Talk:Daily Kos/Archive 2

message: Thanks everyone for continuing to observe civility and faith in other editors during this contentious period. It is my impression that there is a provisional consensus on the DK page to endorse the current Armando section. Most of the contrary edits have come from editors who have not participated in Talk. Some of the editors on the Armando article, however, do have different opinions. I think that it's important that we reach consensus on what the final form of the section will be, now that the deletion review has closed for the separate Armando article. See also discussion at Talk:Armando (blogger). My proposal is that we run three separate straw poll questions stated in the following manner for "support" or "oppose" responses by individual editors. It is my determination that these are issues with potentially separate resolutions, and that by breaking it down we are more likely to reach a consensus on each individually.
* First question: The real name of Armando should be included. (Support/Oppose)
* Second question: The link to the NR blog "outing" Armando should be included. (Support/Oppose)
* Third question: Specific information about Armando's employer and clientele should be included. (Support/Oppose)
:Note: This is not an actual survey. It is a proposed wording. Offer comments on the form, wording, or number of questions. It is probably not helpful to state your position at this time. 
A straw poll is not a vote, but an effort to weigh editorial positions and seek consensus. The effort to seek consensus by straw poll is an attempt to avoid a more protracted resolution via, for example, the arbitration committee. The relevant policies should be reviewed by all editors: verifiability, citation, reliable sources, biography, and particularly biographies of living persons. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However this ends up getting done, the inclusion of those things do not violate any of the relevant policies.  At the very least, the "outing" information should absolutely be included, and while I felt the other information was relevant to Armando's article, community consensus was overwhelmingly clear that he doesn't need his own article, so I feel no real huge reason to fight that battle here as no one other than the involved parties at Armando's article seemed to care.  Armando has appeared under his real name with a Kos association a number of times, and plenty of references can be seen at the history of his article, so the issue as to whether they fall within the necessary policies shouldn't be an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please confine your comments at this time to the form of the straw poll. Thanks for your cooperation. --Dhartung | Talk 16:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's impossible to have a straw poll when all the info isn't out there, so now it is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Armandoatdailykos, I fully understand that a) you are new to Wikipedia and b) that your concern is this matter and this matter alone. I ask you, nevertheless, to understand that Wikipedia operates by consensus, and that depends on a mutual good-faith assumption. I did not think you would be happy with my proposal, but if there are no other opinions forthcoming, I am willing to accept that the editors of this article are in consensus about the present wording, without any further discussion. I don't think that solves things for you in the long run, which a permanent consensus could have, but it's the best that any of us, as individual editors, can offer: trying to work toward a solution. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Because I have received only negative or off-topic responses, and we now have an open request for mediation, the straw poll is withdrawn. --Dhartung | Talk 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll proposal 

