2195:<---- I hope I'm doing this right in order to reply. No new sources. My question to you than is how does any company confirm such details about someone's status or employment with said company? There are privacy issues that we do respect. I don't want to publish information that would appear derogatory to Mr. Horner, but as one of the two partners who created the NR, Allen Montgomery and I are the only two spokespersons for the company. I'm not posting something inaccurate or with intent to harm Mr. Horner in anyway. But the information is incorrect. This continues to be a hard wall I keep running into again and again. I have no intent to fling garbage your way for some hidden purpose I only wish to present the fact that the company has not and does not have any lead writers, all writers with me being the exception are freelancers. And we are not responsible for interviews done by any freelancers who claim to be a spokesperson for the company when in fact they are not. If Knowledge wants to call Mr. Horner a "lead writer" then do so, but you rightfully than must note that the company has no lead writers or spokespersons other than Mr. Montgomery and I to be fair. The fact is Knowledge wants to be accurate as a legitimate online encyclopedia, and to that ends I only wish to help. But the moment Knowledge opts to exclude the company owners as a genuine source just to make a simple point you defeat that purpose. Horner claimed to be many things and provided sham titles, once claiming to be publisher of the NR. Just because someone states they are the head cook and bottle washer for the NR doesn't make it so. So I feel as if I'm being excluded by Knowledge as a legitimate source for my own company, which leads me to assume my partner in this endeavor Allen Montgomery, as publisher would likewise face exclusion as well. So exactly how does a company properly object to bogus information that gets thrown up on their companies Wiki page haphazardly? Are we expected to provide company documents to Knowledge regarding our writers tenure with the NR which Knowledge claims may be published on Internet, thereby breaking the man's right to privacy protected him under the law? I'm sorry that a former freelancer arraigned his own interview with WaPo and made whatever claims he wanted during that interview that wound up in print. But if Knowledge wants to treat the WaPo article as the word of God so be it. That does not magically make it so. What I'm I to do? Nigel
815:
current page that has been put up and published. I established a user account recently and have no experience using
Knowledge. Today was my first attempt to remove the inaccurate content and replace it with correct content. Also the company wants to provide a history of the company to our page and to recognize all of our writers and their work. My corrections were reverted however so I contacted Knowledge's volunteer staff at your HELP desk to discuss these changes. The following is a list of invalid information. Line one states "The website was founded by Allen Montgomery in 2013." Reference 5 reads as follows, 5 "Sorry, 'Breaking Bad' Season 6 Is Definitely Not Happening". Mashable. 26 August 2014. Retrieved 20 October 2014." This information is wrong. Next the data box on the far right under the words "National Report" states, "Founder(s) Allen Montgomery. This data is inaccurate. The content under "List of serious interpretations" is not disputed. Next is a section titled, "Paul Horner" In line one it states, "Paul Horner is the lead writer for the website,". Wrong information which is inaccurate since the National Report does not now and has never had a position called "lead writer." This title or position does not exist in company records. Reference 31 reads, "This is not an interview with Banksy". Washington Post. Retrieved 23 October 2014. (
692:
none of the footnotes prove that it is. In fact, the first reference is an opinion column that uses the term "satire" ironically -- in quotes throughout -- essentially underscoring the implication in the citation's very title: that it is NOT satire. READ THE TITLE. The second citation is a Snopes article that simply copies
National Report's own disclaimer wherein they say they're satire. Accepting that as a "reliable source" is like accepting Charles Manson as a reliable source for the claim that Charlie is a nice normal guy. The third "reliable source" is a report on Facebook's operational tactic of using a "satire" tag. It's a TAG, not a factual determination on every site that gets the tag. Satire sites get the tag, hoax sites get the tag, parody sites get the tag. It's meaningless -- and again, READ THE TITLE. It's about how the "satire" tag could kill the HOAX industry. The Onion and National Report are not the same. Do you freaking work for national report or something? Because your approach is definitely not NPOV.
1368:? about Biography of a Living Person issues. Specifically it's stated (understandably as a matter of emphasis given seeming obtuseness on part of Knowledge editors) that These are claims that the subject person might view as negative (or maybe he would laugh, i dunno), but by Knowledge standards for BLP they are pretty clearly violations. I do not believe the poster of those statements is aware of our obligations this way (he cannot yet be aware of all our policies), and given the apparent obtuseness of wikipedia responsen (unfortunately too typical in Knowledge treatment of new editors), I think it was highly reasonable for the person to express out more along those lines than he would probably have done otherwise. So, don't punish the poster, but maybe that person should be advised at his Talk page, and maybe this article Talk page should be reviewed and the BLP violations should be redacted (including redeacting my restatement of two of them within this passage). --
826:
Knowledge is beyond me, but you've got filth for volunteers and I'm have stunned by
Knowledge's shameless remarks towards me today. I tried to post a jpeg image of a screenshot of that conversation but find I cannot. If you won't help me correct the false information posted and offer the public degenerates for your help page staff then keep the page of horseshit posted. I'll love referring to its many unfounded claims and incorrect citations as an example of the fine work you people do and the wonderful help desk staff you provide to the public where we can all be called obscenities. You have no credibility after that offensive chat and I will publish that chat conversation where the public can see your "encyclopedia" as the piece of shit it is. You can thank your nice volunteers for that.
2152:... "In my opinion, a single sentence that says "Paul Horner has been the publication's lead writer since October 2014" would suffice on this page," is bad data. The WaPo article was an interview done with Mr. Horner. He has never been a "lead writer" for the NR, nor has he been a spokesperson for the company. He was one of a dozen freelance writers the NR accepted submissions from for a little over a year. Meaning he started with us late 2013. Termination occurred in December 2014. Further, the NR does not have, nor have we ever had a position or title for a lead writer. This is a self-imposed title Horner used in that interview that doesn't exist within the company structure. As far as Paul Horner falling into your accepted guidelines for
1013:
created the dolphin as a recurring character. I don't see Horner saying he reported that he was ever in a dolphin suit; I don't believe the dolphin did tour the country; I think the gag was the assertion that there was such a mascot character touring the country. I think the
Knowledge editor must have believed that Paul Horner actually went around in a dolphin suit, while I think he did not (or at least that is not yet supported). Perhaps/probably that could have been funny, but from the source I think the Knowledge editor misunderstood the gag. (Correct my revision if I am in fact wrong, with additional sourcing, please.)
1395:
pick up on a headline go to the site where one of two things happen. They hate us and do not return, or they enjoy satire and "get it" and have the option to bookmark us or sign up for email service to follow the site and its writers. Bullshit is our business and I thank Jytdog for pointing this out. I also understand the necessity for WP to verify sources, confirm my identity and so forth. Do understand we are part of a corporation of record that owns a number of other websites. Though we produce horseshit we do take our business relations very seriously.
240:
213:
1353:
way probably without too much concern for fully vetting every assertion in an amusing article, it does seem hard for us now to distinguish between what's true vs. fake. The person asserting to speak for the
National Report in sections above is probably legit, I would guess for now, but it is possible that he is hoaxing too. There is some process within Knowledge (which I am not familiar with) to establish/verify account linkages to real people. Perhaps by consultation with
21:
300:
1986:" but this would be OR (and wrong). You need some other source - a secondary source - to make that claim. That is what you did, saying that National Report went online on X date, and citing an article from National Report from that date, as your source. Does that make sense? We have to be super-careful making any factual statements about National Report since it itself throws so much misinformation out there.
1399:
resolved I look forward to working more with you guys, I feel like much good has been accomplished already on my bumpy path to WP, though I don't expect anyone to believe me. (smile). We do not want to work on the WP page after these questions are resolved, though we may have future additions to submit for consideration. I'll be glad to get back to my usual work once this is completed. Thanks everyone. Nigel --
332:
182:
1466:
impossible to cite sources since most of the site's purpose, intent and design were developed in conversations between myself and partner Allen
Montgomery before the site ever went online. I feel such content is important to help define the who, what and why behind the creation of the site and have included it believing it significant to anyone who might want more information on the site.
570:
2020:
strongly object to on grounds that it is biased and not objective we will challenge that which is what I believe this has come down to. The company was fine with the original page before it was changed to being designated "fake news." And before someone added a Paul Horner box to the page. Beyond those two items we believe to be grossly inaccurate we are fine with the page as is.
2370:
121:
68:
2053:'s comments in the previous secction. I'm going to work on gathering some data, but the ultimate resolution will be based on what's in the secondary sources and consensus. I was ahead of myself to have opened up the issue of the "fake news" vs. parody description without having done more research first. I apologize for that! I hope you feel better soon!--
891:
sources that support the new wording. It's useful to provide a few words about why you want to make the change. Somebody will reply and implement the request in whole or in part, or will decline, and will give their reasons. That is the best way for you to proceed. I'm watching this page and I will be looking out for your edit requests. Good luck!
2260:
proportion of the content in the NR is Horner's work, and we need to follow our source, especially with BLP related material. If there's a reasonable claim otherwise, we'd need a published source for it outside the publication itself to even include it, though we could also report on what the NR's own website claims about it.
1822:
cover both aspects in the article (and it'd be good to quote anything the publishers have said on record about what how they consider their work), but the lede section and infobox should accurately reflect the sources by making clear that the NR isn't a funny Onion-style site, it's a source of deliberately straight-faced hoaxes. --
2345:
the heading from "List of serious interpretations" to "Misinterpretations," but the current heading is confusing because it seems to imply that these are misinterpretations by
National Report, when in fact they're misinterpretations by other media. However a better heading isn't immediately coming to
2264:
Disputes about the ownership or authorship of material arise frequently, and I'm sure Mr. Covington will understand that there's no reason we can or should accept as definitive any unsourced statement especially from an interested party. There can be any number of reasons one person might claim to be
2100:
For example, it discusses his work as a writer starting in 1999, that he ran a successful mortgage company, then went back to school in Hawaii for web design and SEO. He started a website called IYWIB.com and another called Super
Official News, which set the stage for his current work. His father was
1821:
Do we have any sources that specifically discuss its satirical nature? If the surface mentions call it a "satire website" in passing but every source that writes about the site in detail says "cynical viral hoax stories, barely even satire", we should use the more considered analysis. There's room to
1788:
on satire / parody, it does appear that some new sources say that it's a parody or satire site... but many say that while
National Report says it's a satire or parody site, it results in hoaxes or is fake news. This biggest problem being that the site and the stories can seem to be real news. What do
1672:
On Feb. 17, 2015, I followed the directions above and moved this submission to Nigel
Covington's Talk Page. I took last week off and today see there have been no comments / editing done. I opened the "Edit" section for both content and sources this morning and clicked on "Save Page" again hoping that
1008:
Also from the interview with Horner it appears that the source did not specifically evaluate him as some formal "Lead Writer", and there is not evidence that Horner made any false assertion that there was such a position; he was simply summarized as being "a and lead writer" which to me sounds like
881:
directly edit the article. At this point you don't know how to use Knowledge and you are likely to do things unintentionally that will end up making National Report look bad. (Please consider learning how to actually edit on other articles, where you don't have a COI.) When you get more confident
2301:
that is now cited in our article. I have not found another source that calls him that, that doesn't cite WaPo. So... we have one reporter's word for it. And it is causing angst here. I don't see why we need to insist on "lead"... lots of sources say he was a "writer" for them. That is my take.
2268:
whether there is enough information on Horner for a separate article, would be up to another AfD. No one person can make that decision. If the material was different, I don't think it would need deletion review to write it, but what the decision would be would depend on the sourcing. (My personal
1414:
Okay, good. In this edit I removed some passages in this section and sections above that are no longer needed here, I think, with your agreement, thanks, leaving indications like "". I think this helps, and that's all I'm going to do for now; if an admin thinks more or less changes are needed, by
890:
to make requests for changes here on this Talk page. Please make one edit request per change, to keep things simple - we are all volunteers here and so you want to make it easy - don't post a wall of text. Ideally you would copy the sentence(s) you want changed, and offer alternative wording, with
814:
Yesterday I was given the task to clean up several erroneous and inaccurate entries on the National Report's Knowledge page. I am part owner and the editor-in-chief for the company. And I have read the conflict of interest page that I linked to this afternoon. I personally don't know who created the
753:
uses the term "satire", but also "fake news", and mentions how the National Report website itself now deliberately avoids using the term "satire". From the site's current output and its profile in the Verge, it doesn't seem as if they're either attempting or achieving satire any more. Is "fake news"
607:
National Report does not fall within any accepted definition of "satire." It is a hoax site. If someone builds a fake UFO and floats it up with the expectation that people will believe it's an alien ship, that is NOT "satire." It's a hoax. It's no different than what National Report does. Anyone
545:
I agree to keep it, and I disagree to define it as a "non-notable blog". It had some influence over italian media where they reported the news as a true event, which I believed it too until I found this wikipedia page proving it was coming from a satirical website, and I guess that's the main reason
2210:
Actually Nigel without a reliable source for your claim that National Reporter has no "lead writers" and that this is incorrect, there is not much we can do. There are some famous cases of this kind of thing happening. But I don't know, maybe if nobody objects we can just ignore the WaPo article
2160:
and creating a page for him we have no right to object to such a page unless it is published on the NR page. We do not understand how or why Mr. Horner received special recognition by having his own PH box on the NR page. We opine if you do so for him you must likewise do so for all of our dozen or
1509:
Parodies run by National Report generally follow an archetype composition developed by its creators. With the look and feel of a genuine news site stories start out plausible and become less so with each paragraph. The publication's intent is to let the reader discover the satirical content of any
1352:
Yes, in general. I made some fixes to remove some ways that Knowledge was falling for some in mis-reporting from sources, in my opinion, mentioned in a section above. Given the National Report is a fake news site, and sources' interviews with them and reporting about them is conducted in a jovial
1304:
Well, we can and should act on some of these Talk page assertions, and I just edited the article to do so. Namely we don't want the Knowledge article to state something we know to be false, or that we believe to be false (e.g. based on Talk page assertions), even if we have a source seeming to say
911:
I was just reading the notations posted here. I am the paid editor-in-chief at the National Report so I do understand the COI tag. I'm new to Knowledge so please excuse me for posting a number of questions. Since we first became aware of the Wiki page last month I have worked to have removed much
691:
It's not my opinion -- it's a dictionary. It cracks me up that you would insist Facebook's labeling and a couple of op-ed columns that are nothing more than personal opinion are more reliable sources than a dictionary. You are insisting it is satire because an opinion you read insists it is. But
2235:
I'm starting to get a better feel of the situation. I would encourage the National Report to seek a correction with the Washington Post. If the Washington Post issues a correction (or if they have already and you can provide a link), we would then be able to correct it here. In the meanwhile, I'll
1394:
Strictly to support Jytdog's above mention of "bullshit" produced by the NR that is absolutely correct, though not for publication. The NR does publish satirical and fake news content. Misdirection is our forte. The website is a fan based driven site for the most part, though many who are not fans
1533:
Satire is rightfully a genre of literary art and expression therefore a work of satire may or may not be humorous though humor is one component commonly found in satirical works. "Laughter is not an essential component of satire; in fact there are types of satire that are not meant to be funny at
1529:
Philosophy & Confirmation Bias Many Americans under 30 who grew up largely exposed to satire by reading The Onion today expect satire to be funny believing satire is a genre of comedy. Comments frequently left by readers of the National Report clearly reflect the commenter's belief that if an
1398:
After becoming aware of the WP page for the NR last month the publisher and I strongly felt compelled to remove inaccurate information and we desire to provide a short history about the company for the page sometime soon. I hope this post acts to clarify my intent here. Once the IP block has been
1357:
confidential volunteers email service? Because that service addresses copyright issues, where writers/photographers/owners of copyright must establish they are who they say they are, for them to give over copyright rights. Could someone advise this editor, perhaps, at their Talk page. Don't be
1012:
Also there was incorrect assertion (by my reading of the source) that Horner used his name as the actor behind a mascot dolphin and that the dolphin toured the country; it seems that was partly a conflation of Horner having sometimes used his own name for recurring characters, plus Horner having
915:
We would like to provide a short company history and create a section that provides some basic information about each writer including Mr. Horner. I don't know if this is possible or how I would submit such data but we can provide verification so that Knowledge can check it out first. Can someone
857:
You're right, the given source doesn't identify Montgomery as the founder, just the "publisher", and gives no date for the site's founding, so I'll correct that. If a secondary source felt that "lead writer" was a fair summary of an individual's work, and we have no sources saying anything to the
674:
As the article says (does the 'however' imply criticism here?): "The disclaimer, however, is not printed on the main page, which instead claims that the website is "America's #1 Independent News Source."" Indeed, but this is accompanied by a Picture of Ted Cruz on the left + the name written out,
528:
I'd keep it. The main article on satirical news links here, and I seem to be reading more and more cases on Facebook of people commenting on things from fake news sites I think those who want more info on a satirical news site to point out to others what they are citing need examples of what they
1537:
In addition to the publication being a form of entertainment for its fan base the goal of National Report is to promote or provoke its readers into a discourse by exposing people's faults, vices, ineptness, follies especially in the context of religious issues, contemporary politics, and topical
825:
But most disturbing is that I came to Knowledge as a new user for your help, and Knowledge volunteers Huon and Dragonfly6-7 responded to me in chat. Then both of them spent well over an hour lambasting me, calling me a liar and using vulgar and offensive language. Why I was treated like filth by
2256:
CM asked me to comment. giving my personal opinion only: I'm not aware the term "lead reported" is ever a formal a title; it seems rather a description. I can see no basis for not using the WP story as a source, both for the present article and the proposed article on Horner, and no basis for
1547:
But one look at the headlines found on National Report such as, Obese Teen Gamers Too Lazy To Masturbate Study Says, Parents Put 16 Year Old Daughter Up For Adoption After Learning She is Gay, Satan Worshiping Child Beheads Cat for Show-and-Tell, MO Woman Possessed by Demon after Signing Up for
1525:
History National Report was developed during January and February of 2013 as a satirical publication that mimics the American mainstream media today. The site covers a wide spectrum of topics much like any news outlet would. The website went online on February 23, 2013, and has ever since been
1501:
National Report is an American digital media company that predominately publishes as a daily. Using components of satire including irony, sarcasm, derision, tragedy, ridicule and invective language the publication lampoons the American mainstream news media. The National Report often reports on
1465:
I have prepared additional content intended to be included on the National Report page on Knowledge. The information I'm submitting includes source data for much of this content. However text referring to the company's history, and philosophy leading up to the creation of the website would seem
2019:
Thank you I do understand and I have withdrawn (I hope) the previous attempt to alter the page. I will address this tomorrow and trust me I'll be very happy to be focusing my time on site business and leaving this to you Wikipedians. However if Knowledge publishes the NR page with something we
2092:
In my opinion, a single sentence that says "Paul Horner has been the publication's lead writer since October 2014" would suffice on this page. However, I also think the prior AfD discussion was incorrect and not very robust. The main premise of the deletion rationale was that the only sources
1390:
Greetings all, I have emailed the wp:OTRS confidential volunteers email service concerning my use of a VPN service and pen name in hopes of removing the block and confirming my actual identity. Also I thought when posting here this was an inside WP communication not for public view. I learned
2259:
according to an article in the WPost by .. , .... (assuming we can at least verify the name of the writer of that article) . I think the WPost is fully accepted here as a reliable source, even for controversial biographies of living people. We have ourselves no possible way of knowing what
876:
Nigel thanks for being straightforward about your COI. I am sorry for how you were treated earlier - this is a very decentralized place "staffed" by volunteers; there is no way for Knowledge to control or optimize any user's experience. Moving on... the first point here is, that you should
733:
The National Report is a satirical publication that began publishing fake news stories in our second year. I do want to directly address this issue in the future but at the moment as my time is best spent working to correct the NR page and after that I will post here on the satire/fake news
1551:
Fake News / Hoaxes From November 2013 through December 2014, the National Report explored adding Fake News / Hoaxes to its publication. A number of these stories did well. In January 2015, the company refocused its efforts more on satire and less on the Fake News / Hoax genre.
1521:
Articles found on the National Report are not solicited. The company does not place limits on what writers choose to write about. Therefore articles often reflect extreme views from a religious perspective, a political perspective and from both the conservative and liberal camps.
2288:
thanks for weighing in. The current state of the article is a bit... off ... and I had meant to comment on a recent edit. Caitlin Dewey of WaPo interviewed Horner in Oct 2014 and , described him as the "lead writer" with a now-dead link to National Report's website.
1517:
The website runs feature stories, editorials, interviews and opinion pieces lampooning local, national and international news, sports, music, science, religion, contemporary politics, the American mainstream media, the entertainment industry and more.
1363:
One concern not yet raised here is BLP issues on this Talk page itself. There are a couple negative claims on this Talk page, which seemed in context as reasonable to express, but which are negative claims nonetheless about a living person. See
1513:
This is accomplished through the use of surreal, outrageous and implausible proclamations made by its writers along with the use of hyperbole, juxtaposition, literary misdirection, irony, double entendre, metaphor, metonymy, and oxymoron's.
1653:{{reflist}} to produce the references list. Unfortunately, it does require a bit of wiki-code to put together a readable draft, but if you take a look at a couple of other articles it's pretty easy to figure out and I can help you a bit.
1336:
hey folks, There is so much rank bullshit associated with NR, and so many errant sources... let's be really careful to attribute, and be really careful about what we say in WP's voice. we don't want to fall for any bullshit. thanks.
1526:
controversial. Numerous articles published about the National Report have credited the publication for its cutting satire, or have denounced the publication for its inability to write satire and for its lack of humor in reporting.
1983:
to make a statement that X is the first of something, and then use X as the source for that. For example, I could write. "The Declaration of Independence was the first time the letter 's' was written to look like an 'f'.<ref:
1505:
National Report creators Allen Montgomery, publisher and Nigel Covington, editor-in-chief adopted a common newspaper format to give the publication an air of the bygone print media era and to add the appearance of legitimacy.
400:
Yeah, one of the old AFDs seemed to be about something different, have edited the box to try to indicate that. Another problem, hope to fix next, is that the two AFDs about the fake news website don't properly link to:
773:
is now describing it as "fake news" and saying "It would be generous to describe the National Report’s treatment of current events as “satirical.”", so I think "fake" is a more accurate description at this point.
2316:
I'm not sure we need to either. But we also have no real need to eliminate it. it's a balance between making a change at the unsourced request of an interested party, dmd using somewhat less definite language.
1223:
Greetings, Regarding the Vice story concerning the National Report. Vice never contacted the National Report for an interview. The NR has never released any information to Vice. Thank you for your consideration.
1004:
here asserts that Horner does not work for the site, and we do not have evidence Horner does currently work for the site, so avoid saying/implying he does. It is a fact that he was a writer for the site, so say
1493:
National Report, Type: Satire & Parody of American Mainstream News Media Format: Website Publisher: Allen Montgomery Editor-in-Chief: Nigel Covington Launched: February 23, 2013 Website: nationalreport.net
2176:
Hi Nigel. you have said that before, and as we told you before, we cannot use any of that unless it is published in a reliable source somewhere. you didn't have a source then - perhaps you have one now? thx
410:
141:
1548:
Obamacare, Super Bowl XLIX Odds: Patriots Now Heavy Favorite to Cheat and Facebook Slaps “Satire” Tags On NBC Links As Result Of Brian Williams’ Scandal, should be a dead giveaway of the site's content.
2088:
showed consensus to either delete the Paul Horner article or merge it here, and the closing editor went with Merge. This has created an awkward off-topic section about one of the publication's writers.
789:
Reuters uses the term "hoax" more often than any other description. But the latest revisions to this article are a spectacular step toward greater accuracy. Thank you, McGeddon, for your involvement.
1530:
article isn't funny it can't be satire. "Only since the age of The Onion has satire required some sort of a humor aspect to it," said Allen Montgomery, founder and publisher of the National Report.
1541:
According to Montgomery, the National Report's success is largely due to confirmation bias. Montgomery explains how confirmation bias works during his interview on The Rundown Live podcast # 191.
997:
I have revised the coverage of Paul Horner a bit, to correct mis-reporting from two sources given (#29 and #30 in the current numbering of footnotes), and to avoid possibly erroneous implications.
290:
2049:
described as you see it and want it to be seen. Since it's an encyclopedia article, based upon secondary sources, the content should represent a balanced view from those secondary sources. See
1282:
Nigel Covington - heck we don't even know that a real human named Nigel Covington who writes for NR actually exists - the persona could just be another level of hoax/bullshit published by NR).
1544:
Understanding readers will click on a story that validates their own personal views, the National Report gives readers exactly what they expect to find. A legitimate looking news website.
2419:
1305:
it is true. We can often just copyedit to avoid any possibly false implications. Hopefully editing done both addresses some of NigelCovington85's issues and is also fully accurate. --
1782:
1748:- secondary sources are describing its content more as "fake news" or "hoaxes", and part of a wider 2014 trend for deliberate viral hoax sites that aren't even trying to be funny. --
1072:
that he is editing this article on behalf of the company that is the subject of the article. I have tagged the article for COI and have added the connected contributor tag above.
2404:
1391:
yesterday that I was incorrect. Any information regarding I would have no objection with its removal. I will no longer make further comments that can be regarded as negative.
1456:
has been implemented. I was able to make some of the changes, but due to personal issues of the requester and inadequate sources for some of the material, it was not all added.
1910:
2378:
1131:
I just took out the Horner section. I don't see any reliable source linking him to National Report other than the WaPo article, which appears to contain hoaxed information.
886:
edits directly to the article. Things like number of employees, address of office. Facts. For anything beyond that, please use the "edit request" feature described in
1673:
did so properly in order to resubmit my request again. I suspect I didn't do it correctly from the lack of a reply. Thank you all for your patience. Nigel Covington
404:
161:
941:
template to mark it. One of us will review it and work with you to get it into proper form for WP -- when it is ready, one of us will update the article with it.
2449:
2429:
160:(but note this appears possibly to have been about a different "National Report" than the fake news website described in the current article), April 1, 2012, see
1587:
2444:
2298:
2269:
comment about the merge is thatI would have merged a good deal more of the material--the place to discuss that is here, or at AfD2 if an article is written.
1278:). So we cannot act on your assertion here, that the author of the Vice article didn't talk with NR. (by the way, we have no way of knowing if you actually
1538:
issues found in the news. According to the Oxford dictionary, the definition of "satire" well defines the preponderance of work found on National Report.
83:
1581:"For others, the fact that National Report owns this deception may put them in the clear, and indeed make theirs some of the most cutting satire of all."
386:
The old afd seems to have been for an article about some different entity of the same name. An article about that same entity now appears to reside at
2414:
2101:
an activist and artist. Also, the sources seem to have plenty of claims to notability, regarding large-scale hoaxes he facilitated and is known for.
280:
2123:. Your comment about trimming the information down in this article makes sense. I did a little poking around, and I wonder if the subject would meet
1565:
2424:
2157:
2128:
2409:
1574:
Website launched first story, Marijuana Kills! Fatal Strain of Cannabis Claims First Victim in California Town, published on February 23, 2013
366:
858:
contrary, it could perhaps be bumped down to "described by the Washington Post as the site's lead writer" but I see no reason to remove it. --
822:
This reference refers to the Washington Post article which interviewed Mr. Horner. I could go on and on but I think my argument is sound.
498:
708:
624:
102:. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
2297:
is the "staff page" from that date, where Horner is described as "Staff Writer".). Dewey referred to Horner again as "lead writer" in
514:
2094:
1901:
1892:
816:
2362:
2219:, thoughts on that, as a way out of the problem? As far as I can see WaPo is the only source for the claim (other sites cite WaPo).
1717:
1693:
750:
1882:
770:
1160:. Absolutely no reason to remove it. Further, it was silly to remove it based on the unverified and unsupported statement that WaPo
589:
547:
1744:
Some concern that this article is now using the site owner's preferred description of the site as "satire" or "parody", when - per
546:
of wikipedia to exists. I would go for rewriting the page using a proper template rather than keeping it as a stub or deleting it--
1087:
NigelCovington85's three edits to the article have long since been reverted, so I don't think it needs a COI tag on that basis. --
956:
WaPo and Vice both say Horner works for National Report, the latter says he's "publisher and prankster in chief". We report what
1692:
I can step in and made some edits and provide some pointers about getting the draft ready for prime-time. I'll post comments on
1608:
1447:
2434:
350:
309:
223:
1929:
1588:
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2013/08/26/national-report-proves-that-not-everyone-on-internet-can-write-satire
2439:
1920:
1596:
1453:
342:
256:
247:
218:
2290:
608:
who insists on using the term "satire" over "hoax" with respect to National Report understands the definition of neither.
1647:
1484:
1426:
1379:
1316:
1027:
1009:
it is an accurate, true description. But don't elevate that to becoming a false claim. Hopefully my revision fixes that.
454:
429:
150:(Talk page deletion nomination possibly incorrectly opened and possibly also incorrectly closed), December 19, 2013, see
193:
1502:
current events, both real and fictional and is an entertainment website intended for those 18 years of age and older.
2001:
Looks OK now thanks. Without sourcing for the history, it will have to go. but we can see if anybody provides some.
46:
2104:
In summary, my suggestion would be to restore the Horner page and trim the content here down to a single sentence.
2200:
2166:
2028:
1678:
1636:
1404:
1228:
921:
831:
739:
360:
1938:
1578:
534:
127:
79:
50:
719:
Let me be very clear: None of those "reliable sources" call it satire. Read the sources using ALL of your brain.
795:
724:
704:
681:
620:
502:
2294:
1101:
Was just reviewing everything, and am OK with taking the COI tag off the article. Will do that now. Thanks.
181:
2386:
1238:
We can't take your word for it. Vice is a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.
518:
346:
2196:
2162:
2097:
story has a robust amount of biographical information on Horner that is written in the journalist's voice.
2039:
2024:
1689:
1674:
1632:
1400:
1224:
1061:
1001:
917:
827:
735:
575:
This AfD discussion appears to have been incorrectly closed. IP address editors cannot raise an AfD. The
551:
356:
2351:
2136:
2058:
1950:
1861:
1794:
1725:
1701:
1255:
1181:
981:
846:
677:
657:
513:
Go for it. A list of posts from a non-notable blog... To call this a stub is to give it too much dignity.
391:
1000:
About Paul Horner currently working for the site, that was implied by present tense in article. However
791:
720:
700:
616:
1875:, I started pulling together information by running down the most well-known / estblished news sources:
935:
676:
this should be obvious enough. Have you ever seen a hoax giving that many hints about it's true nature?
593:
239:
212:
199:
2085:
1469:
This will be my first attempt to submit content so please let me know if I'm not doing this correctly.
2381:
until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
2241:
2109:
1893:"complete hoax" by a satirical news site. The story is part of a growing number of fake news reports.
1658:
916:
refer me to some instructions about how that information can be submitted? Thank you. Nigel Covington
696:
612:
530:
494:
2374:
817:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/22/this-is-not-an-interview-with-banksy/
120:
1945:
It seems to be a trend to be considered a satire site that produces fake news. What do you think?--
1270:
that is maybe too tersely said, EvergreenFir, but true. Nigel, one of WP's founding principles is
1115:
Actually, it may still be appropriate: Covington seems to be vaguely accusing another editor of --
54:
2382:
1827:
1753:
1120:
1092:
863:
779:
759:
576:
1669:
1602:
2265:
a key author, and for another person to deny it--even if one of those people is the publisher.
2347:
2236:
trim it down to the one sentence and may look into starting a proper separate article on him.
2212:
2133:
2079:
2055:
1947:
1858:
1791:
1722:
1698:
1421:
1374:
1311:
1239:
1165:
1022:
965:
842:
641:
449:
424:
95:
1609:
http://therundownlive.com/rundown-live-191-allen-montgomery-nationalreport-net-satire-comedy/
2307:
2224:
2182:
2161:
so writers. Its not fair to recognize one and ignore the other contributors. Nigel Covington
2006:
1991:
1342:
1287:
1271:
1201:
1136:
1106:
1077:
1044:
946:
896:
29:
960:
say (and WaPo and Vie are certainly reliable secondary sources), not people with COIs. See
20:
2237:
2216:
2149:
2131:
for his own article, perhaps to your point about the conversation not being very robust.--
2120:
2105:
1654:
1597:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/satire?searchDictCode=all
961:
387:
99:
255:
on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
1939:
sites to get the Facebook "satire" tag, and it produces "purposely false 'news' stories"
1354:
1274:- anything that drives content needs to based on what we call "reliable sources" (see
1196:
you are correct that i was wrong to act on Nigel's assertions above. sorry about that.
2398:
2324:
2276:
2257:
rejecting the descriptive term they used. . We probably would do well to word it as
2153:
2124:
2050:
1872:
1823:
1774:
1749:
1365:
1116:
1088:
887:
859:
775:
755:
1652:
at the beginning and end of citations. At the end of the article use <nowiki: -->
299:
1980:
1416:
1369:
1306:
1275:
1153:
1017:
957:
675:
same with Sarah Palin on the right, in the middle the claim of independence --: -->
637:
444:
419:
1650:? Then use two equals signs on either side of section titles and use <ref: -->
2303:
2220:
2192:
2178:
2071:
2002:
1987:
1338:
1283:
1260:
1197:
1186:
1157:
1147:
1132:
1102:
1073:
1040:
986:
942:
912:
of that content and today the company is satisfied with the page as it is now.
892:
662:
440:
931:
Post you proposed content (with sources) in a new selection below, and use the
1579:
http://splitsider.com/2013/11/satire-is-hard-why-most-onion-ripoffs-dont-work/
341:
to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
2023:
Should health issues prevent me from doing so Monday I will do so this week.
130:. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
45:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
2319:
2285:
2271:
2390:
2369:
2355:
2328:
2311:
2280:
2245:
2228:
2204:
2186:
2170:
2142:
2113:
2064:
2032:
2010:
1995:
1956:
1867:
1831:
1800:
1781:. The more I am learning, though, the more I see your point. Looking at
1757:
1731:
1707:
1682:
1662:
1640:
1592:"National Report Proves That Not Everyone On Internet Can Write Satire"
1431:
1408:
1384:
1346:
1321:
1291:
1265:
1232:
1205:
1191:
1140:
1124:
1110:
1096:
1081:
1048:
1032:
991:
950:
925:
900:
867:
850:
835:
799:
783:
763:
743:
728:
712:
685:
667:
628:
597:
555:
538:
522:
506:
459:
434:
394:
151:
1856:
Yes, I'll pull some info together and post it here and ping you then.--
640:
that call it satire. We must go by them, not your personal definition.
252:
1446:
1510:
piece on their own if they take the time to read through the story.
2379:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18#Jimmy Rustling
1607:
The Rundown Live podcast # 191- (Interview with Allen Montgomery)
251:, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major
1495:
964:. Get the sources to issue corrections. Otherwise it stays here.
475:
Discussion on deletion proposals belong on their AfD discussions
1777:
I had actually recommended the change to parody, equating it to
579:
requires them to raise the issue on the article talk page (i.e.
411:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/National Report (2nd nomination)
1358:
punitive, he has done nothing wrong by any reasonable standard.
1441:
564:
339:
contributor has declared a personal or professional connection
326:
175:
115:
62:
15:
2293:
link to that page from Sept 2014, the closest in date... and
1621:
841:
If I could figure out what you wanted, perhaps I could help.
2084:
asked me to look into the Paul Horner section. I see that a
1603:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm
298:
1016:
And I made some other revisions. Hopefully this helps. --
754:
maybe a more accurate phrase for the opening sentence? --
1789:
you think about a combined "satire / fake news" label?--
1720:. I am closing this out as a "partial" implementation.--
2342:
1069:
1065:
370:
107:
103:
74:
2341:
KalHolmann, I certainly understand your rationale for
1615:
2373:
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
2045:
I can totally understand that you would like to have
1716:
There's a summary of the conversation about edits on
369:) This user has declared a connection. (COI declared
1564:tags on this page without content in them (see the
882:(and even now if you want to risk it) you can make
1152:then you missed the Vice article. The info passes
884:simple, noncontroversial, fact-correcting/updating
2420:Start-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
1909:says its one of the sites Facebook will tag as
1616:http://en.wikipedia.org/Satire#Satire_and_humor
407:(first nomination of the fake news website) and
405:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/National Report
1452:Part of an edit requested by an editor with a
1930:news satire website that just makes stuff up.
1900:says its one of the sites in the business of
8:
2405:Knowledge articles that use American English
2299:her piece on National Report in January 2015
1595:Oxford Dictionary, American English/satire,
1921:"parody site" that produced a "fake report"
179:
1478:
480:The following discussion has been closed.
471:
207:
33:, which has its own spelling conventions (
1415:all means go ahead and change further. --
1985:Declaration of Independence</ref: -->
1481:
209:
1161:
2450:Partially implemented requested edits
2430:Unknown-importance Computing articles
1162:appears to contain hoaxed information
53:, this should not be changed without
7:
2445:Articles with connected contributors
1646:Hi Nigel. Can you move the draft to
2093:available were interviews, however
1556:
198:It is of interest to the following
1883:they write satire and fake stories
1718:User talk:NigelCovington85/sandbox
1694:User talk:NigelCovington85/sandbox
1601:Science Daily (confirmation bias)
14:
1039:Thanks those were helpful edits.
2415:Low-importance Websites articles
2368:
2158:WP:Biographies of living persons
2129:WP:Biographies of living persons
1445:
1438:request edit for National Report
568:
491:Propose this stub for deletion
443:for fixing it! Done i think. --
330:
238:
211:
180:
119:
66:
19:
2377:. The discussion will occur at
2148:Greetings, The comment made by
529:(the fake news sites) publish
285:This article has been rated as
126:This article was nominated for
2425:Start-Class Computing articles
1496:http://www.nationalreport.net/
805:Knowledge Fails to Verify Data
523:22:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
468:Propose this stub for deletion
265:Knowledge:WikiProject Websites
1:
2410:Start-Class Websites articles
2356:19:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
2154:general notability guidelines
2125:general notability guidelines
1683:17:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
1663:04:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
1648:user:NigelCovington85/sandbox
1485:User:NigelCovington85/sandbox
1475:The content is as follows...
868:10:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
851:09:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
836:09:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
686:10:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
598:16:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
507:05:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
307:This article is supported by
268:Template:WikiProject Websites
2211:in which Horner said that.
2119:Thanks for looking at this,
1641:20:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
1432:02:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
1409:18:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
1385:20:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
1347:19:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
1322:21:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
1292:18:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
1266:18:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
1233:17:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
1206:18:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
1192:05:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
1141:18:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
1125:18:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
1111:18:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
1097:18:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
1082:17:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
1049:20:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
1033:20:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
992:05:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
951:00:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
926:22:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
901:18:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
800:23:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
784:11:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
764:10:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
751:Verge article from yesterday
744:20:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
729:01:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
713:01:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
668:19:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
629:06:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
556:10:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
539:03:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
460:21:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
435:21:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
2361:"Jimmy Rustling" listed at
2291:here is the Internet Arhive
1746:Talk:National_Report#Satire
1745:
1611:Aired on January 28, 2014.
1472:Thank you, Nigel Covington
395:04:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
2466:
2329:07:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
2312:05:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
2281:05:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
2246:01:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
2229:00:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
2205:00:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
2187:23:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
2171:23:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
2143:22:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
2114:21:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
2065:21:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
2033:03:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
2011:01:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
1996:00:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
1957:21:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
1868:21:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
1832:10:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
1801:12:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
1758:12:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
1732:00:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
1708:09:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
1622:http://nationalreport.net/
2391:07:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
382:about old AFD links above
306:
284:
233:
206:
106:; for its talk page, see
2363:Redirects for discussion
483:Please do not modify it.
418:I'll try to fix that. --
413:of the fake news website
337:The following Knowledge
245:This article is part of
140:, October 15, 2014, see
1783:the search results for
156:
146:
136:
2435:All Computing articles
1937:says it is one of the
583:) as they in fact did.
