Misplaced Pages

User talk:QuackGuru

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crohnie (talk | contribs) at 15:29, 11 February 2008 (Just a friendly suggestion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:29, 11 February 2008 by Crohnie (talk | contribs) (Just a friendly suggestion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome

Hello QuackGuru! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Cool Cosmos 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Citizendium

I recommend you ask on the RS noticeboard why another wiki is not considered a RS.--Hughgr (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't wish to get into a debate with you about it. They should be able to explain it to your satisfaction.--Hughgr (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikis are generally not considered reliable sources because anybody can edit them, or because they're self-published sources; each edit is simply the opinion of one person. However, it seems to me that referring to a particular version of an approved page on Citizendium, approved by an editor with a known reputation, could be considered a reliable source according to the following clause in WP:V, provided the editor meets the stated qualification: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." --Coppertwig (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why?

I'm not sure why you want to change the title of the article? OrangeMarlin 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the current article. Quack Guru 23:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It's difficult with Levine and Hyperbole's constant reverts. OrangeMarlin 23:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The current title does not make much sense anyways. Quack Guru 23:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly suggestion

Cool it and give it a rest for awhile and see what others do. --CrohnieGal 15:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

PS you have mail! :) please remove this part at least when you read it, thanks, --CrohnieGal 15:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)