message: We cannot vote away policy.  I think it's fairly clear that Armando considers the information to be potnetially damaging to him.  Consequently, as per WP:BLP, it should not be in Wikipedia.  There is no compelling reason to include the information.  Even if he didn't consider it harmful, its inclusion would be marginal.  So there are three options - Armando can take this to Danny, we can take it to the arbcomm, or people can stop acting like stubborn teenagers and just drop the matter.  Shall we vote on this?  Guettarda 02:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's voting away policy.  To use a term I've seen elsewhere, there's a lot of handwaving about how information X, Y, or Z violates BLP, but no one has yet been able to demonstrate how, given the easy, reliable, third party sourcing.  Community consensus is that he doesn't deserve his own article, so the only question that remains is how much information is necessary to make this section of this article encyclopedic.  Certainly, at the very least, a discussion of the outing is in order. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean by that.  WP:BLP is clear.  Various people have quoted the applicable section.  You acknowledged the policy in your RFA, but chose to ignore it on this matter.  Guettarda 03:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean that no one has indicated how those situations were applicable in this instance.  Mostly because, as it's been beaten to death thus far, it's not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of policy says that we should include information that is harmful to the subject, while also being at best marginally relevant to the topic?  How do you interpret "do no harm" as compatible with this?  Guettarda 15:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well-sourced, widely-disseminated information is not harmful to the subject.  On 5 July, or 25 June for that matter, information published in a variety of well-known and well-regarded magazines, publicized on NPR, and since then distributed widely across the blogosphere is not harmful to the subject.  If we were talking about adding this information 6 months ago, when the knowledge of such things was marginal at best, we'd be in agreement on this issue.  With the amount of attention it has recieved since then, however, it's no longer a danger.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you prepared to bet your career on it? If you are wrong, will you promise to work only minimum wage jobs for the rest of your life? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were speaking as someone who's advertised his employment position in the past, and had his employment published in numerous reptable areas, I wouldn't be complaining that a Wikipedia entry was replicating the informaiton.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeff, are you trying to say that you are in a better position to judge the harmfulness of this information than is Armando?  Are you trying to say that you know as a fact that his reaction to the "outing" was unnecessary?  You have spoken to his clients and his bosses?  Can you provide some evidence of these conversations?  If not, please stop talking nonsense.  Guettarda 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Armando is significantly closer to the situation than we are, and that it very well could be clouding his judgement.  He's rightfully angry that the situation may have BEGAN on Wikipedia, but it's long PAST Wikipedia at this point.  We're no longer talking about material that exists in hearsay or unreliable sourcing, we're talking about information widely available from reliable third party sources.  For any anger over a Wikipedia entry that simply repeats what's already known by hundreds of thousands of people borders on the absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting spin, but you haven't answered my question.  You assert there is no problem here.  You fail to present information to support your position, such as your communications with his clients and bosses.  Please provide some evidence to support your assertion.  Guettarda 16:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would, of course, be impossible to do on many levels, both logistically and as a matter of reliable sourcing.  The fact simply remains that information published in a well-known, highly-circulated magazine being replicated here is not going to cause any harm, period.  WP:BLP considers that sort of information to be useful when it comes to biographies of living people.  Policy is clear, so your opposition continues to be puzzling on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Information which endangers a person's livelihood, but which isn't germane to the article shouldn't be in the article.  Policy is clear - do no harm.  You have stated before that you understand this.  If you don't have the proof mentioned about, I can only interpret your position as malicious.  Guettarda 03:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information no longer endangers anything by being in this article.  Since we're waiting on mediation, I see no reason to run around in this circle anymore - as I said below, I'll abide by what makes sense in the mediation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly my intent was to achieve consensus on the interpretation of policy in this matter, rather than making changes to policy or building support for any violation. To that end, I have no desire to proceed with a straw poll if the consensus already exists that the present text is the appropriate one. --Dhartung | Talk 03:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It occurs to me that the question of whether material is "derogatory" cannot be left to the subject of the article, nor can the question of whether information which might disturb the subject's privacy is relevant to the subject's notability and/or available from WP:RS.  In this case, in addition, the specific form of the "outing" in conference information and notable magazine's blogs might rationally be considered self-publication, and hence relevant to the claims that he was "outed" rather than revealing his own information, and then regretting it.  That being said ... I don't think his name is notable; I certainly don't think his employer or client's are relevant, and I'm open to whether the identity of the source of his "outing" (not Wikipedia, but the university's conference announcement and the magazine's blog, and possibly his other blog) should be listed. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note that the magazine blog refrences wikipedia as the primary source of it's information. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people need to realise that the Foundation can be sued, and that a substantial finding against the Foundation would likely make Wiki go bye-bye.  Is it really worthwhile, then, to maliciously endanger someone's livelihood and destroy Wikipedia in the process?  •Jim62sch• 20:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it doesn't.  The AfD merely showed a consensus that an article on Armando alone was unnecessary.  This poll (which, I'll note, does not reflect the opinions of all editors here, nor offer the correct options to reflect the opinions of many editors here) is not complete in any way.  I'll note that you *still* have yet to demonstrate "harm" or where the BLP violations are, and instead continue to edit war as opposed to making a legitimate case for your position. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry that I assumed that you were arguing to include the information. I guess only User:TDC, 05:41, 20 June 2006 and User:Ashley Pomeroy do. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like more than that from the edit summaries, not that this straw poll was ever set up to get an honest accounting to begin with.  Do you ever plan on justifying your position? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't intend to beat the dead horse again. Walk away, already. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the horse is dead, then by all means choose not to get involved any further.  Meanwhile, the rest of us who are interested in an accurate, encyclopedic article can continue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Finally, there comes a time when it is clear that the continuation of an argument is pointless. The other person almost always gives clues that they want to discontinue the conversation at this point. Pay attention to these clues and then simply agree to disagree, no matter how illogical they are being. No matter how long you persist, you won't "win" and the person will feel harassed, even if you are calm and reasonable." Kjkolb 11:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, as I said, by all means, choose not to get involved any further.  Leave it to those of us who do care. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Jeff needs to get over what for all intents and purposes appears to be an obsession with a semi-celebrity.  I wonder how Jeff would feel if he were in Armando's shoes?  Did Jeff even understand the meaning of Kjkolb's post?  Does Jeff really think that people will "choose not to get involved any further" so that he may once again cause harm?  Sad.  •Jim62sch• 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting away policy 

message: # — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drop the matter because the article is acceptable as it is, and bad cases make bad policy 

message: # Take it up with the arbitration committee rather than harassing other well intentioned editors.  That goes for everyone. Silensor 16:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drop the matter after a decision from [[WP:RFAr|Arbcomm]] 

message: #Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drop the matter after we waste [[WP:RFAr|Arbcomm]]'s time 

message: # Guettarda 02:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drop the matter now because we aren't really as stubborn as we are acting 

