Talk:Robert Eringer

Linking and notability issues

I think the notability issue is due to Lucky5576 version. I'm gonna undo his edits and post a message on his TalkPage. On the previous one, that stood for a while, you can see Forbes, the Washington Post, the Independant... And a quick check on GScholar and GBooks is consistent with that.

For the linking issue, I guess he should be on some lists at least... --Klp363 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

Lucky5576, please stop editing directly the page the way you do. First, you should read [WP:NPOV], then go to the talkpage to try and reach a consensus. This is your second warning, and your third vandalism on this page... --Klp363 (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Added BLP template etc

Added BLP etc. cleaning up some contentious edits, etc.009o9 (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Paris court judgments

Found a couple of Paris court judgments. We shouldn't link to them because the site Issuu appears to be similar to Scribd. However, citations don't necessarily require web links.

• http://issuu.com/jomith/docs/andre-muhlberger-vs-robert-eringer-28-09-12-transl
• http://issuu.com/jenid/docs/albert-de-monaco-vs-robert-eringer-18-10-2011-en

These can be used to verify statements about these judgments that appear in other sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Um this is not an article about Prince Albert suing an American for his First amendment free-speech rights. The lawsuit subject it adequately covered in the Monaco section; however, if you would like to create such an article -- be my guest. 009o9 (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Those judgments are mentioned in other references already in the article. It should be obvious that they are useful for verification purposes, and possibly also to use as references to expand the Monaco section if it necessary to quote the judgments themselves. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Book review section quote

1. Why was the direct quote in the Book review section altered?
2. Yes, I'll say there is a COI issue here - this article has been a one-sided hatchet job since 2011.
3. The article is officially WP:BLP now and the weak-sourcing days are over.009o9 (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Ask Randykitty, who removed them with the rationale that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". In my view, brief quotations by notable reviewers for selected works might be appropriate, but in the end, this article is about the person, not his books, so quotations from reviewers aren't relevant, particularly if the books aren't notable. If any of his books merit stand-alone articles, then the quotations should go there. But if they don't merit stand-alone articles, they don't merit quotations here either.
2. I tagged the article as COI for that reason, as well as your paid-editing disclosure. COI all around. Had you proposed substantial content changes on the talk page like other COI editors, that tag would not be necessary.
3. I agree, the sourcing is much improved. That is why I removed the notability tag. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic I believe that it was your last edit that changed the quote -- I don't understand, are there different versions of the source that we are quoting from? As for paid-editing and COI, unlike many many other editors, I've disclosed my interest per the Foundation's Policy. I could have just gone to AfD, proposed that article deleted and suggested that it be replaced with a variant of my version. The article was a slanted piece of attack journalism when I got to it. (I've done my research, there is a paid French and a paid Russian attacking Eringer with single purpose accounts all over the net -- I assume they are also operating here.) It's obvious that you have a stake in retaining much of that poorly sourced tabloid stuff, would you care to disclose your interest in this article? If nobody else is going to disclose their obvious COI, I don't feel compelled to work with them on the Talk page and I am completely justified with my edits as per WP:ALIVE. As for the COI tag, that works both ways. I have no doubts about my capabilities to write NPOV and I'm trying to work with everyone to produce a neutrally written product. 009o9 (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As per item 1 above, if you are proposing the deletion of the Book reviews section, I agree.009o9 (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall altering any quotation in the book review section. I thought you were referring to Randykitty's removal of some quotations. If you would provide a diff, then perhaps I could explain the reasoning or identify the edit as an error. The laptop I am using is prone to making editing errors due to a sensitive touch pad that sometimes results in inadvertent cursor movements (usually resulting in a highlight+delete operation) when the palm of my hand touches it.

I wasn't proposing to remove the book review section, although I would not object to its removal. It doesn't add any value to the article, in my opinion.

I have no stake here except as a neutral editor interested in seeing the article improve, not to be whitewashed by a paid editor in a similar way that it became a hatchet job earlier. Your client should understand that the pendulum will not swing to the opposite side. Your disclosure is appreciated. So far I am pleased with how the article is turning out in spite of your bias.

By "poorly sourced tabloid stuff", if you're referring to the citation from that French psychiatrist Marie Jean Dubois, I reverted you because my investigations initially suggested it was a reliable source, including several Google Scholar cites by "MJ Dubois" in psychology journals - but it turned out to be a different MJ Dubois (male, not female). So I now agree that source should not be there. If you're referring to the Al Bawaba source, perhaps that's something that should be taken to WP:RSN. So far, my investigations of that source, in spite of having no author credit (which is often the case with staff-written pieces, particularly editorials in major newspapers) appear to be an accurate characterization of relevant legal judgments, which is the subject of that article. I see nothing to indicate that the piece or the publisher are unreliable. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the change I am referring to, It looks like Bilderberg Group was wikilinked and some of the quote was pasted over? I searched quite extensively for Dubois, but it was instantly apparent to me that no medical professional would present a diagnosis without ever seeing the subject (See also WP:RS/MC). (Most medical professionals have an aversion to being sued and/or being dragged before the Licensing Board.) I did look at the Al Bawaba website, and your sources were filed in the "News" subdirectory so I didn't challenge. The lack of named authors and predominance of unnamed source in the articles indicate they are tertiary sources WP:WPNOTRS. The secondary sources (that the Al Bawaba entries are based upon) are out there and on reputable sites, I've just read so many articles on this topic, I don't remember where. Finally concerning my bias, I'm coming to this with fresh eyes, completely unfamiliar with the topic. I assume you are addressing Monaco, my reading indicates that Eringer was contracted for and paid his operational expenses in advance. When he tried to recover from this termination (without notice or cause that I've been able to find) Principality lawyers accused Eringer of trying to extort/blackmail, so he published everything in the court documents (2009) to avoid that perception, making the information useless for any type of extortion. It's almost as if the Prince's (new) handlers wanted this information publicized.009o9 (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. You are correct, that edit was an error. It seems I was confused by the presence of nested quotation marks (actually the double ticks inside the quote looked like nested quotation marks in my editor), and thought that the part I edited was outside the quotation. I have just reverted myself; thanks for catching it. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it just seemed pretty suspicious that a direct quote would be altered. I hope you understand my concern about such an edit. 009o9 (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, such concerns are justified. I wish you had provided that diff earlier. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

anti-Monaco verbiage in lede

I'm planning on adding something to this effect. Truthfully, the anti-Monaco blog is introduced way too early, and should be in the Monaco section. I have a paragraph written on Eringer's early Monaco history.

Lede anti-Monaco blog companion text

Eringer is known for writing an anti-Monaco blog, in which he expresses disapproval of the conduct of Prince Albert II of Monaco and numerous members of Prince Albert II’s staff. Stanley Arkin, a lawyer for the Palace of Monaco, has publicly called Eringer a shakedown artist. However, the secrets of the Monarchy became public record in 2009, when Eringer filed an exhaustive deposition, suing to recover $60,000 in back-wages and expenditures, plus damages. Eringer detailed his duties and investigative findings with the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara (Case No., 1339892), on October 5th, 2009, rendering shakedown allegations baseless as the facts became public record. Eringer initially focused his blog on Monaco he now also reports on Russia and Russian heads of state.

009o9 (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No objection from me. The lead section should still retain a 1-line mention of the Monaco material in keeping with WP:LEAD requirement to provide a brief overview of the body of the article. I do question the "citation needed" tag in the last sentence, because it is easily verifiable from inspection of his blogs (I forget which one, but the list is at the bottom of the article). That blog itself could be cited (the main page shows the recent posts), or, it would do no harm for the sentence to be deleted altogether. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen this response yet. I found some trivial (what and why) information that ties the original lede verbiage together and keeps it shorter, so the extortion allegations (might get lengthy) should probably go in the Monaco section. I want to make a proposal for the Pottker v Feld section to follow. Thanx! 009o9 (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Controvery section

I'd like to rename the Controversy section to Controversies i.e.,

Controversies

Pottker v Feld et al.

Monaco

Here is what I'd like to see in the Pottker v Feld removing the "he said, she said" minutiae, some of which is inaccurate anyway i.e., "severe psychological disorders" and "ruin her career". Pottker published two books while Eringer was working for Feld and the book on the Feld family was never written, only proposed. Eringer's assignment was to simply propose other projects and we don't really know if or who caused the unauthorized Feld family biography to become a poison topic in publishing circles.

proposed, Controversies: Pottker v Feld et al.

SECTION Controversies: Pottker v Feld et al. As a Washington D. C. based literary agent and book consultant in the 1990's,[1] Eringer found himself working a controversial assignment for Clair George, the former Deputy Director of Operations of the CIA, which would eventually put him at the center of the story and consultant to Feld Entertainment. In 1990, a celebrity journalist, Janice Pottker, published an 11,000 word article about the Feld family in Regardie's Magazine.[5] When Kenneth Feld (Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus) took umbrage to her portrayal of his parents, Eringer's received an assignment (1993-95) was to surreptitiously distract the author and encourage her to write about other topics.[6] The unauthorized Feld family biography might have becomebecame an untouchable topic in literary circles[7] and two of Pottker's books, Crisis in Candyland (1995) and Celebrity Washington (1996),[8] were published during this time-period.[5](p3) In 1999, Pottker sued for $60 million, claiming, "invasion of privacy, fraud and infliction of mental distress." [5](p2) Citing ongoing litigation, Feld Entertainment refrained from commenting for the May 4, 2003, 60 Minutes feature[9] and the outcome of Pottker et al. v. Feld et al appears to be unresolved or sealed at the time of this writingas of 2014.[5](p5) However, Pottker informed the St. Petersberg Times that she has, "no plans to write about Feld or Ringling Bros. ever again."[10] On January 18, 2004, the St. Petersburg Times retrospectively reported that Janice Pottker had filed a complaint against the Feld family, Clair George, and Robert Eringer in 1999, seeking $120 million for invasion of privacy, interference in business relationships, infliction of emotional distress, fraud, conspiracy and breach of contractual obligations. Pottker filed the lawsuit after discovering that Ken Feld, owner of Ringling Brothers, and Clair George, a consultant of Feld Entertainment and former deputy director of the CIA who was later condemned in the Iran-Contra scandal, paid Eringer to "...to steer her away from stories on Feld..." and prevent Pottker’s proposed book, "Highwire" an unauthorized biography of Irvin Feld and the Feld family from being published. "I interviewed this man once in 1988, and I feel as if he's been stalking me ever since,” Pottker said of Kenneth Feld.[11]

Forgive the straight paste job, I'm pretty sure that including the references will hose the page up and some are repeats. 009o9 (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I struck out some things and added others (in boldface) above in an attempt to copyedit what seemed to be some awkward wording ("might have become"?). The connection between Clair George and Feld isn't clear at the beginning of the section, leaving the reader to wonder what that connection might be, which is clarified only later in the second paragraph, so I added a short phrase in the first sentence in an attempt to clarify things, although the paragraph implies that Eringer was working for George at the CIA. I'm still kinda confused. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Eringer was freelancer and never a direct employee of the CIA or the FBI, apparently his "Ruse" technique of offering book deals to impoverished fugitives worked very well. At the time of the Feld incident, Clair George had already resigned from the CIA and was working as a freelancer, George spent 8 years on Pottker, Eringer only 2 but he worked directly for/with George. (The video-taping if any occurred was done by a direct Feld employee, who had some sort of surveillance fetish.) Somewhere along the way, Eringer was also the next-door neighbor to another CIA director in Washington D.C. As far as Eringer and George were concerned, the Pottker mission was just to keep Pottker involved in other projects, until an official Feld family biography materialized which never happened either. I've tried to stay away from reading and quoting Eringer's books for this project, but this is where some of the above info comes from (Google books passages etc.). 009o9 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Feld is a billionaire, we do know that Eringer brought Pottker's book proposals to his publisher, Feld isn't talking, so we don't know if Pottker's book proposal was rejected from other publishers due to Feld's influence. I think I read that Pottker believes there was other interference by Feld. I'll have a look at your edits, I'll see if I can clarify. 009o9 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

New copy

updated, Controversies: Pottker v Feld et al.

SECTION Controversies: Pottker v Feld et al. As a Washington D. C. based literary agent and book consultant in the 1990's,[1] Eringer found himself working a controversial assignment for Clair George, the former Deputy Director of Operations of the CIA, which would eventually put him at the center of the story. In 1990, a celebrity journalist, Janice Pottker, published an 11,000 word article about the Feld family in Regardie's Magazine.[5] Upon reading, Kenneth Feld (Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus) took umbrage to her portrayal of his parents and hired Clair George as a consultant to mitigate damages that the proposed book might cause the family and business. George in turn, assigned Eringer (1993-95) to distract the author and encourage her to write about other topics.[6] Pottker suspects that the unauthorized Feld family biography became an untouchable topic in literary circles,[7] but two of Pottker's books, Crisis in Candyland (1995) and Celebrity Washington (1996),[8] were published during this time-period.[5](p3) In 1999, Pottker sued for $60 million, claiming, "invasion of privacy, fraud and infliction of mental distress." [5](p2) Citing ongoing litigation, Feld Entertainment refrained from commenting for the May 4, 2003, 60 Minutes feature[9] and the outcome of Pottker et al. v. Feld et al appears to be unresolved or sealed as of 2014.[5](p5) However, Pottker informed the St. Petersberg Times that she has, "no plans to write about Feld or Ringling Bros. ever again."[10] On January 18, 2004, the St. Petersburg Times retrospectively reported that Janice Pottker had filed a complaint against the Feld family, Clair George, and Robert Eringer in 1999, seeking $120 million for invasion of privacy, interference in business relationships, infliction of emotional distress, fraud, conspiracy and breach of contractual obligations. Pottker filed the lawsuit after discovering that Ken Feld, owner of Ringling Brothers, and Clair George, a consultant of Feld Entertainment and former deputy director of the CIA who was convicted on one count and later pardoned condemned in the Iran-Contra scandal, paid Eringer to "...to steer her away from stories on Feld..." and prevent Pottker’s proposed book, "Highwire" an unauthorized biography of Irvin Feld and the Feld family from being published. "I interviewed this man once in 1988, and I feel as if he's been stalking me ever since,” Pottker said of Kenneth Feld.[11]

Per the source (p3), George was not "condemned" it's a leftover weasel word. "Caught up in a grinding independent counsel's investigation, George was put on trial twice and convicted once, in 1992, on two felony counts of lying to a congressional committee. (Later he was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush.)"009o9 (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Not even sure why the Iran-Contra stuff should be included, but I changed the verbiage in the sample -- condemned makes it sound like he got the death penalty -- not really the US English way of describing a conviction. 009o9 (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, my comments on the previous revision (the strikeouts and additions) still stand with this one, and the relationship between George and Feld should be clarified up front. But let's go with this and we can copyedit directly in the article. I don't see anything here as particularly controversial from any point of view. The Iran Contra stuff isn't really necessary, but I think it should be included for context in helping the reader understand. When I came across it, the thought that went through my mind is "oh, that is why the name 'Clair George' rings a bell!" so it was helpful to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the direct paste loses the Wikilinks and formatting too, sorry about that. Now I've got some work cut out form me. Eringer is a pretty fascinating topic, surrounded by notable characters. I'll get busy with this, Thanx!009o9 (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Early life and education

Here is what I have.

Early life and Edu sections.

Early life Eringer is the son of a Disney illustrator and fine artist known as Papa Duke. He spent his first fourteen years in West Hollywood and Beverly Hills, California, attending Beverly Hills High School before moving to London, England. Eringer graduated from The American School in London, while his parents created a wholesale dessert business called Kaysens, Eringer and his brother Michael established a business to compliment Kaysens, Tricky Dick’s Coffee House (1974–78). Education Eringer's undergraduate status is, some-college. In 1974, Eringer completed a semester at Cape Cod Community College with a curriculum geared to Criminal Justice. In 1975, at American University in Washington, D.C., Eringer studied Government, Law and International Relations and wrote a term-paper on the Bilderberg Group. The following year, "Bilderberg File: The Men Who Rule the World?" was published in the UK magazine, Verdict, commencing Eringer's journalism career in 1976. Research for the book that later followed, The Global Manipulators (1980), led to professional relationship with Dr. Carroll Quigley, the author of Tragedy and Hope (1966), and Eringer sat-in on Quigley's Western Civilizations course at Georgetown University in 1976. In 1978, Eringer completed coursework at the University Southern California (London, UK) in International Relations. The graduate-level program and included field-trips afforded him access to various European points of interest, including to places such as the U.S. Army Russian Institute in Garmisch, Germany. From this experience, he later wrote a which led to his writing a feature article, "U.S. agents learn ropes at 'school of spies'" (1986), for the Toronto Star.

Forgot to sign 009o9 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Made a small strikeout/substitution. Otherwise, no problem I can see. It's about as concise as I can imagine it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get this up. 009o9 (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Book review section and books

Sorry I've added two sections at the same time, this one is pretty trivial though.

If we are still in agreement I'll go ahead and delete the Book review section. I'd also like to denote the seven of Eringer's books that are published in hardcover in the Books section. Back in the day, hardcovers meant that the author was notable enough to justify the more expensive investment in printing. In the digital age, I assume that it is even more relevant -- a lot of books and albums are strictly digital these days. 009o9 (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, having worked at a small publishing company myself in the 1990s, I can tell you from my experience dealing with printer/bookbinder companies, that the cost differential between producing a hardcover and a paperback is insignificant. Publishers prefer to produce hardcover, especially for the initial release, because paperbacks are perceived by the public as lower in value, don't command as high a price as hardcover, and therefore generate less profit unless economies of scale can compensate for lower paperback margins. For that reason, the first printing of most books will generally be hardcover (Harry Potter being a sterling example). Libraries also prefer to acquire hardcover books because they are more durable, so most reference books or works of history will be hardcover.

Having a hardcover book is emphatically not any indication of notability. It's a profit decision by the publisher's marketing team: What will the demand be for a more expensive hardcover versus a cheaper paperback? If the answer is "not much", then hardcover will win out because the cost of production isn't much different and profits are higher with hardcover. If the demand elasticity analysis suggests way more demand for a paperback than a more expensively-priced hardcover, then paperback will win out. In the Harry Potter example, the publisher knew that books 2, 3, etc. would be in high demand, and that demand wouldn't be affected by whether the book was hardcover or paperback, so they released it in hardcover to command a higher price. For pulp fiction novels, the publisher feels that the increased demand for paperback versus hardcover will generate more profit for paperbacks, particularly if the expected customer is a traveler (I'll wager that's why John Grisham novels tend to be release as paperback). It's purely a marketing decision.

I have no issue with deleting the book review section. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, learn something new every day, now I'm a bit PO'd about my $95.00 technical reference books that are only as relevant as the date on the milk carton -- and the $200.00 college texts. I'll dump the Book reviews section. 009o9 (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yup, we published college textbooks. High cost of marketing in exchange for low sales volume is partly why they are priced so high. The other part of the high price is simple greed; once a book is adopted by a school, the publisher has a captive audience who has no choice but to pay whatever price is asked. Some reference books are worth it; I paid $50 for a new copy of the CRC Handbook in the 1980s and the information in it is still good. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Monaco section

Sorry, this turned into a wall of text.

I didn't write much about Monaco because I knew that this is a hot topic. Let me give my understanding of the sequence of events. First, Grace Kelly (the American actress) is Prince Albert's mother, needless to say I'm sure he did pretty well with the women, who would like a shot at being the next Princess Grace. Eringer met the Prince through a mutual friend who's name escapes me right now, but he owns a bar in Texas, and I'm sure that those days were non-stop partying. This was before his father Rainier died, Albert became concerned about the circle of influence around him. He hired Eringer to do background checks to vet these new and old "friends" to see what else they wanted from him besides friendships. Additionally, Albert wanted to clean-up Monaco's reputation, organized crime, money laundering, secret banking, the stuff that is usually associated with gambling.

Eringer setup a quasi official "Monaco Intelligence Service." In other words, he rented offices, paid intelligence operatives etc., so this was not just a lone-wolf operation. As Albert's ascension became more apparent, mission-creep had also set in. Albert was also interested in what his friends were saying when he was not present and he had a few children that he had sired, but refused to recognize. So as the pressures mounted, the Prince was less attentive to his goal of cleaning up corruption, and I'm sure he felt a bit uncomfortable with Eringer knowing some of his deeper secrets. Apparently, Eringer had vetted a clean candidate (FR:Jean-Luc Allavena) to run the affairs of Monaco (2005 to 2006 the office of the Prince Albert II of Monaco), but he was fired? during the power struggle. The Prince wanted Eringer to continue making liaisons with foreign intelligence agencies, but an underling wanted Eringer out. So Eringer was never fired or let go, they just stopped paying him after the Prince had told him to keep working.

As I explained earlier, when he tried to recover his lost wages and expenses, the Principality's/Prince's lawyers accused him of extortion, Eringer's only logical recourse was to make everything he knew about the Prince a matter of public record so that criminal charges did not result. That personal stuff about the Prince does not belong in the Wikipedia, but once you've stiffed your friend, called him an extortionist, sued him and you're still worth a billion $, you might understand why Eringer took to blogging about it. From where I'm sitting, Eringer is probably the most well versed American content-expert concerning the affairs of Monaco.

Anyway, here is what I have for background for the Monaco section. What I do find interesting is that the Prince was immune from civil judgement due to the FISA Act and in turn, Eringer was also immune from foreign civil action due to the SPEECH Act.

proposed, Monaco section.

Eringer first visited the Principality in 1981 for a summer vacation, returning often through the 1980s. In late 1988, Eringer moved to Monaco for two years. He wrote a book called Monaco Cool (1992), a look at the quirky characters that reside in what he depicted as a "cosmopolitan Peyton Place." Eringer returned to Monaco for another year in 1994-95, on behalf of a private intelligence client. In late 1999, Prince Albert, the hereditary prince, asked Eringer for a report on a Monaco-based Russian businessman named Alexey Fedorichev, who wished to invest in ASM, Monaco’s football club. This led to the Prince commissioning Eringer to produce another report in early 2000, on Russian activities inside the Principality. Two years later, the Prince retained Eringer for full-time intelligence work.Soon after parting with the FBI, Eringer, on June 16, 2002, was retained by H.S.H Prince Albert of Monaco to become the Prince’s intelligence adviser. When Prince Albert became sovereign upon the death of his father, Prince Rainier in April 2005, Eringer created and directed Monaco’s first intelligence service. As director of the Monaco Intelligence Service, Eringer established establishing liaison relationships with twenty foreign intelligence services, including the CIA and the (UK) Secret Intelligence Service. Eringer worked for over five years in service to Prince Albert II of Monaco. Persons close to the Prince, fearing what Eringer had uncovered, killed the intelligence service.

Forgot to sign again009o9 (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Keep forgetting to sign, getting in a hurry because I don't want to hold the file open, added references to the shell template.009o9 (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Some strike-thru to shorten text, grabbing a copy to work on in my sandbox 009o9 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Monaco proposed II

Start clean with a new talk page section, the last would have been too busy to work with.

proposed II, Monaco section.

Monaco Eringer vacationed in the Principality of Monaco throughout the 1980s and wrote Monaco Cool (1992), while living in Monaco in for two years (1988-89). He returned to reside in Monaco on behalf of a private intelligence client in 1994 and 1995. In late 1999, Prince Albert II, the hereditary prince, commissioned Eringer for a report on a Monaco-based Russian businessman named Alexey Fedorichev; subsequently, the reigning monarch, Prince Rainier III, declined to allow Fedorichev to invest in ASM, Monaco’s football club. While completing ongoing counterintelligence activities for the FBI, Eringer's additional intelligence reports on Russian activities in Monaco led to a full-time retainer on June 16, 2002, as Prince Albert's intelligence adviser. Eringer first visited the Principality in 1981 for a summer vacation, returning often through the 1980s. In late 1988, Eringer moved to Monaco for two years. He wrote a book called Monaco Cool (1992), a look at the quirky characters that reside in what he depicted as a "cosmopolitan Peyton Place." Eringer returned to Monaco for another year in 1994-95, on behalf of a private intelligence client. In late 1999, Prince Albert, the hereditary prince, asked Eringer for a report on a Monaco-based Russian businessman named Alexey Fedorichev, who wished to invest in ASM, Monaco’s football club. This led to additional intelligence reports on Russian activities and a full-time retainer on June 16, 2002, as the Prince’s intelligence adviser. Power struggle in the Monarchy Prince Albert became sovereign upon the death of Prince Rainier in April 2005. Later that year, Upon ascension in 2005, Prince Albert II announced that Monaco would shed W. Somerset Maugham's moniker of, "a sunny place for shady people." The Prince stated, "I will fight with all my strength for Monaco to be beyond reproach so that it will never again be described by the equation: Monaco equals money-laundering." The Prince's declaration caused an expansion of Eringer's scope of responsibilities, the Prince commissioned Eringer to create and direct Monaco’s first intelligence service. One of the Monaco Intelligence Service's (MIS) early recommendations was to deny the renewal of Sir Mark Thatcher's residency card due to a troubling background check. In addition to investigations, Eringer's MIS Monaco Intelligence Service established inter-governmental liaison relationships with twenty foreign intelligence services, including the CIA and the (UK) Secret Intelligence Service. Prince Albert II's original anti-corruption cabinet appointments (December of 2005) did not last long. As described by Nice RendezVous, MIS vetted Cabinet Director, Jean-Luc Allavena was brutally dismissed in November of 2006, and replaced in favor of the serving General Secretariat, Georges Lisimachio. An attempt to push Erninger out dismiss Eringer was made in 2006; however, Prince Albert asked him to remain, limiting his scope of operations to international intelligence liaison relationships. MIS was funded without incident throughout 2007, but Erniger's invoice for Quarter 1, 2008, went unpaid, calls and correspondence went unanswered for the remainder of the entire year. Prince Albert II's original cabinet appointment, vetted by Eringer, did not last long. Cabinet Director, Jean-Luc Allavena was appointed in December of 2005, and brutally dismissed in November of 2006, as described by Nice RendezVous. Allavena was replaced by Georges Lisimachio, who was serving as, Councillor in charge General Secretariat, at that time. After Jean-Luc Allavena was replaced as Prince Albert’s chief-of-staff, the future of Monaco Intelligence Service and Eringer's employment status became uncertain. However, Prince Albert asked him to remain to oversee international liaison relationships, but his invoice for Quarter 1, 2008, went unpaid, calls and correspondence went unanswered for the entire year. Results of Monaco litigation Lawyers for the Palace of Monaco publicly called Eringer a shakedown artist when he sued for $60,000 to recover back-wages and expenditures. Eringer however, had already destroyed the means for avoids any allegations of impropriety by filing with an exhaustive deposition, detailing his duties and findings with the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara (Case No., 1339892), on October 5th, 2009. Eringer's disclosure of all of his Monarchy activities to the public record, controversial or not, preempted and nullified shakedown allegations published in Forbes magazine in 2011, Eringer's challenge to criminally charge him went unanswered.With the secrets of the Monarchy in the public record in 2009, the shakedown allegations published in Forbes in 2011, were rendered baseless and Eringer's challenge to criminally charge him went unanswered. Results of Monaco litigation The two parties sued each other to a standstill, Eringer's suit to recover wages and expenses against the Prince and Principality is mute under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) and Monaco's French defamation and insult suit is mute under the SPEECH Act. The Superior Court of California ruled that “because all of Eringer’s services were governmental, employing him was not a commercial act exempt from FSIA immunity.” According to a court judgment filed on July 10, 2013, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s original ruling. The court determined that “according to his own attorneys and affidavit, Eringer’s assignments” for the Principality were “not the type of employment private parties can undertake” and therefore fell within the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FISA). In 2011, Eringer was ordered by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris to remove defamatory illustrations, photographs, and blog posts of and about Prince Albert II, lawyer Thierry Lacoste, chief of administration and accountant Claude Palmero, and chief of police André Muhlberger from his blog. In September 2012, the French justice system found Eringer guilty of public defamation and insult. The two parties sued each other to a standstill, Eringer's suit to recover wages and expenses against the Prince and Principality is mute under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) and Monaco's defamation and insult suit is mute under the SPEECH Act. In the comment section of, "The Prince And The Blogger", author Kai Falkenberg (Forbes staff) clarifies, "The lawsuits against Eringer in France were similarly not on the merits — Eringer chose not to appear so default judgments were issued. That’s similar to the suit brought against Rachel Ehrenfeld which prompted Congress to enact federal legislation barring libel tourism against American citizens."