303:
188:This article is rated
2440:All Websites articles
1881:says that they write
351:neutral point of view
310:WikiProject Computing
302:
2095:this Washington Post
1454:conflict of interest
343:conflict of interest
248:WikiProject Websites
94:. Its contents were
90:with a consensus to
51:relevant style guide
47:varieties of English
49:. According to the
2337:Misinterpretations
1614:Knowledge, Satire
304:
194:content assessment
78:was nominated for
1935:New York Magazine
1926:Los Angeles Times
1889:Fox News Michigan
1651:and </ref: -->
1628:
1627:
1620:National Report,
1483:Content moved to
1460:
1459:
1264:
1190:
990:
716:
699:comment added by
666:
632:
615:comment added by
587:
586:
563:
562:
497:comment added by
379:
378:
325:
324:
321:
320:
317:
316:
271:Websites articles
174:
173:
170:
169:
114:
113:
61:
60:
2457:
2372:
2197:NigelCovington85
2163:NigelCovington85
2141:
2086:prior discussion
2083:
2063:
2040:NigelCovington85
2025:NigelCovington85
1955:
1898:The New Republic
1891:calls a story a
1866:
1799:
1730:
1706:
1690:NigelCovington85
1675:NigelCovington85
1633:NigelCovington85
1571:
1570:
1569:
1563:
1479:
1449:
1442:
1429:
1424:
1419:
1401:NigelCovington85
1382:
1377:
1372:
1319:
1314:
1309:
1258:
1252:
1249:
1246:
1243:
1225:NigelCovington85
1184:
1178:
1175:
1172:
1169:
1151:
1062:NigelCovington85
1030:
1025:
1020:
1002:NigelCovington85
984:
978:
975:
972:
969:
958:reliable sources
940:
934:
918:NigelCovington85
828:NigelCovington85
736:NigelCovington85
715:
693:
660:
654:
651:
648:
645:
638:reliable sources
631:
609:
572:
571:
565:
541:snowinmelbourne
509:
485:
472:
457:
452:
447:
432:
427:
422:
357:NigelCovington85
334:
333:
327:
291:importance scale
273:
272:
269:
266:
263:
242:
235:
234:
229:
226:
215:
208:
191:
185:
184:
176:
132:
131:
123:
116:
88:22 November 2014
70:
69:
63:
30:American English
26:This article is
23:
16:
2465:
2464:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2395:
2394:
2366:
2339:
2132:
2077:
2075:
2054:
2047:National Report
1977:
1946:
1917:Huffington Post
1907:Washington Post
1857:
1790:
1785:National Report
1721:
1697:
1631:Nigel Covington
1629:
1590:
1584:Tucson Weekly,
1561:
1559:
1557:
1487:
1440:
1427:
1422:
1417:
1380:
1375:
1370:
1334:
1317:
1312:
1307:
1250:
1247:
1244:
1241:
1176:
1173:
1170:
1167:
1145:
1059:
1057:Paid editor/COI
1028:
1023:
1018:
976:
973:
970:
967:
938:
932:
807:
694:
678:Heraklit~dewiki
652:
649:
646:
643:
610:
605:
569:
531:Snowinmelbourne
499:216.243.114.246
492:
481:
470:
455:
450:
445:
430:
425:
420:
388:National-Report
384:
331:
270:
267:
264:
261:
260:
227:
221:
192:on Knowledge's
189:
100:National Report
67:
55:broad consensus
12:
11:
5:
2463:
2461:
2453:
2452:
2447:
2442:
2437:
2432:
2427:
2422:
2417:
2412:
2407:
2397:
2396:
2375:Jimmy Rustling
2365:
2359:
2348:Dr. Fleischman
2338:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2283:
2266:
2262:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2190:
2189:
2146:
2145:
2074:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2043:
2014:
2013:
1976:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1932:
1923:
1913:
1904:
1895:
1886:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1711:
1710:
1666:
1665:
1626:
1625:
1586:
1489:
1488:
1482:
1477:
1458:
1457:
1450:
1439:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1388:
1387:
1360:
1359:
1333:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1058:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1036:
1035:
1014:
1010:
1006:
954:
953:
906:
905:
904:
903:
871:
870:
854:
853:
806:
803:
792:Sarahseehoward
787:
786:
767:
766:
721:Sarahseehoward
701:Sarahseehoward
689:
688:
671:
670:
617:Sarahseehoward
604:
601:
585:
584:
573:
561:
560:
559:
558:
526:
525:
487:
486:
477:
476:
469:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
416:
415:
414:
408:
383:
380:
377:
376:
375:
374:
335:
323:
322:
319:
318:
315:
314:
305:
295:
294:
287:Low-importance
283:
277:
276:
274:
243:
231:
230:
228:Low‑importance
216:
204:
203:
197:
186:
172:
171:
168:
167:
166:
165:
155:
145:
124:
112:
111:
86:was closed on
84:The discussion
71:
59:
58:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2462:
2451:
2448:
2446:
2443:
2441:
2438:
2436:
2433:
2431:
2428:
2426:
2423:
2421:
2418:
2416:
2413:
2411:
2408:
2406:
2403:
2402:
2400:
2393:
2392:
2388:
2384:
2383:Shhhnotsoloud
2380:
2376:
2371:
2364:
2360:
2358:
2357:
2353:
2349:
2344:
2336:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2321:
2315:
2314:
2313:
2309:
2305:
2300:
2296:
2292:
2287:
2284:
2282:
2278:
2274:
2273:
2267:
2263:
2261:
2255:
2254:
2247:
2243:
2239:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2218:
2214:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2194:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2168:
2164:
2159:
2155:
2151:
2144:
2140:
2139:
2135:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2111:
2107:
2102:
2098:
2096:
2090:
2087:
2081:
2073:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2061:
2057:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2041:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2030:
2026:
2021:
2017:
2012:
2008:
2004:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1993:
1989:
1982:
1974:
1958:
1954:
1953:
1949:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1933:
1931:
1927:
1924:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1912:
1908:
1905:
1903:
1899:
1896:
1894:
1890:
1887:
1884:
1880:
1877:
1876:
1874:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1865:
1864:
1860:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1802:
1798:
1797:
1793:
1787:
1786:
1780:
1776:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1733:
1729:
1728:
1724:
1719:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1709:
1705:
1704:
1700:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1671:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1649:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1624:
1623:
1618:
1617:
1612:
1610:
1605:
1604:
1599:
1598:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1582:
1580:
1575:
1572:
1567:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1542:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1497:
1491:
1490:
1486:
1480:
1476:
1473:
1470:
1467:
1463:
1455:
1451:
1448:
1444:
1443:
1437:
1433:
1430:
1425:
1420:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1396:
1392:
1386:
1383:
