Talk:Annie Machon

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Gadaffi plot credible.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Annie Machon. 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/20111227015651/http://www.anniemachon.com:80/annie_machon/public-speaking-experienc.html to http://www.anniemachon.com/annie_machon/public-speaking-experienc.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) 00:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why, until this weekend, was there no mention of her involvement in the 9/11 Truth Movement? And why does it only now say an article "connected" her toit, when the quote given and the article both make it clear she was a believer? 2A01:4B00:8750:DA00:31FD:6C7:36D0:29B8 (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the answer to your first question, and I don't really think it's very important to answer. As for the second one, "connected" is just as good as indicating that she is a believer, is it not? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

text: I agree that an opinion piece is a bad source, especially for contentious labels in a BLP. However, this seems to be used now for the interview of the topic of this article, rather than to label her? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

text: It appears to be there in the current version. Which edits are you disputing? The content at the moment around these issues is completely reliant on primary sources and one or two very weak secondary sources. Can we include any independent, secondary coverage showing this is noteworthy? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 Truth Movement 

message: Why is the body of her work over the last 15 years around media freedoms, privacy, human rights, the war on drugs, whistleblowers and the war on terror being consistently removed? Aphotick (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be there in the current version. Which edits are you disputing? The content at the moment around these issues is completely reliant on primary sources and one or two very weak secondary sources. Can we include any independent, secondary coverage showing this is noteworthy? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Media activism

message: @Revirvlkodlaku The "inexplicably deleted reference" was cited twice in a row, so I deleted one of them. Theres no need to have two separate references to the same article especially at the end of the same sentence. There was literally nothing between the identical references.  Softlemonades (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for explaining. I agree with you that there's no need to have two separate references to the same article, but this is why you should be leaving an edit summary, so other editors know what you've done and don't waste time trying to fix your work. Thanks. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Youre right, I shouldnt have assumed Softlemonades (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, and by the way, the two identical references were side by side, something I should have noticed instead of replacing the one you removed 🤣 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate citations