| Revision as of 06:07, 25 June 2015 editNeilN (talk | contribs)134,455 edits Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Talk:Antisemitism. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:44, 25 June 2015 edit undoScientus (talk | contribs)5,503 edits →June 2015: telling someone not to attack you is not the same as making an attackNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| ::RT is sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected at ]. I have a feeling the innuendo-heavy article you used as a source wouldn't pass muster there, but I may be wrong. | ::RT is sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected at ]. I have a feeling the innuendo-heavy article you used as a source wouldn't pass muster there, but I may be wrong. | ||
| ::Some of your other sources included a 90-minute YouTube documentary and an article from an open wiki. Almost certainly not reliable sources. See ]. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | ::Some of your other sources included a 90-minute YouTube documentary and an article from an open wiki. Almost certainly not reliable sources. See ]. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == June 2015 == | |||
| ] Please ] other editors, as you did on ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. <!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> ] <sup>]</sup> 06:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:44, 25 June 2015
Libya
Please stop edit-warring. Three different editors have undone your POV-pushing edits. It's time to consider why.
Please read WP:LEAD and WP:Identifying reliable sources, because you seem ignorant of those guidelines. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 01:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Is the BBC, RT, and someone who "officially contributed to the 9/11 Commission and the 7/7 Coroner's Inquest." (with video evidence) a reliable source?Scientus (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- The lead of an article is supposed to summarize it, not contradict it. Citing the BBC's 1969 coverage as your basis for changing "military coup" to "bloodless coup" is probably inappropriate when there are hundreds of history books on the subject. (WP:V: "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.")
- RT is sometimes accepted and sometimes rejected at WP:RS/N. I have a feeling the innuendo-heavy article you used as a source wouldn't pass muster there, but I may be wrong.
- Some of your other sources included a 90-minute YouTube documentary and an article from an open wiki. Almost certainly not reliable sources. See WP:USERGENERATED. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 05:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)