Talk:Ernie Chambers

message: The sixth paragraph does not seem to have a NPOV in its discussion of Chambers' opinions on race issues. It would be nice to have some citations for the examples that are given.
:~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben7423 (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that we should be talking about Chambers himself rather than the article, but... he is the only African American in the Nebraska Legislature, and only the second African American ever to serve in that body - with the previous Senator serving in 1892. Chambers "obsession" could be shown to be duly justified. • Freechild'sup? 18:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original conversation from article start date

message: Hey all,
I added a citation request to this article's claim that Chambers is a "Democrat." I must watch his weekly public-access television show a majority of the time, and he often mentions the fact that he has never garnered (at least in so much as financial) support from *any* political party, in which he often seems almost bitter, but proud. As far as I know he is an independent, but if his party registry illicits otherwise, I'd like to know. I would think such a label would be offensive to Chambers and even the DNC, unless true.
Added verification template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patrio-fascist (talk • contribs) 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent citation note 

message: To let it be known,
Chambers has a wikipediac vanguard in me. Please note: I will be watching this article like a hawk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patrio-fascist (talk • contribs) 00:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attn: Editor of this article 

message: I just saw a disturbing event on this article.  The first line described him as a Republican this afternoon, and then - after some discussion on Orfay, it now lists him as a Democrat.
I searched his name on Google and found his state legislature web site, which lists no party affiliation.  The fact that he ran for US Senate as a New Alliance Party member makes me doubt he is a Republican.
Can someone please either remove the epithet or verify it with outside citations?
----
Jay Duff
Chicago, IL  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.106.187 (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party affiliation 

message: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Nebraska_Senator_sues_God
Some information should be added to the article about this weird incident. Contralya 13:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit... 

message: The way that quotes and phrases have been taken from articles has been in a fashion biased against Sen. Chambers, particularly in the 2006 Omaha schools section.  I did my best to better clarify that section and give proper context with selections from the cited articles.  I also added a little bit to the section about the lawsuit against God to better clarify that situation as well.
I moved some random statements around into more appropriate sections of the page and made some minor grammatical edits in other places.  I also changed all references referring to him as "Chambers" to "Sen. Chambers".  The fact he was not even being referred to as Mr. Chambers is in very poor taste.
SouthStExit 07:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my choice to refer to the subject of the article as "Chambers" rather than anything else. WP is an encyclopedia, and should avoid the familiarity of everyday speech, such as using "mister" as an honorific. I will leave "senator" out of respect for his position - but, if you feel passionately about labeling elected officials by their position and honorifics, I would suggest that you have a long road to travel on WP, where politicians are simply subjects of articles. I do appreciate the rest of your edits though, and hope that you will attend to more articles on WP. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 14:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various Edits 

message: I can't trust this article's veracity because, at the moment, it talks about something believable (that someone filed suit against god), but then talks about something wholly unbelievable (that a document "appeared" where god responded to the allegations).  I see the CNN article, and I *still* don't believe it.  PragmaticallyWyrd 07:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way media paints Chambers is generally as a "maverick", and I think that's the point of his lawsuit is to demonstrate the inanity of such lawsuits. That response, where the document "appears", only shows that someone else doesn't get the point Chambers is trying to make. Anyhow, its all cited with reliable sources, so the truthfulness is evident. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 13:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the suggestion is made that god actually did this.  The liberal use of quotation marks in both the cited article and this article make this clear.  As Freechild mentions these responses illustrate how the point Chambers is trying to make has been missed, not that god is really trying to file a response.  However, I will say this point could be made more clear.  If you don't want to do this, I will try and think about it on this weekend.Wolfrock 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Veracity

message: Was the 100th Legislature Session Chamber's final year or does he have another year to go?  He spent the 100th making statements like "when I'm gone, this legislature is going down hill."  Also should there be mention of the controversy surrounding term limits and the possibility that it may have been passed as an indirect action against Chambers?  Nice or in evil (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article can assert any of these points as long as there are reliable sources for the article. • Freechild'sup? 04:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Final year?

