User talk:Redrhuadri

Welcome!

Hi Redrhuadri! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the help nimbus. also, why did you revert my change to the spitfire's page about how it might have faced fw 190's? was it because my source was a bit squiffy? i know, an axis history forum post from 2004 is a bit on the rocks but it's the best i could find when i was bored in class and had resorted to wiki editing. alos fun fact, it's a rewritten version of the edit techncly because i accidentally deleted the first version by going back a tab using the arrows. i am quite new as you know, but i thought the edit was... passable. ok, rant over Redrhuadri (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Redrhuadri, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You can ask more questions at the Teahouse or on my Talk Page linked in my signature. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you mike, do you think my recent edits on the spitfire's page are any good? Redrhuadri (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forum or blog posts or individuals' websites are not considered reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to add some further information on forums and blog posts as sources. When you are evaluating a source, look for verifiable information, things that you could prove or disprove. If you see a blog post or a forum post that seems knowledgeable, try to identify verifiable claims within that post. Even though Wikipedia won't accept the forum post as a source in most circumstances, the process of fact-checking the post may lead you to a more reliable source.

A quick search on your edit's content brought up this page for me: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=45101

I assume that is your source? I'll walk through a bit of how you would use this for Wikipedia. First, what parts of this post are verifiable? Tim Smith's second paragraph is speculative, and you cannot directly place speculation into an article. You could cite experts if you found an expert discussing the potential impact of the aircraft. The claim, "In October 1940 the Fw190A-0 had severe engine cooling problems (fixed only with the Fw190A-1) and was not ready for combat." does contain some verifiable information. You could then begin your research by looking up differences between these 2 models, looking up dates for their usage, verifying the cooling issues, looking up the timeline for the aircraft's deployment in WW2, and so on.

In summary, even though you cannot usually use forum posts for citations, you can use them as a resource by identifying verifiable data, and finding more reliable sources for that data. This will also likely lead you to additional information. Good luck!Rjjiii (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss this edit of yours in detail. You added the material without citing a source. If you didn't have a source (i.e. it was your own opinion) then that is something you must never do in any Wikipedia article: we call that original research. Everything in articles must be sourced from somewhere reliable, which as David has just pointed out excludes blogs and random websites. A list of common good and bad sources are given at WP:RSPS. Secondly, your use of English is poor and it is unacceptable to say "i'm not the best with spelling or grammar so if i made any mistakes please clean them up". The vast majority of Wikipedia editors are volunteers and we have better things to do than fix other people's mistakes, although we do tolerate genuine mistakes and everyone makes typos unintentionally from time to time. So, as I said in my Teahouse post, please take things slowly and if needs be practice in your sandbox. Write with a neutral tone (so don't call serious weapons "toybox / toy" unless that's a direct quote from your source, in which case it has to be cited as such). Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]