User talk:NathanStilwell

Welcome!
Hello, NathanStilwell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! GermanJoe (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Financial technology - reliable sourcing
Hello NathanStilwell, thank you for your interest in improving this article. But Wikipedia generally does not use PR platforms, advocacy websites, blogs and other self-published sources as references (aside from a few exceptional cases). Please make sure to read WP:RS about Wikipedia's definition for reliable sources in an encyclopedic context. Just in case: if you have a professional connection to this topic, see also WP:COI and follow this guideline for further edits. Thank you for your consideration. GermanJoe (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for your comments, really appreciated, my original source with the EU's website that you flagged as an unreliable source so I changed it Would the following two sources allow me to re-add the information you removed? Payment Services Directive (PSD2): https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/payment-services-psd-2-directive-eu-2015-2366_en GDPR: https://eugdpr.org/the-regulation/


 * Hello, the first one would certainly be fine as primary source, although secondary sources are generally preferred. Official .gov sources are usually OK for uncontroversial basic information, but analysis or interpretation needs secondary sources. The second one is not suitable (imo): Information about specific authors and their expertise is missing and the site doesn't have any editorial guidelines. And despite their claims of being an "education portal", the site is company-funded and includes multiple promotional backlinks to these companies and their whitepapers. In short, none of the basic criteria for expertise, peer-review and/or fact checking, and independence is fully met - their partner page is clear evidence for the marketing focus of this website. GermanJoe (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)