Hopefully, I've pared everything down to exclude as much of the tabloid stuff as I could. 009o9 (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Inserted less wordy copy (highlighted), original in strikthru. @User:Amatulic are you still following this thread? 009o9 (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'm not getting paid for this, y'know.

Sourcing is pretty good, but this looks like way more detail than necessary. What exactly is wrong with the version currently in the article? Do we really need to have so many words about Prince Albert, who isn't the subject of this article? The whole third paragraph could be reduced to a single sentence like "Prince Albert II's original cabinet appointment, as vetted by Eringer, was soon replaced as a result of churn in the Prince's staff, resulting in cessation of payment and communication with Eringer." At least that's the gist I got out of it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your time and input. As Prince Albert came to power, he made commitments to clean up Monaco's long-held image as a haven for organized crime. Jean-Luc Allavena was vetted by Eringer specifically for this task, the business as usual folks were quickly able to overcome the Prince's wishes in the power-struggle. Eringer was kept on for a while, but he was no longer authorized to do investigations. Perhaps a Power struggle in the Monarchy subsection would clarify?

As for the existing Monaco section, it's prejudicial and not about Eringer at all. It starts with Eringer's (supposed) termination, yes he was given 90 day notice in 2006, but the Prince overrode that order and kept him on and paid him for all of 2007. In 2008, they allowed him to continue to keep working and paying MIS' expenses, then without notice, they simply stopped paying his invoices and stopped returning calls.

I really want to minimize the blogging topic, because the episode is highly embarrassing to the Prince and (if written) belongs in its own article, I don't want to be the one that has to stoop to that level and write it. I want to try to stay above that, provide an overview of Eringer's activities and not give either side motivation to start slinging accusations again. Thanks!009o9 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Addendum concerning existing Monaco section I can go through section with inline tags for weasel-words and statements that are not supported in the references if you'd like see how bad the existing section really is. Here's a much better WSJ reference than the current Al Bawaba cite, the Wall St. Journal article has named authors and both POV's. 009o9 (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Some updates, chronological clarifications and attempt to remove wordiness. 009o9 (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Been incredibly busy this week. It may let up on Wednesday. I don't expect to be doing any Wiki-work that requires a lot of thought until then. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the status update and your continued interest!009o9 (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Upon review, I found that the first para could be shortened and more informative. 009o9 (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Monaco proposed III

Start clean.

proposed III clean, Monaco section.

Monaco Eringer vacationed in the Principality of Monaco throughout the 1980s and wrote Monaco Cool (1992), while living in Monaco for two years (1988-89). He returned to reside in Monaco on behalf of a private intelligence client in 1994 and 1995. In late 1999, Prince Albert II, the hereditary prince, commissioned Eringer for a report on a Monaco-based Russian businessman named Alexey Fedorichev; subsequently, the reigning monarch, Prince Rainier III, declined to allow Fedorichev to invest in ASM, Monaco’s football club. While completing ongoing counterintelligence activities for the FBI, Eringer's additional intelligence reports on Russian activities in Monaco led to a full-time retainer on June 16, 2002, as Prince Albert's intelligence adviser. Power struggle in the Monarchy Upon ascension in 2005, Prince Albert II announced that Monaco would shed W. Somerset Maugham's moniker of, "a sunny place for shady people." The Prince stated, "I will fight with all my strength for Monaco to be beyond reproach so that it will never again be described by the equation: Monaco equals money-laundering." In his accession speech, the Prince declared that he would fight with all of his strength to ensure that money-laundering and Monaco would no longer be synonyms in the common vernacular. The declaration caused an expansion of Eringer's scope of responsibilities, the Prince commissioned Eringer to create and direct Monaco’s first intelligence service. One of the Monaco Intelligence Service's (MIS) early recommendations was to deny the renewal of Sir Mark Thatcher's residency card due to a troubling background check. In addition to investigations, Eringer's MIS established inter-governmental liaison relationships with twenty foreign intelligence services, including the CIA and the (UK) Secret Intelligence Service. Prince Albert II's original anti-corruption cabinet appointments (December of 2005) did not last long. As described by Nice RendezVous, MIS vetted Cabinet Director, Jean-Luc Allavena was brutally dismissed in November of 2006, and replaced in favor of the serving General Secretariat, Georges Lisimachio. An attempt to dismiss Eringer was made in 2006; however, Prince Albert asked him to remain, limiting his scope of operations to international intelligence liaison relationships. MIS was funded without incident throughout 2007, but Erniger's invoice for Quarter 1, 2008, went unpaid, calls and correspondence went unanswered for the remainder of the year. Results of Monaco litigation Lawyers for the Palace of Monaco publicly called Eringer a shakedown artist when he sued for $60,000 to recover back-wages and expenditures. Eringer however, had already destroyed the means for impropriety by filing an exhaustive filed a thirty-four page deposition, detailing his duties and findings with the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara (Case No., 1339892), on October 5th, 2009. Eringer's disclosure of all of his Monarchy activities to the public record, controversial or not, preempted and nullified shakedown allegations published in Forbes magazine in 2011, Eringer's challenge to criminally charge him went unanswered. The Superior Court of California ruled that “because all of Eringer’s services were governmental, employing him was not a commercial act exempt from FSIA immunity.” According to a court judgment filed on July 10, 2013, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s original ruling. The court determined that “according to his own attorneys and affidavit, Eringer’s assignments” for the Principality were “not the type of employment private parties can undertake” and therefore fell within the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FISA). In 2011, Eringer was ordered by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris to remove defamatory illustrations, photographs, and blog posts of and about Prince Albert II, lawyer Thierry Lacoste, chief of administration and accountant Claude Palmero, and chief of police André Muhlberger from his blog. In September 2012, the French justice system found Eringer guilty of public defamation and insult. Ultimately, the two parties sued each other to a standstill, Eringer's suit to recover wages and expenses against the Prince and Principality is mute under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) and Monaco's defamation and insult suit is mute under the SPEECH Act. In the comment section of, "The Prince And The Blogger", author Kai Falkenberg (Forbes staff) clarifies, "The lawsuits against Eringer in France were similarly not on the merits — Eringer chose not to appear so default judgments were issued. That’s similar to the suit brought against Rachel Ehrenfeld which prompted Congress to enact federal legislation barring libel tourism against American citizens."

New section for clean read. 009o9 (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Minor correction added in bold. 009o9 (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Added a reference to support the quotes that are already in the Article space version, the reference is primary, but I don't know how to support the quoted material without using the court's document. 009o9 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

My take on this:

• The quotations from the Prince are not necessary. It is enough to say that the Prince, desiring to reform Monaco's image as a haven for money launderers, increased Eringer's scope of work to create an intelligence service.

The quote was not just an offhand remark, it was delivered in Albert's coronation speech -- I reworded to avoid using the direct quote.

• "had already destroyed the means for impropriety" is original research and sounds biased.

I am removing, but I consider this a WP:CALC exception, once the sensitive material is published it has no value for extortion or blackmail (i.e., 1+1=2). Unfortunately, some readers may not comprehend the legal ramifications without it being spelled out. The prince's lawyers tried to make the case (change the subject from nonpayment) about extortion in the public eye, but the chronological facts disprove the allegations.

• Calling a deposition "exhaustive" is WP:PUFFERY and subjective. All depositions are exhaustive. That is the point of a deposition.
• Quoting a journalist saying that one lawsuit is "similarly not on the merits" implies that both lawsuits were without merit, but emphasizing the point for one lawsuit suggests a bias. I also object to quoting anything from the comments section of an article. A journalist's own personal views are not relevant here. We don't cite editorials or opinion pieces, and that's essentially what the comments section is, regardless of who wrote the comment.
• Why is "Ultimately" in boldface?

It was an added word - I wasn't sure if you were reading the original.

Overall, I'd say put it in the article with copyedits to address the problems I listed. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems addressed, moving to Monaco section. 009o9 (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Article whitewashing

This article is such a great example of whitewashing. This is exactly where paid editing is gonna lead us if we keep this option open when we perfectly know we shouldn't. I don't care for the COI disclosure: the paid guy is spending hours, and the admin overseeing this has barely the time to read the sources. Pay attention: all that has been modified relies on primary source, this source being the paying guy himself. In his own book he explains how he acted a hero and saved the CIA?! But is there a secondary source anywhere else? I think we need to make an example out there...--RoaringLinda (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, when you look at his present occupation, Mr Eringer is a bar owner. I'll make the edit accordingly. --RoaringLinda (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi RoaringLinda, I see that you are a new user. Eringer is still writing and is currently publishing two additional books. Yes he owns a bar too, he also owned a coffee shop in the 1970's hardly something that needs to be mentioned in the Infobox.

I agree with your edit in lede, I suggest that we just eliminate the preposition to read:

• Salon described Eringer as an “obscure journalist” with ties to Clair George, the former Deputy Director of Operations of the CIA.[2] Eringer also freelanced for the FBI's Foreign Counter-Intelligence Division[3] to assist with the apprehension of Edward Lee Howard, an ex-CIA officer who defected to the Soviet Union in 1985.

The administrator (Amatulic) was kind enough to help with the editing of this article, he checked in about weekly to help me avoid POV. If Eringer wrote something in one of his books that doesn't seem credible to you, I don't see it referenced, or see the relevance here. (You do know that some of his work is fiction - right?).

You've referenced a five year old closed discussion concerning paid edits, the foundation's new policy can be found here 009o9 (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

FAQ on paid disclosure [1] 009o9 (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's been well over a month and no response to my proposed change for the lede. I'm going to go ahead and make it - appears there is a consensus of one. 009o9 (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

COI Template removal

We seem to be having other neutral authors passing through without substantial modification of the article. Do we still have a conflict with the content of the article? Template:COI reads...

• Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other {{pov}} tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame or to "warn the reader" about the identities of the editors.

As per Policy, I have my paid edit disclosure on this talk page and my userpage. User:Amatulic was kind enough to help with bringing the article into compliance with WP:BLP, I believe that the COI tag is a relic and is no longer warranted. Thanks 009o9 (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it. The article is in pretty good shape. Your hard work and willingness to collaborate is appreciated. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Advert tag

@User:DGG has added an advert tag to this article, an article that was curated with weeks of consensus with a neutral user @User:Amatulic. Template:Advert states: "The advert tag is for articles that are directly trying to sell a product to our readers. Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features."

If DGG has a problem with the article, changes should be discussed here, I'm not seeing any "direct selling". (Though I would like to lose the blogs in the external links, but I didn't win that one. -- Cheers -- 009o9 (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the advert tag. After reading through the article, I don't see anything that justifies the claim that this is an advertisement. If DGG brings up specific points that led to the addition of the tag, I'd be happy to take another look. ~ Rob^Talk 08:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

We call the tag "advertising" for short, but we mean much more than direct selling. Promotionalism is any writing whose purpose or nature is to tell the reader what the subject of the article would want them to know, rather than what he reader might want to know. An attempt to write three articles , about a somewhat notable person, their borderline notable book, and a totally non-notable book, all with substantially overlapping information, is an attempt to advertise the authors work, not to write an encyclopedic article.

Specific points that make this an advertisement:

1. Simultaneous writing of articles for even his minor books, with content repeating this article in large part. shows clear promotional intent
2. Hiring a paid editor to write this shows promotional intent
3. extensive quotations from unreliable sources
4. poorly sourced claims about living people, based for the most part upon speculation.
5. most of the references are mere mentions
6. Extravagant tone of the article
7. Resistance shown in above discussions to improving the article by editing, prevent fixing it in the usual way DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

For the general situation, see the discussion on my own talk page. [2]. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's the problem with DGG's thesis. I did not create this article, his biography was being used as an attack platform [3]. Much of the content survived the consensus process and I was allowed to add WP:BALANCE. I would not have written a BLP that looks like this. Eringer contacted me because he knows he should not work on his own biography and may have tried to make factual corrections, but was slapped down without knowing the MOS/Policies ect. All of the writing I did for this article went through consensus, I made the edits with the approval/consensus of all interested editors. Now, DGG wants to throw out that work and cites an essay WP:TNT as a reason to override consensus. In that same writing, DGG claims that consensus gives license to override policies and guidelines, which are superior to essays.[4]

In the beginning, I had to get a little forceful, I had to quote from the policies and guidelines to scare off the sock-puppet and let him know that it was going to be a problem to continue. I suspected that Amatulic was also involved and confronted him. After getting him to realize that CNN iReport and GroundReport are user sourced blogs,[5] Amatulic agreed to work with me, but remained skeptical throughout. (I believe that Amatulic and I additionally determined that the twice cited, "Marie-Jeanne Dubois," who proclaimed Eringer is a case study for Narcissistic Disorder does not exist.[6][7])

Most people with real lives don't have the time to invest in learning the Wikipedia intricacies and hire somebody with editing experience to correct inaccuracies/defamation. I simply happen to be one of the few paid editors that have declared. The article subjects simply want their biographies to be accurate and sometimes have a sampling of their creative works blue-linked. The minor works as DGG puts it, are, Draft:Ruse (book) (2008) a 10 year memoir with some historical value and Lo Mein (book) (2000), a transitional book from non-fiction to novels. They are not bestsellers, they are primarily notable for reason 5 in WP:BKCRIT, but would clear reason 1 with an objective reading of the guideline. DGG's argument for deletion is that Lo Mein has too few WorldCat listings (sales), and broad-brushes all college newspapers as not having editorial control. --Cheers-- 009o9 (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a lot of difficulty believing that any article that has a controversy section spanning over 50% of the page is advertising. Could it be written more neutrally? Possibly, but it clearly goes well beyond a mere promotional article that would require such a clean-up tag. I'm open to specific suggestions for improvement, as always, and I may go through the sourcing to make sure it supports all claims in the article in the near future if I have some time. ~ Rob^Talk 05:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Rob, if one is going to try to money by writing controversial books, one wants to stir up controversy. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Rob, please do look into the sourcing if you have time, I promise you an extraordinary read. I purposely avoided as much of the tabloid content as I could to try to diffuse the feuding between Eringer and Prince Albert / Eringer and Putin. If Eringer is such an obscure inconsequential journalist, why are there so many people attacking him? --Cheers-- 009o9 (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Rob, Ruse is probably notable. The minor works I had in mind were Lo Mein, with only 6 library holdings & no RS reviews, and most of the other works listed--listing them in the author article is OK, but I hope there's not going to be an attempt to make articles on them. I continue to find it implausible that any good faith editorwho understand WP would attempt an article on Lo Mein, let alone defend one.

Someone editing for money should learn the rules before starting. I'll help someone fix a table with whatever imperfect skill I have without taking money, but if I were going to take money for carpentry, I'd learn how to do it properly & in detail first. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

On DGG's talk page, (s)he actually cited the correct number of WorldCat entries for Lo Mein a couple of days ago,[8] which is 11, why only 6 in this conversation? There are two pages of WorldCat listings for Lo Mein and DGG knows this. As per WP:BKCRIT, I provided two verbose reviews in (college) Newspapers[9][10] (Both with nationally ranked Journalism departments, Notre Dame and University of Washington), and a quote from the the book is in a slang dictionary, [11] (p.260) published some 9 years after Lo Mein's (2000) publication. DGG is contesting that no college newspapers are RS, per editorial control, and I don't know what I'm doing because I challenged his administrative authority on this point. Finally, if sales (WorldCat etc.) cannot be a reason for inclusion, why should sales be a reason for exclusion/deletion?

It is nice to hear that DGG thinks that the other title in AfC, Draft:Ruse (book), is probably notable, I didn't realize that "reviews" had to be from "professional" reviewers and the Book projects don't want aggregates. So, I removed the section, but this is about DGG's disdain for paid editing, not the conforming writing. -- Cheers -- 009o9 (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not defending the Lo Mein article. Haven't even read it, actually. I'm just commenting on whether the advert tag is appropriate here. I would agree from the limited looking I've done at these sources that it's unlikely the majority of those books are notable. ~ Rob^Talk 23:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the wall-of-text this is getting to be, I can only go by the guidelines and policies, an objective evaluation indicated that the book met the requirements to get through AfC and it did. I suspect DGG is here shopping for a delete vote. --Thanks for your input here-- 009o9 (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Eringer's Blogs

Propose using Eringer's aggregate blog page rather than the current multiple links each individual blogs. (https://www.blogger.com/profile/00672737003068412511) There was an editor who insisted that they remain in, really don't see a need for it. 009o9 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Anything that reduces the size of an external links section is a good thing. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed POV tag

I removed a Template:POV tag per WP:DETAG, no explanation for its placement was provided in the edit summary nor the talk page. 009o9 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)