Talk:Preston McAfee

message: I'm slightly concerned that this may not be NPOV, because of the autobiographical nature. I'd like a second opinion. Stifle 14:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self Promotion?

message: A few years back, I wrote or rewrote much of this entry, because it struck me as tatty. I may have toned things down; I certainly had no intention of promoting the fellow. I give you my word of honour that I do not know McAfee except by reputation. We have never met and he and I have never crossed paths in our consultancy activities. I am not even a microeconomist, and have never anything he has written. Hence I think that the accusatory banner in the entry should be removed. Wikipedia has been used for self-promotion, but this entry is not a case in point.132.181.160.42 (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a close look at the subject's contributions to the article. It does appear that his contributions to the article (those that are still standing, that is) are "trivial" and thus I agree the  tag is no longer necessary. However, the article in its current form is still somewhat promotional, and also has no clear references (it lists his books and has external links, but there are no citations). As such I've added a couple new tags. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

text: OK, I'll add that back in. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, it's already there, under the "Education and employment" section. I'll add the link above as an additional ref. for it though. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The neutrality is fine in my opinion. How about a picture to help improve the article? Jccort (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "McAfee is an authority on industrial organization", "McAfee is the author of over seventy articles...", "He has done much to design and implement..." -- all non-neutral and/or unsourced claims. We need some "says who" sources to back up statements such as those. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I say Not Guilty of Self Promotion 

message: I reviewed McAfee's vita and it is well sourced and article claims appear conservative.  The vita link is here should someone wish to tackle improving source and reference quality within the article.  http://vita.mcafee.cc/   Ozlingkb (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Second Not Guilty of Self Promotion 

message: The above discussion seems to have resolved this issue a couple of years ago, so I removed the warning flag.  I agree strongly that McAfee only edited the page himself to correct and improve it.   I have made several additions to the article and added a number of references and external links for the benefit of those who want to know more.  (Full disclosure: I have worked for McAfee for the past five years, and admire him greatly.  However, I am a scholar who does not feel afraid to disagree with McAfee, and I do not believe I've introduced any bias.)  David Reiley 23:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Have Deleted The Self-Promotion Flag from the Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Preston McAfee. 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/20130215061654/http://teac.acm.org/editors.shtml to http://teac.acm.org/editors.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified