User talk:Asteriks

Welcome, from User:Eric Jack Nash
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Be bold! Again, welcome! --luckymustard 12:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

13 September 2006
Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in William Bennett. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links as long as the content abides by our policies and guidelines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Your comments on Talk:Nancy Pelosi
Thank you for your recent comment. However, article talk pages are reserved for discussion which contributes to the improvement of the article. They are not to be used for general discussion of the subject. If you would like to experiment, please try the the sandbox. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 14:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the above crit is harsh. It is better to put general discussion on a new subpage, but hell, I don't know how to create one.  Thanks for the Bernard Goldberg quote and cites. Someone may object to its length, but that can be discussed, too. --Lexein 11:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Signatures
Hi Asteriks!

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will be then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Talk page guidelines. Thank you. --Le petit prince 13:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Allen Sears
Are you Allen Sears? You seem to be in really tight with the guy. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 21:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not Allen Sears. I'm just a guy who doesn't like injustice and double standards… Asteriks 09:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAP
Your recent addition to the Christian Institute Talk Page has been removed as it is contrary to WP:SOAP  Please do not use WP talk pages for opinion pieces. (This issue has been brought to your attention before on 10 January 2007 - see above)

Your edit to the main article is a clear breach of NPOV and has been removed. If you are at all uncertain on NPOV or any other aspect of WP usage, please feel free to ask. Regards Vacant Stare 15:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree absolutely that my contribution to the Christian Institute's talk page in any way could be construed a soapbox. It was a real case that went to a real court house, made the real newspapers, and led to a real judicial decision being handed down. I submit that the real reason that my contribution was censored that the ugly persecution that an old couple underwent gives a different view of the hate crimes law than that advocated by its minders (a good, necessary, progressive law that in no way can do any harm and can only be thought as thus by old reactionary farts). Asteriks 14:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You have been advised as to the reasoning for the deletion of your original contribution and provided with a link to the related regulation. Your subsequent addition to the talk page is also contrary to WP:SOAP and WP:AGF as well as extremely discourteous to an editor who is merely enforcing the regs.  Someone with a less charitable outlook would be seeking to block you on that basis alone.


 * The veracity of the claims made by the CI and yourself is neither here nor there (tho personally, I agree with your view). Your edit was demonstrably contrary to WP:SOAP and was edited appropriately.  Deletes are always annoying to the author, but, particularly when they are accompanied by links to the appropriate sections of the regs, we are required to accept them and act in a collegiate manner. For the avoidance of doubt, I will of course ask a random 3rd-party editor to check my actioning. (Update - Done: see my talk page. Appropriateness of actioning approved by 3rd party editor.)


 * I do hope you will consider both the content of your future edits and, particularly, the tone in which you choose to address your fellow editors.


 * Please note, replies to personal message should be placed on the talk page of the editor with whom you are speaking. Regards Vacant Stare 16:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One note, I have no opinion on the content of the CI article, so I don't endorse either side in any content dispute. It is important to remember what we're doing here is writing an encyclopedia. Talk pages are a tool for discussing the article. It is not a general purpose space for discussing the subject or adding facts or text which don't fit the article. It is however fine to discuss possible additions to the article there and if you disagree on whether or not something should be in the article, the talk place is definitely the place to do it. henrik  • talk  18:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if anyone feels insulted. Having said that, I am all in favor for avoiding soapboxes, but as for my "edit [being] demonstrably contrary to WP:SOAP and [being] edited appropriately", may I point out that all rules (and facts) are perhaps not always that straight-forward, that all "breaches" of NPOV are not always that "clear", that and it is possible for a human to be mistaken when branding comments as "inappropriate' "or "unacceptable"? (Yes, naturally, that would include my own self.)

What is (or what seems, on the face of it) straightforward is a case of a hate crimes law leading to a legal nightmare for a retired couple in Lancashire. Granted, the film is by the Christian Institute, but does that make the case any less compelling and should the case be ignored because the document used is a CI document? Speaking of "demonstrably", what about the film is only "a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising"? Isn't the film rather filled with facts? (I'd like to take the opportunity to say that I am not a member of CI, nor do I share their views, but I am against dangers to the First Amendment, i.e., free speech.) Should all references to, links to, and excerpts of Wall Street Journal articles and op-eds be deleted because they "advertise", directly or otherwise, for the Republican Party?

