User talk:Kredsner

Hi. I guess you are the same person as 83.92.24.158. You have to make your references clearer. What does "Bilag til Beretninger til Folketingets Kommissionsrapport vedr. 9. April 1940, III, Aktstykker, p. 311 & 323" mean exactly? And "Peter Munch: Erindringer 7, p. 29" makes little sense to me.

We have templates for this. Use them. If you are referring to books, use Template:Cite book. Best of luck. Manxruler (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to refer to a book that Peter Munch wrote? Some feedback would be constructive. And you need to use the template I just provided for you, the way it is now is too unclear. Manxruler (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, provide sources for your edits

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Battle of Denmark, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, we don't just add stuff we know to be correct. We need to provide sources for everything we add. Manxruler (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manxruler. Thanks for your help. As you can see I'm new here. There's a lot of functions I cannot master yet, but it will come.

I know about verifying data, but somthing is puzzling me: when for example a number is mentioned in the article 'Operation Weserübung' that the germans landed a 1.000 troops in Copenhagen, it is not correct and there is no citation. So why demand citation immediatly when corrected? kredsner talk

Re:Operation Weserübung

Hi again,

Thanks for adding info with regards to the books (?) you've used as sources. You're still not quite there. One more time: use Template:Cite book for books. That way we get all the necessary information. You say you have a BA in writing, then you should know about citing sources properly. The stuff about a 1,000 Germans landing, is cited. But you're right, the correlation between the source and the info isn't quite there. Even stuff that's wrong can't just be replaced with new stuff unless said new stuff is cited. Manxruler (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to experiment with the various tools of Wikipedia, then Wikipedia:Sandbox is the place to go. Now, I ask you again, are the sources you are trying to give books? Are they?

Of course there's a limit to the citations and such, but we don't add new information without sources, we just don't. All information needs a source. Now, for example, an amount of information can have just one citation, but the citation needs to be there, and it needs to be clear what information is covered by the citation. Manxruler (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An ISBN number isn't necessarily needed. This report has been published? That's all that's called for. Manxruler (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To save Sinebot some work, use this: ~~~~ when signing comments. Manxruler (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. The I guess I would recommend Template:Cite journal when referring to it. I might be wrong, but that's what I would use. Manxruler (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Now, you don't need to mention the page when you list it in the references at the end of the article. You only need to mention the page number when you use to report in a citation in the text itself. I just did some fixes to the way the report was displayed, you got it pretty much right to begin with. Manxruler (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Denmark

This won't do, Kredsner. What you have done with this article is not okay. You have changed sourced information, leaving the reader with the impression that several of your changes are supported by the sources originally given, which they are not. I'm referring specifically to Dildy's book here. Why did you do that? Manxruler (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it is not an accepted way of editing to change the date/time style of a article without good reason and prior discussion. Manxruler (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kredsner. I know nothing about your possible expertise on this matter. One thing must be completely clear it is not "... more important that the information is correct rather than being wrong but cited correctly". Correct information is vital, of course, but without verifiability it counts for nothing. I have not been offended, I have merely pointed out that a number of your edits have not been in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia. You can feel what you like about Dildy's writing, but it is not allowed to change things to create the impression that a source says something that it does not.

Everything in the article has to be cited. There's no room for compromise for that. If we decided that it was okay to add tons of stuff without sources, we could just close down the whole project.

The title was created by a user who wrote the original text through copy-right violations. It can of course be changed. What do you suggest? "Occupation of Denmark"? That could work. Also, change the place names, but provide references.

With regards to references, only published sources can be used, not reports in archives and such. Manxruler (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, now, you have done much better with regards to sourcing. We still need the page numbers for the books you have used, though. Manxruler (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important detail when editing.

Help:Edit summary to make it clearer what an editor carried out with their edit. Manxruler (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]