User talk:Binglederry
Hello, Binglederry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
- Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
- Check out some of these pages:
- If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
- Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
- In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
- Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
- Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>
, copy the whole thing). - In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
- If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References== {{Reflist}}
Note: WP:FORBESCON
[edit]With regard to your recent edit (diff). Please note that some editors complain about use of Forbes as a source because of WP:FORBESCON (a guideline that was written several years ago at a time when Forbes was spamming out content at an even greater rate than they are now). I don't take issue with their main critics ("Senior Contributor") Paul Tassi or Erik Kain being used as references but others do, so if you're referencing them for facts it is better to find a different source. If you are referencing them for reviews or opinions you can argue WP:RSOPINION or that they are subject matter experts and "Senior Contributor", but some editors robotically apply the WP:RSPS guidelines, have no interest in compromise, and are happy to deplatform reasonable critics simply because of the publication they happen to work at. (The guideline may also have been tightened up, the wording seems even more harsh than I remember.)
I will not be reverting or modifying your change but just a friendly a warning that other probably will. -- 109.79.169.171 (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)