Talk:Newsletter/June2009: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Comment on press coverage.) |
(→Press coverage: reply) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
"had edited articles where he had a conflict of interest" - not so, even Jimbo Wales has made it clear that none of my edits constituted a conflict of interest. There were other inaccuracies in the reporting and I think that you might have more to proclaim if the comments made to the press had been slightly more accurate. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC) | "had edited articles where he had a conflict of interest" - not so, even Jimbo Wales has made it clear that none of my edits constituted a conflict of interest. There were other inaccuracies in the reporting and I think that you might have more to proclaim if the comments made to the press had been slightly more accurate. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
: I've tweaked the line; I meant that's how it had been reported. A lot of things could have gone a lot better with the stories about that; it didn't help that our comments to the press were misconstrued / taken out of context. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:41, 24 June 2009
Press coverage
"had edited articles where he had a conflict of interest" - not so, even Jimbo Wales has made it clear that none of my edits constituted a conflict of interest. There were other inaccuracies in the reporting and I think that you might have more to proclaim if the comments made to the press had been slightly more accurate. Sam Blacketer 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've tweaked the line; I meant that's how it had been reported. A lot of things could have gone a lot better with the stories about that; it didn't help that our comments to the press were misconstrued / taken out of context. Mike Peel 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)