Talk:Nationalist Movement

message: Would someone associated with this group please check Talk:Crosstar and address the issues that have been raised? Thanks. Schrei 19:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

message: A couple days ago I added an image of the crosstar insignia to this article which I had uploaded and was using under fair use guidelines. I believe that the inclusion of the crosstar image in this article is valid and useful for our readers. The user Crosstar, however, removed the image, citing copyright concerns. Does anyone else feel that the use of the crosstar image here is in violation of applicable copyright laws? Kaldari 00:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel there's anything wrong with what you did, and besides I find  to be an eye soar! --Gramaic | Talk 01:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a logo, which may be used under the Fair Use rule. Further, the purported copyright holder gave explicit permission in a comment and implicit permission by uploading the original image. -Willmcw 09:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I have also uploaded a color version of the logo, which is not taken from the Crosstar website. Kaldari 23:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of crosstar image in article 

message: I edited much of the article, which appears to have been copied from the organizations web-page. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and would appreciate any input.
-Rusty
:Looks like you've done a great job so far. Thanks! Kaldari 03:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing 

message: Calling this the "largest call-up of National Guard in peacetime" is a gross exaggeration. According to the New York Times,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDA1E3BF931A15752C0A96F948260
 
there was a grand total of 900 National Guard present. Which is roughly equal to the number present at the Kent_State_shootingsin 1970 and far less than the 2,000 mobilized during the LA_Riotsof 1992. 
Barrett and his friends are prone to self-aggrandizement to put it mildly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.153.118 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1989 King Day events 

message: How can something be both "Mississippi-based" and "headquartered in Wisconsin -- in the same introductory sentence, no less?  There may well be sound reasons behind both designations, but it cannot realistically be simultaneously both of those things.  It's not like it's a New York or California-based for-profit corporation chartered in Delaware as an acknowledged legal fiction for tax purposes.  68.52.120.72 (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The fact you won't link any nationalist websites shows what disingenuous and biased charlatans you are.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.60.146 (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link their site 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Nationalist Movement. 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/20120928192031/http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/barrett.asp?xpicked=2&item=barrett to http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/barrett.asp?xpicked=2&item=barrett
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060325075129/http://www.agrnews.org/issues/130/nationalnews.html to http://www.agrnews.org/issues/130/nationalnews.html
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) 13:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)