Don't attack users in edit summaries. It isn't about being "right" or "wrong" - it's about adhering to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and only including information that can be reliably sourced (and a third-party blog is not a reliable source). Remember, content must be verifiable. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Continued use of gratuitous profanity-laden attacks in edit summaries, like this, may result in administrative action including temporary blocking of editing privileges. Please review WP:CIVIL. - BanyanTree 19:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Rjd: 97 wasnt atttack. He stated what he would do ( readd the info that was true). He asked why you all kept deleting sourced info. Not only was 97 right, & you all wrong, Pajhwok Afghan News is a reliable source. It was verfiable as 97 gave the link repeatedly.
- WP:CIVIL doesn't have an exception based on being "right".
- Repeatedly adding a link turns it into a reliable source? Maybe philosophically true sometimes if en masse over a long enough time period across the whole Internet, but not true here.
- "Right" and wrong" are not synonymous with "factually accurate" and "factually inaccurate".
- Even if they were, the issue at hand was "factual verifiability" - which, until the news blackout ended, 97 did not have. (For better or for worse. Personally, I think the double standard for journalists versus other kidnapping victims is unethical at best, and would cause backlash if it becomes widely known. But then again, who's going to report the story?)
- Belated congrats on your 15 minutes.
- It doesn't, actually, since nobody ever told him why his edits were being removed. Evercat (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.