Talk:Free Software Foundation announces release of gNewSense version 1.0

Republishing

I see that you republished without addressing the issues with your article. I don't want to get into a stupid edit war, so I won't send it back to development again. But can you shed some light on why you don't feel it necessary to address the issues that I mentioned? Personally I don't even think this is newsworthy. It reads like an advertisement, true, it is from a non-profit, but still. --SVTCobra 01:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Unpublishing an article only because "the embedded links do not conform to the style guide" is a bit exaggerated and I don't even know what's wrong with them. When I look at other articles they have the same embedded links as I used them to get an inspiration. What's the need of an outside source when I can get the original announcement source plus at the time I wrote the article there wasn't many other sources. So if you find some please upgrade the article, no need to remove it :/ Patcito 03:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I never removed the article, it was sent back to the Newsroom for development. If I thought the article should have been removed, I would have nominated it for deletion. Other articles that you see around here ought only have wiki-links embedded in the article text. See the Wikinews:Style guide about keeping links to other websites out of the article and listing them as Sources, References, or External Links. I have now done a copy-edit. --SVTCobra 21:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you look at your user contributions, you will see that it almost looks like your user account was established for the sole purpose of publishing this article about a new product which is almost solely based on a press release. Note, I am not calling you a spammer, but these are the hallmarks of spammers that do come around here. That is why a second source is so important. See also Wikinews:Content guide for more help when writing an article. --SVTCobra 21:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Logo

{{editprotected}} The logo is a redlink; it should be replaced by another. Van der Hoorn (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Done removed --SVTCobra 14:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)