Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - theWOLFchild 08:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I saw your edit there, and while you may believe they're "elite", and many others may even agree with you on that (heck, I do), the thing is, descriptions like that need to be supported by a reliable source, or else they're just considered a non-neutral, personal opinion. That is basically what that editor was conveying you by putting "POV" in the edit summary when he reverted you. If you can find a source to support that that RM are considered "elite", then you might be able to re-add it. (I say "might" because not everything is that easy here). Anyway, good luck. - theWOLFchild 08:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much, I'll remember this in future. I appreciate the genuine message without anger at a rookie error. Nicest place I've been on the internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moistone1 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
No problem. This place just take a little getting used to (like signing you talk page comments). I added the 'welcome' template above. Take a read through it, there is plenty of links to helpful information for new users. As for your second attempt at Royal Marines, I see it was removed again. This time the editor claims "Daily Mail is not a WP:RS" (reliable source). Well, I'm not so sure about that, I believe I've used it before, but I wouldn't try re-adding it, at least not right away. You could go to WP:RSN (reliable source notice board), do a search and see if the Daily Mail has been challenged before on reliability, and if it has, was it decided as 'not reliable', 'reliable', 'depends' or 'no decision'. OR, you could skip the Daily Mail and try to find some other, more solid sources (I wrote that plural because 2 sources is better than 1 and 3 sources is better than 2, etc.). Take your time, get to know your way around the basics. Check out RSN if you want or just search around for some other sources. I think I'll take a look about myself, see if maybe the two of together can't see this through. I check in with you later, Ciao! - theWOLFchild 15:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Searching around I am able to find some other sources, including the telegraph newspaper describing them as elite also. As the telegraph was cited when describing the Parachute Regiment as elite, I feel this would suffice, with perhaps one or two more in there to ensure its not taken down again. Thanks for the welcome template, that makes it a lot easier to get to grips with basics. Moistone1 (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