message: Hey everyone,
I just wanted to stop in and make some clarifying notes again:
1) April 17, 2008 *was not* Sen. Chamber's final day as a senator; that is misleading, though truthful it might seem. The Winter Session of the Nebraska Unicameral ended on April 17, 2008, none of the state senators' terms ended on April 17, 2008. Ernie has stated this *many* times on his show. He will remain in office until after the elections in November, but will hold all the capacities and duties of a state senator until that time. I would recommend that section be altered. Also, the subsequent quote in the topic paragraph is an allustion to the change of legislative term limits in the Nebraska state constitution; it seems awkward to place at the forefront of an article on someone whose life and career is, in my mind, so complex.
2) In the "2006 Omaha Public Schools controversy" section, a quote is given without source; most of my complaints are of lack of references in the current article form. The section also quotes the "learning community" term, which would be a reference to legal entities created within the bill. I could see how this could be confusing for leymen.
3) Sen. Chambers has always appeared to be fairly private; I don't intend for any of the criticisms I make to be rude or offensive, but rather to make the point that anything we do record should be accurate, as should the structure. Overall, this article seems to be in *much* better condition than when I first saw it a couple years ago.
I have tried editing this article before in ways I've deemed very appropriate, only to be reedited to a completely different tone by the relevant wikipedia editor. I don't blame wikipedia, or the editors, or the oversight, but I think I've made my points, and if there are pertinent editors whom might wish to contact me for editing advice, I would respond to wikipedia communication.
Thanks, all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrio-fascist (talk • contribs) 19:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Final year and Various Edits, etc.

message: Does any one have a good source for the lawsuit being thrown out?  All I know is that it was on the local news here in Omaha (but the I didn't see it in the Omaha World Herald). 68.229.190.8 (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found one; however, according to the World-Herald the trial is proceeding(!). • Freechild'sup? 14:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawsuit Update

message: This article, in its current form, appears to be very much slanted towards recent events. We have as much about Chambers' 2007 'lawsuit against God' as we have on the entire rest of his political career. This doesn't seem right, seeing as it was only one event, and not a particularly historically significant one; the Franklin scandal is far more historically significant, but we only have one paragraph about it here. The 'lawsuit against God' section should be reduced to a more reasonable length, to give a more balanced view of Mr. Chambers' career. Terraxos (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I started by cutting out paragraphs that aren't even ABOUT the lawsuit but are about the lawsuit that led to the lawsuit. Lot 49atalk 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recentism 

message: "He is also a civil rights activist and is widely-regarded as Nebraska's most prominent and outspoken African American leader." quote from the article at this point. Widely regarded qualifies as weasel words. Who regards him as such? Quote a source or tell us who regards him as most prominant & outspoken, otherwise this passage needs to be shortened.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.95.31 (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, and changed it.  I answered your question, i.e. "who" regards him as the most prominent and outspoken, and the answer is, "the citizens of the state of Nebraska".  I have no reference for that other than my own, i.e. I live in Nebraska.  Warren Fish (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widely regarded 

message: The explanation that Chambers gives for his lawsuit against God (that he wants to demonstrate that "you cannot prohibit the filing of suits" in order to keep the court open to all) is called "apparently tongue-in-cheek" in this article. An alternative explanation (that he wanted to protest a specific supposedly frivolous suit) is treated as fact. But, every direct quote that I can find from Chambers suggests that this first, dismissed explanation is actually the man's real motivation. This recent letter to the editor written by Chambers is an example:
http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor-jan-28-1.2450403
The article should be changed to reflect Chambers's intended meaning for his (admittedly confusing) symbolic action.
98.23.141.168 (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you reword the entire section? petrarchan47tc 01:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

text: The link says "element not valid".  petrarchan47tc 00:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding about purpose of lawsuit 

message: What sources "generally agreed" Chambers would have won another term if he didn't have to step down in 2009 following the term-limits law?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.115.152 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Generally agreed" he would win? 

