User talk:Thrasymedes/Archive 5

Latest comment: 12 years ago by DJDunsie in topic Reliable sources
Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6

Teamwork Barnstar

  The Teamwork Barnstar
For DJDunsie, who took part in the big biography weekend in October 21-26, 2011. With help from 15 other editors, 48 new biography articles were created. Thanks for being part of the team. Peterdownunder (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! XD DJDunsie (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

We've already discussed this a year ago. The use of 'related' was to make the point that the bulleted page must have good relevance (otherwise some people do add anything they feel like). Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I knew that related is a better word in that context. But does it not matter about simple language? DJDunsie (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Fine. DJDunsie (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't matter anyway. DJDunsie (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Battle of Passchendaele.

Hey. Just letting you know that I am beginning to improve Battle of Passchendaele. I am simply copying the EN version into my sandbox, and then simplifying it. Please keep an eye on it, because when I'm done simplifying, I'll add it to the article, or, if the section that I am improving is already there, replacing it. Thanks! –Orashmatash 15:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the heads up. I just have one question. Do you want to change the text at all apart from simplify it? I have a few problems with it, that's all. DJDunsie (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, not really. I looked through the article before I replaced it, and it didn't look like there was any information there that the simplified EN version didn't cover in more detail. If I'm wrong, feel free to add it back. Thanks! –Orashmatash 18:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, I didn't mean that the previous version had good content only that I wasn't happy with the English Wikipedia version. For starters, who said "wear out the enemy" and "to secure the Belgian coast and connect with the Dutch front lines"? I presume it was Haig but this needs to be made clearer. I fixed the other thing I was worrying about.

Also, Can you explain why you changed [[German Empire|German]] back army? I'm not angry at all - if it's a valid reason then it would be good for me to know so that I can apply the same logic to future occasions. Thanks, DJDunsie (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Purely because the [[German Army]] link that was there previously was a red one, and the "Germany" that we are talking about in this article has a different flag, and a different name (German Empire). The army shouldn't be a capital either. Also, feel free to change the "wear out the enemy" and "to secure the Belgian coast and connect with the Dutch front lines" part. I agree that it should be made clearer. Hope this answers your question. If not, ask here. Thanks! –Orashmatash 18:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, yes, that does make sense. Happy editing! DJDunsie (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Further improvements to Battle of Pas...

Hey DJDunsie, just to let you know, I have added Talk:Battle of Passchendaele to my watchlist, so you can co-ordinate further improvements to the article there. I have already started a header, and I'm going to make a campaign-box for it. Cheers! –Orashmatash 18:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply


Since when did you become an admin? fr33kman 20:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not an admin, and I never have been one. DJDunsie (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reliable sources

Hi! I just wanted to talk about this edit and offer some advice to judging whether something is a reliable source or not. For a source to be considered reliable it has a few tests to pass. Firstly, an indicator of reliability is that if lots or people are citing the source and talking about it. These people or other sources must be totally and completely independent of the source being tested. A source must be free of conflict of interest. Advertising revenue is not always objectionable, but loads of banner ads, Google ads type ads are not really going to play much of a part in a reliable source. I personally also dislike to cite sources that have none-transparent advertising as a significant portion of their revenue. All sites must be paid for but funding should be either self-funding or done in an open and transparent manner. Newspapers and magazines are going to have ads, but these sources exist in public view and so are sort-of peer reviewed. Peer review is a very important part of a reliable source, indeed it is a integral part of the WMF ethos. A fair source should also be one that treats the matter fairly. A source can contain wild claims and bias, but in such a case, we'd be talking about those claims being a part of the article topic matter. So we'd quote a white power group website for their opinions and then we can write about those opinions in the article citing the website. We'd also need to include reliable sources talking about them as well as having opposing opinions in the article. I think that's really all for now, I just wanted you to know that a person's self-claimed qualifications should not factor into it. Obviously this is different for academics within an educational structure such as a college or university. Although, even in such cases you'd be getting peer opinions as well. I'll leave it there. Hope you don't mind the advice. :) fr33kman 23:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice. You told me some things I was not aware of, thank you. Would you say do not cite this particular website? Is Encyclopaedia Britannica a RS? DJDunsie (talk) 08:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Encyclopaedia Britannica is indeed reliable. Generally, news sites are reliable. Examples are CNN, BBC News, The Guardian, The New York Times, as well as local news publications such as St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Dallas Morning News. Most encyclopedias are reliable, as long as they cannot be edited by anyone. Medpedia would be an example of an encyclopedia that appears reliable but is not because anyone can edit it. Also, academic journals are reliable.
The source Fr33kman is referring to can be classified as a self-published source. This means that anyone could put up a site like that and write content, almost like a blog. Sites that look as if they are homemade are self-published. This page may be worth reviewing as well. Hope this helps, Goodvac (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, both of you. DJDunsie (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Return to the user page of "Thrasymedes/Archive 5".