Talk:Fund for the Public Interest/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Untitled header
Reference 3 is the same as 2, until I go to edit the article, where they seem different. I'm not clear how to edit references and referents or, in this case, whether I should, so I didn't. Could someone please take a look? Thanx.
Nick Levinson (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Spelling canvass
The preferred spelling for the cloth is canvas; preferred for going around a neighborhood is canvass, according to Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, a primary-source authority for U.S. English (the U.S. being where FFPIR is located).
Nick Levinson (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Book deletion; adding back
I didn't see why the section about Dana Fisher's book was deleted. I'm restoring part, mainly a part I'm familiar with, including the citation. I'm not restoring the rest, in case it was the author of the Wikipedia content who took it out, but maybe all of it should be put back. I hope no one's deleting content just because FFPIR doesn't feel praised by it. I notice the party who took it out was identified only by an IP and didn't mention it in the edit summary or in Talk. If deletion was because of the no-point-of-view rule, too much was deleted.
Nick Levinson (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
POV tag
This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This article has been pwned
I will clean this up soon. It's an absolute mess. Someone really thought they were a comedian. Yesitsnot (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This organization is a CIA front
It's a big money laundering thing. It's strange that they have several people employed there who have foreign intelligence backgrounds, each with nebulous job titles and responsibilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.222.12 (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)