This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Entire article about the group in today's Washington Post per sourcing. Given that, I fail to see how this is "blatant advertising." -- Kendrick7 talk 18:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Also an article in today's Los Angeles times now added. Whoever thought this met WP:CSD has a way twitchy trigger finger, imo. -- Kendrick7 talk 19:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The way the article is currently written, it fails WP:NPOV, and comes across as advertising. Runnynose47 ( talk) 19:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems a bit premature to request a third opinion at this time; I don't see that an impasse has occurred. In any case, here are my opinions:
That seems more neutral, doesn't it? ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on American Leadership Project. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Entire article about the group in today's Washington Post per sourcing. Given that, I fail to see how this is "blatant advertising." -- Kendrick7 talk 18:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Also an article in today's Los Angeles times now added. Whoever thought this met WP:CSD has a way twitchy trigger finger, imo. -- Kendrick7 talk 19:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The way the article is currently written, it fails WP:NPOV, and comes across as advertising. Runnynose47 ( talk) 19:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems a bit premature to request a third opinion at this time; I don't see that an impasse has occurred. In any case, here are my opinions:
That seems more neutral, doesn't it? ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on American Leadership Project. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)