User talk:Mossty

Welcome!

Hello, Mossty, 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
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dan56 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Back to Black, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy the link and paste it here. Jeez. Dan56 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just friggin go over the warning I posted above, where there a link to Citing sources. I'm not going fishing for links for you. Copy and paste are pretty fundamental when using a computer. Dan56 (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the Forbes article that cites the figure in the article is wrong? And your source(?) is right? Dan56 (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards? LOL. And what's Forbes? The figure that is currently in Back to Black is cited by a reliable source, wheras the figure you want to replace it with is from a source you can't materialize. I don't get it. Doesn't the link show in the menu bar at the top of your browser's window? Can't highlight it and copy/paste it anywhere here? Or could you type the name of the website's article anywhere, your talk page, my talk page? It's not encyclopedic to just take an editor's word for it. Then itll be changed by the next editor, and the next, like it usually is even when the current figure is cited. Dan56 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious. Dan56 (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's a presenter with zero credibility: it's puffery/tribute so there's a question of neutrality. Second of all, he does not say how much Back to Black sold. He says how much Winehouse's albums sold altogether, but who cares, b/c it's still a questionable source. Forbes on the other hand has editorial oversight and checks its facts. It's a credible business magazine. Why question it? Dan56 (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conjecture. Please review some of the guidelines b/c your current train of thought will likely result in more unconstructive editing at what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Again, the above welcome? Dan56 (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REVIEW WP:RS, or at least Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. "Prestigious" award ceremonies are not held to the standard of publications. This isn't a "me" problem, it's a "you" problem. You're giving way to much credence to an award show. Those shows are more concerned over avoiding a wardrobe malfunction than accuracy. An award show is not an independent source. Your arguing with me over what figure you think is right makes no difference, b/c the figure cited by a reliable source will remain. Dan56 (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]