User talk:xCainAndAbelx
XCainAndAbelx, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi XCainAndAbelx! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Welcoming users
[edit]Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your enthusiasm, but there is little point in welcoming users and thanking them for all their contributions when they have not yet even made a single edit. To learn more about welcoming users, please consider checking out the WP:Welcoming committee. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, before welcoming, please check that contributions are appropriate (not vandalism or spam, etc.), and that there are no infringements of user name policy such as at User talk:Kolding School of Design. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Paltalk
[edit]Will you please explain how you came to make this edit? Kuru (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, the photo is just hosted on that website, sure, but after checking their website it actually re-directs to that picture. The source may not be reliable but if the picture re-directs from their main website and blog, then why would we consider it "unreliable?" Simply because it's hosted elsewhere? Thanks. --XCainAndAbelx (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Link to reliable sources. Period. An image hosting company is not a reliable source. Do not continue editing warring to include this material until you have worked out your sourcing. Kuru (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- You misunderstood me. The link that is PULLED from their website, www.paltalk.com, which re-directs to THAT image, regardless of the website source. If I put the URL on their website, all it will do it jump to that page. --XCainAndAbelx (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I did not misunderstand you. Start with the link at paltalk, which I assume is buried in some sort of press release. Then provide reliable thrid-party coverage. Using a direct link to an image host is simply not acceptable, and gives a bad appearance.Kuru (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- So your argument is that you'd rather see a "reliable URL" in the references as opposed to seeing directly where the link is hosted at just because it's an image hosting website which, by the way, THEY (Paltalk) decided to use? --XCainAndAbelx (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- The argument is : "Link to reliable sources. Period." You have not provided a link to the press release, and you have not provided a third-party source. I'm sure you understand the concern. Kuru (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- So your argument is that you'd rather see a "reliable URL" in the references as opposed to seeing directly where the link is hosted at just because it's an image hosting website which, by the way, THEY (Paltalk) decided to use? --XCainAndAbelx (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I did not misunderstand you. Start with the link at paltalk, which I assume is buried in some sort of press release. Then provide reliable thrid-party coverage. Using a direct link to an image host is simply not acceptable, and gives a bad appearance.Kuru (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- You misunderstood me. The link that is PULLED from their website, www.paltalk.com, which re-directs to THAT image, regardless of the website source. If I put the URL on their website, all it will do it jump to that page. --XCainAndAbelx (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Link to reliable sources. Period. An image hosting company is not a reliable source. Do not continue editing warring to include this material until you have worked out your sourcing. Kuru (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)