User talk:MarthaA

Welcome!

Hello, MarthaA, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! -- John Broughton (☎☎) 15:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your posting at Wikipedia talk:Talk page

I have no idea why you would think that a lengthy posting about the Democratic Leadership Council belonged on Wikipedia talk:Talk page. Accordingly, I have reverted (removed) what you posted. I suspect that it belongs at Talk:Democratic Leadership Council; if so, you can copy all or parts of it by using the history tab of Wikipedia talk:Talk page, to get to an older version of the page that still has what you posted.

I also strongly recommend that if you do in fact want to see changes to the Democratic Leadership Council article, that you proceed at a much slower pace. The standard reaction of editors, upon seeing a brand new user (that would be you) dumping a long, long posting on a talk page, is to assume that someone has way too much time on their hands, and ignore it. So, instead of posting everything, I suggest that you pick just one section of the article that you don't like, and either (a) change it (edit it), or (b) post on the talk page of the article what you think wrong, and why. Citing sources is critical. If you don't provide a source where you got your information (and you need to be specific about your sources - author, exact date, exact title, as well as publication; and a URL is ideal, though not required), other editors may well assume that you have a personal axe to grind, and, again, ignore what you're saying. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 15:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Propaganda: Binary Emotional Rhetoric

Wikipedia Editor:

Under the definition of propaganda, I edited in the actual definition of propaganda, which is

binary emotional rhetoric.

This definition is consistent with the various forms of propaganda indicated by "The Institute For Propaganda Analysis. However, this definition is shorter and is easier for use in propaganda analysis than the 7 Rules listed by "The Institute for Propaganda Analysis".

The "binary emotional rhetoric" definition of propaganda, that I entered has been changed immediately after I have edited it on your site, which leaves me concerned that your site is more interested in obfuscating the definition of propaganda, rather than making the definition easily understood by the common masses for use in propaganda analysis.

Thomas Gann Miller, typed by Martha Ann Miller MarthaA (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC) MarthaA (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your post at the policy pump

I don't know if you're following the discussion there, so I'm going to summarize what I said there. Where you posted that is a place for discussing Wikipedia policy, not to discuss content issues. If you wish to discuss a content issue relating to propaganda, then the place to do so is at the talk page of that article.

In any case, you should familizarize yourself with our policy on reliable sources and verifiability, keeping in mind that Wikipedia isn't here to host original research of any kind. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]