User talk:Publishtruth

Dear Editors:

1) The Obama-Muslim controversy is once again in the news due to a controversial front page story published by the Washington Post on the rumors regarding Obama's Mulsim background. Here are two links with key responses from Insight. There is a link to an op-ed published in the New York Sun in which Mr. Kuhner reports on the incorrect journalism surrounding this controversy. The other is another column produced in Insight which demands a correction from The Washington Post, CNN, and New York Times on the recurring distortions regarding Insight's story of January 16th, 2007. I will let your editors decipher the key points therein and update the information in Wikipedia:

Washington Watch: Our focus was Hillary, not Obama's Muslim background: http://www.insight-report.com/2007/071211/washwatch.html

The New York Sun: The Liberal Media and the Obama Muslim Controversy The Fifth Estate By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

http://www.nysun.com/article/67895

2) I suggest you invert the order of the sections you have on controversies: put the Web controversies first and the print controversies second because the print controversies are distant and have no bearing on the revived Insight.

Thank you! Publishtruth (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)publishtruth Dec. 12, 2007[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Publishtruth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

"Dear Editors" letter moved to where editors will see it[edit]

Conversation re: Insight magazine moved to Talk:Insight_(magazine)#Conversation_moved_from_talk:Publishtruth

Don't bite the noobs[edit]

Please stop editing the pages for Jeffrey T. Kuhner and Insight (magazine) until some consensus can be built. Because you are a new user, you may not be familiar with Wikipedia rules. However, it is clear to me that your efforts and those by User:Jkuhner are coordinated or made by sockpuppets, and could constitute vandalism or violate neutral point of view. If you continue to make disruptive edits in an effort to bias articles on Wikipedia, all of which have been edited with consensus from Wikipedia editors with a variety of views, your IP address could be banned from editing Wikipedia. Please provide citations for your edits. Unsupported information will be promptly removed.Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment on the talk page of Insight magazine

Dear Editors: I wish to apologize for the misunderstanding earlier. Both publishtruth and jkuhner were first-time users and did not know how Wikipedia works. We will respect the process and did not mean to disrupt the site; we thought we just had to keep loading the information until it got through. We will provide verifiable links in the next while to a great deal of information your readers need in order to form their own judgements on these vital matters. However, we will be on our guard to prevent the text from giving credence to many of the smears and distortions which have been propagated by both the liberal press and supporters of Hillary due to a blockbuster story which we produced which unveiled her use of investigative reporters in an attempt to dig up dirt on Obama and derail his campaign. We will not tolerate a biased representation of either Mr. Kuhner's name (he has an outstanding reputation) nor of Insight whose reporting has NOT been disproven. In fact, the debate has now reemerged with the piece published in the front page of the Washington Post this week which has caused an uproar among its editors (see Politico.com) because again the reporting on Obama appears to be driven not by facts but by a political agenda. I assure you Insight will be vindicated. And I repeat, we will be respectful of the process but are not going to accept being undermined if you persist in presenting information which attempts to smear us but does not give equal weight to our side of this vital story. What is at stake here are the very standards with which the press does its job and both CNN and The New York Times chose to cover up for Hillary rather than expose the truth. So just give us a fair representation and don't tilt the information in favor of the attacks against us. If you are even-handed, we are confident your readers will get the full story and will realize how right we are. Best wishes, publishtruth Dec. 7, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publishtruth (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just be cautious with your editing. It is now not only clear that your organization supports a specific, non-neutral point of view, but also that your organization intends to change the tone of these articles to support your non-neutral point of view. If you wish to make changes, please bear in mind that there are several people who actively monitor these articles, and that the content is judged by consensus, not your definition of "reputation" or "vindication. If you continue to make disruptive edits, your organization could be banned from editing Wikipedia.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AC is unintentionally (I assume) using a lot of Wikispeak jargon. Go to [1] and read my comments at the bottom of the page. Andyvphil (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]