My turn to link you to a rule:

"The policy says nothing about objectivity, or whether there is such a thing: a "view from nowhere" to use Thomas Nagel's phrase. Rather, the policy is simply that we should describe disputes, not engage in them" (emphasis mine). And

"Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V."

What exactly was it about the video describing the CI couple's months of travails that is using the soapbox? If soapbox there is, it comes from an identifiable crisis an English couple went through. Saying it uses a soapbox, without demonstration, is not enough, in my honest opinion. If it was a the fact that it is a CI video, then half of all discussions on Wikipedia should be removed. And why is this tantamount to having material — on the talk page, for Christ's sake, and twice now! — deleted forever?!

I have, to my best recollection, never deleted anything on a talk page, and very rarely so in an article, and it so happens that I definitely think that the onus should be on the deleter for explaining, with arguments and facts, his deletions — rather than simply saying I am following rule X or rule Z along with a link to said rule — and not on the person whose material was deleted.

As for your comments on a warning for January 10, I wonder how correct it is to simply take one user's opinion as the gospel (just like opinions, or personal readings, if you prefer, of the rules), notably when a couple of months later, someone else disagreed, stating the crit was "harsh", and that the first user went too far.

I am in the habit of seeing a number of conservative edits get regularly slammed, dissed, deleted, or (considerably) shortened — with or without explanation in the talk pages — along with explanations (later, when confronted) that those responsible were doing nothing but enforcing rule A or rule B. By some strange coincidence, these edits are usually in one direction only (i.e., no deleting of comparable material in what might be called the "liberal" sections of an article). Now, it seems, even the talk pages (seen by what — maybe 1 in 50 visitors to a Wikipedia article?) are taboo!! These I feel are "extremely discourteous" to conservatives and, at the risk of sounding hyperbolic, to the pursuit of truth in general.

I hope nobody takes any of this personally. Asteriks 19:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'm glad you're engaging in a dialog. I don't think you need to post the same text on both Vacant Stare's talk page and your own. Either is fine, but both is a bit redundant :-) The reason is mostly that the talk page isn't the place to put that material. Could you try to rewrite the part about the hate crimes campaign so it is more neutral? There is a difference between "Hate crime legislation is bad, here's poor people getting hurt by it in a video produced by CI" and "The institute has campaigned against hate crime legislation, arguing it has detrimental effects, by producing videos and posting them online". henrik  • talk  19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Henrik's comments above. Present the CI's case (also, give details of which hate crimes law it is that is causing the fuss - it's far from clear to me) and balance it  with the opposing views (there's bound to be some).  If the edit is in proportion to the notability of the issue (a one-day wonder, third item down on the BBC as I recall) then have got yourself a point well made. :-)  IMHO, take Henrik's suggested sentence, bung in the name of the related Acts of Parliament that allegedly caused the issue, and voila!


 * I maintain that your text linking to the video in the main article was POV: an elderly CI couple having to fight the government for their right to free expression is about as POV as it gets! :-)


 * I'm not interested in the rights or wrongs of these two old dears' actions, nor in discussing the merits of liberal vs conservative opinions. This is an encyclopedia: neither viewpoint is appropriate on WP.  This is not a forum for political axe-grinding and I tend to edit it out regardless of which side seems to be bending the facts.


 * I will not take it personally if you will kindly 1) not accuse me of knee-jerk editing (like any sensible editor, I took the time to check the 10 Jan 2007 edit before agreeing with with complainant) and 2) not lump me in with those who may unreasonably edit others work based on some random political bias.


 * Regards Vacant Stare 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am glad that henrik's glad that we're engaging in a dialog (even if our point of contention (sic) continues as late as two months later?). Of course, from my point of view (which I am sure you will shake your head at, wondering how anybody can be so obtuse (especially since I haven't had time to address this fact in the past two months or so)), there was no amount of dialogue when my contribution got unceremoniously discarded — along with the description of the changes I had made in the discussion page!! — but that's another story.

