User talk:Ash Salvatore

Enrique Iglesias inflated sales

@Ash Salvatore: There was a long discussion about that in the discussion of Enrique Iglesias's article. Analyzing Enrique Iglesias's sales since when they (his record company) started being published on his website and in the media, it is possible to see how inflated the sales are now. In 1999, he had sold 13 million copies with his first three releases. link

In 2007, the media and the singer's official website claimed over 40 million copies after the release of five more records, some sold more than 5 million and the number is very understandable.

The offical website 2008 link
Billboard article from 2007: link
The independent 2007: link

But after that time Enrique released only two CDs, each of them did not even sell 2 million copies worldwide, also the recording industry changed, singles started to sell more than albums, but Iglesias’s official website and others websites stated that the singer sold more than 100 million records, some even speak of more than 180 million link, numbers that are totally improbable and different from what can be determined by his certifications and performances on charts.

Enrique has about 45 million certified copies to date.link Including his sales between 60 and 70 million is more accurate. Record company and official artist websites can't be used as a source in Wikipedia, they're primary sources, and they use sales for promotional purposes, after all that I said you can conclude that.--88marcus (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you 14 independent sources claming his sales are over 100ms!!!! Ash Salvatore (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I'm talking about, this is an encyclopedia and we have to be the most accurate possible about sales and info. The most reliable for sales come from instituitions that work with that like RIAA, AMPROFON, IFPI and so on, Enrique has 45 million certified sales and if you count each of his albums and singles sales claim it's not even near that amount of copies (180kk-100kk). That amount of copies of Enrique Iglesias is completely disproportionate and begun here in Wikipedia in one more case of Woozle effect.--88marcus (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are u sure? May man His albums "Enrique" and "Escape" both have sold over 10 million copies! Individually!!! Yes this is possible that his worldwide sales might not have been 180!!! But if someone says. His sales are below 100 now thats a complete bullshit Ash Salvatore (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And btw!!! The links that you've shown me they all are talking about his "Album" sales none of them is talking about his "Single" sales maybe thats where are confusion coming from!!!! Ur not INCLUDING his sales from his "songs", jesus Ash Salvatore (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Escape" sales are included in the 40 million copies his official website claimed in 2007. In case of Iglesias, he's a latin artist and singles were not released like american and european artists, that's why none of the singles from his first three albums has certification worldwide and when the record companies says "albums" is sometimes a way to say "records" because "albums" is what sold in latin countries not singles, sometimes they don't even included album or singles and say "sold 40 million copies worldwide".The 45 million certified sales include all, singles, songs, albums... and yes, Bailando sold around 8 million copies but not all other singles have the same amount of copies sold, some of them were not even certified. Again the 70 million claim cover all those sales you're talking about.--88marcus (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruh!! Now ur starting to make me believe ur one of them "haters" Well explain me!!! Im 1999 "Bailamos" was one of the best selling singles worldwide!!! With sales over 5 million!!! And was his 1st billboard #1!!! From his same album 2nd single "Be with u" sold 4million or somthig!! Later... Songs like "Could i have this kiss forever ft Whitney Huston" and "Rhythm Divin" both almost sold 3/3 million copies!!!! So that makes it Bailamos= 5 Be with u= 4 Cud i have this kiss= 3 Rythm Divine = 3 That makes 10 million singles from a just one album!!! Later in 2002 Enrique release his biggest song to the date which sold 8 million copies!!!! And 3m+ from escape(the single)Not Incuding other songs from album!!!! So it makes 11m singles from 2nd album!!! Making his total single sales 20m+ just from 6 single!!!!

So ur saying he only made 20m more from his rest of 8 albums??? Sounds kinda illogical to me Ash Salvatore (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Im 1999 "Bailamos" was one of the best selling singles worldwide!!!"

Fake. The fans created that it has around 1 million copies certified sales in all market it makes success. An I was talking abou his spanish albums, the first three, Bailamos is from the fourth.

"Be with u= 4 Cud i have this kiss= 3 Rythm Divine = 3"

You can't prove none of those sales, they don't have even 1 million certified sales, again using the Woozle effect I lie said here and there became truth.

"So ur saying he only made 20m more from his rest of 8 albums???"

After Escape most of Iglesias album's sales performed "poorly" compared to Enrique and Escape too, they didn't even get a platinum certification (as an english release not as a spanish one) in US, which mean none reach the 1 million sold there which is his biggest market. If he sold 20 million copies is a very impressive number, he's a latin artist and 20 million is not a failure at all, but the reliable sales and certifications didn't say that. And the fact yu're saying didn't prove anything, you're claiming based in primary promotional sources, including sales creating in fan blogs.--88marcus (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ughh!! Ur just a lozer!!! 🤦🤦🤦 Ash Salvatore (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just accept it u cant prove me wrong!!! Ash Salvatore (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Salvatore, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Ash Salvatore! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Lol thanks Ash Salvatore (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Ash Salvatore, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
How to add those all-important references
Simplified Manual of Style
The Signpost, our newspaper.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sm8900 (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Sm8900 (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank uuuuuuuu!!! Ash Salvatore (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Erick (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruh!!! U started it lol Ash Salvatore (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to List of best-selling Latin music artists, you may be blocked from editing. Thepenguin9 (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is it, disruptive? Would u like to explain!? Ash Salvatore (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Enrique Iglesias discography. Materialscientist (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Their are "Fu*kin', sources!!!

Ash Salvatore (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nd please keep ur blocking threats back in ur pocket! Its not like im getting paind for any of this Ash Salvatore (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Enrique Iglesias 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. robertsky (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ash Salvatore: Your edits not only on Enrique Iglesias but on other related pages seems to follow the pattern of hijacking existing references by replacing only the link but not updating the titles of the references. what gives? robertsky (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your poin is? Ash Salvatore (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point* sorry Ash Salvatore (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such inconsistencies is deceptive to readers. Either update the references properly, or your edits may be reverted by other editors for being disruptive or deliberately introducing errors in the articles. robertsky (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They were quite detailed inthe begening!! If u look at them... Ash Salvatore (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if your edits start getting sloppy after that. The sloppy edits may likely be reverted. Make use of the talk pages of the articles to carrying out a proper conversation with the other editors. Edit comments is no proper avenue to carry out discussions. What are you going to do after the 3rd revert in a day? Pray that the block hammer doesn't come down on you? robertsky (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can also tell this to that "marcus", guy right...!? Ash Salvatore (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

88marcus had laid out his arguments as to why he insists on the lower sales number. I have to agree with him. '14 independent sources' doesn't cut it if they cannot trump the reputability of the sources he had cited. Other editors on Iglesias' article(s), by their actions of reverting your edits to introduce your sources and have similar messaging of that your references need to be better should have been an indicator to you that they probably believe in his reasoning more than yours. You want the higher numbers in the article, make sure that those can be independently verified and vouched for. P.S. the editors on those articles are very kind not to haul you up for edit warring, and given your past contributions, I won't be surprised that 1RR will apply on you instead of 3RR. robertsky (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Ash Salvatore (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gfys!!! ,,!, Ash Salvatore (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. robertsky (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, Robert thanks bro! Im not here to step over anyone!!! But these 1 or 2 mid 30s dude really annoy me afff!!! Ash Salvatore (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, you don't change the title when you add the source to Enrique Iglesias so it was very hard for me to tell if you had added a different source or not. Whether or not the one you added was reliable or not, I leave for other editors to determine. But please, in further edits, change the ref so it fits to the sources you mention. Zandor (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright!!! Got it!! ((Y)) Ash Salvatore (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Enrique Iglesias. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 19:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Enrique Iglesias, you may be blocked from editing. I have disputed your addition of his occupation as a 'model', giving a clear explanation that Isee no sources to support this. I am quite happy to be proved wrong, but not for you simply to reinstate the edit without any explanation or edit summary, or inclusion of a source. You may be blocked for disruptive editing if you continue to insert such material without explaining why. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please now respond or justify your reasons for reinserting this edit at the article Talk page and gain consensus. Please also read WP:3RR which explains that repeated, unexplained reverting may lead to an editor being blocked. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listen 1st of all!! My sh!t is legitley sourced!!! If u guys just like being intentionally ignorant!! Then that's fine by me too Ash Salvatore (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ash_Salvatore reported by User:Robertsky (Result: ). Thank you. robertsky (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh wow!! Damn... AM gonna lose my job, dad!? Noo wait, was i getting paid for this!? (Lmao keep ur bish ass threats by ur self, thank u) Ash Salvatore (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not a threat when action is carried out. i think we have given enough leeway to you. you fail to see the reasoning other more active editors on the article had given to you or adhere to existing consensus. robertsky (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh well here's one for you... You know how long it takes to create a new acct... Lemme highlight you here... Just ..."12 seconds" Ash Salvatore (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ash Salvatore: do that and your accounts will be tagged for sockpuppetery, and there are editors here who have relatively keener eyes in spotting them. Consider this as a warning to you. robertsky (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So... Ummm! Good luck with ur "mommy i won" comeback!! :) Nice day Ash Salvatore (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for your inability to edit collaboratively or civilly with other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I expect if this behaviour continues post block you will likely find yourself blocked indefinitely.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and... Your point is ..!? Ash Salvatore (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Enrique Iglesias. lvl4 warning warranted due to unrepentant behaviour on the article, first thing this editor did after coming back from the previous block. robertsky (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for returning to the same article to make the same disputed edit that led to previous blocks. I was clear that should you resume the same behaviour post-block you would likely be blocked indefinitely.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaa... can i answer you with a simple formal "FUCK OFF"

Ash Salvatore (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or... Would that be rude!? Ash Salvatore (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all it would do is ensure that were you to appeal your block, you would be met with a similar retort, albeit somewhat more intelligently-worded. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Because of your ongoing abusive behavior, your talk page access has been revoked. Please read Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System for your options. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]