message: Let's be clear that the above poll, the AFD and everything else shows strong consensus not to reveal personal information of a not notable blogger. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't.  The AfD merely showed a consensus that an article on Armando alone was unnecessary.  This poll (which, I'll note, does not reflect the opinions of all editors here, nor offer the correct options to reflect the opinions of many editors here) is not complete in any way.  I'll note that you *still* have yet to demonstrate "harm" or where the BLP violations are, and instead continue to edit war as opposed to making a legitimate case for your position. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry that I assumed that you were arguing to include the information. I guess only User:TDC, 05:41, 20 June 2006 and User:Ashley Pomeroy do. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like more than that from the edit summaries, not that this straw poll was ever set up to get an honest accounting to begin with.  Do you ever plan on justifying your position? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't intend to beat the dead horse again. Walk away, already. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the horse is dead, then by all means choose not to get involved any further.  Meanwhile, the rest of us who are interested in an accurate, encyclopedic article can continue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Finally, there comes a time when it is clear that the continuation of an argument is pointless. The other person almost always gives clues that they want to discontinue the conversation at this point. Pay attention to these clues and then simply agree to disagree, no matter how illogical they are being. No matter how long you persist, you won't "win" and the person will feel harassed, even if you are calm and reasonable." Kjkolb 11:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, as I said, by all means, choose not to get involved any further.  Leave it to those of us who do care. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Jeff needs to get over what for all intents and purposes appears to be an obsession with a semi-celebrity.  I wonder how Jeff would feel if he were in Armando's shoes?  Did Jeff even understand the meaning of Kjkolb's post?  Does Jeff really think that people will "choose not to get involved any further" so that he may once again cause harm?  Sad.  •Jim62sch• 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More discussion

message: There are many here that would view as one of Armando’s personal privacy being violated by the disclosure of his name but it would seem to me that this is nothing more than an issue of what meets WP:V and WP:RS. The above arguments focus around whether or not the information was introduced in a malicious way to discredit Armando, but that is simply par for the course in the world and for Wikipedia as well. Many Wikipedia articles contain information of a personal nature that is damaging to the subject, but it is still included in the article. The Andrew Sullivan article and his “bare backing” add (ala Michael Musto, and more recently, the article on Crystal Gail Mangum both reveal damaging information on the subject as well as well as what could easily be considered malicious rumor mongering on the part of those who produce it. 
Why use Armando’s screen name when his real name is now a matter of public record? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really the case that Wikipedia has had, and then deleted, a piece of innocuous, verifiable, publicly-available information, in order to satisfy a person's whim? Because that's what it looks like to me. This Armando character deserves no leniency whatsoever; if he is to be a public figure, he is to be a public figure. If these people want to swim with sharks, they had better grease themselves. He cannot hide behind a fake name. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would add that the inclusion of whatever is verifiable via third party, like Slate or TNR is fair game in this context. He lost his anonymity the instant he became a well know and well read contributor to one of the most widely read and influential blogs on the net. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A View on the “Armando” issue from a long time lurker 

message: If you must violate policy by including private info of a not-notable blogger, please do not use salacious links to non-RS blogs or primary sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No policy has been violated in the inclusion of said information.  If you have issues with individual sources, then please note which ones are not good enough so we can replace them.  Do not invoke policy falsely in your edit summaries in order to revert in the future, however.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Inclusion of a link to "Outside the Beltway" is a not-accetable blog. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we can easily fix that.  I thought I had clicked the link to the National Review, perhaps I did not.  Why didn't you fix the link as opposed to reverting wholesale, as you take issue with one small aspect of my additions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Finally, there comes a time when it is clear that the continuation of an argument is pointless. The other person almost always gives clues that they want to discontinue the conversation at this point. Pay attention to these clues and then simply agree to disagree, no matter how illogical they are being. No matter how long you persist, you won't "win" and the person will feel harassed, even if you are calm and reasonable." Kjkolb 11:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you keep posting that, yet still continue to war over it.  If you want to take it to a mediation session, I'll be glad to participate.  If not, then please leave it to those of us who want to be involved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Possibly because you are missing the point. •Jim62sch• 21:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  10 editors have voted AGAINST Badlydrawnjeff in this matter. Yet he will not drop this.--8bitJake 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only 8, and many have chosen to not take part in the flawed straw poll. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Point of order. The straw poll was a proposal for a straw poll, and if you were unhappy with it, you were welcome to make suggestions on improving. Instead, you chose to argue the issue. Since I got no input, and now RFM is involved, the straw poll is withdrawn. It was never open for voting. --Dhartung | Talk 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason I haven't voted is because as the saying goes, "polls are evil", and I honestly did not fully agree with any of the choices presented.  That, and two editors here which need not be named have been bullying those who do not agree with their skewed interpretation of a guideline.  Since I do not believe this matter is a "waste of time", I've slightly amended one of the options that is closest to what I believe should happen next, and if that change is reverted then please remove me from this vote all together.  Silensor 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you must violate policy 

