Talk:National Rural Letter Carriers' Association

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Philately Low‑importance

	Philately portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philately, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of philately and stamp collecting 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.PhilatelyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilatelyTemplate:WikiProject PhilatelyPhilately
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Overlinking and other formatting issues

MOS:SYL says:

Date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month should not generally be linked; for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations. Such links should not be used unless following the link would genuinely help the reader understand the topic more fully; see WP:CONTEXT. Autoformatting must not be used for the following purposes:

Also, WP:CONTEXT explains why there is no need to link th same thing repeatedly, and why we don't link plain English words in most cases.

Also, WP:MOS explains that we use sentence case, not Title Case, for section headings, i.e., only the first words and proper nouns are capitalizaed. the other words in the title are not. And we don't put links into section headings.

I hope that helps. Ground Zero | t 02:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI and POV issues

I have tagged this article as having a conflict of interest, in that the major contributor is directly related to, and an official of, the organization which is the subject of this article. Neutral point of view is lacking, especially where the article discusses the union's advocacy of certain legislation and advances a particular point of view. JGHowes ^talk 04:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the major contributor to this article, I'd like to point out that the NRLCA is a labor union, and when writing about its issues, it seems reasonable that their would be something of a slant toward their beliefs and opinions. I did my best to keep what I wrote as neutral as possible. I'm not sure where I "crossed the line" in your opinion, but rather than go through all this, couldn't you have just given it a little edit and neutralized it? By the way, I liked the list of former Presidents in three columns better.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict of interest is obvious, but Johnny Spasm has been very open about the COI and also open to JGHowes attempting to fix the neutrality of the article. As long as there is cooperation I don't see that there is undue disruption that would lead to an enforcement of the suggestions at the COI guideline. If there does happen to be disruption (say, an edit war or repeated insertion of POV information) then Johnny Spasm would be encouraged to only make uncontroversial edits on the main page (typo fixes, reverting obvious vandalism) and request major changes to the text on the talk page rather than making them directly. -- Atama頭 23:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Atama, for your quick response to my request for a third opinion regarding the COI concern, in lieu of taking it to WP:COIN. As to the layout for the former presidents section, the previous format resulted in large amounts of white space and sandwiched text on some browsers/monitors, so I made the change to a simpler format for improved readability. JGHowes ^talk 01:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National Rural Letter Carriers' Association. 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) 07:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red link

Someone red linked the word 'Contract' on the section 'Contract with the USPS', asking for a Copy of usps current contract. Is that an actual article that should be created?Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]