Talk:Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps

{{subst: Proposed deletion|concern=Luce Forward no longer in existence, should be deleted or redirected to McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanofafanofafan (talk • contribs) 15:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC) {{COI editnotice|track=yes}}

User Knowsetfree's edits removed
Note that the section of the article that was removed originated with an edit from Knowsetfree who has repeatedly edited this and other articles to prominently highlight a few select news items from the many thousands about the subject of the article. Repeatedly other editors, with varying degrees of politeness and patience, have corrected this and pointed out to Knowsetfree that such edits violate WP:NPOV among others. The wiki policies applicable to Knowsetfree's edits are:

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject" WP:WEIGHT

"Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." WP:WEIGHT

"in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors" WP:WEIGHT

"Many things are in the news and are reported by numerous reliable and verifiable sources that are independent of the subject, yet are not of historic or encyclopedic importance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_articles

"Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized." WP:VALID

WP is not for "scandal-mongering" WP:NOTSCANDAL

WP is not to broadcast your personal soapbox WP:SOAP

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper" WP:LIVE

"If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." WP:LIVE

"Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." [WP:LIVE]]

"Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." WP:LIVE

WP content requires not mere facts, but facts with impact or historical significance WP:NOTGUIDE

WP is not a collection of news reports WP:NOTNEWS

"Some material — sometimes even factually correct material — does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism." WP:NOTVAND

"Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews" WP:NOTNEWS

"Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete." WP:SOAP

"it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic "WP:NTEMP

"Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed " WP:NPOV Antisoapbox (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Msguzzo's
I reverted Msguzzo's edits. They were self-serving, marketing hype. A simple Google search indicates Msguzzo has a conflict of interest and he should therefore refrain from editing this article. Rklawton (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)