User talk:Dboy4100

Notability of The demolishers (Aaliyah)
A tag has been placed on The demolishers (Aaliyah) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WWGB (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

July 2009
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. —  Σ  xplicit 03:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Aaliyah (album), you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

October 2019
Please stop removing sourced content, as you did on Aaliyah (album). If you believe the content is incorrect, cite a source that verifies your point of view. Otherwise, this violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to remove sourced content without adequate explanation or discussion, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dan56 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Selling slower than one in a million is false.
According to this, it sold faster than “one in a million” by a month. Unless you have another source that proves otherwise?

https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=AALIYAH&ti=ONE+IN+A+MILLION

https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=AALIYAH&ti=AALIYAH

“One In a Million” was released 8/5/96 And was certified Gold on 10/23/96

“Aaliyah” was released 7/17/01 And was certified Gold on 8/14/01

Unless you can provide the official numbers for both albums during those time periods from soundscan, “selling slower than one in a million” is inaccurate, and should be removed. Dboy4100 (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Certifications are not indicators of sales within a timeframe. Cite a source that specifically says "sold faster". Dan56 (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

“Aaliyah” sold slower
There’s also no article or source that states it “sold slower than one in a million” either.

The fact is “Aaliyah” received a gold plaque faster than “One in a Million”.. There is no official source, from billboard nor soundscan that states “Aaliyah” was selling slower. The certification is the most reliable source at this point and nothing proves “Aaliyah” “sold slower”. The link you provided next to that false statement doesn’t even state that it sold slower. It needs to be removed. Dboy4100 (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "the latter has had a slower start." - The Guardian Dan56 (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you read the entire quote?

“The former sold two million, but despite contributions from Timbaland and rap potentate Missy Elliott, the latter has had a slower start.”

The article illogically compares “one in a million”’s sales after a year to “Aaliyah”’s sales after a month. “One in a million” did NOT sell 2 million in a one month time period, which can be verified as it was only certified gold two months after release and then platinum after 6 months which can be verified HERE

https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=AALIYAH&ti=ONE+IN+A+MILLION

It was no where near the “2 million sold” until The summer of 1997.

The article also got the lyrics wrong for one of her songs. Not very accurate.

You are misattributing the point of comparison. "Slower" is attributed to "start," not "total." You need to cite contradictory sources or get over this please. Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You cannot cite chart numbers from 1997 and compare them to those in 2001. Billboard's chart methods have measured musical releases' popularity differently over the years, with a crucial policy change in 1998. See Billboard charts. Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Final warning
Your recent editing history at Aaliyah (album) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dan56 (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: Aaliyah (album)
Your recent editing history at Aaliyah (album) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s only an edit war because you would rather use an article that makes a statement with no numerical evidence rather than use billboard that proves that claim in that guardian article wrong.

Please explain, what makes that guardian article more accurate than billboard? Dboy4100 (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Self titled- 187k first week

One in a million- 40k first week

How is self titled “selling slower” off these numbers alone? That’s an increase by nearly 4X. Confirmed by billboard. And further proven wrong by Self titled doing better in a 6 week run on the charts.. What statistical evidence proves Self titled was selling slower than One In a Million? The Guardian failed to even state any numbers, and the reason for that is because it’s wrong and incaccurate. Dboy4100 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Aaliyah (album). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

We discussed it and the editor refused to change it despite it being proven wrong, for several years. Since when is the guardian more accurate for sales than billboard and riaa? And again, that guardian article that’s cited provides no numbers or stats as evidence to prove such a claim, while on the other hand, I did. Isnt the point of editing is to correct something that’s shown to be inaccurate? Dboy4100 (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You can't cite your own interpretation of your own research as a source. That is original research. Do you have a source that explicitly says Aaliyah didn't have a slower start selling than One in a Million? Chart numbers are rankings and are relative to how much other albums sold that week. And not just sold, as I've pointed out before, but popularity based on airplay, while certifications are also not merely sales-based --> Billboard 200. I concede this is, as far as I know, just one writer saying this, which is why I've since qualified the text as a point of view from the writer. But this statement will not be deleted solely on your arguments so far. The Guardian is a highly reputable news source, and Sullivan is one of their top music writers. Do you have anything that explicitly says anything about its sales start? Even the "diminishing sales" text you repeatedly deleted from the lead was sourced to Billboard in the article. Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

“Do you have a source that actually says Aaliyah didn't have a slower start selling than One in a Million? “

Yes, in the first week alone.

Aaliyah-187k first week

One in a million-40k first week.

The airplay is counted for invidivual singles, not entire albums.

Forbes here, unlike the guardian, points out actual numbers. self titled did about 62k in its 6th week, as compared to one in a million that only did 40k in its first week, thus further proving it was not selling “slower” than one in a million. In Self titled’s sixth week it still eclipsed One in a million in its debut week at 40k.

https://www.forbes.com/2001/09/10/0910aaliyah.html?sh=3853e3103e7e

One in a million’s biggest week was in christmas of 1996, at only 71k copies, which was nearly four months after its debut, still less than Self titled’s 187k debut week.

https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_yxIEAAAAMBAJ/page/n87/mode/2up

Here, billboard writes an article about how Self titled’s sales were four times greater than one in a million.

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/78998/keys-wards-off-aaliyah-foxy-at-no-1

In conclusion, these are more factors that proves Self titled was not “selling slower” with numerical evidence, and not just a simple statement without any numbers to verify such claims. The Guardian maybe highly reputable, but they are not official souces of sales as compared to billboard. Dboy4100 (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * In conclusion, we ought to patiently discuss this further at the article talk page, and not resort to anything impulsive. We are not the enemy here. It is how you went about this, disrupting the state of the article in a single-minded impulsive effort that exhausted our patience for your arguments. I look forward to discussing this further there and determining an agreed-upon course of action with you after your block ends. Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Please just take it easy for the time being 🙏 Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for causing the mishap, I do hope you take these sources as consideration for removing that tidbit from this article, we will talk soon.

Take care. Dboy4100 (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, after taking a look at your sources, I concede math is not my strong suit, and I am on the fence about this given that the album's sales dropped drastically prior to her death. However, replacing the Guardian claim with the diminished sales claim reads better. So for readability's sake, I have changed it. Piotr Jr. (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, this statement is more fair and accurate Dboy4100 (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)