Talk:Dan Proft

Speedy

Candidate finished dead last in 6-way primary for Governor of Illinois in GOP primary. No notablity or anything from this person since then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.246.73 (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an issue for WP:AFD, not for speedy. The article asserts that the person is significant; deciding whether he is or is not cannot be done through a speedy. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Proft. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090801151056/http://www.proft2010.com/ to http://www.proft2010.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

"edited by self or someone associated with" tag

The history section shows a lot of different users. I've never met the guy, just a fan of his radio show. That's my two cents. I think the tag should be taken down. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (March 2016)" tag

As of today, there are 16 citations. I've seen articles with 1 or 2 and not have that tag. I think 16 is a high enough number to remove the tag. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of this tag. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Proft. 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/20140720113710/http://www.elections.state.il.us/CampaignDisclosure/CommitteeDetailOfficers.aspx?id=24614 to http://www.elections.state.il.us/CampaignDisclosure/CommitteeDetailOfficers.aspx?id=24614

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

template message seems outdated

I read the template message and then I carefully read the entire article. I don't see any content that looks like an advertisement, and the article seems pretty cut and dry, not "written from a fan's point of view." The article seems pretty neutral, containing both positive and negative sentences about the subject. So I don't see how the third point in the template message ("contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information") applies either. I might remove the message unless there's significant opposition w/ examples of how the complaints in the message applies to this article.

The template message reads the following as of right now:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
- This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (April 2017)
- This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. (April 2017)
- This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (April 2017)

Thanks. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I read this article. And I read those flags at the top of the page. They aren't relevant at all. This article does not contain content that is written like an advertisement. This article is not written from a fan's point of view; it reads as a neutral article. Finally, this article does not contain wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Not sure why these tags were put up there but they're all false. Baccifrankie (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid edits

I have added an {{undisclosed paid}} tag to this article because of extensive editing by a UPE sockfarm, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frost joyce for evidence. Users relevant to this page include: Michael Powerhouse (talk · contribs), Stevechoyster (talk · contribs), Baccifrankie (talk · contribs) The article will need a thorough review ensuring due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed. MarioGom (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)