:FB84:CEF5:8ACC (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Lil Wayne and Drake

Can you please check your calculation of Lil Wayne’s "I'm single" featuring Drake? It appears you have added 1M units instead of 500k. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, per database, the song was simultaneously certified Gold and Platinum on September 27, 2022. The RIAA is well-known for certifying records multiple certifications all at once. Moh8213 (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. That was my mistake. I thought the song was certified gold in 2020 instead of 2022. By the way, Adele's "Easy On Me" Was certified Gold in France in August. I think the list only contains the certification of platinum from the edit history of the page. Can you please verify this? TheWikiholic (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

per this edit, Harout72, already included the Gold and Platinum certification, Salvabl added the Diamond certification in August. So far, everything's on track, though I've to check all the artists' certifications to make sure if they aren't included or need an update, obviously I've to do that when I'm free. Cheers. Moh8213 (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Oasis 75 million sales close ????

Hello how are you doing ?. Oasis must be close to 75 million sales worldwide. Can you help me out with their figure or when they will be certified please ?. Kind Regards 178.167.245.243 (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Oasis have sold 75 million records worldwide or are very close to it at this stage ?

Hi how are you doing I know they are close ?. Can you give me on overall figure for Oasis worldwide sales please ?.

Kund Regards, 92.251.169.119 (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)