Jump to content

Talk:Love Won Out

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

Developing a Historical Context

[edit]

Challenge: This piece is moving into a historical document now, it is a past organization of reparitive therapy. Reparitive therapy is becoming a part of history as states are now banning this practice making them illegal, and this organization representing the largest of ex gay organizations now went the way of the dinosaur.

Love Won Out Shut Down - Exodus International to Shut Down

[edit]

On June 19, 2013 Exodus International announced it was disbanding its 37 year old ministry and shutting down. Love Won Out an entity of Exodus International is shut down. Exodus International offered its last conference ever under its title "True Story" June 19-22nd of 2013.

CEO offers Apology to Gay Community

[edit]

http://exodusinternational.org/2013/06/i-am-sorry/ "I Am Sorry JUNE 19, 2013 BY ALAN CHAMBERS Three years ago, Leslie and I began a very public conversation with Our America’s Lisa Ling, from the Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN) regarding some of our deeply held beliefs about Christianity and the LGBT community. Today, we have decided to carry this public conversation even further. While this conversation has and may well continue to be met with many different responses from supporters and critics, it is our desire to keep having these honest discussions in the hopes of arriving to a place of peace.

Several months ago, this conversation led me to call Lisa Ling to take another step on this messy journey. I asked if she would, once again, help us add to the unfolding story by covering my apology to the people who have been hurt by Exodus International. Our ministry has been public and therefore any acknowledgement of wrong must also be public. I haven’t always been the leader of Exodus, but I am now and someone must finally own and acknowledge the hurt of others. I do so anxiously, but willingly.

It is strange to be someone who has both been hurt by the church’s treatment of the LGBT community, and also to be someone who must apologize for being part of the very system of ignorance that perpetuated that hurt. Today it is as if I’ve just woken up to a greater sense of how painful it is to be a sinner in the hands of an angry church.

It is also strange to be an outcast from powerful portions of both the gay community and the Christian community. Because I do not completely agree with the vocal majorities in either group and am forging a new place of peaceful service in and through both, I will likely continue to be an outsider to some degree. I imagine it to be very much like a man I recently heard speak at a conference I attended, Father Elias Chacour, the Melkite Catholic Archbishop of Israel. He is an Arab Christian, Palestinian by birth, and a citizen of Israel. Talk about a walking contradiction. When I think of the tension of my situation I am comforted by the thought of him and his.

My desire is to completely align with Christ, his Good News for all and his offer of peace amidst the storms of life. My wife Leslie and my beliefs center around grace, the finished work of Christ on the cross and his offer of eternal relationship to any and all that believe. Our beliefs do not center on “sin” because “sin” isn’t at the center of our faith. Our journey hasn’t been about denying the power of Christ to do anything – obviously he is God and can do anything.

With that, here is an expanded version of the apology I offered during my recent interview with Lisa Ling to the people within the LGBTQ community who have been hurt by the Church, Exodus International, and me. I realize some within the communities for which I apologize will say I don’t have the right, as one man, to do so on their behalf. But if the Church is a body, with many members being connected to the whole, then I believe that what one of us does right we all do right, and what one of us does wrong we all do wrong. We have done wrong, and I stand with many others who now recognize the need to offer apologies and make things right. I believe this apology – however imperfect – is what God the Father would have me do.

To Members of the LGBTQ Community:

In 1993 I caused a four-car pileup. In a hurry to get to a friend’s house, I was driving when a bee started buzzing around the inside of my windshield. I hit the bee and it fell on the dashboard. A minute later it started buzzing again with a fury. Trying to swat it again I completely missed the fact that a city bus had stopped three cars in front of me. I also missed that those three cars were stopping, as well. Going 40 miles an hour I slammed into the car in front of me causing a chain reaction. I was injured and so were several others. I never intended for the accident to happen. I would never have knowingly hurt anyone. But I did. And it was my fault. In my rush to get to my destination, fear of being stung by a silly bee, and selfish distraction, I injured others.

I have no idea if any of the people injured in that accident have suffered long term effects. While I did not mean to hurt them, I did. The fact that my heart wasn’t malicious did not lessen their pain or their suffering. I am very sorry that I chose to be distracted that fall afternoon, and that I caused so much damage to people and property. If I could take it all back I absolutely would. But I cannot. I pray that everyone involved in the crash has been restored to health.

Recently, I have begun thinking again about how to apologize to the people that have been hurt by Exodus International through an experience or by a message. I have heard many firsthand stories from people called ex-gay survivors. Stories of people who went to Exodus affiliated ministries or ministers for help only to experience more trauma. I have heard stories of shame, sexual misconduct, and false hope. In every case that has been brought to my attention, there has been swift action resulting in the removal of these leaders and/or their organizations. But rarely was there an apology or a public acknowledgement by me.

And then there is the trauma that I have caused. There were several years that I conveniently omitted my ongoing same-sex attractions. I was afraid to share them as readily and easily as I do today. They brought me tremendous shame and I hid them in the hopes they would go away. Looking back, it seems so odd that I thought I could do something to make them stop. Today, however, I accept these feelings as parts of my life that will likely always be there. The days of feeling shame over being human in that way are long over, and I feel free simply accepting myself as my wife and family does. As my friends do. As God does.

Never in a million years would I intentionally hurt another person. Yet, here I sit having hurt so many by failing to acknowledge the pain some affiliated with Exodus International caused, and by failing to share the whole truth about my own story. My good intentions matter very little and fail to diminish the pain and hurt others have experienced on my watch. The good that we have done at Exodus is overshadowed by all of this.

Friends and critics alike have said it’s not enough to simply change our message or website. I agree. I cannot simply move on and pretend that I have always been the friend that I long to be today. I understand why I am distrusted and why Exodus is hated.

Please know that I am deeply sorry. I am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced. I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents. I am sorry that there were times I didn’t stand up to people publicly “on my side” who called you names like sodomite—or worse. I am sorry that I, knowing some of you so well, failed to share publicly that the gay and lesbian people I know were every bit as capable of being amazing parents as the straight people that I know. I am sorry that when I celebrated a person coming to Christ and surrendering their sexuality to Him that I callously celebrated the end of relationships that broke your heart. I am sorry that I have communicated that you and your families are less than me and mine.

More than anything, I am sorry that so many have interpreted this religious rejection by Christians as God’s rejection. I am profoundly sorry that many have walked away from their faith and that some have chosen to end their lives. For the rest of my life I will proclaim nothing but the whole truth of the Gospel, one of grace, mercy and open invitation to all to enter into an inseverable relationship with almighty God.

I cannot apologize for my deeply held biblical beliefs about the boundaries I see in scripture surrounding sex, but I will exercise my beliefs with great care and respect for those who do not share them. I cannot apologize for my beliefs about marriage. But I do not have any desire to fight you on your beliefs or the rights that you seek. My beliefs about these things will never again interfere with God’s command to love my neighbor as I love myself.

You have never been my enemy. I am very sorry that I have been yours. I hope the changes in my own life, as well as the ones we announce tonight regarding Exodus International, will bring resolution, and show that I am serious in both my regret and my offer of friendship. I pledge that future endeavors will be focused on peace and common good.

Moving forward, we will serve in our pluralistic culture by hosting thoughtful and safe conversations about gender and sexuality, while partnering with others to reduce fear, inspire hope, and cultivate human flourishing."


Holy apostrophe and semicolon misuse, Batman! I corrected a few errors, I'm sure there are more. Not sure whether to capitalize the quotes from the protester signs. 35.9.6.175 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Emily[reply]

This is not homophobia

[edit]

Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals. This organization teaches love for the homosexual (regardless of choices they make on sexual behavior) while taking a firm stance on traditional family values. Just because Truth Wins Out thinks it is homophobic, doesn't make it so. You need a neutral, reliable source to claim it is homophobic. See a similar discussion at Talk:Focus_on_the_Family#Homophobic_category. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, preaching love of homosexuals doesn't make it not Homophobic, and the literal meaning of hpmophobic isn't what is in use hear so Bringing it up is intellectually dishonest.Kairos (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "The literal meaning isn't what is in use"? By what definition do you classify Love Won Out as homophobic if not the dictionary definition? Do you have a reliable source saying it is homophobic? This source should not be self published. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here is a reliable source (San Jose Mercury News) talking about a Love Won Out event where there were people protesting the group for alleged homophobia. How does that grab you? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The protests were not for alleged homophobia, but for false advertisement. Disagreeing with Love Won Out because the protestors don't think people can change their sexual orientation is not the same thing as claiming Love Won Out has an irrational fear of homosexuals. Even so, San Mercury News reporting the protestors says Love Won Out's conferences have false advertisement is not the same as the San Mercury News saying Love Won Out has false advertisement. Merely disagreeing with the gay rights movement is not sufficient to be categorized as homophobic. Calling it a "no-brianer" (edit summary) isn't sufficient either. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the protesters' signs read "Homophobia: Now that's a choice." How does the word homophobia not involve the word homophobia?
The "See Also" is not saying "Love Won Out" is homophobic. It is saying that issues surrounding homophobia are relevant to the article on Love Won Out. I just don't see how you could possibly deny that. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can deny that the mere suggestion that someone can change is relevant to an irrational fear of homosexuals. A reliable source reporting that a protester carried a sign with the word homophobic in it is not sufficient. By nature, signs carried by protesters are often exaggerations. To help you see where I coming from, how would you feel if someone found a reliable source that reported a protest where one of the signs carried the message "Homosexuality is a sin" and decided that would be sufficient to list sin in the See Also section for the homosexuality page? I don't know about you, but I would be horrified and would quickly remove it. Yes, a lot of people think homosexuality and sin are related, and it is discussed briefly on the homosexuality page, but that isn't sufficient to get it listed in the See Also section. The same is true for Love Won Out and homophobia. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, well the Homosexuality article does have a See Also to Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints, and you and I both know how the LDS church feels about homosexuality... Actually, that link seems really out of place, since there is no link there to Homosexuality and Christianity, Homosexuality and religion, etc. So that is a little fishy, I must say...
Also, for the record, as Metatron Cube explained before, homophobia does not mean "an irrational fear of homosexuals".
I see your point, though. <shrug> I dunno, you and I live in entirely different realities, so it becomes difficult to discern fact from opinion. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joshuajohanson: Just because the Christians found a new way to sugar coat their centuries old hatred of LGBT people, doesn't mean it isn't hate. Being a damned Christian is more of a choice than being gay, and you people get all kinds of "special rights", like the right to run your damned mouths and spew hate and evil into the world. In short, you've given us every reason to hate you, your organization (You're a Mormon I believe, so of course I find your cult to be sick in more ways than one), and frankly there's enough pent up anger in me that I honestly would like to see every Christian burned off the face of this planet, fuck you, I have no use for you or your damned institutions. Themeatpopsicle (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that that comment was from May, 2008. Also note that exploring political or religious differences on talk pages really doesn't help the encyclopedia-building process. We're here to build (among other things) a neutral description of notable religious, social, political, etc. events, movements, people, and the like. By focusing on personal differences, rather than providing multiple perspectives to assure a neutral presentation, we risk turning talk pages into battlegrounds, which helps no one. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

