User talk:Fastabbas: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:51, 7 November 2008 editN-HH (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,142 edits →Note: Editing generally← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:28, 7 November 2008 edit undoJaakobou (talk \| contribs)15,880 edits →Note: Dispute resolution is the best way when things don't require administrative intervention.Next edit →
Line 77:		Line 77:
	: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.		: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)		: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)
			::Nickhh and others make some effort in maintaining neutrality and policy. Indeed, ] sources should be used alongside promoted changes, esp. in regards to contenteous content. There's perhaps too many lapses in judgement and heated conduct during arguments but as I've stated before, it is improper to make real life assosiactions with controversial figures and organizations. Being able to work within the ] policies is important to the stability of the project. Cheers, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:28, 7 November 2008

Social Parking

Thank you for supporting the article Social Parking. Much appreciated. -IDNexpert

Hello, Fastabbas! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Note

Heyo Fastabbas,
This comment of yours - - was wholly inappropriate. If you are concerned an editor has a conflict of interest, it is fair to ask them about it, but without suggesting they are terrorists or directly affiliated with terrorists. WP:NPA 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".
In cases of concerns/disputes please take the time to review WP:DR. Cheers, Jaakobou 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. WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:RS 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. --Nickhh (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh and others make some effort in maintaining neutrality and policy. Indeed, wiki-reliable sources should be used alongside promoted changes, esp. in regards to contenteous content. There's perhaps too many lapses in judgement and heated conduct during arguments but as I've stated before, it is improper to make real life assosiactions with controversial figures and organizations. Being able to work within the dispute resolution policies is important to the stability of the project. Cheers, Jaakobou 19:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)