message: I have filied a request for meditiation regarding the ongoing issues regarding WP:BLP at WP:RFM. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent.  Thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And, for the record, I make a vow right now to abide by the results of the mediation in this case, regardless as to whether it results in what I prefer to see.  I hope the other folks battling over this can make the same promise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, I was ready to withdraw the straw poll as it was. --Dhartung | Talk 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to get myself involved in the edit war, but perhaps a temporary WP:RFP is in order for this page? Aside from the Armando edit war, the page hasn't been updated in over a week and could do with a cooling down period until the mediation can take place. --Bobblehead 17:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already requested it before you left this comment.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Must have crossed paths. I checked RFP before I made the comment. *laugh* --Bobblehead 18:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What leads you to believe that any of the editors involved on the include side of this edit war are in any way interested in improving the encyclopedia as opposed to winning their blogslapfest? Provide diffs. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This question does not deserve any sort of reasonable answer. Completely inappropriate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because Thumbalina and Bubba Ditto have demonstrated they are are keeping track of the talk page, right, through their substantial discussions here, right? I mean, they're clearly interested in improving the encyclopedia. I woudn't DARE impugn their motives or methods! Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CIVIL, please.  You've been warned before.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can get them to comment on this talk page, without contacting them outside of this talk page, on the substantive issue I will issue a complete and abject apology. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thumbelina's left a couple comments on this talk page.  I don't know anything about Bubba, nor should it matter.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFM 

message: So Jeff you wouldn't mind me posting your name and where you live around here would you?--8bitJake 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fairly public knowledge, and I'm not sure how germane it is. I don't go around hiding it, though, so it wouldn't make a difference if you did or not - anyone who wants to know the information can find it without too much effort. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The data isn't fake, although I haven't updated the phone number in particular.  I'm unlikely to, since my primary line is a cell phone and I don't want to waste minutes on nonsense.   --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Go for it.  If you want your phone number that you pay minutes for exposed to scammers and spammers, that's your business, I'll pass. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Good for you.  I hope it works out, I, meanwhile, know I'm responsible for the level of privacy I expect.  Either way, this has veered OT, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This thread is really close to being Godwinized. Please, let's focus more closely on the facts of this particular case. Jonathunder 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 8bitJake, you might want to review WP:AGF. --18.252.6.136 02:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Privacy sidetrack

message: Edit warring doesn't really justify page protection for extended periods, and there hasn't been much discussion on the issue.  Accordingly I'm lifting protection; there are more fine-grained ways of dealing with edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of discussion is due to the awaiting mediation on the subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope that a lack of edit warring will accrue from the same circumstance. --Tony Sidaway 01:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotecting 

message: Offered without comment: Issue of article subjects requesting deletion taken up, from Wikipedia Signpost--Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signpost 

message: Is it really appropriate that the comment about the Fallujah controversy be placed in the lead of the article?  --George100 01:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. The article is basically one big freep-fest in its current form. I'm going to try to work on this. Chris Cunningham 13:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallujah controversy 

message: Knocked Template:Infobox weblog up quickly. Surprised there wasn't one already, actually. Feel free to make it considerably less rubbish than it currently is. Chris Cunningham 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: This new section claims, "Daily Kos published" this, but it's just a dairy. The statement implies that Kos himself posted the video or that it is somehow official.  --George100 00:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The video was published on the frontpage though, I reworded that so it doesn't imply anything else. /Slarre 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every diary on Daily Kos starts "on the frontpage" on the right hand list of diaries. (The wider column on the left is for Kos and the contributing editors or "front pagers"). The diary in question was one of nearly 100 so far today (as of 4/16/2007 6:38 PM PDT). All diaries start at the top of the list and move down as newer diaries are posted unless a sufficent number of readers "recommend" the diary. This one has 50 comments (not all in agreement) and a handful of recommends. It's not significant enough to keep. I'm going to remove it.Vgranucci 01:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good call. There are catblogging threads which lasted longer on the front page. Chris Cunningham 09:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say that the publication of a strongly antisemitic video, originating from a white supremacist neo-Nazi website, on the frontpage of one of the most popular US political websites, is quite remarkable to say the least. Still the site's owners, who of course have the utmost responsibility on what's published on the frontpage of their website, hasn't condemned the publication. This has created lots of attention and criticism in the blogosphere, so it's definitely notable. There have also been previous postings on the website featuring anti-Semitic graphic content, which also gained much attention and was reported in the Israel National Television , and other examples. I think these should be mentioned under a common section, perhaps "Examples of antisemitic postings" or something similar. /Slarre 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose you wait until reliable sources think it's important, not just sworn enemies. --Dhartung | Talk 02:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were jews that pointed out other jews in hiding during WW II, so I think arguing this point is a lost cause.  There will be plenty of people to excuse the anti-semitic video here and attribute it to anything but the simple fact that it was there.  Why is it an issue? It is anti-semitic and it appeared on the website.  That should be it.  It isn't POV to report the article under controversies "An anti-semitic video was added to the website via the diary of a user named ??????. "  It is fact.  75.50.255.141 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that this particular diary simply didn't have enough impact to be significant. Vgranucci 19:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Daily_Kos#Antisemitic_propaganda_video|Antisemitic propaganda video]] - POV 

message: Is a mainstream media source that refers to a blog posting considered more reliable than the blog itself? If not, then a better citation needs to be found for the "other criticism" section, since the only source for the Israeli National News story is Little Green Footballs Vgranucci 15:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the media cites an article than the article should be included along with media coverage. This is what I have been trying to do by including a link to the article and its comments page, but it keeps getting deleted. A reference to an original source (in this case the blog itself) as evidence of what it is actually saying cannot be deemed an unreliable source. For example, I added a link to this article's comments section, because the overwhelming bulk of comments denounced this particular diary. Someone deleted this as an unreliable source. How can it be unreliable, it is a full copy of the comments themselves? Wikipediatoperfection 01:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its unreliable according to wp:rs. Also the youtube link should not be used as it too is not a proper source. The stuff about O'Reilly can be removed unless it comes from a 3rd party reliable source. Wikipedia is not a blog and is not about the "truth". Its about presenting already, established, peer revieved material. Thanks, --Tom 12:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: www.dailykos.com/ doesn't seem to work.  Did the republicans kill it? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had also problems to access the main site. Though after I googled an article and entered that way on dailykos, I have no longer problems to access the main site directly. McLar eng 20:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant...Take your technical issues elsewhere...Rabrams20 06:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The site itself 

message: DailyKos Diaries are barely mentioned, and the diaries are really what propelled the site to success because it basically became the place to hang out for the anti-war left.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldthoughts (talk • contribs) 00:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the diaries are a significant reason for the site's growth, as it was very distinctive among other political blogs at the time, and to some extent still is. The user-generated content gave people a reason to invest in the site and keep coming back to read, post and comment on it all. I agree that the diaries deserve more attention in the article. I'm not sure to what extent the anti-war movement could be pinpointed as the reason for their popularity, though, as plenty of other topics are discussed in diaries, and the popular Democratic Underground forums and other sites would probably be considered more of a core home of the "anti-war left." Some highly recommended Daily Kos diaries have even been critical of some aspects of the anti-war left, such as Cindy Sheehan. I certainly would consider the vast, practically unanimous majority of Daily Kos users to be anti-war, though. 69.3.70.220 16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diaries? 

message: Has Kos Media released profit/loss statements or anything resembling how much revenue it makes?  Also, does the site share the profit and who is employed by Kos Media? AstralisLux (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profit 

message: Is this a real controversy? An offensive troll post was created and then deleted. I don't see what the controversy is. This is irrelevent and I'm deleting it.  -Tintagel5555  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintagel555 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Heine 

message: Does it make sense to take a supposed quotation of Bill O'Reilly from a liberal website? It is likely out of context. Do think he seriously thinks Daily Kos members are Devil Worshippers? Sheesh. Maybe he does, I don't know. Chenzo23 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Reilly Quotation 

message: Moulitsas didn't really call the primary process "civil war" but rather implied that the consequences of the "coup by superdelegate" would be civil war.  The way it is phrased in the article makes it seem like his criticism is of the primary process instead of Senator Clinton's tactics. Ketchomal (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 Primary 

message: The opening paragraph says that Daily Kos gives a "socialist" POV. I think this is problematic for a number of reasons.  First of all "socialist" can be interpreted by many to have negative connotations and as the wikipedia definition of the term suggests, this is term has been used by a wide variety of people to mean different things.  "Socialist" is a vague and loaded term. 
Second, I'm not sure everyone who participates in the Kos community would agree that it is "socialist" regardless of what definition is used.  This being said, I agree with the general spirit of characterizing the overarching philosophy of Daily Kos, I think "liberal progressive" would work better. Thoughts? --Geo19 4 (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was petty vandalism. I've reverted to the un-vandalised version and warned the user. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should have realized it was vandalism... haha. Thanks for fixing it! --Geo19 4 (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialist Point of View? 

message: Google the words: daily kos. Here is the self-description. "Daily weblog with political analysis on US current events from a liberal perspective." Let's just be honest and call it a liberal website, I understand that liberals often hide behind the 'progressive' label but Kos is just completely liberal by its own admission, not progressive. Big difference between seeking new and/or progressive solutions and seeking the same old liberal solutions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.207.29 (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  liberal vs progressive 

message: Is this really necessary? We're talking about the most-trafficked political website in the US. At some point everyone will have posted a diary. Chris Cunningham 09:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DailyKos has reorganized as a true group blog.  I've added a section for the contributing editors.  At the moment, I've left the old list of contributors in, but it should probably be replaced with the contributing editors, with perhaps a shortened list of 'Famous Contributors' added in, with appropriate links.Herdsire 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this why List articles were created? Why not move it to List of prominent DailyKos contributors?  --Bobblehead 00:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that there's an official Core Contributors list, the way is open. Chris Cunningham 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of contributors 

message: Daily Kos has received the Colbert bump.
What is a Colbert bump? Is this a US-centric thing? Snuff3r 08:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: This is an important piece of the article that's been given short shrift--I put in the basics, but I'm sure that what I've written can be improved, expanded upon, and given references--I invite people to jump in and edit here! Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Section 

message: This section seems to have been written almost entirely by User:Kossack4Truth who describes himself as a member of the Daily Kos. Is there a conflict of interest? The event also strikes me as being of fleeting interest, almost gossip, and not essential to understanding the Daily Kos. Life.temp (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If Kossack is a member of Daily Kos, that doesn't necessarily preclude him from editing this article. As for the amount of weight given the "controversy".. You're probably right. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have kind of noticed that what the mainstream public terms as fleeting, User:Kossack4Truth feels is direly important that we need to know.  Also, I've read the blog, article, and his edits and I highly doubt he is a Liberal or a Democrat.  Brothejr (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama Clinton Controversy 

message: Let's not let this be a lame edit war.
The original version of the lede went as follows:
Daily Kos () is an American political blog, publishing news and opinion from a liberal or progressive point of view.
Some time ago, the usual vandalism occured where someone went and swapped in "socialist/communist" in place of "liberal", and it wasn't reverted properly. Now, user:Dr. America has decided to change it (variously) to "left wing" or "extreme left wing".
This should be reverted to the original version, which is neutral and goes by what the site itself states. One that's settled, I'm going to removed the  tag, because the rest of the article is fine.
People, please don't feed the trolls. If a change is continually reverted back in, warn and then report the user. Continually reverting back will only make it harder to restore order.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjectives in the lede 

message: What does "kos" mean? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The name derives from Markos Moulitsas' nickname "Kos" Vgranucci (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: We are in the process of creating pages for SB Nation and Congress Matters, and will add references on this article to those sites, as well as adding references within this site to "Street Prophets" and "Mother Talkers", which aren't quite notable enough for their own pages. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Street Prophets and Mother Talkers 

message: Why is there no mention of Bill O'Reilly & the Nazi comparisons and the coverage about it on The Colbert Report? Both are notable shows and probably the most mainstream coverage the blog has gotten. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Reilly & Colbert 

message: I have been a member of DailyKos for a few years, and I do know this aspect of site mechanics very well.  There are no "power users," and no members have the ability to "edit, delete, or otherwise prohibit diaries and responses posted by ordinary members."
What we do have is "trusted users."  This status can be achieved by absolutely anyone at all, simply by having a history of their comments being well rated by other users.  These trusted users have the ability to do two, and only two, things:
1) They can vote to "hide" a comment.  This is more commonly known by users as "troll rating" a comment.  This is done when the user feels the comment is offensive or breaks site rules.  When a comment receives two or more such ratings, it is hidden from view from most casual visitors to the site, but can still be seen by the thousands of "trusted users."  If other users disagree, they can "uprate" the comment and the comment will once again become visible.  At no stage in this process is the comment deleted -- this is impossible and no one has this ability.  Important note: This procedure applies only to comments.  No one has the power to "hide" or "troll rate" a diary post.  Once posted, a diary is there forever, visible to anyone and everyone.
2) They can also make changes to the tags of other users' diary posts.  This is done when the original poster has made a typo, broken the understood tagging conventions, or has left out an important tag that would help other users find the post.
No one, not even these trusted users, has the power to delete content or prevent someone from posting.  The only thing that can prevent a user from posting is being banned from the site.  This happens when someone has received so many troll ratings that an automatic procedure, known as "autoban," kicks in.  Site administrators also have the power to ban users for serious breaches of site rules (such as "outing" a user who prefers to remain anonymous, or making threats).  Even once a user is banned, none of their diary posts or comments are deleted, as no one has the power to do so. And no one, not even an administrator, has the ability to edit content except the person who posted it.173.61.3.79 (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No such thing as "power users." 

message: Dailykos participation is declining.  I edited to reflect this but the bot would not accept my source. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/23/1102592/-It-s-Only-Numbers-the-DailyKos-Decline
I also wanted to add some info on Dailykos banning policy but without allowing Dailykos as a source this is not so easy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisy496 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declining participation on Dailykos 

message: On this page, could the following text:
Category:Protected redirects
...please be replaced with the following text:

...so that the redirect is is put into the category via a tranclusion in an Rcat template rather than a category transclusion? Thanks!
Steel1943 (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 12 October 2014 

message: I have removed a number of unsourced comments and items not in line with various WP policies. I believe this one might be a little more controversial than some other removals I've recently made, and I have no significant knowledge of Daily Kos itself, not being a reader myself. Someone with significantly more knowledge might be able to restore, re-write and re-source. Some of the items I removed DID add to the article [though most didn't], but there were weasel words and lack of sources. I didn't want someone to think I was just indiscriminantly nuking massive sections of the article. SourAcidHoldout (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section called "guest bloggers" should really be called "front pagers". That's what they're called and they're not really guests. Popish Plot (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 2015-04-18 Changes to remove various items

message: Recently, the emails Daily Kos sends out under the title "Daily Kos Recommended" have, not only the usual Daily Kos diary posts, but also entries such as "It is an outrage that many women still make less than men in 2015. Stand with Hillary Clinton and fight to close the wage gap once and for all." Clicking on the link leads to a "Stand with Hillary" Daily Kos "Campaign". I'd be very happy if this Wikipedia article included information on Daily Kos campaigns - who starts them and what they're about. In particular, I'd love to know if this is the first time the Daily Kos has endorsed a presidential candidate prior to the presidential primaries! Of course, as with a lot of other information about the Daily Kos, it's hard to cite a source without using online references such as https://www.dailykos.com/campaigns/1528. Page Notes (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Kos campaigns and presidential endorsements 

message: Where does Daily Kos get its polling from for the 2016 Presidential election?  It says that a couple of years ago it fired Research2000 as its pollster.  I read the New York Times polling summary, and it includes Daily Kos's numbers, but they are of very different state-to-state from other pollsters, so I was just curious where DK's polling numbers come from so that I could look into the methodology and figure out why there are variances from other polls.  This surely has been discussed on Daily Kos, but I have never read it.  Thanks in advance to anybody who knows.Betathetapi545 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does Daily Kos get its polling from for the 2016 Presidential election? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Daily Kos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614131419/http://www.chicagoreader.com:80/features/stories/georgia10/ to http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/georgia10/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Daily Kos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090120200727/http://www.cceia.org/resources/journal/22_4/essays/002.html to http://www.cceia.org/resources/journal/22_4/essays/002.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Daily Kos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808063542/http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmRiMjNiMDI3N2FjNGFmMzk1OGVlMzliNGZmN2Y2NzM%3D to http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmRiMjNiMDI3N2FjNGFmMzk1OGVlMzliNGZmN2Y2NzM%3D
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828183603/http://slata.stanford.edu/ConferenceArchive/law_and_technology_2005/speakers.htm to http://slata.stanford.edu/ConferenceArchive/law_and_technology_2005/speakers.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114124116/http://www.downeast.com/index.php/page/issues/id/2512 to http://www.downeast.com/index.php/page/issues/id/2512
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619083645/http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=Issue%2CMP&ArchiveDays=100&Page=2 to http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=Issue%2CMP&ArchiveDays=100&Page=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505053440/http://www.congressmatters.com/ to http://congressmatters.com/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/georgia10/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100304135613/http://kossacksnetworking.ning.com/ to http://www.kossacksnetworking.ning.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is my first edit at Wikipedia.  I am a Daily Kos user, blogger, and a reader. I have concerns that this Wikipedia page does not reflect the philosophical and political change happening at Daily Kos.  Significant changes began taking shape in 2014.  I need to do more research, and come back with links from Markos statements beginning in 2014.  My concern is that the Wikipedia page is misleading.  Please bare with me as I research this issue.  I will return.  Thank you. Ajaradom (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough, I'm very too late to discussing this topic, But I agree with you that blog site has been changed for while now, So I will finally removing a Category from them as result. User:Chad The Goatman (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorsement of Hillary Clinton, 2016 Presidential Candidate and Markos' Site Decree of March 15, 2016 

message: I been agree someone up there that site has changed in last three years, And I want someone to update its political stance with sources from site itself and secondary sources to kinda proving it or creating some section of it to see as more ideologically Social Liberal with some Centrist elements and more Pro-Democrat propaganda-like than self-subscribing Progressivism with former less Pro-Democrat beliefs in last ten years. User:Chad The Goatman (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this page needs to be updated and expanded based on current state of blog site 