As I re-read the dialog in question (nine to ten weeks later), I am trying very hard to understand here and not lose my patience. Vacant Stare wants to be a watchdog. Fine. In our world, in the world of reality, there are no blacks and whites, only different shades of gray. In a comment, there may be 80% soap and 20% fact, or 80% fact and 20% soap, but there was no question that my contribution was so completely soap-ish (if not 100%, probably close to 97% or so) that it had to vanish completely — as was my second contribution and… as was my second discussion page note!

As it happens, what you did was not only not make a note of the removed material, you removed my talk page note presenting the material I had added. As it stands now, one commenter's contribution to the talk page (mine) is nowhere to be found. What's more, you are… (pause for dramatic effect)… OFFENDED, God forbid, that I don't take your judgment and your decision well. I should do nothing more and sit with an open mouth and react with nothing more than (guilty?) understanding (I should be "collegiate"!) that you had nothing in your mind, body, and soul but good and honorable intentions… (As it happens, the meat of your defense of your entirely-honorable intentions happens to slam my intentions again and again — although it seems to be done in a somewhat gentle way, it is definitely done in a paternal (dare I say in an overbearing?) manner.)

I suppose only good intentions also explain your frequent usage of the passive term ("Your edit to the main article is a clear breach of NPOV", "This issue has been brought to your attention") in sentences like the officialese-sounding, threat-filled "You have been advised". God forbid such a statement be changed to "I decided to advise you" or that the equally officialese-sounding follow-up ("Your edit was demonstrably contrary to WP:SOAP and was edited appropriately") be changed to (dare I say it?) "My point of view — neutral or otherwise — is that such-and-such was not correct and therefore I decided to"… Indeed, with your debate-closed, incontrovertible-conclusion-reached tone of voice you seem to think that I am supposed to feel nothing but gratitude ("Someone with a less charitable outlook would be seeking to block you on that basis alone") and stop arguing, discussing, or engaging in …dialog!

Speaking of charitable outlooks or the lack thereof, I feel you have no excuse for making the godlike decisions you have made. I, for one, consider it a duty not to remove or to change anything in any Wikipedia article without duly making a note of it and, indeed, without making a quote of said removed text for the sake of documentation. I consider the charge of being unsourced a serious charge that must be thoroughly discussed and thoroughly proven before action is taken, not something that lone person acting as prosecutor, defense attorney, main witness, judge, and jury all in one can take upon him- or herself without said discussion/dialog (no, one or two other editors is not a number that I consider enough to overcome that [and that's not just for myself, that's for every contributor]), and that, without presenting the slightest shred of evidence and, indeed, without the slightest talk page note thereof (notwithstanding a note in (very) general terms to the fact that it "goes against Rule A or Rule B" or "against the rules"). Asteriks 17:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
There's some random chatter on your User Page. Might be nicer if you deleted it (I guess someone was confused) and entered some personal details. Always good to know a little about who you're chatting with. Regards Vacant Stare 19:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Christian Institute
I confess that I cannot bring myself to wade through today's incoherent posting to my talk page.

If you have a problem with my actioning on this or any other article, you should follow the procedure outlined very clearly in the Help section. I am, as always, perfectly happy for independent third parties to judge my actioning.

All further postings from you will be deleted, unread. Vacant Stare 18:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PS Please note that I am very rarely online these days and no longer edit articles. I share what seems to to be the now general view that WP is grossly unreliable as an information source and I no longer support it.

Micheal Moore hates america
I have added a comment on the discusion page of the above article please read it if you have a moment?

