| Revision as of 14:48, 27 February 2010 editSaiga12 (talk | contribs)215 edits →Do not post sources of terrorists← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:10, 27 February 2010 edit undoHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| * | * | ||
| * | * | ||
| ==Do not post sources of terrorists== | |||
| Or should we start to post the casualties of the Talibian, claimed by them in Astan? | |||
| No we don't do this. | |||
| Cause your terroristic web-space is claiming a lot of s***. | |||
| Do not provide anymore terroristic propaganda on wikipedia! | |||
| Or should we start to post the things like this: | |||
| {{quote box|width=50%|align=left| | |||
| Mujahideen released a summary of military operations against Anglo-American invaders and Karzai puppets in Helmand for Saturday, February 13. According to these data, '''more than 50 US invaders have been killed''' or injured and '''16 US have been tanks destroyed on Saturday''' in separate incidents in Marjah, Garmsir, Nad Ali and Now Zad districts of the Helmand province. | |||
| '''Kavkaz Center'''}} | |||
| <br /> | |||
| This claims are just ridiculous! | |||
| <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Revision as of 15:10, 27 February 2010
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Ref flag
You may think that I was stalking you at the Red flag article, but I just went there from Red Holocaust to read on etymology of "red". But I stand by my assessment of your last addition of a joke there. It just does not fit the spirit of the rest of the article and, honestly, it looks like vandalism. (Igny (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC))
- This example was taken from an academic book about Soviet popular culture and literature. I even left another example at the article talk page in case that someone objects.Biophys (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Your opinion is needed
I want to confirm whether Current Psychology a peer-reviewed journal or not. Sources say Current Psychology is a peer-reviewed academic journal. Founded and originally published by the Transaction Publishers, the journal is now published by the Springer Science+Business Media. According to SpringerLink, "from volume 1 (1981) to Volume 2 (1982), this journal was published as Current Psychological Research; as of Volume 3 (1984), the journal merged with Current Psychological Reviews; and from Volume 3 (1984) to Volume 6 (1987), this journal was published as Current Psychological Research & Reviews." The journal is subscribed by university libraries like the library of the University of South Alabama. But a discussion at Talk:Hugo_Chávez#Antisemitism discredit it. If it is discredited as RS, there will be problem because it is used as a major source in the draft User:Defender of torch/Communist antisemitism which I will take to the mainspace after some days. The reference is:
Louis Horowitz, Irving (December 3, 2007), "Cuba, Castro and Anti-Semitism" (PDF), Current Psychology, 26 (3–4): 183–190, doi:10.1007/s12144-007-9016-4, ISSN 0737-8262, OCLC 9460062
A discussion is going on in Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Current_Psychology. Your valuable opinion at the RSN will be much appreciated. Thank you. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Started the article Communist antisemitism. Please try to improve it if you have sources. Thanks! --Defender of torch (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I responded. You are very welcome.Biophys (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)