User talk:WeatherWriter

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

The article Battle of Kherson you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Battle of Kherson for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently added an edit where you made a claim that 3 Jordanians were killed, with a citation by twitter accout "Visegrád 24". However, on the article for that account, it says that they post misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war, and thus it is not a reliable or good source to use and that claim has no source to back it up. Please remove it as I have already done so once. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion about their reliability. They have also been cited by reliable sources such as the Times of Israel and CNBC (per their Wikipedia article even). Please open an RSN to determine their reliability status. I will not be removing it as there is enough in their Wikipedia article to where one can justify the potential for them being a reliable source. Also see this NBC News article for further info on that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While you may be right, Twitter should not be used in this case as a source as it is, so I think you should wait until a reliable non-social media source makes the claim. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To note, social media sources are sometimes used and considered reliable sources. Example is BNO News, which is a Wikipedia reliable source that is 95% social media based. So again, without a RSN to determine reliability, usage by other RS is a decent indication it may be a "generally reliable" source, which doesn't require it to be perfectly reliable 100% of the time. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your edit has now been reverted twice, what is your purpose in adding it a third time? Why are you so dead-set on having this in the article? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a source used by others & has not been deemed unreliable on Wikipedia. That simple. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

🙂 Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tweet, it's a tweet making an exceptional claim and it's all that and more from an outlet Wikipedia defines as a nogoodnik. Not looking good. Plus, it makes the Jordanian Air Force look negligent; err on the side of not pissing off an air force, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]