message: Daily Kos is a group blog and internet forum focused on the Democratic Party and liberal American politics.
The below edits may be needed to more accurately reflect Daily Kos.
--
Guest bloggers: The guest bloggers in 2015 are incorrect -- these were all Daily Kos staff and not Contributing Editors: "2015: Josie Duffy, Thandisizwe Chimurenga, Vann R. Newkirk II"
Same section also has outdated (or incomplete) info on Armando, not mentioning the fact he's since returned: "For two months, Armando would resurface periodically, and all of his comments were accompanied by a signature line stating that he would be returning to blogging in December 2006. Armando did indeed resurface, albeit under a user ID, "Big Tent Democrat," in September 2006. Armando "Big Tent Democrat" then left the Daily Kos site again in March 2007, citing "differences with the Management."
Addition per below to accurately reflect state/outcome of lawsuit. It should say:
"Daily Kos had previously partnered with Research 2000 to produce nonpartisan polling for presidential, congressional and gubernatorial races across the country. In June 2010, Daily Kos terminated the relationship after finding their data showed statistical anomalies consistent with deliberate falsification[14] and announced its intention to sue the polling firm.[15][16]
On November 30, 2010, an agreement to a settlement began as lawyers for the Plaintiff filed a status report indicating that both parties were “in agreement as to the contours of a proper settlement but are still in the process of determining whether the execution of the proposed terms is feasible."[17] In May 2011, The Huffington Post reported that the lawsuit had been settled with Research 2000 pollster Del Ali making payments to Daily Kos.[18] In July 2012, however, a default judgement of over US$350,000 was entered against the defendant."
The "funding" section is outdated and no longer correct: "It is financially sustained by advertising, with Google AdSense and Blogads. [...]  The site also offers an ad-free subscription to members."
It should say: "Daily Kos is financially sustained through lead generation, ad swaps, sponsored content, and donations. The site also offers an ad-free subscription to members."
Meow panda (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections needed to Daily Kos page 

message: *Your edit request could not be reviewed because in a portion of your requested text it is unclear which references are connected to which claim statements. 
When proposing edit requests it is important to highlight in the text, through the use of ref tags, which specific sources are doing the referencing for each claim. The point of these inline ref tags is to allow the reviewer and readers to check that the material is sourced; that point will be lost if the ref tags are not clearly placed. In the collapsed section below titled Request edit examples, I have illustrated two: The first shows how the edit request was submitted; the second shows how requests should be submitted in the future. 
 
The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[14] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.[16]
References
----
      1. Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018, p. 1.
      2. Harinath, Paramjit. "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.
      3. Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2018, p. 2.
In the example above there are three references provided. Numbers within brackets are shown in the requested prose (e.g., [14], [16], etc.). These numbers do not link to any of the references listed, as their numbers (14 and 16) are higher in value than the number of references shown (three). Your edit request similarly contains numbers within brackets, and the numbers do not correspond with the numbers listed in the references section of the talk page. The links between material and their source references must be more clearly made, as shown in the next example below:
The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.[3]
References
----
^ Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2018, p. 1.
^ Harinath, Paramjit. "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.
^ Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2018, p. 2.
In the example above the links between the provided references and their claim statement ref tags are perfectly clear.
Kindly reformulate your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example above, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. Regards,  Spintendo  18:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 28-MAR-2019

message: Daily Kos is a group blog and internet forum focused on the Democratic Party and liberal American politics.
The below edits may be needed to more accurately reflect Daily Kos.
--
Guest bloggers: The guest bloggers in 2015 are incorrect -- these were all Daily Kos staff and not Contributing Editors: "2015: Josie Duffy, Thandisizwe Chimurenga, Vann R. Newkirk II"
Same section also has outdated (or incomplete) info on Armando, not mentioning the fact he's since returned: "For two months, Armando would resurface periodically, and all of his comments were accompanied by a signature line stating that he would be returning to blogging in December 2006. Armando did indeed resurface, albeit under a user ID, "Big Tent Democrat," in September 2006. Armando "Big Tent Democrat" then left the Daily Kos site again in March 2007, citing "differences with the Management."
Addition per below to accurately reflect state/outcome of lawsuit. It should say:
"Daily Kos had previously partnered with Research 2000 to produce nonpartisan polling for presidential, congressional and gubernatorial races across the country. In June 2010, Daily Kos terminated the relationship after finding their data showed statistical anomalies consistent with deliberate falsification and announced its intention to sue the polling firm.
On November 30, 2010, an agreement to a settlement began as lawyers for the Plaintiff filed a status report indicating that both parties were “in agreement as to the contours of a proper settlement but are still in the process of determining whether the execution of the proposed terms is feasible." In May 2011, The Huffington Post reported that the lawsuit had been settled with Research 2000 pollster Del Ali making payments to Daily Kos. In July 2012, however, a default judgement of over US$350,000 was entered against the defendant."
The "funding" section is outdated and no longer correct: "It is financially sustained by advertising, with Google AdSense and Blogads. [...]  The site also offers an ad-free subscription to members."
It should say: "Daily Kos is financially sustained through lead generation, ad swaps, sponsored content, and donations. The site also offers an ad-free subscription to members."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meow panda (talk • contribs) 15:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections needed for Daily Kos page (modified)

message: Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request.  Spintendo  16:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 30-MAR-2019