Talk:Controversial blog Liverpool Evil Cabal closes

This article is currently protected from editing to prevent another revert war on the article's status. Once we come to a conclusion on how we can publish, the article will be published and the protection removed. —this is messedrocker (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

npov

1. "revealed the questionable practices of Enterprise Liverpool and Liverpool Direct, some of which was related to harrassment of staff". needs a "what it claims" disclaimer, i think. is there confirmation of "questionable practices" amd "harassment"?
2. "source code on the page confirms". to my knowledge, the source code doesn't confirm anything, only suggests, at best. i can add those tags to a page i publish on the web, doesn't mean the council has published my webpage.
3. "extremely worrying". editorial comment.
4. "BBC ... has been trumpeting the closure". BBC reports, does not trumpet. (maybe u're thinking of Fox news ;))

Doldrums 10:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not talk rubbish. It more evidence than most articles. CHeck the IP range etc if you want. The BBC trumpets what it likes. It a very biased organisation when it comes to UK regional views. Ty could have removed the various bit. Do you wish to declare an interest?--Irate 10:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes then? Do you happen to come from mMancshester by any chance.--Irate 10:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1. IP range ownership claim needs source.
2. Wikinews:Etiquette

Doldrums 10:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't any one can check it. It is called Nslooup the program you need. You haven't answered the questions. It seems that it is you that is editing from a POV position. You are not prepared to disclose your interest.--Irate 10:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

Irate has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Just letting y'all know so you don't get confused why he won't be posting on this page for a day. —this is messedrocker (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)