Talk:Newsmax/Archive 1

message: Did it publish a fake photo of Kerry giving the finger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.23 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kerry Finger

message: I am not saying that the quoted comments are imbalanced or biased. Instead what I am suggesting is that adjectives used in the article to describe terms be made neutral. 
Examples:
:
Original word                                                            	>>	
Suggested replacement
ultra-conservative                                                       	>>	conservative
...the project created unease with the rank of conservatives because many	>>	...the project created unease with the ranks of conservatives. According to the Washington Post,
unabashedly right-wing                                                   	>>	right-wing
Many people have accused NewsMax of being a hub of                       	>>	NewsMax has been accused of being a hub of
Newsmax started an rumor                                                 	>>	Newsmax was the source for a rumor
printed a smear article titled                                           	>>	printed a inaccurate article titled
I think those changes would resolve my pov issues. I would have made them myself however I wanted to discuss it first. -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 09:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsMax misinformation. Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NewsMax misinformation]] merged here 

message: Juding by an email I recived on the helpdesk NewsMax.com object to the content of this article and may be planning to change it. Please be nice to them.Geni — Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 19 January 2006‎
: What exactly do they object to? Have they proposed changes? I have reverted some blanking that reads like an ad for the website. Arbustoo 21:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: email recived on helpdesk

message: ===Coretta Scott King===
"Oh, the Inconvenience! Oh, the Humanity!
Someone brought up the possibility of a devastating consequence of the new security measures at our airports. Coretta Scott King may actually have to go through airport security at Hartsfield!
Many of you don't know it, but Atlanta taxpayers pay for almost 24-hour police "protection" for Coretta. When she flies out of town she gets a police escort to the airport – through the gate – out on the tarmac – and right to the airplane. When she gets on the airplane, her traveling aide informs the flight attendants that they are not permitted to speak directly to Mrs. King. They are to relay their instructions and their questions to the aide, who will then speak with Ms. King and respond on her behalf. I've talked to people who have been told to get off an elevator because Mrs. King wished to use it and didn't want anyone else on the elevator with her."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  useful? 

message: "Oh, the Inconvenience! Oh, the Humanity!
Someone brought up the possibility of a devastating consequence of the new security measures at our airports. Coretta Scott King may actually have to go through airport security at Hartsfield!
Many of you don't know it, but Atlanta taxpayers pay for almost 24-hour police "protection" for Coretta. When she flies out of town she gets a police escort to the airport – through the gate – out on the tarmac – and right to the airplane. When she gets on the airplane, her traveling aide informs the flight attendants that they are not permitted to speak directly to Mrs. King. They are to relay their instructions and their questions to the aide, who will then speak with Ms. King and respond on her behalf. I've talked to people who have been told to get off an elevator because Mrs. King wished to use it and didn't want anyone else on the elevator with her."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coretta Scott King

message: An anonymous contributor added a press release which of course has no place in an encyclopedia. In addition, the repetiton of false claims is now removed. When claims are demonstrably false, it serves no purpose to repeat the falsehoods, except to spread what is said to be false. skywriter 03:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of press release and repetition of false claims

message: This article has been stubbed and protected pending resolution of POV issues. Danny 19:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They cant very well be resolved when hardly anyone can edit it, can they? Are you using WP:OFFICE here, or protecting anything you don't like the look of? -Splashtalk 15:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've unprotected it, please be explicit when using WP:OFFICE. Otherwise I assume this was a normal administrative action, which would be inappropriate.--Eloquence* 17:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely with Eloquence. When WP:OFFICE is not cited, Danny is just another admin, and as such, this is an inappropriate protection. Danny, when I first complained about WP:OFFICE on Jack Thompson, it was because there was not enough transparency. You have apparently reacted by further removing what transparency there was. This is not acceptable, and I find it completely unacceptable that you have de-opped and indefinitely blocked Eloquence for doing, without a WP:OFFICE citation, nothing wrong. --Golbez 19:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's all take a deep breath. Eloquence probably made a mistake. Danny overreacted. Let's act like adults, declare a "do over", and let everyone make better choices on the next go-around. -- strom (unbiased, non-article-contributing #wikipedia idler/dispute-settler)
Appearently Danny protected the page as an office action, as it's project page states. However, the protected template was a normal template. Just to make it more clear for those who may unprotect on accident, I changed the template to . --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 02:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, being the #17 most visited site on the Internet means that you attract a lot of attention, and some of the people whose attention you have have (a) lots of money and (b) lawyers.  Hence, there are going to be situations where the needs to protect the Foundation, which generously provides you with this playground in which to run around in and have fun, require that things happen that cannot be publicly explained to you.  If you don't like it, go find another playground. Kelly Martin (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still curious what kind of harm the office tag could do to this project, tho. Where's the difference between a protected substub and an officially protected substub? --Conti|✉ 13:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection