User talk:Saltmarsh781
Welcome![edit]
Hi Saltmarsh781! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Cheers.! Have done edits for some time originally under my own name but now this code.
- One question you might be able to help after a run in with another editor. Does a website class as published material.? I say it does and he says it does not. I can understand Ancestry not being accepted but had a run in with him on the Philip Vian Page when he would not accept Charles Benjamin Collett being his 1c1r because the source is a website. Saltmarsh781 (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think that all websites would count as published material. Whether they are reliable or not is a different kettle of fish. Looking at Philip Vian, if, as the reverting editor said it was, the websites were user-generated, that wouldn't be allowed. WP:UGC gives more info here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting.. what defines as "user generated".? Bit of a pain for I have also confirmed through Ancestry the 1c1r relationship - both great men in their chosen fields. Saltmarsh781 (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- A user generated source would be like Wikipedia or any of the other Wikimedia projects (Wiktionary, Wikiquote, WikiCommons etc) where the content is written by users like you and me. Since users on these types of project aren't required to act with any scrupules, they can insert incorrect information, intentionally or not. You or I could write a completely wrong fact on any article we felt like and have it stay there for days, weeks, months, years, or even decades; for example, see the strange case of Alan MacMasters. That is why these sources aren't considered reliable or credible. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's really helpful. The counterpoint is there are some dreadful howlers in for example Cracroft's Peerage and some not me believe it is a reliable sources. Maybe if a user generated website fact was correlated by a second party independently that might work.. that is how some of Cracroft is debunked after all.. Saltmarsh781 (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Happy to be of help. If you plan on making big, structural changes to articles I'd thoroughly consult WP:SOURCE, WP:RS and especially WP:RSPSS for precise guidance on what makes a source useful and which exact sources are. There's also a compilation of good source-related guidance at Template:Wikipedia referencing. If you've not done so already, you might want to check out WP:TWA. It's a quick, interactive crash course in Wikipedia with some good examples and tutorials of how to get the best out of sources and which ones are reliable. If you've got any questions on the reliability of a specific source you can ask me or post a message on WP:RSN to get further input. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- No I would not do that but there is a case for reviewing criteria for accuracy in some cases and the value of corroborating evidence. Minor edits and consistency are challenges enough though I do think full names should be used where appropriate though I can also see why they are not in others. Robert Falcon Scott rather than Robert Scott is a good example. Saltmarsh781 (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Happy to be of help. If you plan on making big, structural changes to articles I'd thoroughly consult WP:SOURCE, WP:RS and especially WP:RSPSS for precise guidance on what makes a source useful and which exact sources are. There's also a compilation of good source-related guidance at Template:Wikipedia referencing. If you've not done so already, you might want to check out WP:TWA. It's a quick, interactive crash course in Wikipedia with some good examples and tutorials of how to get the best out of sources and which ones are reliable. If you've got any questions on the reliability of a specific source you can ask me or post a message on WP:RSN to get further input. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's really helpful. The counterpoint is there are some dreadful howlers in for example Cracroft's Peerage and some not me believe it is a reliable sources. Maybe if a user generated website fact was correlated by a second party independently that might work.. that is how some of Cracroft is debunked after all.. Saltmarsh781 (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- A user generated source would be like Wikipedia or any of the other Wikimedia projects (Wiktionary, Wikiquote, WikiCommons etc) where the content is written by users like you and me. Since users on these types of project aren't required to act with any scrupules, they can insert incorrect information, intentionally or not. You or I could write a completely wrong fact on any article we felt like and have it stay there for days, weeks, months, years, or even decades; for example, see the strange case of Alan MacMasters. That is why these sources aren't considered reliable or credible. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting.. what defines as "user generated".? Bit of a pain for I have also confirmed through Ancestry the 1c1r relationship - both great men in their chosen fields. Saltmarsh781 (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think that all websites would count as published material. Whether they are reliable or not is a different kettle of fish. Looking at Philip Vian, if, as the reverting editor said it was, the websites were user-generated, that wouldn't be allowed. WP:UGC gives more info here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)