Content deleted Content added
→Recent reversions: :Agree, that while potentially "true", without actual reliable third party sources to support the "facts", it is just WP:OR. ~~~~ |
Marchino61 (talk | contribs) →Use of Bold Typeface: new section |
||
Line 65:
I have just undone an unsourced paragraph from another user who appears to have a potential conflict of interest related to Inview. I have also announced my own potential conflict of interest (related to AT&T) so I don't mean to step on any toes. However, I was following up on another editor (TheRedPenOfDoom) who performed similar reversions. At a minimum, content that states opinions about the difficulty of use or proper solution for EPG remote problems should be [[WP:V|sourced]]. When that is resolved we can talk about whether the proposed edits slant too much in any direction. Thank you for your understanding. [[Special:Contributions/12.153.112.21|12.153.112.21]] ([[User talk:12.153.112.21|talk]]) 17:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
:Agree, that while potentially "true", without actual reliable third party sources to support the "facts", it is just [[WP:OR]]. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 18:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
== Use of Bold Typeface ==
Why so much use of bold in this article? I have not seen this on any other Wikipedia page, so it doesn't seem to conform to the usual style of Wikipedia.
Should the bolded words be changed to the standard typeface?
| |||