User talk:Dianas90
April 2024
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Never did any of that. The only resources that were included were academic ones and websites created for the purpose of education. Not blogs or personal websites. Dianas90 (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
websites created for the purpose of education
is not the sourcing standard. You need to comply with the policies linked above, particularly WP:RS. A self published site is a self published site regardless of its purpose, and Wikipedia cannot use them as sources. MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)- The only resources I included were either academic or the ones published by organizations that do not have a bad reputation and have in fact for years been a reputable source of information for people interested in cryptocurrency technology. None are self published. They comply with the policies. Could you please provide proof of why you believe otherwise for each resource removed? Once again, that article was live before with a YouTube video used as source Dianas90 (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- That there was an existing problem is not a reason to add more problem sources.
published by organizations that do not have a bad reputation
is also not the standard used here. Please familiarize with the standards Wikipedia uses. MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)- Could you please provide explanation for each resource as to in which way it's problematic. Dianas90 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have read the document you are referring to and do not see an issue with any of them Dianas90 (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you have read the guidelines and still don't see the problems with using the likes of Arxiv preprints, learncrypto.com, and geeksforgeeks.org I do not know how to explain it any more clearly. You should ask someplace like WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I very much respect your dedication, but do not agree with your interpretation of those guidelines. It's too narrow and doesn't take into account established practices. For example, geeksforgeeks.org has been used in many Wikipedia articles. Including this one Software engineering. Dianas90 (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a large site and volunteer time is limited. If you have noticed problem sources on Wikipedia, that is a reason to fix those problems, not to make the problems worse by replicating them elsewhere. MrOllie (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- L
- Let's agree to disagree on this topic, ok? Dianas90 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I very much respect your dedication, but do not agree with your interpretation of those guidelines. It's too narrow and doesn't take into account established practices. For example, geeksforgeeks.org has been used in many Wikipedia articles. Including this one Software engineering. Dianas90 (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you have read the guidelines and still don't see the problems with using the likes of Arxiv preprints, learncrypto.com, and geeksforgeeks.org I do not know how to explain it any more clearly. You should ask someplace like WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have read the document you are referring to and do not see an issue with any of them Dianas90 (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please provide explanation for each resource as to in which way it's problematic. Dianas90 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- That there was an existing problem is not a reason to add more problem sources.
- The only resources I included were either academic or the ones published by organizations that do not have a bad reputation and have in fact for years been a reputable source of information for people interested in cryptocurrency technology. None are self published. They comply with the policies. Could you please provide proof of why you believe otherwise for each resource removed? Once again, that article was live before with a YouTube video used as source Dianas90 (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)