1378:
1373:
1367:
1362:
1361:
1356:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1331:
1323:
1320:
1315:
1310:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1262:
1257:
1254:
1253:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1188:
1183:
1180:
1179:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1149:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1056:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1034:
1031:
1026:
1021:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
998:
996:
995:
994:
993:
988:
983:
980:
979:
963:
959:
952:
948:
944:
937:
930:
929:
928:
927:
923:
919:
913:
909:
902:
898:
894:
889:
885:
880:
875:
874:
873:
872:
869:
865:
861:
856:
855:
852:
848:
844:
843:Roxy the dog™
840:
839:
838:
837:
833:
829:
823:
820:
818:
812:
809:
804:
802:
801:
797:
793:
785:
781:
777:
772:
769:
768:
765:
761:
757:
752:
748:
747:
746:
745:
741:
737:
731:
730:
726:
722:
717:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
687:
683:
679:
673:
672:
669:
664:
659:
656:
655:
639:
635:
634:
633:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
602:
600:
599:
595:
591:
582:
578:
574:
567:
566:
557:
553:
549:
544:
543:
542:
540:
536:
532:
524:
520:
516:
515:66.27.174.138
512:
511:
510:
508:
504:
500:
496:
489:
488:
484:
479:
478:
474:
473:
467:
461:
458:
453:
448:
442:
438:
437:
436:
433:
428:
423:
417:
412:
409:
406:
403:
402:
399:
398:
397:
396:
393:
389:
381:
372:
368:
365:
362:
358:
355:
354:
352:
348:
347:autobiography
344:
340:
336:
329:
328:
312:
311:
301:
297:
296:
292:
288:
282:
279:
278:
275:
258:
254:
250:
249:
244:
241:
237:
236:
232:
225:
220:
217:
214:
210:
205:
201:
195:
187:
183:
178:
177:
163:
159:
153:
149:
143:
139:
135:
134:
133:
129:
125:
122:
118:
117:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
72:
65:
64:
56:
52:
48:
44:
40:
36:
32:
31:
25:
22:
18:
17:
2367:
2340:
2318:
2270:
2258:
2213:CaroleHenson
2191:
2147:
2137:
2134:CaroleHenson
2103:
2099:
2091:
2080:CaroleHenson
2076:
2059:
2056:CaroleHenson
2046:
2022:
2018:
2015:
1978:
1951:
1948:CaroleHenson
1934:
1925:
1919:called it a
1916:
1906:
1897:
1888:
1879:Toronto Star
1878:
1862:
1859:CaroleHenson
1795:
1792:CaroleHenson
1784:
1778:
1726:
1723:CaroleHenson
1702:
1699:CaroleHenson
1667:
1630:
1619:
1613:
1606:
1600:
1594:
1591:
1583:
1576:
1573:
1562:<ref: -->
1558:Cite error:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1543:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1492:
1474:
1471:
1468:
1464:
1461:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1335:
1279:
1240:
1222:
1166:
1060:
966:
955:
936:request edit
914:
910:
907:
883:
878:
824:
821:
813:
810:
808:
788:
732:
718:
695:— Preceding
690:
642:
611:— Preceding
606:
588:
580:
527:
493:— Preceding
490:
482:
385:
363:
338:
308:
286:
257:project page
246:
200:WikiProjects
157:
147:
137:
91:
87:
73:
42:
38:
34:
27:
2072:Paul Horner
1928:says its a
1902:"fake news"
1668:Greetings,
1577:SplitSider
1462:Greetings,
908:Greetings,
811:Greetings,
590:31.48.73.38
548:2.30.121.35
441:User:C.Fred
190:Start-class
104:its history
75:Paul Horner
28:written in
2399:Categories
2238:CorporateM
2217:CorporateM
2150:CorporateM
2121:CorporateM
2106:CorporateM
1670:CorporateM
1655:CorporateM
1560:There are
1332:in general
162:discussion
152:discussion
142:discussion
1779:The Onion
1566:help page
1555:Sources:
1272:WP:VERIFY
1259:Please {{
1185:Please {{
1064:declared
985:Please {{
661:Please {{
581:this page
224:Computing
148:no change
2346:mind. --
2343:changing
2051:McGeddon
2016:Jytdog,
1873:McGeddon
1824:McGeddon
1775:McGeddon
1750:McGeddon
1117:McGeddon
1089:McGeddon
962:WP:TRUTH
860:McGeddon
847:resonate
776:McGeddon
756:McGeddon
709:contribs
697:unsigned
636:We have
625:contribs
613:unsigned
495:unsigned
367:contribs
262:Websites
253:websites
219:Websites
128:deletion
80:deletion
43:traveled
1975:"first"
1355:wp:OTRS
771:Reuters
577:process
439:Thanks
289:on the
39:defense
2304:Jytdog
2221:Jytdog
2193:Jytdog
2179:Jytdog
2138:(talk)
2060:(talk)
2003:Jytdog
1988:Jytdog
1979:It is
1952:(talk)
1911:satire
1863:(talk)
1796:(talk)
1727:(talk)
1703:(talk)
1534:all."
1366:wp:BLP
1339:Jytdog
1284:Jytdog
1256:(talk)
1198:Jytdog
1182:(talk)
1148:Jytdog
1133:Jytdog
1103:Jytdog
1074:Jytdog
1041:Jytdog
982:(talk)
943:Jytdog
893:Jytdog
888:WP:COI
734:issue.
658:(talk)
603:Satire
349:, and
196:scale.
158:Delete
96:merged
2325:talk
2277:talk
1981:WP:OR
1276:WP:RS
1154:WP:RS
1070:above
1005:that.
98:into
92:merge
35:color
2387:talk
2352:talk
2308:talk
2295:here
2242:Talk
2225:talk
2215:and
2201:talk
2183:talk
2167:talk
2110:Talk
2029:talk
2007:talk
1992:talk
1828:talk
1754:talk
1688:Hi,
1679:talk
1659:Talk
1637:talk
1405:talk
1343:talk
1288:talk
1229:talk
1202:talk
1158:WP:V
1156:and
1137:talk
1121:talk
1107:talk
1093:talk
1078:talk
1068:and
1066:here
1045:talk
947:talk
922:talk
897:talk
864:talk
832:talk
796:talk
780:talk
760:talk
749:The
740:talk
725:talk
705:talk
682:talk
621:talk
594:talk
552:talk
535:talk
519:talk
503:talk
390:. --
371:here
361:talk
138:Keep
108:here
2320:DGG
2286:DGG
2272:DGG
2156:or
2127:or
2038:Hi
1984:-->
1696:.--
1423:ncr
1376:ncr
1313:ncr
1280:are
1251:Fir
1248:een
1245:rgr
1242:Eve
1177:Fir
1174:een
1171:rgr
1168:Eve
1024:ncr
977:Fir
974:een
971:rgr
968:Eve
879:not
819:)
653:Fir
650:een
647:rgr
644:Eve
451:ncr
426:ncr
353:.
281:Low
82:.
2401::
2389:)
2354:)
2327:)
2310:)
2279:)
2244:)
2227:)
2203:)
2185:)
2169:)
2112:)
2031:)
2009:)
1994:)
1830:)
1756:)
1681:)
1661:)
1639:)
1568:).
1498:)
1428:am
1418:do
1407:)
1381:am
1371:do
1345:)
1318:am
1308:do
1290:)
1263:}}
1261:re
1231:)
1204:)
1189:}}
1187:re
1164:.
1139:)
1123:)
1109:)
1095:)
1080:)
1047:)
1029:am
1019:do
989:}}
987:re
949:)
939:}}
933:{{
924:)
899:)
866:)
849:)
834:)
798:)
782:)
774:--
762:)
742:)
727:)
711:)
707:•
684:)
665:}}
663:re
627:)
623:•
596:)
554:)
537:)
521:)
505:)
456:am
446:do
431:am
421:do
392:TS
345:,
222::
41:,
37:,
2385:(
2350:(
2323:(
2306:(
2289:(
2275:(
2240:(
2223:(
2199:(
2181:(
2165:(
2108:(
2082::
2078:@
2042:,
2027:(
2005:(
1990:(
1915:'
1885:.
1826:(
1752:(
1677:(
1657:(
1635:(
1494:(
1403:(
1341:(
1286:(
1227:(
1200:(
1150::
1146:@
1135:(
1119:(
1105:(
1091:(
1076:(
1043:(
945:(
920:(
895:(
862:(
845:(
830:(
794:(
778:(
758:(
738:(
723:(
703:(
680:(
619:(
592:(
550:(
533:(
517:(
501:(
373:)
364:·
359:(
313:.
293:.
259:.
202::
164:.
154:.
144:.
110:.
57:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
