This isnt pure WPOR WPCOATRACK fits better I guess I called it basically WPOR in my edit summary for that reason but its essentially OR to suggest that alQaeda has something to do with the investigationeven if its not stated outright The insertion of that material creates the appearance that alQaeda is somehow linked to or related to the investigation which no sources support Thats what I was calling basically OR even if it indeed isnt quite what WPOR means I shouldve used a different term Of course we do original research to create articles and determine notability in the first place but inserting a random similarity goes beyond the scope of what that research covers The source may have said the characteristics are similar but not that its related to this incident or its investigation   rfc  diff 

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
This isnt pure WPOR WPCOATRACK fits better I guess I called it basically WPOR in my edit summary for that reason but its essentially OR to suggest that alQaeda has something to do with the investigationeven if its not stated outright The insertion of that material creates the appearance that alQaeda is somehow linked to or related to the investigation which no sources support Thats what I was calling basically OR even if it indeed isnt quite what WPOR means I shouldve used a different term Of course we do original research to create articles and determine notability in the first place but inserting a random similarity goes beyond the scope of what that research covers The source may have said the characteristics are similar but not that its related to this incident or its investigation   rfc  diff 

