This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Register article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was told by several people that The Register filters out comments that don't fit a particular political point of view. I posted many comments to their articles to see if this was true and all of my comments were posted until I started posting pro-WikiLeaks comments on their Julian Assange articles. All of those comments were filtered out. I hope someone will produce some references so that this important detail can be added to this Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.85.51 ( talk) 16:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I've never had that trouble myself and i have publcally supported Assainge on their forums. Here's their explanation of what will and won't make the cut. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/19/comment_guidelines_2010/ Jenova20 ( talk) 14:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have seen this too. Particularly noticeable on Lewis and Orlowski articles on climate change. Both are climate change deniers, and comments contradicting their claims, sourcing contrary data, pointing out the unreliability of their sources, etc., are routinely rejected. However, I don't see any way to make this observation encyclopedic, given the impossibility of a citation of an unpublished comment? Czetie ( talk) 12:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Will someone please add a label or rating for the journalistic integrity of this publication? Is there a standard open resource or method for this? Stephen Charles Thompson ( talk) 20:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Page's history as an author (one book listed on Amazon, "Lions, Donkeys And Dinosaurs: Waste and Blundering in the Military" ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lions-Donkeys-And-Dinosaurs-Blundering/dp/0099484420)) and his lack of experience in the fields which he attacks (military procurement, climate science) have been criticised for an extraordinarily similar style and approach to that for which he has been criticised for editorial articles in The Register and attacks on Wikipedia, as evidenced by the following quotes from critical reviews ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0099484420/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0)
"Sub-Daily Mail nonsense, 27 Mar 2009:
"Naive, and media-led, 26 Feb 2006:
"A Dreadful Book, 13 Dec 2009:
"Right wing, sensationist, rubbish., 18 Dec 2010:
Since whoever did this failed to add this either, I'll add my support. I support that Andrew_Orlowski be merged into The_Register. Almost all of the content of Orlowski's page refers to his time at TheReg, and most of that is not substantive or significantly notable. As such, what little notability he has, would be better encapsulated here as it makes more sense. Ktetch ( talk) 17:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The article states that Cash 'n' Carrion is closed, but they reopened it in November 2014 and it's currently active http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/25/cash_n_carrion_reboot/ 180.216.82.45 ( talk) 14:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
What's this? Some disgruntled reader's POV? 86.139.166.176 ( talk) 17:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Boffin is an affectionate term, not negative. Flexdream ( talk) 12:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The text that was flagged as "undue weight" is accessible by clicking on the "headlines and wordings" hyperlink. If the "undue weight" details are not enough, then the newly added links to articles in The Register and The Guardian should satisfy the curious. Somehow, this is a matter of one saying too much sugar/milk and another saying not enough.
The Confusing section tag's wording says "There might be a discussion about this on the talk page." There wasn't. Now there is.
For those who want crumb-cake on the side, the above talk item has a possible word (?ab)used by The Register. Pi314m ( talk) 21:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
This is yet another website that uses technology as a "hook" to push far-left politics. It isn't British any more as the lunatics from San Francisco seem to be in charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaftheb ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Register article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I was told by several people that The Register filters out comments that don't fit a particular political point of view. I posted many comments to their articles to see if this was true and all of my comments were posted until I started posting pro-WikiLeaks comments on their Julian Assange articles. All of those comments were filtered out. I hope someone will produce some references so that this important detail can be added to this Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.85.51 ( talk) 16:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I've never had that trouble myself and i have publcally supported Assainge on their forums. Here's their explanation of what will and won't make the cut. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/19/comment_guidelines_2010/ Jenova20 ( talk) 14:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have seen this too. Particularly noticeable on Lewis and Orlowski articles on climate change. Both are climate change deniers, and comments contradicting their claims, sourcing contrary data, pointing out the unreliability of their sources, etc., are routinely rejected. However, I don't see any way to make this observation encyclopedic, given the impossibility of a citation of an unpublished comment? Czetie ( talk) 12:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Will someone please add a label or rating for the journalistic integrity of this publication? Is there a standard open resource or method for this? Stephen Charles Thompson ( talk) 20:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Page's history as an author (one book listed on Amazon, "Lions, Donkeys And Dinosaurs: Waste and Blundering in the Military" ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lions-Donkeys-And-Dinosaurs-Blundering/dp/0099484420)) and his lack of experience in the fields which he attacks (military procurement, climate science) have been criticised for an extraordinarily similar style and approach to that for which he has been criticised for editorial articles in The Register and attacks on Wikipedia, as evidenced by the following quotes from critical reviews ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0099484420/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0)
"Sub-Daily Mail nonsense, 27 Mar 2009:
"Naive, and media-led, 26 Feb 2006:
"A Dreadful Book, 13 Dec 2009:
"Right wing, sensationist, rubbish., 18 Dec 2010:
Since whoever did this failed to add this either, I'll add my support. I support that Andrew_Orlowski be merged into The_Register. Almost all of the content of Orlowski's page refers to his time at TheReg, and most of that is not substantive or significantly notable. As such, what little notability he has, would be better encapsulated here as it makes more sense. Ktetch ( talk) 17:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The article states that Cash 'n' Carrion is closed, but they reopened it in November 2014 and it's currently active http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/25/cash_n_carrion_reboot/ 180.216.82.45 ( talk) 14:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
What's this? Some disgruntled reader's POV? 86.139.166.176 ( talk) 17:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Boffin is an affectionate term, not negative. Flexdream ( talk) 12:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The text that was flagged as "undue weight" is accessible by clicking on the "headlines and wordings" hyperlink. If the "undue weight" details are not enough, then the newly added links to articles in The Register and The Guardian should satisfy the curious. Somehow, this is a matter of one saying too much sugar/milk and another saying not enough.
The Confusing section tag's wording says "There might be a discussion about this on the talk page." There wasn't. Now there is.
For those who want crumb-cake on the side, the above talk item has a possible word (?ab)used by The Register. Pi314m ( talk) 21:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
This is yet another website that uses technology as a "hook" to push far-left politics. It isn't British any more as the lunatics from San Francisco seem to be in charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaftheb ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)