Talk:Chely Wright

message: Check out (promotional video link removed), about how she supports the troops. -LtNOWIS 02:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't ad space my friend.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.140.0.3 (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising / PoV 

message: If you read Wikipedia:Talk_page#Indentation you will see that comments on discussion pages are supposed to be posted in the order they are made, so the newest one always goes at the bottom. The third example they give, where George is replying to John even after Elliot and Jane have responded shows how indenting is the indicator of who a response is to, not the order. The comments made by Niteshift36 at 23:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you change the indentation, not the location! At this point, you are altering the conversation and context. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, the fact that you still use the asterisk and not colons for indents shows you have not looked at the page that tells you how to format comments. I fixed your asterisk to a colon here, but please use colons in the future. Second, if you would bother to read the page I have linked to you will find that it is wrong to insert comments in between two already posted comments, so what you call "ill-conceived reorganization" is actually just puting things as Wikipedia requires. 142.177.23.251 (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What you fail to understand it the policy you are citing is NOT a policy. It is a suggestion. Nobody is required to follow it. However, your alterations change the discussion. That is vandalism. I've read it, I just place more importance on the content of what is said than I do counting colons. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every time someone makes an edit on a talk page there is a box at the top of the page that says "Please respect the talk page guidelines". Those guidelines say that inserting comments between already posted ones is wrong. You can call it a "suggestion", but it sounds like policy to me. 142.177.23.251 (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care if it "sounds" like a policy to you. It's not. Policy pages have a banner at the top telling you they are a policy. Style guidelines have banners identifying them as such. etc. You don't see that at the top because it's not a policy. It is a preferred style, not a requirement. Further, you say "Those guidelines say that inserting comments between already posted ones is wrong", but the page you are citing shows an example of how editors can do exactly that. Your own "source" proves your claim incorrect. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom...." So what I did was acceptable editing according to the guidelines. Not vandalism. Not disruption. Something Wikipedia guidelines call "appropriate". 142.177.23.251 (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Editing, as in fixing indentation. Not the context. It is disruption. It alters the meaning of the discussion. Removing is for violations of BLP etc. Do not move a response to a different location so as to make it change context of discussion flow. You've made your so-called "fixes", so this further belaboring of this is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  "It alters the meaning of the discussion." What alters the meaning of the discussion is when a comment is inserted above an already posted comment but at the same level of reply, making it look like the older one came after the newer one. This reply, however, by virtue of its indenting, is a different conversation thread from the less indented comment below it, so no such ambiguity arises. Sticking to the guidelines - both on order and indenting - leads to clarity. 142.177.23.251 (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text:  "Your own "source" proves your claim incorrect." Not true. You don't seem to have read it correctly. What it tells you is how you can insert comments between comments when the coment inserted is at a further level of indentation to the one it is above. But what you did was insert comments at the same level of indentation. Those are supposed to go below, not between the comments in question. 142.177.23.251 (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please read Wikipedia:Talk_page#Indentation 

message: The chart with the awards is starting to get a little overboard. In broad general terms, if the award isn't notable enough for an article, why is it on here? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chely Wright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160109200424/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msYCbaqNMb0&feature=related to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msYCbaqNMb0&feature=related
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chely Wright. 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/20140119034234/http://chely.com/reading-writing-rhythm to http://chely.com/reading-writing-rhythm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100723164138/http://chely.com/awards to http://chely.com/awards
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) 17:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article has the following statement:
:The location was chosen primarily due to the limited acknowledgement of the LGBTQ community in the surrounding area.
There are a few things I think we can tighten around this statement. Firstly, was it chosen by the Lighthouse organization, or some other body? And can we also clarify what factual evidence the local community limit acknowledgement of the LBQT community? Also, I think “acknowledge” is a strange word. You can acknowledge the LBQT community but oppose them. To not acknowledge something is to deny its existence, and that sounds highly unlikely to me. Some clarification and sources would be helpful here. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: As the article states, “She pointed a gun into her mouth, but changed her mind before pulling the trigger.” It gives a proper source for it as well. If anyone is looking for even more intense authenticity, you can hear her tell the story in her own voice and words on the “Coffee, Country and Cody” podcast from WSM radio, “Coffee, Country and Cody with Chely Wright” recorded May 28, 2010 and published June 1, 2010. It’s especially intense hearing it from her in her own voice. Another intense moment occurs when Bill Cody reads a short excerpt from her book in which she expresses her reasons for coming out. I think this is a terrific source, but I don’t know how one would cite it or if it is an acceptable source under Wiki policy. Poihths (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her suicidal moment