User talk:76.22.25.102: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
== You don't seem to understand a thing.== |
== You don't seem to understand a thing.== |
||
The point is that |
The point is that Pajhwok is a well known, award-winning, factually verifiable source. Wikipedia knew that all along. They used the "unreliable source" pretext as a cover up, simpleton. Pajhwok is just as reliable as Reuters, Associated Press and AFP. Get that through your thick head and stop pitching a fit because you were proven wrong, child. CHEERS! :P --[[Special:Contributions/72.186.99.104|72.186.99.104]] ([[User talk:72.186.99.104|talk]]) 18:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 18:14, 31 August 2010
Wow, thanks for replying to a year old post.
It wasn't about facts. It was a cover up. If the hostage had been a regular guy, his kidnapping would have been widely known. And yes, I provided reliable information from an Afghan news agency and an Italian news agency. And obviously, the information turned out to be factually accurate and factually verifiable. Get your facts straight. And belated thanks for your sarcastic comment. --72.186.99.104 (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:97.106.45.230
You don't seem to understand a thing.
The point is that Pajhwok is a well known, award-winning, factually verifiable source. Wikipedia knew that all along. They used the "unreliable source" pretext as a cover up, simpleton. Pajhwok is just as reliable as Reuters, Associated Press and AFP. Get that through your thick head and stop pitching a fit because you were proven wrong, child. CHEERS! :P --72.186.99.104 (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)