Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 63:
I appreciate your comments, and like you, I am not questioning your motivations. If you feel strongly about your position that content should only report on the debate and in doing so should only parrot news sound bites and innuendo with context or rebuttal, then please take whatever actions you feel are appropriate. Being new to this community, I'm happy to defend my positions, but I'm also happy to learn from others. Thanks!--[[User:Sufferingfools|Sufferingfools]] ([[User talk:Sufferingfools|talk]]) 23:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
::My attention was drawn to this article because it reads more like a Prentice PR entry than an objective article about a politician. I will request that other editors review both the general content of the entry and the payday loan section specifically. I don't question your motivations, but question their effect: we now have a payday loan breakdown that reads like an ad from a payday firm, not a record of a public debate about the industry. More soon! [[User:Benzocane|Benzocane]] ([[User talk:Benzocane|talk]]) 04:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
| |||