message: I edited this page.  My father, who is a lawyer, defended David Rice of the Rice/Poindexter case; he knows Ernie Chambers from that and possibly from my father's anti-Vietnam war activities and participatiom in civil rights gatherings locally, as well as his work as a family lawyer in the Omaha community. My father also obviously knows many judges and politicians in Omaha and Lincoln because it was and still to this day can be a very small town. I used to work as a runner (to the courthouse) for my dad during high school. I do not know Chambers personally beyond having been seen Chambers in passing (as in my father waving hello) a few times as a young girl when walking to the courthouse with my dad. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI Good Will Disclosure 

message: (Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)
There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:
It goes against our manual of style for infoboxes.
:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox says:
*"When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." 
:I might add that the infobox talk pages have a long history of rejecting the arguments of various editors who insist on trying to cram more and more information into the infoboxes, using the same basic argument: "yes this is well covered in the article, but this VITALLY IMPORTANT detail MUST be in the infobox as well because mumble mumble (waves hands)." Again and again, the overwhelming consensus has been to put only the bare minimum into the infobox and to expect the reader to read the actual article for the fine details and distinctions.
There is no consensus for it.
:This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
:A bit later, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. The result of that discussion in in the closing summary: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'."
:More recently, I did a survey and found that hundreds of Wikipedia pages use "Religion: None" in the infobox and only five use "Religion = None (atheist)"
METHODOLOGY:
Before I started this project I searched to find what wording most pages use and found a strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages. More recently I did a count to see how strong that consensus really is.
First, I did a search on "Religion: None" in article space , grabbed the first 500 results, and deleted everything that wasn't "Religion: None" in the infobox of a BLP (including many pages such as Ysgol Bryn Alyn that use "Religion: None" in the infobox but are not BLPs). This left me with the following 280 pages:
 
