User talk:Arzel: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Wikipedia:No personal attacks: new section |
→Wikipedia:No personal attacks: Remove non-good faith editor comment. |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
::::::::Why pretend you don't know that a reliable third-party source must make the observation, not a WIkipedia editor. [[User:Yworo|Yworo]] ([[User talk:Yworo|talk]]) 00:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
::::::::Why pretend you don't know that a reliable third-party source must make the observation, not a WIkipedia editor. [[User:Yworo|Yworo]] ([[User talk:Yworo|talk]]) 00:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Besides which, even the fact that the sky appears to be blue should be, and is, cited to reliable sources in the article on [[sky]]. Complete red herring. [[User:Yworo|Yworo]] ([[User talk:Yworo|talk]]) 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
::::::::Besides which, even the fact that the sky appears to be blue should be, and is, cited to reliable sources in the article on [[sky]]. Complete red herring. [[User:Yworo|Yworo]] ([[User talk:Yworo|talk]]) 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Wikipedia:No personal attacks == |
|||
You have assumed that I have not been acting in good faith and have attacked my motivation for posting several different times. I would ask that you stop and focus on content. [[User:Casprings|Casprings]] ([[User talk:Casprings|talk]]) 03:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:32, 20 February 2013
New discussion below this line
Rubio
You may not use personal observation (i.e. original research) to claim that all criticism comes from "liberals". You would need a reliable source that makes this assertion. Yworo (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Krugman is a well-known self-admitted liberal. No original research needed so there is no need to keep your head in the sand. Arzel (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't deny that, but you are generalizing from it in an unsourced manner. That's not acceptable. Yworo (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- What genearlization? All the criticism has come from the left. Name one non-left person to make that criticism. It is highly POV to simply say commentators like it is a general criticism when it clearly is not. Arzel (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- You need a source that says that. You can't observe it yourself, it has to be sourced! Yworo (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- To quote our policy on no original research: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." You have not provided a source that supports the contention that "All the criticism has come from the left." Yworo (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I know the policies, but one does not need a source to say that the sky is blue. Seriously, use some common sense. Arzel (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- But that's not what you're saying: You're saying that "All skies are blue" (on every planet). Yworo (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not even close. Mike Konczal of the Progressive Rooseveult Institute, Paul Krugman, Huffpo, Ed Schultz, Froma Harrup, etc. It is the left. Now it has been no secret that conservatives believe that the government was directly to blame for the housing crisis, while the left has been equally adament that it was the fault of big banks. Why be obtuse about it? Arzel (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Why pretend you don't know that a reliable third-party source must make the observation, not a WIkipedia editor. Yworo (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Besides which, even the fact that the sky appears to be blue should be, and is, cited to reliable sources in the article on sky. Complete red herring. Yworo (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)