Talk:American Monetary Institute

Untitled

Doesn't sound like an "advertisement" at all to me. It's short, formal, and to the point and factual. I've seen advertisement-link pages on wikipedia (see pages on 'professional gamblers' pages linked to from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Kaplan#Poker for example) but this is not one of them.--Harel 06:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible edit

I can see that there's a point to editing the article so it reviews Zaralenga's work in such a way that it posits alternatives, and gives it a more neutral point of view. However, it would be mostly my own views, and that could be problematic in itself. I wouldn't want stuff to get edited out on that basis. What's the situation ? JohnAugust (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"it would be mostly my own views, and that could be problematic" - that's definitely problematic on Wikipedia. See WP:OR. Thanks for asking! --Chriswaterguy talk 23:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the edits, and also cited some references. I feel I overstated the issue earlier. Some people make an ambit claim which understates matters, I tend to make one which overstates matters for the sake of clarity and boldness. The summary was my own words, but it was nevertheless based on other's assertions and maintained a NPOV. I maintain it represents a worthwhile edit.JohnAugust (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A concern

Why put so much emphasis on Zarlenga's ideas about historical currencies, and promote WP:FRINGE ideas in wikipedia's voice? bobrayner (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)