* Abdurrahman Vazirov
* Achille Occhetto
* Adalet Agaoglu
* Afonso Costa
* Agata Passent
* Agnes Kant
* Ahilya Rangnekar
* Ahmet Altan
* Akhil Gogoi
* Akram Yari
* Albert Caraco
* Albert Rivera
* Aleksandar Vulin
* Alessandro Gadotti
* Alfred Charles Hanlon
* Ali Akbar (writer)
* Aliheydar Garayev
* Anders Carlsson (politician)
* Andrea Pason
* Andrzej Morozowski
* Anindya Sinha
* Anna Grodzka
* Ante Ciliga
* Anton Hofreiter
* Antonio Carluccio
* Antonio Maccanico
* Antony Flew
* Arthur Smith (comedian)
* Ashraf Dehghani
* August Spångberg
* Ayo Sogunro
* Bahadir Baruter
* Bart D. Ehrman
* Benoy Choudhury
* Bernhard Caesar Einstein
* Billy Leonard
* Billy Wharton
* Bob Ferris (Likely Lads)
* Bob Scott (politician)
* Brian Koppelman
* C. M. Padmanabhan Nair
* C. N. Jayadevan
* CJ Werleman
* Camilo Ballesteros
* Can Yücel
* Carlos Martínez Gorriarán
* Carlos Ominami
* Carmelo Bene
* Casey Patrick Tebo
* Çetin Altan
* Chadayan Govindan
* Charuhasan
* Chingiz Ildyrym
* Christian Lindner
* Christopher Hitchens
* Claudio Bisio
* Clive Soley, Baron Soley
* Colin Challen
* Cordelia Gray
* Cyril Desbruslais
* Dan Barker
* Daniel Dennett
* Danny Ledonne
* Dave Cross
* David Wearing
* Desiree Schell
* Donald McLachlan
* Duncan Scott (director)
* Edmund McMillen
* Edoardo Sanguineti
* Eduardo Ferro Rodrigues
* Eduards Veidenbaums
* Edward Roderick Davies
* Edwin Kagin
* Ehsan Jami
* Enrique Ferrarese
* Ephraim Evron
* Eric Maisel
* Eric Wiebes
* Erik Naggum
* Eugen Leviné
* Ewout Irrgang
* Faiz Ahmad
* Frank Baude
* Françoise David
* Gamca
* Gilbert Romme
* Gilles Duceppe
* Giorgos Kaminis
* Giovanni Spadolini
* Goparaju Ramachandra Rao
* Gopinath Muthukad
* Gorka Maneiro
* Greg Pason
* Greta Christina
* Grigory Kaminsky
* Grzegorz Napieralski
* Gustav Koerner
* Hanna Bakula
* Harald Beyer (politician)
* Hare Krishna Konar
* Heather Mac Donald
* Henk Vonhoff
* Herman Philipse
* Hugues Gentillon
* Ian Mearns
* Ian O'Doherty
* Ibn al-Rawandi
* Ilir Hoxha
* Imam Mustafayev
* Irena Krzywicka
* Irene Montalà
* István Vágó
* Ivan Macek
* J. H. Patel
* James Underdown
* Jamie Kilstein
* Jan Hartman (philosopher)
* Jan Terlouw
* Jeff Berwick
* Jenn Forgie
* Jennifer Michael Hecht
* Jerzy Urban
* Jesse Bering
* Jessica Ahlquist
* Jimmy LaSalvia
* Joan Smith
* John Ball (pioneer)
* John Beaman
* John Maxton
* Jonas Sjöstedt
* Jonathan Neale
* Josip Manolic
* Jovanka Broz
* Juan José Sebreli
* Juan Mendez (politician)
* Julia Scheeres
* Julian Sanchez (writer)
* Julie Elliott
* K. A. Mathiazhagan
* K. Balakrishnan (CPI-M)
* Kang We-suck
* Kazimiera Szczuka
* Kazimierz Kutz
* Kimun Ongkosandjojo
* Kinga Dunin
* Kingunge Ngombale–Mwiru
* Kitty Harris
* Kodiyeri Balakrishnan
* Koenraad Elst
* Laci Green
* Ladislav Hrusovsky
* Lazar Mojsov
* Lech Janerka
* Lee Jung-hee
* Leo Ford
* Leonid Gozman
* Leslie Alexander (businessman)
* Lewis McDonald
* Ljubo Cupic
* Lorenzo the cat
* Lucía Topolansky
* Luís Guillermo Peréz
* M. R. Radha
* Maarten Boudry
* Maarten van Rossem
* Magdalena Sroda
* Mahmud Aliyev
* Marcello Pera
* Marcus Bakker
* Margaret Downey
* Maria Peszek
* Marian Marzynski
* Mariko Yamada
* Martin Harty
* Matt Taibbi
* Matthew Asinari
* Maurice Williamson
* Mehmet Shehu
* Michael Newdow
* Michael Nugent
* Michael O'Riordan
* Miguel Ángel García Domínguez
* Mike Hicks (trade unionist)
* Mikhail Kalinin
* Milutin Mrkonjic
* Mir Bashir Gasimov
* Mir Hasan Vazirov
* Misir Ali
* Mookie Tenembaum
* Moovalur Ramamirtham
* Multatuli
* Murat Belge
* Myrthe Hilkens
* Naman Ahuja
* Nanasaheb Kunte
* Nanduri Prasada Rao
* Narendra Dabholkar
* Narendra Nayak
* Nathalie Arthaud
* Nathan Phelps
* Nedurumalli Janardhana Reddy
* Nenad Puhovski
* Nick Gillespie
* Nicola Bombacci
* Nigar Kocharli
* Nihar Mukherjee
* Nikolay Gikalo
* Nikolay Kavkazsky
* Noemí Rial
* Oliviero Diliberto
* Ophelia Benson
* Orion Metcalf Barber
* Oronzo Vito Gasparo
* Osvaldo Dorticós Torrado
* P. Krishna Pillai
* Pablo Iglesias
* Patrick Harvie
* Pedro Sánchez (politician)
* Pelin Batu
* Piero Angela
* Ploutis Servas
* Provash Ghosh
* R. J. Hollingdale
* Radovan Vlajkovic
* Relus ter Beek
* Remus Cernea
* Renata Dancewicz
* Renske Leijten
* Rob Burch (politician)
* Robert Biedron
* Robert Carroll (Australian politician)
* Roman Kostrzewski
* Ron Reagan
* Rosa Díez
* Rosie Kane
* Ruben Rubenov
* S. E. Cupp
* S.G. Sardesai
* Sadanand Dhume
* Sanal Edamaruku
* Sarbottam Dangol
* Sergej Kraigher
* Shibdas Ghosh
* Siraj Sikder
* Slobodan Penezic
* St Patrick's Purgatory
* Stanislav Hurenko
* Steven Whitehurst
* Susan Jacoby
* Susheela Gopalan
* Swaminathan Aiyar
* Tages
* Terence Hallinan
* Theo de Meester
* Thomas Gore
* Thomas Megahy
* Tom Copley
* Tom Flynn (author)
* Trifko Grabež
* Turan Dursun
* Tyler Curry
* Ugur Uluocak
* V. Subbiah
* Vali Akhundov
* Vashti McCollum
* Vicko Krstulovic
* Victor Stepaniuc
* Viduthalai Rajendran
* Vitaly Fedorchuk
* Vittorio Feltri
* Vladimir Ivashko
* Vladimir Polonsky
* Walid Husayin
* Walter Schütz
* Woolf Wess
* Yan Gamarnik
* Ye Xiaowen
* Zbigniew Religa
* Zhou Tienong
I could probably come up with another hundred or so if I checked more than 500 pages.
To test whether the above might be the results of my own efforts, I spot checked a couple of dozen of those pages and found that the vast majority of those pages have never been edited by me and that most have used "Religion: None" for months or years. 
I then did the same search on "Religion: None (atheist)" and  "Religion: None (atheism)" in article space and found five pages:
* Ernie Chambers
* George Will
* Johann Hari
* Vesna Pusic
* Zoran Milanovic
:This reflects the strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages.
It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry
:In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies. 
It is highly objectionable to many atheists.
:Many atheists strongly object to anything that even hints at calling atheism a religion. 
:One of the standard arguments that evangelic christian apologists use in an attempt to refute atheism is "atheism is just another religion. You need faith to believe that there is no God". That's why so many atheists object to any hint that atheism is a religion and why before adding "(atheism)" there must be a reliable reliable source that establishes that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.
:In addition, "Religion: None (atheist)" usually fails to tell the whole story. Most atheists do reject theism, but they also reject all nontheistic religions and a wide variety of non-religious beliefs. "Religion = None (atheist)" actually narrows down the meaning of "Religion = None" to the point where in many cases the infobox entry is no longer accurate.
It violates the principle of least astonishment.
:Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = 1986 (banana)" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."
In my opinion, "Religion = None" remains the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, that is a lot of effort to respond to one edit, ! I hope that this is something that you have saved as stored text and didn't write it for this edit. I appreciate your diligence in making the infobox correct, in your opinion, but it seems like a bit of overkill. I apologize -- I made a mistake undoing your edit and will not touch the entry in the infobox going forward. But really, only a few paragraphs was necessary. Your point is made. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem at all. I do a lot of editing where I correct the same error on a bunch of pages. You would be amazed at how often someone writes something like "Canberra is is the capital city of Australia". I go through page after page, fixing the problem, and when the first person reverts me (yes there are people who revert simple "is is" corrections) I write up a brief talk page comment and save it for later. If someone really insists on retaining the error, I write up something longer and more convincing. After that point it is all cut and paste. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. 

