| Revision as of 16:32, 20 February 2013 editArzel (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers12,013 edits →Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks: Remove non-good faith editor comment.← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:15, 21 February 2013 edit undoCowicide (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users955 edits →3RR warning: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| ::::::::Why pretend you don't know that a reliable third-party source must make the observation, not a[REDACTED] editor. ] (]) 00:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | ::::::::Why pretend you don't know that a reliable third-party source must make the observation, not a[REDACTED] editor. ] (]) 00:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::Besides which, even the fact that the sky appears to be blue should be, and is, cited to reliable sources in the article on ]. Complete red herring. ] (]) 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | ::::::::Besides which, even the fact that the sky appears to be blue should be, and is, cited to reliable sources in the article on ]. Complete red herring. ] (]) 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == 3RR warning == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr -->. ] (]) 04:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:15, 21 February 2013
New discussion below this line
Rubio
You may not use personal observation (i.e. original research) to claim that all criticism comes from "liberals". You would need a reliable source that makes this assertion. Yworo (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Krugman is a well-known self-admitted liberal. No original research needed so there is no need to keep your head in the sand. Arzel (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't deny that, but you are generalizing from it in an unsourced manner. That's not acceptable. Yworo (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- What genearlization? All the criticism has come from the left. Name one non-left person to make that criticism. It is highly POV to simply say commentators like it is a general criticism when it clearly is not. Arzel (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- You need a source that says that. You can't observe it yourself, it has to be sourced! Yworo (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- To quote our policy on no original research: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." You have not provided a source that supports the contention that "All the criticism has come from the left." Yworo (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I know the policies, but one does not need a source to say that the sky is blue. Seriously, use some common sense. Arzel (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- But that's not what you're saying: You're saying that "All skies are blue" (on every planet). Yworo (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not even close. Mike Konczal of the Progressive Rooseveult Institute, Paul Krugman, Huffpo, Ed Schultz, Froma Harrup, etc. It is the left. Now it has been no secret that conservatives believe that the government was directly to blame for the housing crisis, while the left has been equally adament that it was the fault of big banks. Why be obtuse about it? Arzel (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Why pretend you don't know that a reliable third-party source must make the observation, not a[REDACTED] editor. Yworo (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Besides which, even the fact that the sky appears to be blue should be, and is, cited to reliable sources in the article on sky. Complete red herring. Yworo (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
3RR warning
Your recent editing history at Koch Industries shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. . Cowicide (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)