User talk:Puredication

Puredication, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Puredication! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Puredication! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Definition of a "Reliable Source"?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent revert

A minor piece is by definition a bishop or knight. There is nothing in the definition of a minor piece that says different minor pieces must be equal in strength, just as there is nothing in the definition of a major piece that says major pieces must be equal in strength. Whether a knight is typically considered equal in strength to a bishop is irrelevant to the definition of a minor piece. So it makes no sense to say that knights and bishops are equal in strength because they are both minor pieces, in the same way it makes no sense to say that gold and silver are equal in value because they are both defined as precious metals. One has nothing to do with the other. Is the source you're citing making the same logical error you're making? Cobblet (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't make that error, but I see your reasoning now and removed the "minor piece" part of the sentence (but left the source since it still supports the new sentence). Thanks for posting on this page, I would've hated for people to become confused since I wrote a questionable phrase. Puredication (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Notice that Max fixed a couple of other situations where you also used "since" incorrectly. "Since" means "because"; it's a way of saying that one thing is the reason for another thing. Take care not to suggest that kind of relationship between two things, when no such relationship exists. Cobblet (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]