message: There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages. 
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]] 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry that this article has been the focus of what is a "project" to go over every contribution I have made to Wikipedia with good intention and good faith. It appears that the result of this process means that fully cited content will get / is deleted -- which seems to be a typical effort of many Wikipedia editors sadly. So it's too bad that articles like this one on Senator Chambers has been affected, and I apologize that my edits have triggered a process that may have reduced content that previously existed on the page. The deleted content is mostly from the Legacy section, and includes quotes, which are apparently unacceptable on Wikipedia, even though they are again fully cited. I am pasting them here in case another editor might want to make an attempt to re-write the content so it can be included in the article, as I continue to stand by the information I added as I think it makes the article better. That said, I have lost confidence in my ability to pass muster with the copyvio police on Wikipedia, and have tried to reduce contributions to actions that involve less copyediting. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: Nebraska's November 2016 vote brought the death penalty back, so "The 10 inmates...will now serve life sentences as the mechanism... has been removed by this bill" is out of date.  I'm not changing it myself since I don't know the specifics (are the inmates all returned to death row, or does it depend on something else?  Is the mechanism actually back, now, or is it still in process?) or how best to phrase it.  Can someone better informed fix this?Alianoraree (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this up.  I've taken care of this, bringing the paragraph up to date with the referendum results and removing a certain amount of recentism.  The acquisition of enough signatures on the petition kept the repeal bill from going into effect, so the status of the death-row inmates is unchanged from before the introduction of the bill—see the October 15, 2016, World-Herald article cited in the updated paragraph. — Ammodramus (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2.3.6 needs update 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ernie Chambers. 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/20170128014511/http://nlcs1.nlc.state.ne.us/statepubsonline/pubs/legisbios/leg1970-1971.pdf to http://nlcs1.nlc.state.ne.us/statepubsonline/pubs/LegisBios/leg1970-1971.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified