This question has been present on the site for several years, and the top answer has been there four years. I'm aware that it's first hand information, but it does provide useful information. I'm happy for people to doubt its credibility, but I see no way that not having useful information is an improvement on having useful information.

I also have references:

Can we put it back please?

| |

No sorry, we can't do that, you need to provide evidence first.

While I can sympathize with the benefit of providing useful information, according to a skeptical view, both answers are speculation, anecdotes or hearsay and not the content we are looking for here.

You can publish your content almost anwywhere else on the internet. Here, however, we have this one rule to follow. Please do so.

| |
  • 2
    How many additional sources above the three do you need? – DJClayworth May 25 '19 at 20:24
  • Also please note that personal experience is neither "speculation" nor "hearsay". – DJClayworth May 25 '19 at 20:38
  • True, it's an anecdote. – Sklivvz May 25 '19 at 20:41
  • Sure, if you like. And the answer to the question about the number of sources? – DJClayworth May 25 '19 at 20:41
  • @DJClayworth not sure what to answer to your other question. One source is enough if appropriately strong and relevant. 100 are not enough if off topic or weak... – Sklivvz May 25 '19 at 20:45
  • I'm aware of how sources work. I've edited the answer to include the sources above. Are you OK with this? I could write a new one, but it might make more sense to undelete the nearly-identical one. – DJClayworth May 25 '19 at 20:53
  • Thanks for the undeletion. I appreciate it. – DJClayworth May 25 '19 at 21:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .