Wikipedia

Talk:Battle of Jilib

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
Good articleBattle of Jilib has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 23, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 27, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 31, 2023.
Current status: Good article

Citations / Sources (Links)

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please do not link to news.yahoo.com and to articles issued by Reuters (also at alertnet.org) or the Associated Press. They're existing only two or three months and then disappear and are therefore worthless, except for the claim of making an edit. The same problem is with newspaper websites which are using the original newsfeed of Reuters or AP, e.g. Washington Post (partly, can be easily recognised by the AP/Reuters logo near the headline), Forbes, CBS, partly CNN.

Safe links newspapers and other media outlets which usually publish AP/Reuters news without editing but keep them include BBC News (news.bbc.co.uk) Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, Independent Online (South Africa). In the cases in which the original title of the news is still available a Google advanced search with the exact phrase might be successfull to find and restore those links. Links to BBC News articles are safe, they stay forever. Links to Washington Post articles which had been published in the print edition are also safe and can be recognised by date and pagenumber near the title and byline of the article! --213.155.224.232 19:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is Wikipedia's policy on using Voice of America as a reference? As you may know, Voice of America is officially controlled by the U.S. Government and therefore has questionable objectivity and reliability. --75.73.22.166 04:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The bar of what is a reliable source is a very low one -- it's primary (& almost sole) purpose is to exclude fringe ideas & wingnut ravings that don't squarely fall under WP:NOR. In a nutshell, the Wikipedia guideline says "don't quote sources no one would quote with a straight face." One could raise the bar -- & doubtlessly everyone would agree that to do so would be a good thing -- but any wording that would do so ends up giving people would disagree with a tool to exclude the sources you agree with (& vice versa). So the Voice of America is considered a reliable source -- as is al-Jazeera, the Walta Information Center & many other sources. -- llywrch 01:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Although the article is short, it is well-sourced. If you can, continue to expand the article with any available information that can be sourced. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 07:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Jilib. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Jilib. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of Jilib. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Jilib&oldid=1206170187"