Yours Grimm MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.37.254 (talk) 23:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Expelled", ID and conservatism
I mentioned this on the talk page of "Expelled" but just in case you miss it, I will repeat myself here. Please do not marginalize conservatives that don't agree with the ID movement by insinuating ID is a conservative issue. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please do not use a talk page for discussing improvements to an article as an opportunity for off-topic soapboxing.  Quoting Nina May's soapboxing is not on-topic either.  If you have a suggestion to improve the article please try to make it without editorializing about one side of the debate or the other, since that only detracts from your point and needlessly aggravates other editors.  Thank you. --  Hi  Ev  11:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Friendly reminder.
(Out of consideration for the fact that you're not a newbie, I'm not leaving a template message). Try not to use articles talk pages as general discussion forums for the subject (as you recently did on several Obama related pages). Wikipedia is not the place to post funny youtube videos, jokes, etc. Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Or posting what are basically political comments about the subject of the article, as I see you've been doing. This isn't a template either, but I guess you need to see these comments as warnings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''  I thought at first you were merely ignorant. I have since discovered that you have been thoroughly informed that IBD, and certainly IBD's editorials, are not reliable sources. Talk:South of the Border (2009 film). You are therefor using known bad sourcing to promote your POV. This is disruptive editing, a blockable offense. '' KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have checked your contribs. From most recent to older, your mainspace contributions have been sourced to unacceptable sources and inappropriate external links. Oliver Stone and South of the Border are discussed in my previous post above. I removed a pajamasmedia blog link from Josef Scheungraber per WP:EL; a similar link was removed from Racial profiling by another editor who cited WP:EL and WP:RS.  You added unsourced content to Kathleen Parker, which was removed as irrelevant. In July you made several edits on Newsweek, which were reverted, with a good deal of AGF, as "good faith" edits, although the editor who removed your added content noted in his edit summary "This section is extremely POV. See talk page." Looking at the talk page, I find his comment "I reverted your recent edit. This is extremely WP:POV. One guy (Bill O'Reilly) arguing over something in a magazine does not make it a controversy." With the exception of a spelling error you introduced then self-corrected on Morrill Tariff, all I've seen is you pushing an extreme POV with bad sourcing. I suggest you read, and study, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. You have made no useful contributions to this encyclopedia, and have wasted a good bit of time with editors having to repeatedly undo your edits and, again repeatedly, explain to you that your sourcing and biased POV are not acceptable for inclusion here. You may be happier at Conservapedia; if you elect to stay here instead, learn our policies and abide by them. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"I thought at first you were merely ignorant." Well KillerChihuahua, what can I say, I guess I am not as intelligent as you are…

"I have since discovered that you have been thoroughly informed that IBD, and certainly IBD's editorials, are not reliable sources."

Informed by whom, KillerChihuahua?! And once you tell me who so informed me, thanks for telling me how this person is the bearer of all knowledge?!

You speak of "an editor" did this, another "editor" told me that, a third "editor" was forced to do such-and-such — are these people authorities in their fields, or are they simple citizens like myself, perhaps knowledgeable (in certain areas), perhaps not (in certain others), and perhaps even bringing into the game (consciously or not) their… own biases. (Yes, liberal bias is known to exist too, you know…)

You will excuse me (and sorry, Dynablaster, if I offend you), but as it happens, I do not see how Dynablaster is an authority on anything at all (with the possible exception of "Musicians who have served in the military" and "Unreferenced BLPs")…

Nor do I understand how the addition of a simple footnote, in a list of others (!) — by a renowned Professor of Economics (Walter E. Williams) (!) — is "pushing an extreme POV with bad sourcing"?! (Unless one believes that leftist sources only should be listed (see leftist bias above)…)

How about providing me/us with evidence — say, three specific examples — that IBD, and/or it's editorials, are unreliable? (Not necessarily asked of KillerChihuahua, asked of anybody…) — More on IBD (a couple of paragraphs) below. I will add that in the past on Wikipedia I have been told (or I have seen other posters being told) — along with the "necessary" removal of appropriate text — that Fox News was not a valid source, that Ann Coulter was not a valid source, that… the Wall Street Journal (!) was not a valid source, that… In the final analysis, it would seem that no source is valid unless it belongs to a left-leaning person or outlet.

It seems to me that my main offense, here — certainly my original offense — has been to not be infatuated with a poster-child of the Left, and to post what is — yes — a balanced editorial on an alleged documentary singing the praises of Hugo Chávez!

