Talk:Youmanity

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Accademia Apulia. 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, 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) 06:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant misinformation, colonial

I took a look at some of the spam links that have added to the 'pedia to promote this group. Their pages are full of ignorant, racially insensitive misrepresentations about the cultures they claim to be "educating" about. It's a UK site. They have videos claiming to address colonization, but their content about Native Americans was completely inaccurate and insulting. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I overhauled this astroturf article and am not pleased. They claimed to have "received the patronage of" this list of orgs... for no other reasons than the award they give out was mentioned in a group's newsletter, or that a member of that org attended one of their events (said giving out of the photography award). Most of the "sources" cited did not mention the group at all. The group was founded as a business networking group, so I'm not sure at one point they rebranded as a charity. All kinds of red flags here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I have started a clean-up of this article, looking to address some of the COI or Paid issues that are currently subject to templates. I have started to check every assertion and, as necessary, to improve the citations. I have no affiliation to the organisation (I responded to a related question posed on Quora, and volunteered to be a disinterested reviewer). If other editors want to help me on this, please do. Paul W (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the details presented in the article and tried to ensure they are appropriately supported by reliable, independent citations. I think it is now more balanced and that the COI/Paid inputs have been neutralised, but would welcome other editors' views about removing the notices. Paul W (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion to date, so pinging previous contributors @CorbieVreccan: and @Cordless Larry: in case they have observations. Paul W (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've done a good job, Paul W. Thanks for putting that effort in. I'd have no objections to removing the templates now. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]