"== Correct me if I'm wrong == 

 But I thought ""3x Platinum"" meant ""three million"" 
 But the world wide sales are just under 2 million, and two or three says that the sales were 3X Platinum. 
 There is a mistake on someone's end, because the math doesn't add up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     

  
 == Reviews (again)... == 

 So, my main computer access is at work, and most of the sites that offer reviews are blocked.  We're well over 10 reviews again, so before I go randomly deleting perfectly viable reviews, maybe someone else who can actually see these reviews should sift through 'em and delete....   
 :I removed the MEtacritic list, in the spirit of WP:WikiProject Albums#Non-professional reviews.  I'm afraid that's all I'll be able to manage in the next 24 hours.     
 ::WP:WikiProject Albums#Review sites also lists Metacritic as a viable review site, as it lists quotes from professional reviews not published online.. I believe their Death Magnetic article included as such.    
 :::No it doesn't.  I know it did, but it doesn't anymore.  Also, it didn't say it was suitable for infoboxes  if you go into the edit history, and read what was written about it, it simply said Metacritic is a good source to find other professional reviews, it goes on to say that it should not be linked in the infobox.     
 ::::My bad, it used to.    
 :I think any review by a heavy metal outlet deserves priority. I feel the review from UGO should go. Maybe eliminating the reviews that simply say ""Favorable"" from non-metal and/or interesting sources should go? Also, I'm going to remove the second Metal Hammer review since it's basically a duplicate.    
 ::we got back up to 16 reviews, I just went ahead and removed the bottom 6, and added hidden text stating only 10 reviews in info box...   

 What about the bad reviews, like the one from pitchfork? 

 http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/145305-metallica-death-magnetic 

    

  
 The review from DiscussMusic.net has been removed 3 times, and without just cause. It's a solid review, much more solid than some of the ones kept, especially the ones that don't bother to have links. The DiscussMusic.net review is more notable than those without links, and would do much more to inform the listener than something that gives absolutely no information. It would be greatly appreciated if it would just be left alone, and let the viewers of Wikipedia actually be informed.   
 :: can you provide proof that it is notable? i note that your attempt at adding an article for the website itself was deleted for being non-notable.    

 Proof that it's notable? Even Stevie Wonder could say that it's notable. It's easy. Simply click on the link, read, realize. Can you kindly provide proof how it isn't notable? I asked that several times for the DiscussMusic.net article as well, and it is always avoided.   
 : notability is defined by more than just you saying so. go and read the notability guidelines - they will help you understand why both this edit and your repeated attempts to create an articl