Andrea And
Joined 7 May 2011
Latest comment: 11 years ago by N2e in topic SpaceX CRS-3
SpaceX CRS-3 edit
Hello, I'm N2e. I noticed that you made a change to an article, SpaceX CRS-3, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. N2e (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I've taken the information of the delay of the launch date from the same source, so I didn't added any further reference. :) However, excuse my delay in responding...
- I'm reapplying the edit for now, if there are other issues remove it and let me know! :) --Andrea And (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining, Andrea. But your changes to the article were still not quite correct. However, now that I know on what basis you intended to support the claim, I've gone in and made the changes in the SpaceX CRS-3 article to make the citation correct for your recent access of the SpaceFlightNow website.
- It is not possible for the old citation to support the new information. Why? Because the old citation specifically says that the source was accessed last November, many months before your more recent look at that source, and the source website now says that it was last updated on March 16, 2013. Here is the old citation that was in the article:
<ref name=sfn_wls20121122> {{cite web |url=http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking/ |title=Worldwide launch schedule |date=22 November 2012 |publisher=Spaceflightnow |accessdate=25 November 2012}}</ref>The way the citation was written, it is the explicit claim of some editor before your time or my time that says s/he referenced the SpaceFlight Now website last November, and determined on 25 Nov 2012 based on a website that had last been updated on 22 Nov 2012, that the source said a particular set of things were true. Your look at that website now, and then editing Wikipedia with the new information, should not support your claims with a citation from last November.
- It is not possible for the old citation to support the new information. Why? Because the old citation specifically says that the source was accessed last November, many months before your more recent look at that source, and the source website now says that it was last updated on March 16, 2013. Here is the old citation that was in the article:
- I've now put in two citations: one from whichever editor looked at that source last November in order to support the historical claims, and one to represent your more recent look at a quite different set of source information on the same website, but on the 16th of March 2013.
- Yes, I absolutely agree with you! Just forgot about the access date... Also the new paragraph is a good idea; first I only wanted to change the date, but with some information about the launch history the article is more complete :) Thank you, --Andrea And (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, by keeping the meta-data in the source correct, we keep Wikipedia up to standard. And the older source remains quite useful for showing history on the matter, so we don't, as Wikipedia editors, fall prey to presentism and make Wikipedia less of an encyclopedia and more of a news-source. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)