Talk:Citizen's Briefing Book/Archive 1

Enlighten bad requests

Hello, I move here the sentence :

"Popular recommendations included ending the prohibition on marijuana use in the United States and the legalization of online poker."

First : is here a source for that ? Second: I guess that in such websites, we also get request such as "please increase the number of camel in USA", "Please tell us what happen in 1947, at Roswell", ...

Should we put such request in the article introduction ? I don't think so, that's certainly not representative of the book, these too request are on the extrem side of naivity. Yug (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it seems there are sources for this 2 statements. Stay that they shouldn't be enlighten in the introduction : they are not representative. Yug (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you acknowledge, the information is sourced to multiple sources later in the article. Please note from WP:LEAD: The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. Cirt (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there is now yet another citation to back up this information, sourced to Reuters, as published in San Diego Union Tribune. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

An update on what's going on with the Citizen's Briefing Book: [1] = not an WP:RS, but hopefully more info will come out about this in additional secondary sources, and also more developments. Cirt (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA quality article

This article had a GA review, and was successfully passed as a WP:GA quality article. The review is at Talk:Citizen's Briefing Book/GA1. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Citizen's Briefing Book. 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/20090810203443/http://www.observer.com:80/mobile/article/81394 to http://www.observer.com/mobile/article/81394

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} 18:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]