Jump to content

Talk:Leigh Sales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leigh Sales. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Detainee 002 article needs to be merged to Leigh Sales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:405E:421C:7EE3:112 (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

[edit]

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thought-provoking book?

[edit]

I think that it is probably quite valid to describe Sales' third book as "thought-provoking", nevertheless this is an opinion, and I just wonder whether it would be better simply to stick to the facts, in accordance with the encyclopedic mandate of Wikipedia. "Thought-provoking" also makes the article sound just a little hagiographic. Any thoughts from other Editors? Research17 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No question, that epithet ought to be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Bednarek. Thanks for that. I've just deleted. Research17 (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]