User talk:TheeMichealEvans

January 2018

Hello, I'm Chiswick Chap. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mediterranean cuisine, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Hi, just to let you know you attempted to change a reliably-cited claim to something different, cited unreliably. If (as I very much doubt) the reliably-cited claim was wrong, you could prove that with better sources, if any such exist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, you removed Egyptian as part of Mediterranean cuisine, though it's already mentioned as a separate section in the bottom :)

I added all sources, also pictures. Thank you.

No, I just arranged the order there, but you have wrongly reinstated the material in the Egyptian section that I have challenged above (and given you a first-level warning for) without providing a better source, indeed you have in edit-war style reinstated the EgyptianStreets source that was causing the problem in the first place: this is not acceptable. Could you please revert your change at once. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

How is the link not reliable? can you please explain. Thank you.

Gosh. You don't know. Ok, right. The idea of a reliable source is core to Wikipedia, along with the idea of verifiability - they are the central pillars of the whole edifice. We can't go on what people believe they know because that's not verifiable. Instead, we rely on documented sources which we can go to to verify whatever is claimed in any article. Sometimes that means an ancient manuscript existing in one copy in a library; that's fine, we can at least in principle travel there, ask permission to see the document, read and photograph it, and return to check the article. Sometimes it is easier: we can consult a textbook, scientific review paper, historical journal article, or national newspaper, often online, and confirm the article is correct. But what if somebody cites a personal blog, or a twitter feed, or somebody's facebook page? Clearly, we should be extremely sceptical of any such source, and in general we wouldn't use any of it, however easy it was to read, as it could simply have been made up, or be confused, misguided, or just plain wrong. As Mark Twain wrote, it ain't what we know that causes the trouble, it's what we know that just ain't so. Now, what of websites in between the personal blog and the august pages of a national newspaper? Here, we have to tread carefully. If it's the blog of a famous scientist or a famous cook, we can probably use it, provided we can all see that it's a serious piece of writing and it has been written with at least some kind of fact-checking. If it's a piece written by someone nobody has heard of, or for a shop or restaurant, it's probably unusable: we might possibly rely on it for the most basic facts, such as that a restaurant of that name exists, but not for claims it might make about history (probably not their area of expertise). So, a newspaper trumps a minor website; and a serious history textbook probably trumps the newspaper; and a more recent scientific or historical review paper trumps any of them, as even old and good textbooks get things wrong ocasionally. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, i am sorry. Are my other edits bad too? I updated the photo and put other dish along with a good article as the Independent. But all were reverted? i just wanted to enhance the section. Would you please review the edits and enhance it yourself and see the other sources. And again my apologies about the first article.

Many thanks, I'll take a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)