Talk:Free Software Foundation announces release of gNewSense version 1.0

Republishing
I see that you republished without addressing the issues with your article. I don't want to get into a stupid edit war, so I won't send it back to development again. But can you shed some light on why you don't feel it necessary to address the issues that I mentioned? Personally I don't even think this is newsworthy. It reads like an advertisement, true, it is from a non-profit, but still. --SVTCobra 01:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Unpublishing an article only because "the embedded links do not conform to the style guide" is a bit exaggerated and I don't even know what's wrong with them. When I look at other articles they have the same embedded links as I used them to get an inspiration. What's the need of an outside source when I can get the original announcement source plus at the time I wrote the article there wasn't many other sources. So if you find some please upgrade the article, no need to remove it :/ Patcito 03:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I never removed the article, it was sent back to the Newsroom for development. If I thought the article should have been removed, I would have nominated it for deletion. Other articles that you see around here ought only have wiki-links embedded in the article text. See the Style guide about keeping links to other websites out of the article and listing them as Sources, References, or External Links. I have now done a copy-edit. --SVTCobra 21:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, if you look at your user contributions, you will see that it almost looks like your user account was established for the sole purpose of publishing this article about a new product which is almost solely based on a press release. Note, I am not calling you a spammer, but these are the hallmarks of spammers that do come around here. That is why a second source is so important. See also Content guide for more help when writing an article. --SVTCobra 21:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Logo
editprotected The logo is a redlink; it should be replaced by another. Van der Hoorn (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ removed --SVTCobra 14:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)