User talk:Finestat

Welcome Finestat!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,298,182 users!

Hello, Finestat. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm FOX 52, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't vandalize   Don't get blocked

One note - Please don’t add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source, as you have done on the Air Corps (Ireland) article. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources - FOX 52 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Finestat (and FOX 52). I have opened a discussion about the Gulfstream IV on the relevant talkpage, if it's of interest. Guliolopez (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Hiya. In relation to this comment (perhaps better suited to the article Talk page FWIW):

• "Why is "official" in quotes". In honesty I dunno why I put it in quotes. It wasn't intended to be "loaded" or whatever. Just to highlight the word.
• "If a post from the official social media page [..] is not a valid source, then what is? Perhaps an article in mainstream media created from the social media post?". Actually, while it may seem odd, yes. Exactly that. Per WP:SECONDARY, a comment or analysis or summarisation (of a social media post in a reliable newspaper) would actually be "better" than the original social media post. Might seem odd. But the idea is that reliable newspapers (whether they do or don't apply it) have the editorial governance to confirm/validate/check the social media post (including its source and content). And therefore secondary sources are preferred.

(BTW: Completely aligned about the Air Corps article containing arbitrary musings from the "public submission" of some random/unnamed person - and their thoughts on whether and what new aircraft the Air Corps might consider. Can't remember who added it or when. But I've removed that chunk entirely.)

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

I did search for a mainstream media article in regards to the arrival of Fionnghuala, but not could find any. That does not invalidate the source, just that mainstream media did not think it was interesting enough to publish. I also searched the Oireachtas debates, but no mention either.

I disagree with Wikipedia guidelines that social media posts from an official social media account of a government agency is not a valid source. I would understand about using a post from a private individual, but the notion that I have to wait until Fox News or National Enquirer (or their Irish equivalent) verifies a source wouldn't give me a lot of confidence in the accuracy of the content.

The chunk about the anonymous contribution was added by Melbguy05 on Nov 10th. The entire Future section needs rewording, which I am working on, but it takes time to gather the necessary references.

Regards. Finestat (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)