Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
14:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you do not need to sign your additions to the article, I have also tidied up your citation , it is quite easy to do it correctly, if you copy this and fill in the required detail, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web|url= add the url here|title= add the title here|publisher= add the publisher here|date= add the date the article was published here|accessdate= add the date you viewed the content here}}</ref>
Hi, also we don't link to truthout articles and comment about them, that is a primary report, what we want is reports about truthout not truthout reports, feel free to ask me here or on my talkpage for any assistance, if I can help I will, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! What was wrong with the last section I wrote? Matt43 ( talk) 19:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I did tweak it a bit and replace it in the section about the press mentions as it is the same story as the pipeline whistleblower but, if you want it in its own section then why not. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
sorry about that! I thought it was because my citations were not good. I was just fixing them. I think it's good to put it back at the top without its own section but I'm not sure. Matt43 ( talk) 19:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, we can leave it there for the time being (the WP:LEDE is only for major issues, and we have to be careful not to give truthouts report more weight of importance than it may of have, and if the whole report kicks off we can consolidate them all together, thanks for your contributions and your consideration of my comments, regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do not Wikilink every occurrence of Truthout (or every occurrence of any other link) in an article. We only Wikilink the first occurrence in each section. Yworo ( talk) 17:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry about that! I'm a bit of a nube here. Matt43 ( talk) 17:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not an advert, please stop bolding trutout everywhere, also please stop adding every time truthout is mentioned it is not notable, truthout was mentioned here and truthout was mentioned here, its all fluff, as I think I have mentioned previously, sometimes less is more. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm really not trying to advertise here. I'm more than happy to comply with your standards and I appreciate your guidance. Matt43 ( talk) 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I took out some of the extra words that I agree were unneeded. I hope you'll find these changes satisfactory. Best! Matt43 ( talk) 17:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You clearly have a conflict of interest here, please read WP:COI and you are also a single propose account WP:SPA really it would be better if you stopped editing the article as when you are involved the additions are so conflicted that it actually is detrimental to the article, if you are one of the living people involved with the truth company please consider presenting your desired additions to the talkpage so that independent editors can assess them. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing I added is controversial in any way. It is all cited just as suggested by you. These are relevant places where Truthout reports have been cited. I'm not sure why this is a conflict of interest as it is sourced and undisputed. Matt43 ( talk) 17:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Its not going to be a list of pointless cites where truthout was mentioned, its an article about a online paper, full stop. This paper is this and that, all of this truthout was mentioned here and truthout was mentioned there is not notable and in the wrong location, if you want to add detail about the reporter then go to his article and add it there, as I said, this article is a simple little article about a omline mag, please don't fill it up with valueless tangential fluff that imo is detrimental to the article. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
14:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you do not need to sign your additions to the article, I have also tidied up your citation , it is quite easy to do it correctly, if you copy this and fill in the required detail, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web|url= add the url here|title= add the title here|publisher= add the publisher here|date= add the date the article was published here|accessdate= add the date you viewed the content here}}</ref>
Hi, also we don't link to truthout articles and comment about them, that is a primary report, what we want is reports about truthout not truthout reports, feel free to ask me here or on my talkpage for any assistance, if I can help I will, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! What was wrong with the last section I wrote? Matt43 ( talk) 19:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I did tweak it a bit and replace it in the section about the press mentions as it is the same story as the pipeline whistleblower but, if you want it in its own section then why not. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
sorry about that! I thought it was because my citations were not good. I was just fixing them. I think it's good to put it back at the top without its own section but I'm not sure. Matt43 ( talk) 19:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, we can leave it there for the time being (the WP:LEDE is only for major issues, and we have to be careful not to give truthouts report more weight of importance than it may of have, and if the whole report kicks off we can consolidate them all together, thanks for your contributions and your consideration of my comments, regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do not Wikilink every occurrence of Truthout (or every occurrence of any other link) in an article. We only Wikilink the first occurrence in each section. Yworo ( talk) 17:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry about that! I'm a bit of a nube here. Matt43 ( talk) 17:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not an advert, please stop bolding trutout everywhere, also please stop adding every time truthout is mentioned it is not notable, truthout was mentioned here and truthout was mentioned here, its all fluff, as I think I have mentioned previously, sometimes less is more. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm really not trying to advertise here. I'm more than happy to comply with your standards and I appreciate your guidance. Matt43 ( talk) 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I took out some of the extra words that I agree were unneeded. I hope you'll find these changes satisfactory. Best! Matt43 ( talk) 17:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You clearly have a conflict of interest here, please read WP:COI and you are also a single propose account WP:SPA really it would be better if you stopped editing the article as when you are involved the additions are so conflicted that it actually is detrimental to the article, if you are one of the living people involved with the truth company please consider presenting your desired additions to the talkpage so that independent editors can assess them. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing I added is controversial in any way. It is all cited just as suggested by you. These are relevant places where Truthout reports have been cited. I'm not sure why this is a conflict of interest as it is sourced and undisputed. Matt43 ( talk) 17:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Its not going to be a list of pointless cites where truthout was mentioned, its an article about a online paper, full stop. This paper is this and that, all of this truthout was mentioned here and truthout was mentioned there is not notable and in the wrong location, if you want to add detail about the reporter then go to his article and add it there, as I said, this article is a simple little article about a omline mag, please don't fill it up with valueless tangential fluff that imo is detrimental to the article. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)