User talk:Crocfarts

Libreboot
Hello @Crocfarts, I reverted your edits because Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:OR prohibit adding information without source and also require secondary sources for large parts of the text. Either add these sources, or remove the text. Thanks! PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Crocfarts I have cleaned up the page again, please note that Phoronix, Fossbytes are not reliable sources that are suitable as references on Wikipedia. Check WP:RSP if you want to know if something is reliable or ask it on a talk page. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia though! PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. You might consider applying the same thoroughness to the Wikipedia entry for Coreboot. Half the reference entries are Primary Source from the Coreboot website, Phoronix references, Richard Stallman personal page references etc, many of which you removed from the Libreboot entry. Crocfarts (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! That's indeed a good point, I'll take a look at cleaning up that one as well. Thanks. PhotographyEdits (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am there presently Crocfarts (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I got the obvious ones but there are a couple sketchy ones that I cannot really describe. Crocfarts (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I stumbled upon this discussion, and have a couple comments on RSN. While Phoronix was discussed once in 2019, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281, the discussion had few participants, and as stated, a "recognized expert" argument could be made. Fossbytes has not been discussed there., so there is no support for any conclusion on reliability for it. Phoronix has been widely used at Wikipedia, and Fossbytes has also been used many times. I'm not sure they should be blacklisted from these two articles based on this, without additional discussion. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Yae4 Thanks for your comment! I assumed Fossbytes would be a blog, but it seems to be an organization that hires people, so it might be worth discussing at RSN indeed. I have seen quite some inaccuracies in the past in articles from Phoronix and the author tends to overhype some stuff, so I'm personally not in favor of labeling them as a subject matter expert. (I did used them as a source in the past too, and I am planning to replace these sources if possible, or remove them). LWN.net is usually a much better source for the same subjects. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also @Crocfarts, I saw your efforts on the coreboot article removing quite a lot of stuff that was badly sourced, but I would like to ask you to give me a bit of time to add the sources. Last year quite a long article was published about coreboot in Tweakers.net, which seems to be reliable per Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. See: https://tweakers.net/reviews/10032/5/de-bewogen-geschiedenis-van-coreboot-hoe-chromeos-een-bios-alternatief-redde-het-heden-chromeos-coreboot-ports-blobs-en-oreboot.html#reacties
 * Thanks! PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)