User talk:LocalNet/Archives/2017/May

Thank you was for

...whole of constructive edits at Snapchat, and not just the last. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Leprof 7272: You're welcome! :) LocalNet (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help on my project! Casper2less (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Casper2less: Thank you for the star! Teamwork is great! I really appreciate you finding a good source! :) LocalNet (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That mysterious edit summary

I assume Fmorrison is referring to "Although criticizing the non-laminated display for being "a little more washed out than its predecessor"" from the "Reception" section; I guess the review in question refers to the iPad Air 2 as the "predecessor" in question.

However, an edit summary isn't a reference; that review would need to be made an actual reference here. Guy Harris (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Guy Harris: Thank you for the clarification! Even if that article gets cited as a reference, I still voice my disagreements, but I have already done that at the article's talk page. Getting kind of irritated over Fmorrison's lack of proper discussion, but I'm just going to stick to facts, content, sources and policy. :) LocalNet (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Personal bias against Android Police

Personally, I think they should be vetted by Wikipedia through the appropriate noticeboard. Do they meet all the criteria required for a reliable source dictated by WP:V? ViperSnake151  Talk  18:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @ViperSnake151: I'm not sure why you think that is necessary? Has there been any incidents where they have, in fact, not been reliable? Besides the "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" statement, WP:V also states that "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context" and safe to say, an Android website is very relevant for Android articles, and "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments", with the editors and writers of Android Police having expertise in the field, a deep understanding of the inner and outer workings of Android and Google, and a clear and concise language explaining details and clearly differentiating opinions, statements, facts and speculation. Are there any specific criteria you feel it doesn't meet? LocalNet (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay fine, you win. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm glad we could reach an agreement :) LocalNet (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)