Talk:Imprimis

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Politics: Libertarianism Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Limbaugh quote

The trancript from which the Limbaugh quote was taken shows quite clearly that it is an in-show ad. As such, it appears to present something of a conflict, and I support its replacement with one that didn't come from advertising copy. Can anyone find a reliable, third party source that describes Limbaugh's support for the publication? What do others feel about the removal of this quote? Steamroller Assault (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little mixed. I guess it could be an ad (at least, it starts with a Hillsdale student and ends with an ad), but Limbaugh himself has appeared in Imprimis in January 2009, and I don't think it's that outlandish for him to say that he supports it. But you're right, finding a better source would be preferable. I'll see if I can find something from National Review or the Wall Street Journal, something that has a conservative bent inclined to express support. --Abidjan227 (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imprimis. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223193718/http://media.www.hillsdalecollegian.com/media/storage/paper1270/news/2008/04/10/News/Imprimus-3316940.shtml to http://media.www.hillsdalecollegian.com/media/storage/paper1270/news/2008/04/10/News/Imprimus-3316940.shtml

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) 12:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading title

It is wrong that a derived secondary use of this word is the subject of this article. It needs a stub on the primary significance Jezza (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]