Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Academic Challenger (talk | contribs) at 07:31, 18 May 2009 (→responding to your message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Messages here

May 2009

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to List of designated terrorist organizations. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

The sources you are using do not prove the organisations were designated in even one country, never mind the several you are claiming. O Fenian (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to List of designated terrorist organizations. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. O Fenian (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. O Fenian (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Before posting these warnings note, that I wasn't edit warring - I was adding more reliable sources. Chippolona (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you were edit warring. And you were not adding "more reliable sources", as not one of the sources you have provided proves the organisations were designated, because they never have been. O Fenian (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

responding to your message

Personally, I do believe that ASALA and JCAG are terrorist organizations. However, since they do not seem to be on the official list of designated terrorist organizations, that the other organizations on the list are on, I am not sure that these sources are enough. I would be inclined to add them back, but I think the edit war would then continue. Academic Challenger (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if the source cited was deemed as being acceptable for ASALA being designated by the USA, how can you justify that "I would be inclined to add them back" when there are zero sources that ASALA were designated by Australia, Canada, the UK and the European Union, and zero sources that JCAG were designated by Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA? Please do not encourage the addition of wholly unsourced material designed to push incorrect facts into the article. Either the organisations have been designated by those countries (the EU aren't a country, but you get my drift) or they have not, there is no middle ground, it is black and white. O Fenian (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry I haven't gotten back to you. I'm really busy with studying for finals and preparing to graduate from college. Yes, after thinking about it I guess that report is enough to make them a designated terrorist organization, but I can see the argument of the other editors too. I'll have more time to investigate and help out more with this next week, but probably not until then. Academic Challenger (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)