Revision as of 20:01, 10 September 2023 editBilCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers215,714 edits →Thank you message for NCIS: Sydney: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:48, 13 September 2023 edit undoOoligan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,962 edits →I used ProPublica.org as a source. --- You wrote, "... need a better source ...": new sectionTags: Reverted New topicNext edit → | ||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
::Wish you hugs and chocolate! ] (]) 19:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC) | ::Wish you hugs and chocolate! ] (]) 19:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::Thanks, I LOVE chocolate!!! ] (]) 20:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC) | :::Thanks, I LOVE chocolate!!! ] (]) 20:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC) | ||
== I used ProPublica.org as a source. --- You wrote, "... need a better source ..." == | |||
See: ]. | |||
@], | |||
What is wrong with ''ProPublica'' as a source? | |||
Please, give some examples of a "better source." | |||
Also, why did you <u>delete the ''ProPublica'' article's quotation</u>, but kept the ProPublica citation? ] (]) 23:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:48, 13 September 2023
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
Before posting, please read and follow the notes below.
|
Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
WP:Thumbsize
Want to let you know I am now studying this item. Thanks! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Re: Sukhoi Su-57 edit
The cited source says that the codename has not been confirmed by NATO. Regardless of reliability guidelines re: the website it was published on, how does an unconfirmed rumor support information presented authoritatively on Misplaced Pages? Perhaps removing it was overkill, but other options are to present it as a rumored codename or to cite a different source. It was not done in bad faith; I just investigated the cited source since the claim interested me and was surprised to find that it was not as authoritative as the article suggested. 84.251.71.133 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you message for NCIS: Sydney
Thanks for all your help! 142.162.35.37 (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- You're most welcome. BilCat (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wish you hugs and chocolate! 142.162.35.37 (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I LOVE chocolate!!! BilCat (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wish you hugs and chocolate! 142.162.35.37 (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I used ProPublica.org as a source. --- You wrote, "... need a better source ..."
See: ProPublica.
@BilCat,
What is wrong with ProPublica as a source?
Please, give some examples of a "better source."
Also, why did you delete the ProPublica article's quotation, but kept the ProPublica citation? Ooligan (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)