Talk:Magic City Morning Star

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Maine Low‑importance

	Maine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaineWikipedia:WikiProject MaineTemplate:WikiProject MaineMaine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[untitled]

Hi, I saw that the page for Magic City Morning Star has been protected because of my attempts at edits. I don't understand why my edits are worse than the current page. The page, as currently written is blatantly inaccurate and years out of date. It makes claims that are totally unsourced. Are unsourced claims okay if they have been on the page for years? For instance, the politicians listed as "contributors" never did any such thing, and those claims are unsourced anyways. I attempt to note the "contributors" did not actually contribute, and my edit is destroyed. Would it be better to simply delete the "contribution" section altogether? Help me out here. Amglolz (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were reverted because your comment about certain politicians' contribution was nothing but unsourced original research, and your links to certain articles was not backed up by a reliable source that this was what was happening - rather, that was just your own personal synthesis of events. The fact that multiple editors reverted your edits should have clued you in that there was a problem - constantly trying to ram your own interpretation of events into articles when you don't understand why you're being reverted is not going to work around here, and that is why an administrator locked the article to keep you from doing it again. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[untitled]

Why is the claim that those people ARE contributors anything but unsourced original research? Why is totally factually inaccurate material allowed in the entry? It just seems wrong to me that the stuff on the page can be unsourced and wrong, but when I add a disclaimer as to why it is wrong that gets removed. Shouldn't the claim that people, including the Governor of Maine, have contributed to this site be backed up by some source? It just isn't true. Amglolz (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]