User talk:2607:FB90:64E2:6542:D45F:D6A3:D495:F816: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Date sources: re |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Blanked IP talk}} |
|||
== Date sources == |
|||
Do you have any sources to back up the date information you provide? [[User:Bytesock|Bytesock]] ([[User talk:Bytesock|talk]]) 19:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:I second the question. I encountered such an edit on [[Amiga]] and I now see from the contributions list that it's basically all like this. Precise dates should have sources; otherwise, the existing years were good enough. Improvement would be attained by sourcing them, not by adding more unsourced small details. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 21:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:: Perhaps you could use some markup that marks specifically the date and not the month and year as "citation needed" ? [[User:Bytesock|Bytesock]] ([[User talk:Bytesock|talk]]) 21:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::: A few of the dates this editor changed were fully "citation needed" in the first place, and citations should be provided before attempting to make the dates even more detailed. Aside from that, I think your suggestion is overkill: just give the most detailed date that can be given ''with a citation''. I also suspect that since all that this editor has been doing is adding such details to date, there may be something fishy. [[User:LjL|LjL]] ([[User talk:LjL|talk]]) 21:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 16:31, 14 January 2023
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.