Talk:Free Republic/Questions for informal mediator

Relevant pages

A page in which you can ask questions related to this informal mediation

Use of the Logo

Are we sure that the use of the copyright FR logo is acceptable fair use? --BenBurch 03:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use guidelines apply to logos. See WP:FAIR and WP:LOGOS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which section should I edit?

I am libertarian but make no bones about my generally conservative values and sympathies. While I have never posted on nor ever been a member of Free Republic, I am sympathetic to most of their causes and could be described as a supporter. Therefore I think it appropriate for me to edit the sections of the article deemed appropriate for supporters. Barring any objections I will do that. :-) Lawyer2b 03:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Go ahead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L2B. would you consider writing crticism from the right/libertarian viewpoint? Much crticism has been directed at FR and its owner for the percieved drastic change from being a person and forum that were wary of George Bush, and many of his policies that 6 years ago would be seen as 'big government', 'too liberal' 'unconstitutional' 'free spending' 'pro immigrant', to being a rubber-stamp for the Bush Admin and the 'Neocons'. Droves of people have left, and several new forums started over this change of direction and the almost-total prohibition against criticising Bush handed down by Jim Rob. Did you read the link I posted? Here it is again Linky- F.A.A.F.A. 04:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyer2b - Here's another link to some pertinent discussion crticising FR from the libertarian right. Liberty Post discussion - F.A.A.F.A. 09:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to but I expect to run into the same kind of problem if I was tasked with finding criticism from the far-far-left about Dailykos.com not being liberal enough; namely, that there simply won't be any critical opinions from a reliable source. :-/ Lawyer2b 05:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example as KOS is accused of "selling out" :-) --BenBurch 06:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki needs to catch up to the 'blogosphere'! Views of notable blogs and bloggers, be them left or right should be allowed as criticism of other blogs and internet forums, IMHO. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go L2B : "Posted by kos Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:48:56 AM PST"

"Today I did something I've never done before (not even during the Fraudster mess), and wish I'd never had to do. I made a mass banning of people perpetuating a series of bizarre, off-the-wall, unsupported and frankly embarassing conspiracy theories."

"I have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories. You know the ones -- Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can't imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain't the Reality Based Community." KOS bans Conspiracy Theorists

Cannot say "gained popularity"

I cannot say that FR gained popularity during the Clinton Impeachement as I cannot find any web stats from that era. I will instead say "prominance". How does that look in the Sandbox? I added a reference section for the use of ref tags which I would encourage everybody to use. I am trying to document each individual fact in each statement. --BenBurch 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep editing and we shall see what we get when we are ready to assess our work. (BTW the spelling is "prominence") ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I spelled it right in the article... Sometimes I type the wrong vowels when I am moving fast. --BenBurch 17:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]