While your intention is noble, I'm afraid your edit has some critical problems, such as violation of Example Indentation and some parts filled with Word Cruft. I'll proceed to fix the text, but please be more mindful of the editing guidelines in the future.
135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300
Imperial Court Mage
It honestly seems to be using the page to rant on certain things and hides it under a third person POV rather than specific examples
"Life's like a movie, write your own ending. Keep believing, keep pretending."-Jim Henson
Nobody's thought of a sarcastic remark?
Use splash all day everyday.
aayero
What's the difference between "New Media" and "Web Original"? I've never seen this division in categories before.
Hide / Show Replies
I don't think there is one, or at least, there isn't a good one being used on this page. I've merged the folders.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
AgProv
19:00 GMT, Sun 22/01/12
"This entry is checked out until 11:08 Pacific Standard Time by Ag Prov."
Er... I actually AM Ag Prov. I am trying to get into this article to edit it. Apparently I am already in there editing. surely shome mishtake?
And I assume Pacific Time is exactly four hours ahead of GMT? Seven in the evening here, eleven in the evening there?
Or if we're talking the american pacific coast, eleven in the morning and therefore eight hours behind GMT?
Male, early sixties, Cranky old fart, at least two decades behind. So you have been warned. Functionally illiterate in several languages.
4
How long before the inevitable "This is not allowed on the wiki outside of the forums. We want to be known for positivity, not bile, and there are plenty of sites out there dedicated to bile" disclaimer?
Hide / Show Replies
I'm very surprised this page has lasted so long. It's got "Negative" in it's very title! And yet I don't see a Trope Repair Shop thread full of people complaining (hardy har) about how negative the article is, and how TV Tropes must either be completely impartial (though not so far as to become a "stuffy encyclopaedic wiki") or Accentuate the Positive!
I think Husk had the right idea with listing CO2 as an example, but did it in a horribly wrong way using politically charged language that revealed an obvious bias. I've replaced it with a "fossil fuels" example that focuses more on specific examples of the media exaggerating the negative effects of global warming, rather than on trying to present "the other side of the argument".
Edited by WDS Hide / Show Replies