Talk:Andrew Kaczynski

someone add an image please

wanted to add his Twitter propic, but I don't think that's allowed? not sure about protocol. Orangesm (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Andrew Kaczynski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121204210815/http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/meet-the-22-year-old-amateur-researcher-whos-shaking-up-the-gop-primary.php to http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/meet-the-22-year-old-amateur-researcher-whos-shaking-up-the-gop-primary.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509084119/http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/undergraduate/liberalarts/success/students/ss_sjc_120203_kaczynski.stj to http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/undergraduate/liberalarts/success/students/ss_sjc_120203_kaczynski.stj
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130926234232/http://www.mattklewis.com/?p=6800 to http://www.mattklewis.com/?p=6800
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130328095032/http://techland.time.com/2013/03/25/140-best-twitter-feeds-of-2013/slide/andrew-kaczynski/ to http://techland.time.com/2013/03/25/140-best-twitter-feeds-of-2013/slide/andrew-kaczynski/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on wording of Washington Post article

I updated article with the following and another user keeps reverting it to their wording despite my legwork on the posting of the WaPo reference. I'd like to get a consensus on whether my version or their version should apply. My version:

"On July 5, 2017, The Washington Post reported the #CNNBlackMail hashtag story was "taking hold" as the July 5, 2017 top trending Twitter topic, resonating on both sides of the political aisle, the ethics of Kaczynski not identifying a private citizen who posted "offensive things online" based on the apparent condition that they behave better in the future. [1] Cllgbksr (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The issue with this wording is that it is unsupported by the reliable source cited (specifically "resonating on both sides of the political aisle") and that it significantly underincludes other parts of the story, notably the discussion of the "mix of fact and fiction" that has spread on the Internet about the controversy — that there is both genuine outrage and meme-happy trolling involved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

After reviewing the article recent history I approve of Yoshimans edit. We Should let that stand. Goes into a lot of detail. Cllgbksr (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)