Talk:David Paisley

message: Shouldn't this be a disambig or something?  I know nothing of either one, so I'm reluctant to do anything. -- SatyrTN (talk |contribs) 22:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is the other one - are you not thinking of Ian Paisley  DavidAnstiss (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two David Paisleys? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on David Paisley. 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/20061121043433/http://www2.xy.com/xycontent/articles/index.php?t=4&b=1&sort=author&a=articles/mag/xy36%20david%20paisley to http://www.xy.com/xycontent/articles/index.php?t=4&b=1&sort=author&a=articles/mag/xy36%20david%20paisley
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424033210/http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/what-s-on/theatre/daniel_boys_on_glitz_glamour_and_high_society_1_2263546 to http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/what-s-on/theatre/daniel_boys_on_glitz_glamour_and_high_society_1_2263546
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140426233409/http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/Interact/Blogs-articleid-9610-sectionid-761.html to http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/Interact/Blogs-articleid-9610-sectionid-761.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A couple of users have amended the section on David Paisley's page to refer to an ongoing criminal case. As the person that has been charged is not David Paisley it would not be appropriate to add the material that was added anyway, but there is also the additional matter that it is unlawful under all jurisdictions of the UK to post material that may be prejudicial to an ongoing criminal matter as the material added this morning seems to be – SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ye removed sources relating to the Cherry v Paisley case (1), was this intentional?  It feels like a blanket blanking without checking and just want to check. Also going to ping  who removed the statement for being unsourced (2) CiphriusKane (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the content because it was unsourced when I looked at the page. I was unaware of the edit history. I have now re-added, with the source previously supplied, and reworded, to illustrate who Cherry is, and accurately reflect the source. I would be in agreement with SakuraNoSeirei that the content about the criminal case should not be here. No reliable source has at present confirmed he is the complainant, and a substack page is most definitely not a reliable source for Wikipedia. AutumnKing (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, sorry about that. Hadn't spotted I'd removed the cite for the previous section when I took out the part about an on-going criminal matter – SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of material to the Personal Life section 

message: …as it’s not the typical personal life in content.  It’s not quite campaigning either, tho he is described as such in the lede and has a name for it. Boscaswell talk 11:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life section needs to be renamed