(Username or IP removed) →Added sentence by IP w/o any source: Really, I've fixed it this time! |
|||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
::And ZH8000 is officially in the wrong as he's been blocked. [[User:TheVicarsCat|TheVicarsCat]] ([[User talk:TheVicarsCat|talk]]) 14:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC) |
::And ZH8000 is officially in the wrong as he's been blocked. [[User:TheVicarsCat|TheVicarsCat]] ([[User talk:TheVicarsCat|talk]]) 14:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::Being blocked doesn’t put me “in the wrong” in a content dispute. It simply means you were successful in getting your way by gaming the system. [[User:SW1998|SW1998]] ([[User talk:SW1998|talk]]) 23:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:42, 11 July 2018
Switzerland Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Dead References
1 to 3 are dead links. I didn't remove them because the text needs sources. Please fix it. 91.138.118.134 (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
?
41 homicide victims and 125 convicts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.39.39 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
41 completed homicides, the convicts are for both attempted and completed homicides. --dab (𒁳) 19:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Added sentence by IP w/o any source
An IP hopper recently added the sentence "Narcotics consumption was the most common reason why young people (aged 10-18) were arrested by the police under Swiss criminal laws" by giving the unformated reference, after (s)he tried to add several other unsubstatial statements about the seemingly abusive drug consumption by Swiss citizen, but totally misses to put it into a more general context – or to put it at least into a criminal context, actually this arcticle's subject.
Further the IP added also a See also-article link which is not related with Switzerland and therefore does not belong here.
(S)he does not take care about the correct formatting of the titles. It also does not surprise that the IP positions his badly researched statements always at the top of the main article, where it does not belong to consisting of just one sentence.
Further, and more important, (s)he also misses many more statements worth mentioning regarding drugs and crime in Switzerland, but this does not seem to be the intention by the IP.
Finally, the content of this sentence is obviously wrong since the referenced news article says nothing about the most common reason for arresting juveniles, but it just mentions the development. This could be aditionally and easily falsified by reading the tables below which show that the most common reason why young people (aged 10-18) were convicted by the police were because of thefts (1415 convictions) vice versa of 879 convicted youngster for narcotics possession.
Summa sumarum, IP's contribution harldy fulfills even the lowest quality we should expect here.
Therefore the whole contribution will be removed. -- ZH8000 (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- @ZH8000: I see that you are up to your old tricks again.
- First: claiming that all the people reverting you are the same person ("An IP hopper [singular]…"). There appears to be two IP editors at work here. One traces to the United States, the other two to the UK (and are likely a single editor with a dynamic IP). Neither has exceeded 3RR - yet.
- Second: The original reference provided is a [[WP:RS|reliable source}} which states what the sentence in the article states almost exactly and unambiguously. You headed this section "Added sentence by IP w/o any source". But it is sourced and you even criticized it. This is exactly what you attempted at Vignette (road tax).
- Third: You are currently at 6RR with your reverts which is categorically edit warring by any definition (Edit Warring complaint is next on my list).
- Fourth: You have never provided a valid reason for you consistent removal of the content which is exactly your behaviour at Vignette (road tax), where you were formally warned for this. The non sense above is exactly that, but the original reference for the sentence was a far better one.
- Having said all that: I would concur with you that the section 'Crime by type' is in the wrong place in the article. It would more appropriate after the background information, probably after or before 'Crime dynamics'. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- And ZH8000 is officially in the wrong as he's been blocked. TheVicarsCat (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)