User talk:Saineolai

Welcome!

Hello, Saineolai, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ----Cool BD (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Dorins

Can you please provide a ref for Edward Dorins? Also you might want to consider Wikifying the article. Thank you.Calaka (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brontë family

I reverted this as you did not supply any [[W{:RS|reliable source]] in the article. You have replaced the text again without supplying a reference. I will revert again - please do not re-add this without supplying a reliable source for the change. Use the <ref></ref> tags to enter the reference in the text. Thanks Keith D (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	A Teamwork Barnstar to you for taking care of something that has been bothering me about "my" article for a long, long time. Thanks for taking the time to clear that up! Gandydancer (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cassidy at false etymology

I suspect the examples you give are obviously from Italian, and native, not Irish. But an unsigned blog is not a sufficient source to claim a professional's work is shoddy--a claim which amounts to defamation per se. I have started a section at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#False_etymology for comments. I suggest you restore the claim but only by WP:ATTRIBUTE attributing a non-self published reliable source. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing. Firstly, Cassidy died in 2008. Secondly, Cassidy has already been criticised massively on Wikipedia. There is a whole debate in the History section of the etymology of the word Jazz where Cassidy’s bad work is highlighted and there is a biographical entry on Cassidy which includes some unflattering allusions to his woeful scholarship, not all of them by me. There are also many entries deriving from Cassidy’s book in the history section of the page of English words of Irish origin which were removed by other Wiki contributors in 2007. And finally, I said incompetent OR dishonest, not incompetent AND dishonest. The wording makes a big difference. I have restored the comment but in deference to you I have softened it to ‘specious and untrustworthy’ and I have provided a number of other references in support of this. I hope that this will be acceptable, as I really don’t see why an article about false etymologies shouldn’t include a reference to a book full of false etymologies.

It's still a problem that you are singling out one author, and criticizing him based on a blog, now basically four self-published blogs. You need some sort of reliable source, a review from a paper of record, and academic paper, a non-self-published book. μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into a debate but I think your view (which may or may not be the official view of Wiki) is far too narrow. There are other ways of judging whether a source is reliable, such as whether it corresponds to other more axiomatic sources or corresponds to reality in any way. This kind of checking is more reliable than simply saying book - good, self-published blog - bad. There are many books which are pure pseudoscience (anything by Graham Hancock, for example) but it would be difficult to find a clear refutation of these among academic papers or books because dons tend to ignore them. Having said that, I accept that Wiki's standards allow some blogs but not others, so you were within the letter of the law. Fortunately, the Wiki guidelines on acceptable sources specifically mention Language Log as an acceptable source. There are two posts critical of Cassidy on Language Log. I have now reinstated the comment about Cassidy's book and I have put the two LL references as citations. Hopefully that will be acceptable to both of us.

Outing

I've redacted your outing of the RL identity of another editor at Talk:Daniel Cassidy. WP:OUTING is a serious sin on this site. Please don't do it again. Thanks, SpinningSpark 14:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]