Talk:GOPAC

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Rebeccafire (talk · contribs) ChuckWitten (talk · contribs) SpencerJameson (talk · contribs) GOPAC (talk · contribs)

It suffices to summarize and link to it instead. Otherwise the article is a propaganda tool. The removal of the sole critical link discussing the memo is a mistake unless we are in the business of suppressing differing opinions. Skywriter (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What sole critical link was removed? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits by User:ChuckWitten removed vast quantities of correctly sourced content and replaced it with poorly sourced promotional content. Theroadislong (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Wikipedia's neutrality policy. This is just one example of the problematic nature of your edits. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Not to mention recent edits by

WP:QUACK. Bishonen | tålk 16:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC).[reply

]

Update: Already another sock has appeared at this article, Rebeccafire, already CU-blocked along with SherryRoss123, which is part of the same sockfarm, run by the same presumably paid editor. I've semiprotected the article for a month. Bishonen | tålk 08:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]