Thread:Pluto2/@comment-258494-20160624192408/@comment-258494-20160628193400

Pluto2 wrote:

Ryoung122 wrote: Not sure what you mean...a photo is important, yes...an accessory to the article text. But the article text itself should be the main source of information, and the citation should be in the text itself.

Seto is doing fine with sourcing...he's younger than you!Ryoung122 (talk) 19:34, June 24, 2016 (UTC) I notice you keep "moving the goalposts" in regards to reliable sources...first, you said genealogical websites WERE reliable. You then did a 180 and said that, "oh, they're not reliable". Why do you keep changing your opinion on things seemingly at random? It's confusing and leads to me being blocked because you refuse to make a list of what sources are reliable and what sources aren't.

Make a list of what sources are reliable and what sources aren't.

Goalposts are moved in football, right? As the Gerontology Wiki has gained credibility, standards have been increased.

Nonetheless, regarding genealogical websites, the use of those depends on the website itself and the context. Ancestry.com is more reliable than, say, Find-A-Grave. Citations are a means of sourcing material. Also, this isn't the place for "original research" but if research has already been published, then you can use that.Ryoung122 (talk) 19:34, June 28, 2016 (UTC)