User talk:73.193.215.216

Your edits at Hezbollah in Latin America
First of all, I found your latest edit summary ("be more responsible") inappropriate. I carefully considered the content before reverting your edit. Removing referenced content does constitute vandalism and in my opinion you did not have a good reason. You said that the first set of content you removed was about Iran. This is correct, but it reinforced the point that many sanctions in general were applied against Hezbollah during the Trump administration. Regarding the "blog" - this is the website of a think tank, which "produces publications and issue briefs about global policy issues" and not just some random blog. Many reputable websites use folders named "blog" for their news or press releases. While it would be preferable to have a citation from a second non-think tank source, I don't see any obvious red flags which indicate this organisation is unreliable. FYI, blogs can be valid sources on Wikipedia. It depends on the reliability of the source, not just whether they are a blog or not. It is okay to be WP:BOLD and make changes you think improve an article but rather than removing referenced content again after your edits have been reverted, if you would like to question the reliability of a source please do so on the talk page and get consensus. Adam Black talk &bull; contributions 17:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If you don’t want people to ask you to be more responsible, don’t act irresponsibly. “Removing referenced content does constitute vandalism”. Nope. 73.193.215.216 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)