This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 February 2011. The text of the entry was as follows:
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I think we would be wasting our time attempting to find a non-primary source. (Arguably more to the point, the list of regulations that's presumably from the primary source is authoritative.) As per the "non-primary source needed" markup and in the absence of a suitable secondary source, I support summarily deleting the list of regulations. Fabrickator (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if we should just keep the regulations that have their own wikipedia articles and delete the others - presumably those are the most notable and have secondary sourcing Superb Owl (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Bessent was not at the time he was made acting Director a hedge fund manager. That would be like saying, college student Scott Bessent. Even Secretary of Treasury and former hedge fund manager would be more correct, though it would have tonal problems given the effort to be an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.62.139 (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked my mentor several times to about a few minor things. I just need someone who really can mentor me on little things to help me speed up my editing. I know what I want to add since I am more into adding things that are able to add more transparency t pages like this that political hysteria in the USA has created such a far and now that Democracy really is being tested feel we need to make certain that peer review is hot on this and I suggest anyone reading to put all things on hold and focus on watching pages that may have a far slant to any side.
Scottsdesk (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Scottdesk: Hi, I have removed most of your long message per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC as it contained your personal opinions on the article (and world in general). This is not what talk pages are for. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article in question. I suggest having a look at the talk page guidelines. If you are looking for guidance on editing Wikipedia, you may want to visit the Teahouse, a space for new editors to ask questions. I do have one specific piece of advice, though. Judging from your essay, it seems you want to edit Wikipedia to right great wrongs. Unfortunately, this is not how Wikipedia works, as we only record what reliable sources have written. You will be disappointed if you expect to be able to change articles on the basis of what you think is wrong with the world. Jr8825 • Talk00:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry will try to not do this again. So where and how do create a simple notation to an article that is either wrong or has a bias that is using citations from opinion based news sources. Using a citation that comes from UPI, AP, Reuters, type of citation seems the best to provide the evidence and origin actual real noteworthy.
What I am seeing more and more is articles that are almost always more and more politicized with the side who spend the most time turning for example
Hegseth is 30% away from having a Einstein article.
My point here is that it is not my opinion that a article should not only contain factual and unbiased information but when compared to others having done way more over way more time simple math can pretty much prove my point..
I 100% agree and want to create a way that we can remove and keep articles clear of the total takeover of articles by people hired and paid to create total fictionalized articles.
I notice editor changes by anonymous people and I think that is a red flag.
.svg?lang=en)