Jump to content

Talk:David Emerson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sitting as a Liberal?

[edit]

I removed the sentence "He will still sit as a Liberal." at the end of the article, as this contradicts the information presented in the introductory paragraph: "Fourteen days later Emerson, who had not yet even been sworn in, crossed the floor and joined Stephen Harper's Conservative Party of Canada on February 6, 2006, the day that Harper was sworn in as Prime Minister." What I'm not sure about is what "sit as a Liberal" means exactly (and why that was even put in in the first place). Does that mean that he'll still vote as the Liberal Party desires in Parliament? If that's the case, that sentence should probably be rephrased.

Ikusawa 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Sitting as a Liberal" means that the House recognizes the member as a sitting member of the Liberal caucus. Emerson, however, has in fact defected (have a look at the Library of Parliament's list of members for the 39th Parliament) and is not just an opposition cabinet minister (which, I should add, is extremely rare). TheProject 03:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a case of opposition cabinet minister at all. From the news article it seems he's sworn in directly as a CONSERVATIVE cabinet minister. --Kvasir 03:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He just spoke on C-PAC and had a news conference saying he is still a member of the Liberal Party and is sitting as a Liberal. --Cloveious 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh ... I thought he might try that angle. I wonder if this means we have to redo all the recent changes. CJCurrie 04:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see this, is it will sort itself out eventually, this hasn't happened in any of our life times, the only other examples I know is Alex Ross from the Labour Party of Alberta sitting with the United Farmers governement as a cabinet minister after the 1921 election, while still being in the opposition and Frederick Haultain appointing Liberals to his cabinet while he was a Conservative preimier of the Northest Territories in the 1890's, everyone is confused, but it will be sorted out. --Cloveious 04:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC) If he is indeed still a Liberal, then neither he nor Harper seem overly concerned with correcting the news reports that say otherwise:[reply]

It doesn't sound like you're making this up, so we will have some interesting decisions to make on how exactly to classify and categorize Emerson. --Saforrest 05:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for the tape loop on CPAC to come around again, they are showing the Induction Ceremony's at the moment, I will tape the David Emerson press conference, and hook my VCR up to the Video in port on my computer, to record the taped video feed, to document evidence of what he said. --Cloveious 05:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emerson is a Harper Cabinet member, thus a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, thus a Conservate MP, he's crossed the floor. In other words, to all you Liberals out there, Emerson pulled a STRONACH on you. GoodDay 15:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So could he have sat as a Liberal? Presuming, of course, that Harper, the Liberal party, and Emerson himself had all agreed, of course, which would not likely have happened... Cloveious mentioned "Alex Ross from the Labour Party of Alberta sitting with the United Farmers governement as a cabinet minister after the 1921 election, while still being in the opposition and Frederick Haultain appointing Liberals to his cabinet while he was a Conservative preimier of the Northest Territories in the 1890's" - anyone know? 134.117.254.250 23:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that he could have sat as a Liberal although the Liberal Party likely wouldn't allow this. However I believe that one can not be a member of the government and opposition at the same time. --JGGardiner 03:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson's status

[edit]

Emerson's website (which worked earlier today) is now suspended. The Liberals have pulled all the text of his candidate page from their campaign website; compare his page with Keith Martin's, and notice the significant omission in this list of BC candidates. So the Liberals may not think he's a Liberal. Finally, check out his official parliamentary profile, which says "Caucus: Conservative", or the profile for Vancouver Kingsway. Surely if he's a Liberal he must at least be in the Liberal caucus (whether or not he's in the Conservative cabinet), no? --Saforrest 05:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, looking at the above combined with the amount of media coverage which describes him as a Tory, that our provisional conclusion should be that he is a Tory. His own statements are of course important, but obviously not the final word on the matter (e.g. his Liberal membership is not just up to him).
I'm going to restore his membership Category:Conservative Party of Canada MPs, but I'll do no more than that for now. --Saforrest 05:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the caucus listing: more confusion arises from another profile on the Parliament webpages, which lists his party as Conservative but renders Emerson caucus-less. :-) TheProject 07:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Liberals kicked him out of his caucus for sitting as a Liberal Cabinet Minister in a Conservative government wouldn't that make him an Independent Liberal? I'm so confused and excited to see how this plays out. I can't wait to get back to the comments, this swearing in ceremony is getting boring --Cloveious 05:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he were truly kicked out, he would just become an independent. "Independent Liberal" is just a label that one applies to themselves if they fancy it. The Speaker doesn't care about such things. Personally I am sure that he has become a member of the Conservative caucus. I don't think that Harper would like a Liberal in his cabinet meetings. --JGGardiner 07:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that David Emerson is not listed as a Conservative MP on the Conservative homepage. [1] --Cloveious 06:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth: Parliament's "Members who Crossed the Floor" page lists Emerson as a Conservative as of February 6th. However, it does say that some of its sources come from news postings, although it doesn't identify a source for its listing of Emerson.
Personally, I'd trust the Library of Parliament until proven otherwise -- but perhaps the Library is just getting its information from the media? TheProject 07:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson was in the caucus meeting this morning. --JGGardiner 17:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the Conservative caucus meeting. TheProject 18:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they showed Harper introducing the two controversial ministers on CBC. Got a big applause and you could see Emerson hold up his hand at the front and then several MPs shook his hand. --JGGardiner 19:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also they showed Emerson in the hallway. Julie Van Dusen asked about his Liberal "card". He paused and kind of mumbled that he assumed that they would cancel it. --JGGardiner 21:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I question the use of the terms "cross the floor". Emerson didn't cross the floor as that would imply he is sitting in Parliament. It appears he switched parties. He switched even before Parliament was in session and even before Elections Canada has validated the results.
According to the Canadian definition given in the Crossing the floor article, the usage here to describe Emerson is consistent. --Kvasir 01:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kvasir. Actually he did not switch parties but rather he switched caucus. He seems to have not taken out a Conservative membership and said that he did not cancel his Liberal membership, nor will he (he expects it to be cancelled by the Liberal Party). So if one considers that the new Parliament does exist, then all Emerson has done is state his intent to change caucus once Parliament begins. --JGGardiner 19:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

I've tagged this article NPOV as a result of the introductory paragraph. Specifically, this sentence: Featured in televised Liberal election ads promoting the party in British Columbia as the best choice for voters, Emerson was elected as a Liberal Party of Canada candidate in the 39th Parliament. Fourteen days later Emerson, who had not yet even been sworn in, crossed the floor and joined Stephen Harper's Conservative Party of Canada on 6 February 2006 I removed this sentence already: Emerson justified his defection by saying that he's always been "a small c liberal". Canadian voters' cynicism has increased since his defection. Specifically I had problems with the cynicism comment, it's much too early to tell given that this comment was added the same day as the event itself. My suggestion would be that there's no problem with the text itself but it shouldn't be included in the introduction paragraph. Perhaps a different section detailing the controversy? Thanks sinblox (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs a little tweaking. It has only been a few hours. --JGGardiner 06:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the NPOV tag is meant to indicate the current text needs to be amended. You've taken out the offending sentence, so what justifies the tag now?
As for the text about cynicism, well, it should not be included, simply because we cannot make an NPOV statement about what Canadian voters think, since this would at least require polling. On the other hand, there should be some statement about reactions to the move (by the media, other politicians, etc.), since the "voters will be cynical" meme was certainly present in the media coverage. --Saforrest 06:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of the Conservative Party and I dont see this as being anti-conservative NOPV. I'm also a former member of the Liberal Party and I dont see this as being anti-liberal NPOV. so... what's the issue? Pellaken 10:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry for setting off the NPOV bomb again, but there's way too much emotional language in the "Crossing the Floor" section. We need to stick to a neutral recitation of the facts -- by all means, quote poll numbers showing what constituents think of Emerson, and mention the controversy about refunding campaign donations, but we need to do all of that in a simple, matter-of-fact way without writing about constituents who gave "what little they could afford" or "widespread condemnation" (only one member of the Conservative caucus criticised the move, for example). David 20:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson Comments

[edit]

I just want to point out that Emerson's press conference is comming up on C-Pac, right after Harper is done speaking. --Cloveious 06:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well I recorded Mr. Emmersons comments, but the video file is nearly 800 megs, and the sound turned out barely audible, anyone know of any freeware that can convert avi video files to somthing else? --Cloveious 07:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you transcribe it? I caught the tail end of it but missed most of what he said. TheProject 07:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I will, i can have it transcribed by tommrow afternoon, unfortunetly I have to go work soon --Cloveious 07:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

[edit]

Any mention of the numbers in Parliament? This now gives Harper enough votes for a bare majority with only Conservative and NDP support. I assume this is the real reason he wanted one more MP. No offence to Mr. Emerson. --JGGardiner 06:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC) If I'm not mistaken, a majority needs 155 seats. The CPC and NDP together, including Emerson, is still one shy.[reply]

See 39th Canadian parliament. --Saforrest 07:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I think that 154 seats is sufficient, since the speaker does not vote. If a Liberal speaker is chosen (Peter Milliken is a likely choice again), then the CPC (124) plus Emerson (1) plus the NDP (29) makes 154, versus the BQ (51) plus Independent (1) plus Libs (102) minus speaker (1) makes 153.

