Talk:E.l.f. (cosmetics)

Neutrality

Greetings! An IP address recently nominated the entry for a neutrality check, citing in their edit description that the page "looks like someone was spamming Wikipedia." However, they did not give any distinct reasons for coming to that conclusion. I have removed the POV tag with the hopes that if they would like to retag the entry, they will give some constructive reasons on this talk page. As a heads up, I created the article with every intention of writing a legitimate and unbiased entry, but my editing style is admittedly WAY over-inclusionist at times. (NOT biased, I do dare say, just...ok, I can veer on prose bloat, though I reference every fact). I assume that is why he assumed it was spam? If people have constructive criticism, I would be quite happy assist in addressing any problems, some help streamlining the page might be good too. Cheers, and happy editing! Richardo42 (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm at it; if the article seems like it has a weirdly positive, part of the reason is I couldn't find any controversies or negative write-ups when I was doing research. I DID find loads of people complaining that the shipping time was atrociously slow when the company first started their website, but the reviews were all informal complaints, and not in any sort of publication, so I left them out. (I am against forums as references except in unique cases). But if someone can find something legitimately negative out there, I say go ahead and add in, might make for a more balanced feel. Richardo42 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eyes Lips Face. 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/20121006021210/http://articles.cnn.com/2006-01-09/us/otr.elf_1_scott-vincent-borba-makeup-and-skin-care-products?_s=PM%3AUS to http://articles.cnn.com/2006-01-09/us/otr.elf_1_scott-vincent-borba-makeup-and-skin-care-products?_s=PM%3AUS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710212850/http://www.eyeslipsface.com/tab_buzz.asp?filterBy=100010 to http://www.eyeslipsface.com/tab_buzz.asp?filterBy=100010
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006021210/http://articles.cnn.com/2006-01-09/us/otr.elf_1_scott-vincent-borba-makeup-and-skin-care-products?_s=PM%3AUS to http://articles.cnn.com/2006-01-09/us/otr.elf_1_scott-vincent-borba-makeup-and-skin-care-products?_s=PM%3AUS

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)