Talk:Dave Albo

message: 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.  From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.  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) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: This is terrible. It would be better to delete this article than to keep it as-is, although I imagine its subject would immediately recreate it as-is. It's difficult to find any standards that this entry does follow. Honestly, I think it's best to simply wipe the text, replace it with a stub, and rapidly build it up to something useful. The whole thing is one long copyright violation, full of puffery ("an accomplished trial attorney," "some of the most important legislation passed in Virginia," etc.), without the slightest effort to format it for Wikipedia. --WaldoJ (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed everything that was copied verbatim from Albo's website, and documented everything that remained. Almost the entire document has now been sourced, it's NPOV, and I think it's a good point to begin creating a proper entry. --WaldoJ (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I shortened the section to only cited facts. I suggest that Mr. Albo refrain from adding in "fluff" in an obvious attempt to gloss over the issue. As it stands now, everything is factual, unbiased and quickly gets to the point of the controversy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danprice19 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it back to a more netural statement of the events. Titling sections "Controversy" and playing them up isn't encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --WaldoJ (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy section" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dave Albo. 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/20140810120047/http://www.chroniclenewspapers.com/articles/2007/08/14/news/commentary/com03.txt to http://www.chroniclenewspapers.com/articles/2007/08/14/news/commentary/com03.txt
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) 08:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified