Talk:Underground Literary Alliance

Cite that fact

Alot of the statements in this article are hard to believe. There has also been copious amounts of vandalism made to the article, hopefully most reverted. If you can cite something here please do so that this information can be verified.-BillDeanCarter 00:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"alot" is not a word. It is a town in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.162.199 (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations Made

All of the “Citation Needed” remarks have been addressed with a citation or multiple citations. The status of “This article may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints” should be removed, as citations have been made, as well as citing negative criticism towards the ULA in the Marc Parker review of Slush Pile. I aim to remove the “This article may be inaccurate…” status in a week unless there is further protest. Any input would be appreciated. I would also like to note the status of User:BillDeanCarter as “blocked indefinatly”, the user requesting citations. Jpetrolinoiii (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

The ULA and Karl Wenclas are well known self-promoters. Nothing in this article relates to anything other than how great the ULA is for causing trouble, and it is clearly written by a ULA member, who is one of the very few indiviudals who would care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.192.182 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a little bias there, is there, "anonymous." If the ULA is supposedly dead, why be worried? (The ULA is ongoing. I've been in touch with ULA Press head Jeff Potter, who continues selling ULA books. Plans are afoot for a new website. Not that we need one. We've often operated underground. Uh, see our name.) If this entry was originally posted by a ULA sympathizer, I'd say it's now gone the other way. Many of the descriptions of various ULA events-- the KGB affair, for instance-- are plainly written from an anti-ULA viewpoint. Or take the Amazon matter. Eggers was outed by the NY Times as an anonymous poster. The ULA wasn't. This was clearly documented by a source which surely had no pro-ULA bias. Whatever David Eggers "suggested," it doesn't alter the facts of the matter. Regarding self-promotion, which the ULA surely engaged in, with some success. Are we to believe that HarperCollins, say, does not engage in self-promotion?? I'm a fan of the Philadelphia Phillies baseball team. They do a great deal of self-promotion. Yes, the ULA promoted our existence as writers, our contrary ideas, and our products, including our book line. Is this really a bad thing? It's because our ideas conflict with those of the literary mainstream that we've been treated since our founding with a combination of fear and hostility. Exemplified even at this entry-- probably moreso at my own wiki entry. -Karl Wenclas, supporter of the Underground Literary Alliance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlwenclas (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Underground Literary Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090830205657/http://www.nytimes.com:80/2004/02/14/technology/14AMAZ.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/14/technology/14AMAZ.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Underground Literary Alliance. 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) 03:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]