Revision as of 11:29, 7 November 2008 editJaakobou (talk | contribs)15,880 edits →Note: new section← Previous edit |
Revision as of 17:51, 7 November 2008 edit undoN-HH (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,142 edits →Note: Editing generallyNext edit → |
Line 74: |
Line 74: |
|
This comment of yours - - was wholly inappropriate. If you are concerned an editor has a ], it is fair to ask them about it, but without suggesting they are terrorists or directly affiliated with terrorists. ] is a guideline you must read and adhere to. To summarize the policy, "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point".<br>In cases of concerns/disputes please take the time to review ]. |
|
This comment of yours - - was wholly inappropriate. If you are concerned an editor has a ], it is fair to ask them about it, but without suggesting they are terrorists or directly affiliated with terrorists. ] is a guideline you must read and adhere to. To summarize the policy, "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point".<br>In cases of concerns/disputes please take the time to review ]. |
|
Cheers, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
Cheers, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Tbh I found it funny more than anything, given that it is utterly absurd rather than merely inaccurate. If you fling it at others, they may not be so forgiving. As for article content, Fastabbas please understand that there are several policies and guidelines here that you should really take a bit more time to read around. ], ] and ] are three important ones. Editors can't just make assertions in articles here based on what they think or believe, however strongly they - and maybe 1000s of others - might happen to believe it. Instead information here should be presented in a balanced way, with reference to mainstream, reliable sources. For example an article can't just state "Hezbollah is a terrorist, sectarian organisation" or "Hezbollah is in fact a CIA front group". For the former it would have to say "Hezbollah has been condemned as a terrorist sectarian organisation by xxx" (and then cite a source for that); for the latter you might be able to source the claim to some obscure online blog and attribute it to that source, but even then it could not go in the article, as it is clearly a fringe view, not backed by any ''reliable'' source. |
|
|
:If you want to - as you did - insert the broad claim that "Hezbollah's image has been tarnished since May 2008", you would have to source this assertion and also be more specific - do reliable sources say this? Even if there are some that do say it, do others disagree? And tarnished in whose eyes, everyone's? Equally putting "Iranian-controlled", as you also have in the Nasrallah article, in front of Hezbollah is also questionable, since there is no consensus among serious analysts that Iran has day to day control as such over the group. For info (kind of back to where we started) I am not a Hezbollah cheerleader, and am also well aware of the wide range of views of the group and the hostility to it, even within Lebanon and the wider Arab world. The point is that whatever my own view or analysis is, I don't put it into articles here. --] (]) 17:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |