User talk:Caughtinmosh88

RE: Necroshine
It doesn't seem like a reliable source for sales information on albums. By all means though, bring it up on Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get opinions from other wiki editors on its reliability. The1337gamer (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to tell if something's unreliable/reliable by just looking at it? Like what were the red flags for you?


 * Well the website itself doesn't look very professional, and also no mention is made of where the sales information came from. I noticed on ReliXIV you added sales info with a blabbermouth source; this seem acceptable as the article cited Nielson SoundScan for providing the sales information, Nielson SoundScan is the official method of tracking sales information for music products in the U.S.  Although each case should be treated differently depending on the context of the information being sourced, this is a useful guideline: Identifying_reliable_sources.  Also if you ever have any doubts on the reliability of souces, just post on here: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The1337gamer (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually have a link saying they get it from Soundscan

January 2013
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Reliable sources/Noticeboard, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Gyrofrog (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok I'll remember that for next time. Btw is it a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.35.144 (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Music videos
Sure, on occasion I've added YouTube links to articles in support of non-controversial content about music videos. In this case, however, you must avoid such WP:NPOV / WP:ORIGINAL statements as "It is unlikely that the video has ever aired due to limited metal in the mainstream", because that is a very broad generalisation for which I doubt a source exists. Also, bear in mind that nothing is ever guaranteed to stay on YouTube, so I would suggest learning how to format your sources in full—particularly to include the retrieval dates, which help editors check how long ago a link was last working. Use either Template:Cite web or type it all out manually like I always do. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Also one other question: There's this website called Sludgescan that posts album sales, they say they get the numbers from Soundscan, is it reliable? Because I had always thought it was

Re: Under the Influence
Both. 1) Because it's foreign, no native English speaker on an English-language Wikipedia is going to get anything out of it. 2) Last.fm is fine for non-controversial stats like how many times a song has been played live, but something as profound as sales figures need a more reliable source than that. Blabbermouth is great in the way that they quote SoundScan, so always bear that in mind whenever you include a website. It's all good and well for someone on the Internet to say "This album sold a trillion copies within a year!", but it's where they get that information from is what's important.

Oh, and PLEASE sign your posts. I keep having to do them myself when it's on my talk page. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. And sign my posts as in write when I got it?


 * To sign your posts, all you have to do is type four of these symbols (called tildes) in a row, with no spaces, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; .. and it'll automatically put down all the username/date/time information you can see to the right of my post. Use the "Show preview" function to see it do its thing. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Metal Archives
Metal Archives is not always a reliable source, if at all. The dates you see on there could've been added by anyone, since the site operates on the basis of user-submitted content—just like Wikipedia—with no explanation given for where the dates have been sourced. Regardless of whether or not everything on Megadeth's official site is correct, in this case release dates certainly need a more reliable source than Metal Archives to be considered RS on here. Unless something more concrete can be found, the official megadeth.com site should be considered all-authoritative. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If AllMusic states a different release date to the band's own site, I'd consider that a questionable contradiction. AllMusic might indeed be right, but then it comes down to picking and choosing—if they say one thing, whilst megadeth.com says another, who should the reader believe first and foremost? I can't speak for others, but I'd automatically go with the band themselves. AllMusic often gets things hugely wrong, especially for genres and liner notes, and I've seen them make mistakes with release dates as well, such as with this album—according to the liner notes written by the musician himself it was recorded in November 1989, but AllMusic completely messes up and states that it was actually released in November 1989! That being just a small demonstration of how unreliable they, even as a supposedly reliable source on WP, can sometimes be. Reviews tend to be AllMusic's speciality, but not much else. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And sign your posts properly, for cryin' out loud. I already showed you how to do it in the section above. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)