| Revision as of 10:55, 20 October 2015 editGermanJoe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users75,283 edits →Raiders of the Lost Archive?: + upd← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:18, 23 October 2015 edit undoGermanJoe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users75,283 edits →Lost archive?: upd - fixedNext edit → | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
| It looks like at October 13 never reached its intended destination in Archive 197. The target archive has no entry with that date and time. Could someone more experienced with the archiving system check and restore that please? The move can't be undone and I'd rather not break one of the archiving pages. ] (]) 01:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC) | It looks like at October 13 never reached its intended destination in Archive 197. The target archive has no entry with that date and time. Could someone more experienced with the archiving system check and restore that please? The move can't be undone and I'd rather not break one of the archiving pages. ] (]) 01:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :Just tried to fix it myself, but some ELs in the thread are now blacklisted and can't be saved (maybe that was also the initial problem with archiving). ] (]) 10:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC) | :Just tried to fix it myself, but some ELs in the thread are now blacklisted and can't be saved (maybe that was also the initial problem with archiving). ] (]) 10:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::'''Done''' - Re-archived manually now (just changed the URLs to simple text). It contains some Yourstory.com information, that may be of interest for future questions about this source. ] (]) 21:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:18, 23 October 2015
 | Note: This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the Noticeboard itself. Please post questions or concerns about sources and articles on the main project page: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For the record, the discussion about creation of this noticeboard took place here and here. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Will not even consider the comments of a top USAF General?
What's the problem here? The USAF leadership is not even worthy of consideration for inclusion because of what? Hcobb (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- The USAF air combat commander is quoted in a reliable publication as doubting the usefulness of an expensive new aircraft and Misplaced Pages is covering this up. Why? Does somebody have some sort of reason to cover up for Sikorsky? Hcobb (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- No edit summary used; no warning given; no prior discussion - the revert may be a mistake. Suggest you ask Mike on his talk page QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- The USAF air combat commander is quoted in a reliable publication as doubting the usefulness of an expensive new aircraft and Misplaced Pages is covering this up. Why? Does somebody have some sort of reason to cover up for Sikorsky? Hcobb (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Proposed style noticeboard
There is talk at the village pump about creating a noticeboard similar to this one for style issues. Right now, people tend to bring their style questions to WT:MoS: . They do not much disrupt business there, but there is some concern that people may not know where to go to get a clear answer about Misplaced Pages's policies regarding punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and other style issues. Proponents of the measure say that a noticeboard would be easier for people to find. Opponents of the measure argue that such a style board might facilitate forum shopping and drama. Contributions from users who have experience with Misplaced Pages's noticeboards would be very welcome. The proposal itself is at the Village Pump. A mockup of the style noticeboard is here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
There is now a related proposal at the Village Pump that WT:MoS be established as Misplaced Pages's official page for style Q&A. This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT:MoS and away from other pages. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Should requests be neutral or not?
Recently, Faceless Enemy asked for feedback here on WP:RSN headed, "Walter Hickey / Business Insider." He gave the source, article, and content in question, but followed this info with a paragraph that read:
- I feel that Walter Hickey is a clickbait writer. He has written articles such as "39 Photos That Prove Birthday Boy Vladimir Putin Is The Most Badass Leader In The World", "Here's The Season When Your Favorite TV Show Peaked", "7 Things That Are Worth More Than The Washington Post", and "MAPS: A Poll Asked Europeans Which Countries Were Drunkest, Hottest, And Had the Silliest Accents". I don't think he adds anything to the content he is double sourced on, and I don't think he's reliable for the sources he is the only source on. We should not be relying on him for this article.
This reminded me of a request I made here last September, which ended with the paragraphs:
- The first was a self-published gossip site that isn't even run by the original owner. It's maintained by another person or persons now and seems to be an archive of a gossip site.
- The second is blatantly commercial, with a big banner ad across the top for with explicit images for porn products. The interviews are undated, by unidentified authors. The site itself, its main page, has a copyright date of 2004-2010- so it's not even clear if it's a going concern. And there is nothing on it about editorial oversight.
Gaijin42 replied to this saying: LB, it would be better if you made your post more neutrally, not strongly suggesting the answer you think is correct....
So I dropped my opinion of the sources in question, and I've kept my opinion out of my (original) questions here ever since, (though my opinion is generally revealed as discussion warms up). I now use the simple, starting format, "Is source-a reliable for content-b?" or, for a source in general, "Is source-c a reliable source?"
I am pinging Capitalismojo, too, since he responded to this question when I posted it as an aside in the Business Insider discussion mentioned above.
Questions:
- Should questions at RSN be brief and neutral (like at WP:3O) or, like WP:RM#CM, should we strive to make our point as best we can?
- Could you put some guidance, please, at the top of RSN?
--Lightbreather (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's probably unrealistic to expect people to come here without an opion one way or the other. At the same time, I can see not wanting to "poison the well" with the way the question is phrased. Maybe we can split the difference? So the 'request' should be neutral, but the requestor expresses their opinion as the first response? Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- The basic question is always the same here: "Is this a reliable source, specifically for this proposed edit?" The requesting editor should give the information about what the source is supposed to be referencing and at what article. Finally the editor should, I think, state his opinion and reasoning. The question should be always be neutral, the opinion and reasoning need not be. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
General problem with a source
| moved from this talk page to the noticeboard. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I wasn't sure if this question is specific enough for the Noticeboard, so I'll post it here first: This website is currently cited in several dozen articles. Do we allow this? Or should I try and get it blacklisted? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Lost archive?
It looks like this archive at October 13 never reached its intended destination in Archive 197. The target archive has no entry with that date and time. Could someone more experienced with the archiving system check and restore that please? The move can't be undone and I'd rather not break one of the archiving pages. GermanJoe (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just tried to fix it myself, but some ELs in the thread are now blacklisted and can't be saved (maybe that was also the initial problem with archiving). GermanJoe (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Done - Re-archived manually now (just changed the URLs to simple text). It contains some Yourstory.com information, that may be of interest for future questions about this source. GermanJoe (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)