User talk:Americanleader

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -FisherQueen 18:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Political Google bombs. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! -FisherQueen 18:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

National Journal
In my understanding, NJ is widely subscribed to, read, and even respected by both parties and many interest and activist groups on all sides in Washington, without having attracted significant controversy (unlike most media outlets, even "establishment" or "mainstream" ones). That's why, although I can understand a source citation request or a suggestion that referring to National Journal as respected for its impartial perspective violates NPOV, I was surprised to see you wipe it and referring to it as "inflammatory". Could you let me know of some extant criticism of NJ that demonstrates such depth of feeling? I would suggest that if it is exists, you could cite it in a "criticism" or "controversy" section in the article, without having to delete the claim you object to. Including such a section, would still, by the way, not refute the claim: a magazine can at least theoretically be widely respected and widely viewed as impartial, while still being subjected to strong criticism from some quarters that disagree with that opinion. Thanks for your help. LeoO3 18:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)