User talk:2001:8A0:D734:5A00:570:75A0:E243:B871

September 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Ghouta chemical attack, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The source? The source is in the page itself, as in Seymour Hersch investigation and claims of false flag and in the fact that the accusations have absolutely no proof about who commit that crime. This was my final attempo to trust Wikipedia. But this proves you are just a CIA misinformation platform. If I had to include, as source, something that exists in the page itself, this would be ridiculous. I also noticed there is currently ZERO sources for the accusation against Syrian government. And here lies the problem: multiple accusations, no definitive proof. If this is an informative wikipedia, then that's the information that has to be in the first lines. The attack is factual. Who did the attack is not factual. My edit is therefore in the name of truth, while the previous version is just USA (western genocidal empire) propaganda, accusation made by the same guys that support Al-Qaeda in Syria, by the same guys that forget the "weapons of mass destruction" accusation. That's your "source", by the way.