The independent, André Arthur, is certain to support the Conservatives unless they go on a morality crusade. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 21:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He'll likely support them on conservative things. But not always. At best, he's a wild card. He's said that he wants to be like Cadman and gauge riding opinion on issues. However, wherever Harper finds common ground is not likely to be a "conservative" issue. So perhaps in electoral or parliamentary reform for example. There's common ground there. --JGGardiner 02:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson recall petition

[edit]

A previous user deleted the petition link, with the comment that "an encyclopedia is no place for partisan petitions." I disagree about the relevance of the petition. People don't have to sign it nor are we encouraging people to do so simply by including it as a link, but in my opinion the wording of the petition as well as the number of people who have signed it is certainly noteworthy and relevant to this article. It's grown rapidly over the past two days. I am restoring the link but adding this comment for further discussion as needed.

I believe it should be mentioned maybe, but not linked to. It seems too partisan to me. Agreed? --24.68.182.5 22:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see where this opposition is coming from -- the petition has been reported in the national media, and by any fair assessment is "relevant". The current wording does not endorse the petition, it just indicates where to find it. CJCurrie 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems to have been getting a fair bit of attention. Methinks that conventional news media doesn't quite get that anyone can make a website in five minutes. -Joshuapaquin 23:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement for nonpartisanship in articles Wikipedia links to, as you can see with the links for any major political figure (e.g. George W. Bush, Tony Blair, etc.). --Saforrest 02:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I linked the mention of "online petitions" to the Wikipedia page describing them, since Internet polls can be a bit suspect. Triplight 06:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People don't have to sign it". No, and people don't have to buy my Miracle Diet Cream either so why object if I link to my website as well? Have a little respect for the word "encyclopedia" here. I could add that there are also petitions out there taking the other side, which is not to say that they should be linked as well but to suggest that we should not be going down that road in first place. Are people not getting enough traffic to their own partisan blogs that they have to try and collect some Wiki traffic?Bdell555 03:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not whether to mention that there are petitions circulating out there, some with a lot a signatures. The issue is whether to provide that information, and then play partisan booster for those petitions by giving everyone directions for how to get there. Call me crazy but I thought encyclopedias are supposed to inform, and ask yourself if the reader would be less informed about DAVID EMERSON without those links. This after making every effort in the article to convince the writer to come around to the petitions' POV. To take one example of how this article is a campaign piece and not an article, consider the fact Dosanjh appears in an article on Emerson. Why? So his sounding off against Emerson can be included. In my mischief I added the objective fact the Dosanjh is a former NDP premier. HistoryBA promptly suppressed that information, presumably since those three words would have added excessively to the article's length. Now, however, I see those words are back, but together with some "different case" commentary. We've got more of Dosanjh's remarks about his actions in this article than in the Dosanjh article. If that doesn't suggest a problem here then what does?Bdell555 04:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responses:
  • (i) Your comments have the character of a rant. Please consider taking a step back from the issue before going any further.
  • (ii) The petitions are newsworthy, and are also an indication (albeit not comprehensive) of how Emerson is depicted in popular Canadian society. It is not partisan booterism to reference the petitions here.
  • (iii) Ujjal Dosanjh is noteworthy for this page because of his comments about Emerson's floor-crossing. The fact that he is a former premier is not relevant. The fact that he once belonged to the BC NDP isn't relevant either, unless the national media has referenced this in relation to the Emerson controversy. (Dosanjh, incidentally, argued in 2004 that he was not "crossing the floor", and that he would continue to support the NDP provincially). CJCurrie 05:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, according to you, if no "national media" source had mentioned the petitions, they should not be in. But because one or more did, they should be in. Perhaps you would please consider taking a step back from the issue here before proceeding further to think about and provide an argument for why some "media" source should be the arbiter for what is appropriate content for an encylopedia and what is not? Perhaps I have been thinking about editing the links to a technical article on neutrinos. Unfortunately, the "national media" hasn't being talking about neutrinos lately. So I guess I had better leave well enough alone because neutrinos just don't make the "newsworthy" standard. Could you indicate to me which media source(s) referred to the recall Emerson petitions? That way I can follow these authoritative arbiters so that as soon as they raise the subject of neutrinos, I can see the green light for more Wiki work on that particular obscure topic.
By the way, perhaps I have some comments about Emerson's floor-crossing. Does that mean I become "noteworthy" and my comments should be included in the article for that reason? Perhaps I am not enough of a VIP in your eyes. But what about the various business and political leaders that have said positive things about Emerson? They aren't VIPs but Dosanjh is? It would be useful for Wiki editors like myself to have the standard spelled out more clearly here so we don't have to guess at it.
regarding your "incidental" comment, I thought you just said that was not relevant. But, if it is, I would note that because provincial NDP members are automatically members of the federal NDP party, Dosanjh must be simultaneously a member of both the federal NDP and the federal Liberals! A fascinating claim you've made, there! Too bad this tangent is getting further away from Emerson with every passing minute!Bdell555 06:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a repository of information available in the public domain. You wouldn't need to rely on the national media for an article on neutrinos, as the information would be available in scientific journals. Your own comments would not be allowed, as Wikipedia has rules against original research (if your comments were reported in the national media, that would be different). CJCurrie 06:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so first I write a letter to the editor. Once it is published, it is "in the national media" as well as "the public domain" so my trivial partisan tirade becomes suitable for on-line linking in a Wiki article. But what if my letter to the editor doesn't get published or a reporter should be so foolish as to not interview me for a news story? The publisher might not be thinking of Wiki when deciding whether to reject my opinion piece, you see. Should the publisher really be holding Wiki's quality hostage in that way? What if the "national media" had failed to see the light and hasn't mentioned the recall petitions? You acknowledge that even if there had been no mention in the "national media", that wouldn't have been an issue if there had nonetheless been a mention in a "scientific journal". You seem to be expanding your criterion here. What if there were no mention in either the "national media" OR a "scientific journal"? Would there be any other saving publication? Perhaps a mention somewhere in the Socialist Worker Weekly? Would one subscriber in each province or territory qualify a media for the "national" tag?
I should emphasize here that, again, this is not a question of whether to mention that there are people out there who are unhappy with Emerson and want him recalled, it is a question of whether to repeat all their accusations and arguments here and then link to their private websites for good measure.Bdell555 07:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started writing about notability but I don’t want to get dragged into that debate or prolong it. So, since BDell summarized his (or her) concerns in the end I would prefer to get back to those.

