User talk:Srlichter

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Srlichter, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DickClarkMises (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CMPA[edit]

Hi Dr. Lichter,

Thanks for taking the time to get in touch. I intended no offense by the changes I made, and I'm sure we can work together towards a mutual understanding. Wikipedia is definitely an interesting place; I've been editing since 2004 or so and I'm still learning all of the intricate nuances of the collective dynamic. I also have a lot in common with your situation... I've been partner in a website that became an internet phenomenon, which initially led me to Wikipedia in 2004 or so. I must admit I approached things very differently in the early years, and it took some time for me to learn the rules (both written and unwritten) regarding conflict of interest and a neutral point of view. In the end, the article was deleted due to sourcing problems. I don't have time at the moment to detail all of the issues I see in the CMPA article at the moment (will work on that soon), but I think there is an overall tendency in the article to use sources as a primary source upon which to draw a conclusion. Wikipedia has a policy against original research, which requires secondary sources that deal with the subject. In many cases it seems like a study the CMPA performed was cited as an example used to state a fact or draw a conclusion about the organization itself, which may be afoul of our rule against synthesis. Also, there seems to be a decidedly biased way in which some information is/was presented (for example, overly broad and unnecessary characterizations, emphasis placed on responding to or attempting to discredit critics, etc.). Hopefully I'll have some time to work with you to find a consensus regarding the article, and I may ask for community assistance, because honestly I know there are many opinions other than my own and I do not wish to unduly influence the article. Give me a while to work on codifying my concerns, and feel free to get in touch with any comments or questions you have (about the article, or about deciphering Wikipedia). Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up - I haven't forgotten about the CMPA article, but I have been a little busier than I expected for the past few weeks. Thanks for your patience. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the media elite[edit]

Started a new article, The Media Elite, which you may be interested in editing. It is very basic now, with a lot of the material adapted from the 1993 national review article. I will continue to work on it, but I thought you should have a heads up. PStrait (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 23:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]