Talk:MutualArt Group

Clean up

I've tackled the advertorial and general clean-up, someone else can have a go. I'm unsure of the importance of this one Chrismorey (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of being created for money by User:BiH, this article probably now meets our criteria for inclusion; some sources are reliable and in-depth, while the subject makes clear claims to significance and importance. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artist Pension Trust. 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/20140202124504/http://www.arttactic.com/podcasts/latest-podcast/588-moti-shniberg-artist-pension-trust.html to http://www.arttactic.com/podcasts/latest-podcast/588-moti-shniberg-artist-pension-trust.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

I've reverted to a version covering the 2017 controversy, which seems to have decent sources. Tacyarg (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User has changed back to a version making the company look better. No idea which is correct but probably needs discussion rather than edit warring. Tacyarg (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced "Contract Breach Scandal"

Is there any reason for this completely unsourced section added in Special:Diff/1200535097 to be kept? Asking here to avoid further edit warring. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]