  1. 1 Should we include the arguments and accusations of those who oppose Emerson in this controversy?
  2. 2 Should we link to their websites (the polls)?

My thoughts: #1 Yes, the controversy is notable (for several reasons) and the accusations are integral to their discussion. I think that supporting arguments can sometimes be overdone on WP generally however. #2 Yes I think the websites are relevant. If there was an active and serious campaign to recall/remove any MP for any reason I’d certainly include the link in their article. --JGGardiner 08:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wonder if it would be more appropriate to use a citation link to this petition, rather than giving it a prominent position in External Links? I think the petition is quite relevant, but I do see it's presence as being slightly... off. Online petitions are silly anyway (polls less so), so I would be fine with the more subtle citation linking. Triplight 07:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues With the Order of Precedence

[edit]

The Canadian Order of Precedence does not function as does that in the United States; the order does not determine who would "assume the role" of the prime minister in his or her absence. I would recommend that we amend this page by mentioning that, while Mr. Emerson is third in the order of precedence of ministers, this does not entitle him to any preferential treatment over other ministers. FiveParadox 05:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

24.82.25.11 vandalised the article with a small edit: . Weird.--Anchoress 02:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

72.141.132.137 vandalised the article with 'and is a douchebag', and 136.142.21.64 changed his name to 'Benedict Arnold'.--Anchoress 23:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belinda Stronach

[edit]

Shouldn't it be mentioned that there was harldy any controversy when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor (not even close to what the media has done with this case) and the fact that there wasn't even an ethics probe?--Eupator 02:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a short sentence, something like: The defection was considerably more controversial than Stronach's earlier move. We have to be careful not to editorialize. -Joshuapaquin 02:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a good idea, although Stronach's move isn't really against any ethics since she was re-elected as a Liberal in the election. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.46.61 (talk • contribs). Stronach served nearly a year as a Conservative before crossing the floor, rather than immediately following an election and being elected by a rather comfortable margin. Plus, as mentioned before, Stronach was re-elected as a Grit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.47.50 (talk • contribs)blp=yes.

MacKay & Emerson

[edit]

MacKay is third in line of succession to PM duties. The current line is Cannon, Prentice & MacKay. Therefore, Emerson is after MacKay. GoodDay 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I was wrong Emerson is ahead of MacKay in Order-of-Precedents. GoodDay 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of succession

[edit]

I removed the part about Emerson being forth in the "order of succession" for two reasons: First, it seems intuitively wrong to me since it seems to imply this has something to do with the Order of Precedence. The O-of-P really only detirmines where you sit at state dinners and who gets to shake hands first with the Queen. I don't think there is any real order-of-succession for PM duties in Canada. Either the PM appoints someone (normally a deputy PM) or the goverment caucus would choose an interim leader. Secondly, the reference is a dead link, (and not in the wayback machine) so I can't tell what source this is based on. 132.156.204.166 (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Canada has no "order of succession" as such. Nobody in the Canadian government automatically assumes the office of Prime Minister in the event of a retirement or death solely by virtue of their existing position — the governing party would be free to choose any new leader/PM it wanted to. The order of precedence is a ceremonial convention, and not at all the same thing as an order of succession. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Emerson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Emerson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on David Emerson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on David Emerson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Emerson&oldid=1207107009"