Wikinews

Comments from feedback form - "The article is poorly written ..."

Fragment of a discussion from Comments:Santorum neologism spreads to Romney

If your are going to refer to a source for more information, should there at least be some more information available? This article is little more than pushing a Democratic agenda story that has almost no play in the real world. However, I am not that suprised. 66.44.182.212 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

66.44.182.212 (talk)‎20:49, 19 February 2012

Hey, thanks for sharing your personal opinion!

-- Cirt (talk)‎23:12, 19 February 2012

You refer to the website for additional information. The website has no information, only the definition. Please explain your response. 66.44.182.212 (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

66.44.182.212 (talk)‎23:43, 19 February 2012

Oh, heh, I was just answering your first question initially about the definition.

-- Cirt (talk)‎02:46, 20 February 2012

Your initial reply did not answer the question. What is the point in referring to the website for more information when the website offers no additional information at all. Not quite sure what is newsworthy about some random Romney hater creating an attack website in the first place. 66.44.182.212 (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

66.44.182.212 (talk)‎05:01, 21 February 2012

It's evidently newsworthy enough for TIME, New York Magazine, MSNBC, and The Atlantic.

-- Cirt (talk)‎17:35, 21 February 2012
 
 
 
 
 
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Thread:Comments:Santorum_neologism_spreads_to_Romney/Comments_from_feedback_form_-_%22The_article_is_poorly_written_...%22/reply_(2)#Comments_from_feedback_form_-_"The_article_is_poorly_written_..."_7550"