As for the Bill O'Reilly controversy, it seems to me what matters less is who makes the charge (whether famous or not, whether infamous or not) than what the charge is. (In this case, a major Newsweek article on Sarah Palin when in fact it was written not by one of Newsweek's staff of trained journalists but by Rick Perlstein, who, according to Bill O'Reilly, is "a far-left zealot who blogs for a liberal site called Campaign for America's Future and who lists "one of his 'interests' as 'conservative failure'." Even if you take away every word of Bill O'Reilly that was quoted in that that paragraph, the charge of shoddy journalism remains (well, it remains, except not for Wikipedia readers, who have been denied the possibility to judge for themselves)…

In fact, when you think about it, in what way is Bill O'Reilly less controversial, or less partisan, than Rick Perlstein? Why, then (if he's not), shouldn't his criticism (or anybody's criticism) of someone "who blogs for a liberal site called Campaign for America's Future and who lists "one of his 'interests' as 'conservative failure'" be allowed to remain on Wikipedia — when Newsweek suggests that its piece on Sarah Palin (authored by Rick Perlstein) was altogether objective? More to the point: ''why, then, do Wikipedia contributors get flamed for pointing to the Bill O'Reilly article, but Newsweek itself, on its Wikipedia entry, escapes any opprobrium?!

Fact-checking, in American journalism, means checking for facts and making sure that the information presented in an article is balanced! I.e., that if an article in a periodical — or on the net, or in an encyclopedia — gives the opinions of too many right-leaning people, those should be balanced with the viewpoints of left-leaning people.

And vice-versa!

"You are therefor using known bad sourcing to promote your POV."

Saying that IBD, one of the most respected business media outlets in America, "is not a reliable source" is not POV?! I will remind you that the Wikipedia Article (no, I had nothing to do with writing it) states that: "Investors Business Daily also carries editorials and columns on topics from 'economics and government to politics and culture' . It carries columns from writers 'On The Left and On The Right', including L. Brent Bozell, Richard Cohen, E. J. Dionne, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, and Thomas Sowell." Should that paragraph be edited, KillerChihuahua, to state that "IBD's editorials are not reliable sources"?!

"From most recent to older, your mainspace contributions have been sourced to unacceptable sources and inappropriate external links."

Unacceptable and inappropriate, again, according to whom, KillerChihuahua?! Again, should the IBD paragraph, with it's list of (among others) New York Times and Washington Post columnists, be edited to state that "IBD's editorials are unacceptable sources and [form] inappropriate external links"?!

"all I've seen is you pushing an extreme POV with bad sourcing"

So, again, renowned Professor of Economics Walter E. Williams is an extreme POV with bad sourcing? Really? Of course, nobody can debate that anymore or… judge for themselves (!), since the original post (again, nothing but a simple footnote) has been deleted…

(Incidentally, I would imagine, KillerChihuahua, you would also say that, say, millions of "biased" tea party members are pushing, or being pushed with, "an extreme POV with bad sourcing", and that their opinions should be denied public debate?…)

It seems to me quite clear that the common people do not have the right to (voicing) their opinions, unless, of course, the points of view happen to side with the politically correct ones of the better-than-thou élites who, alone, are supposed to have anything worthwhile to say…

"You may be happier at Conservapedia" Are we wrong to conclude that my original sin was, really, not to have a liberal POV and to be so bold as to show (what, basically, are mainstream) conservative viewpoints (and reasonable and well-argued ones, at that)? I.e., something despicable, according to some, that should have no presence (or, the least possible presence) on Wikipedia?

For some reason, all of this, all of what you have been telling me, reminds me of the New York Times decision, after giving space to presidential candidate Barack Obama for an op-ed in the summer of 2008, turning down the (already written) contribution (and the answer) of John McCain…

To repeat: Fact-checking, in American journalism, means checking for facts and making sure that the information presented in an article is balanced! I.e., that if an article in a periodical — or on the net, or in an encyclopedia — gives the opinions of too many right-leaning people, those should be balanced with the viewpoints of left-leaning people.

And vice-versa!

I will remind you that I have a formation as a fact-checker at one of America's most trusted magazines, and that I will not be bullied, or treated in this sort of defamatory way. Asteriks (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grover Norquist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Moore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinking
Hi, thanks for your work on en.WP.

Please remember not to link dates, years, and common terms, unless there's a particular reason. Tony  (talk)  03:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of alternate history fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Southern Poverty Law Center
Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/24/southern-poverty-law-center-hate-group-label-hit-in-evangelicals-lawsuit.html. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Le Boudin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anonymous ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Le_Boudin check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Le_Boudin?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spokane International Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federal ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Spokane_International_Airport check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Spokane_International_Airport?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)