| Revision as of 21:48, 3 November 2011 editDualus (talk | contribs)2,472 edits →Tinychat?: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:51, 3 November 2011 edit undoThe Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk | contribs)4,684 edits Undid revision 458877249 by Dualus (talk) nah - ain't got nothing to hideNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ] (]) 01:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ] (]) 01:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == Tinychat? == | |||
| Do you think it might help to communicate via ]? ] (]) 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:51, 3 November 2011
Wynton Marsalis
Saw you previously doing some work on the criticisms section trying to clean it up some. I put a POV tag on it and think it needs some more work, my thoughts are on the talk page. Wanted to get some input before having at it. --WGFinley (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, but couldn't agree more, and I noticed that I removed your POV tag. That was a mistake. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Media Matters tax-exempt controversy
Hey there. I have no problem with moving this to the "controversy" section. As I said, depending on the outcome of this petition it may eventually belong in the lead. However, if you look at the http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/08/05/what-irs-will-rely-on-in-dealing-with-media-matters/ site sourced you will see a photocopy of the actual petition filed by the law firm Boyden Grey and Associates with the IRS. This is a "reliable source" for making it a "formal petition", which is also exactly what the cited source calls it, so I've made that change. I've also removed the "shortly after 30 segments" comment at the beginning for being NPOV, unless it is balanced with the number of articles MMfA filed attacking FOXNews and NewsCorp during that timeframe to balance things out. Thanks! SeanNovack (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
citations
Hi, may I gently nudge you to fill in citations rather than using bare URLs? As the template atop Media Matters for America says, such citations' verifiability is threatened by link rot, plus they're plain ugly and uninformative. Thanks, Rostz (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
You've misunderstood - the templates don't prevent links from going dead (impractical), they help editors subsequently find replacements for them if they do go dead. Rostz (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Signature link
It looks like your new signature does not link back to your userpage (see WP:SIGLINK). This makes things just a bit more inconvenient for the rest of us. If you put the text ] in the signature box in your preferences, it should fix the matter with only minor changes to the display. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 00:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)