Talk:GOPAC
Add topicAppearance
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Bishonen in topic recent edits by ChuckWitten
| This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
| Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
No reason to quote entire memo
[edit]It suffices to summarize and link to it instead. Otherwise the article is a propaganda tool. The removal of the sole critical link discussing the memo is a mistake unless we are in the business of suppressing differing opinions. Skywriter (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- What sole critical link was removed? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
recent edits by ChuckWitten
[edit]recent edits by User:ChuckWitten removed vast quantities of correctly sourced content and replaced it with poorly sourced promotional content. Theroadislong (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ChuckWitten: To be specific, statements such as
GOPAC has a role in American politics as it works to insure a healthy roster of battle tested and prepared state leaders that are ready to lead their legislatures and/or run for higher office
are expressions of opinion, not fact, and this violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. This is just one example of the problematic nature of your edits. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC) - Not to mention recent edits by User:SpencerJameson, of course! This morning I gave SpencerJameson a sharp warning about the promotional content, largely lifted from www.gopac.org, that they had added to the article, and some hours later Chuck Witten was created and added the same copyvio promotion back. I'm going to indef them both per WP:QUACK. Bishonen | tålk 16:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC).
- Update: Already another sock has appeared at this article, Rebeccafire, already CU-blocked along with SherryRoss123, which is part of the same sockfarm, run by the same presumably paid editor. I've semiprotected the article for a month. Bishonen | tålk 08:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC).
Categories:
- Stub-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- Automatically assessed Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- Stub-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Stub-Class Virginia articles
- Low-importance Virginia articles
- WikiProject Virginia articles
- Articles with connected contributors
