User talk:Writingresource


 * }

Portland Alliance
I reverted your edits to Portland Alliance because they introduce several problems, mostly related to the Manual of Style. Since you are related to the subject, please carefully review Wikipedia policies about conflict of interest. Of the edits you made, the change of physical address is valid. The logo was uploaded to commons and that may present some problems since international law does not generally allow free use of company logos. We usually handle U.S. logos by uploading the logo to the English Wikipedia (this one, which is based in the U.S.), and providing a fair use rationale. Alternatively, there is a system run by volunteers which understands and verifies the intricacies of copyrighted reuse. See the last link for more information.

I have added several hours of reading in the welcome box above for you to quickly get acquainted with how Wikipedia works. The most important items are the Five Pillars from which all the rest is derived. Welcome, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, —EncMstr (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We corrected the Wikipedia page but Wikipedia refuses to accept the corrections.
 * Oh well. Since Wikipedia prefers to be in error, we will leave it at that. We, like millions of authorities and institutions worldwide will have to continue to recommend that people not use the resource. We will have to publish an article in our paper advising readers of your error.  This is why instructors will not accept Wikipedia as a resource. Since you will not allow anyone to correct errors, your resource has become useless.  Sad.  But no more time to waste here...

Writingresource (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)regretfully, associate editor of The Portland Alliance


 * We do accept contributions which are verifiable using reliable sources and have neutral point of view. We are leery of anyone modifying their own web page since—at some level—they do not have a balanced, objective point of view.  Whether it is in-depth—or "correct"—is not the point.  The purpose is to include facts everyone can agree on.
 * Unlike an advertisement or industry promotion, we have no use for identifying Portland Alliance as a 503(c)(3) organization. It suffices to say non profit.  Is that "wrong"?  Not from the perspective of a grammar school kid in South Africa, or virtually all other lay readers.
 * The addition of Variously described as an underground, counter-cultural, radical alternative news resource... does not especially improve the article, though if you can find reliable sources which support all of those, then it is reasonable addition. Without supporting citations, the words border on sensationalism.
 * Is there a verifiable source which supports the additions to create The newspaper normally has a paid editor, online editor, and pays stipends for feature stories and cover art. When funds are scarce, the publication is developed and distributed by volunteers? The new content is not especially controversial, so it can stand on reflection.  —EncMstr (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)