incomprehensible

[edit]

The article contains this sentence, 'The ministry exists to help men and women dissatisfy "the (non-biological) condition of Male and Female Homosexuality" to understand that same-sex attractions can be overcome.' I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Could someone re-write this so that it makes sense? Skoojal (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Indented line

It was the position of the Love Won Out conference that homosexuality was not a "predetermined biological condition" (see page 10 of the conference guide). Love Won Out held rather that "homosexuality does not exist" (pg 12 of the conference guide), instead homosexuality was really a "gender identity disorder" that developed because of parental upbringing. (pg 12 and pg 13). Thus they conclude that this can be changed. As for your title incomprehensible, I understand that one, in fact most likely many if not most (including the APA), disagree with this ideology but this was the position of the Love Won Out conference, this article to remain objective must reference their position not your own.

Protests and Palin

[edit]

Protests against the group and its connection to the church of Sarah Palin were in the news today. 61.195.43.209 (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think I dropped what I was doing, voted for Obama, and then volunteered to go door to door? The thought of that horrible witch in the White House if something happened to McCain....well I don't believe in God, but it put the fear of God in me. :P Oh, and someone burned down her hate church the other day, whoever it was I thank them. Themeatpopsicle (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like an advertisement

[edit]

This article is polluted with vague statements that basically give this organization high praise:

Its purpose is to exhort and equip Christian churches to respond in a Christ-like way to homosexuality from the "Biblical point of view."

"..struggle with unwanted sexual attractions"

I could go on, can anyone help fix this? Pointers? Themeatpopsicle (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First pointer would be that this organization is entitled to describe it as it sees itself, as expressed through reliable sources, but that its critics are equally entitled to describe it as they see it, from their perspective. See WP:YESPOV--that's really about the only way to handle a contentious subject like this. The solution to any imbalance is to add sourced criticism, not remove the organization's own description of itself. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So would it be acceptable to write an article about Nazis or Communists or human sacrifice cults by copying their pamphlets verbatim and using quotation marks and filler material? I'm sure they have some wonderful things to say about themselves, yes? Themeatpopsicle (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Go read Adolph Hitler, for example. NPOV, done right, isn't particularly comfortable for any particular POV. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Why remove the conference guide image? It would be perfectly acceptable as a pull quote, but the scan illustrates this group's position very well. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the edit summary on the removal edit (removed a gratuitous and offensive image), please review WP:NOTCENSORED. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness' sake, here's why I removed the image: It was either misleading or poorly tagged. It was listed as a "self made" work in the image copyright, but was claiming to be a scan from the conference guide in its caption. If a scan, the copyright info was wrong. If not a scan, then there's no particular reason to use it instead of a blockquote, should that be desired. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

[edit]
  • Biased? Inserting a biased tag requires an explanation on the talk page. Looks like this article is actually pretty NPOV to me--it covers the ministry's positions, and the criticisms of those positions.
  • One Source--clearly not applicable. That's for articles which rely on a single source, rather than an article which sources statments to a group's own website. There are half a dozen other media references.
  • Weasel Words? OK, let's take them out. What weasel words do you propose need to go in order to remove this tag?
  • Cleanup-Rewrite Cleanup tags don't particularly communicate anything specific, and per WP:TC are deprecated when other more specific tags exist.
  • Self-published Sources In what way do any of the SPS being used in this article violate WP:SPS? Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conference Guide

[edit]

The Conference Guide is a dead link. That's going to be a serious issue if it has to be worked around. Trivial efforts to find a copy online have failed, but it may still be out there somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author of this Article and I still have the Conference guide information. Is there a way I can resource it to this article, it is a paper publication handed out at their conferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.32.27 (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indented line: I, the original author, have officially scanned in and uploaded in PDF format the conference guides for the now closed conferences. Love Won Out is now out of business. I believe this can settle most of the debate surrounding every aspect of this article. It was not meant to be written as an ad, but the positions of Love Won Out needed to be preserved.

Issues to be fixed

[edit]
  • Paulk's stuff needs to be sourced from news, not Besen. Looking at Paulk's own article, it's clear that coverage exists.
  • We need a single, concise set of refs to document the APA's opposition to LWO's agenda. Ideally, this should be one that mentions LWO by name. Right now, we have one set in the controversy section and another, recently added section in the lead.
  • The Exodus International references need to be replaced with real documentation.
  • External links need to be cleaned up per WP:EL. I'm thinking TWO, Nicolsi, and Cohen's EL's should be removed to their own respective articles.
  • The amount of material explaining LWO's positions can be trimmed somewhat more.
  • The criticism section needs to be better organized and cohesive.

If we get all that done and keep NPOV, I think we might have a GA.

Find a place for this

[edit]

Not all gays feel the same way. When Love Won Out went to Palm Springs, a city known for its gay and lesbian community, it received an official welcome letter from its mayor, Ron Oden, and the city sent ambassadors to attend the event.[1]

  • The above text is interesting and has a good source. I agree it needs to be rewritten before being put back in (e.g., to what does "the same way" refer?) but I want to preserve it here as it was until we rewrite it. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have an objection with "Not all gays feel the same way.". Do all "straights" ever feel the same way about something? Also, the term "gays" seems to be a homophobic dismissal of the overall community. Themeatpopsicle (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objection; that lead-in sentence is six different flavors of awkward. I'm thinking replacing it with something more along the lines of "Reaction within the Gay community to LWO has not been universally negative..." and incorporating more text from the reference. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Frith, Stefanie (2006-09-01). "Oden accepts invitation to speak at event that seeks to change gays". The Desert Sun. Retrieved 2008-12-19. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Hatnoting: All or none?

[edit]

I prefer to have hatnotes for the other organizations mentioned in section headings, but if we're going to exclude NARTH and Exodus, it only makes sense to exclude TWO as well. I prefer the hatnotes, as they're a good way of quickly sending interested readers to those articles, and allowing us to minimize repeated content. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Besen critics?

[edit]

Looks like almost all of the criticism of LWO is sourced to Besen, or to TWO, which he started. We need to increase the diversity of criticism, even if Besen is a major force opposing LWO. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LWO vs. FotF

[edit]

I think I've changed all of the Focus on the Family refs to refer specifically to Love Won Out. Focus is a conglomerate, of which LWO is just one part, so we should be as specific as possible, while still openly acknowledging that LWO is Focus-started and -sponsored. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is Focus on the Family used to focus on a positive message like "Get out and go fishing with your son", they used to be allowed to advertise on mainstream TV before all this "Pray away the gay" nonsense. This seems to be their angle lately, that the "nasty gay man is out to get your children and destroy your family and drink the blood of puppies", they lay it on entirely too thick IMO, Themeatpopsicle (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of no documentation

[edit]

this edit is a reinsertion of material I deleted as failing WP:SPS: "3. it does not involve claims about third parties;". The source for this is this, which is Besen's own website. He alleges a conversation between Newsweek and Nicolosi. If we can cite it to Newsweek (possible) or Nicolosi (hardly likely), it can and should go back in. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All "ex-gay" myth promoters exhibit the warning signs of bogus science [1] and the criteria for Pseudo-Science, unfortunately nobody wants to confront them about it cause the Christians will either boycot or sue them to suppress their critics. Themeatpopsicle (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory and Irrelevant material removed

[edit]

First, the two references to Tennessee don't mention Love Won Out. This article is not a place to WP:COATRACK the alleged misdeeds of other ex-gay ministries, it's a description of, and only of, Love Won Out.

Second, the issue of Bussee and Cooper is irrelevant to Love Won Out. If it's about the founder of Exodus International, put it in that article, not here. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent news

[edit]

They Won Out of money. APK that's not my name 10:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking news?

[edit]

Edits have started to the page to reflect the sale of Love Won Out to Exodus International due to financial straps and possible pressure from a new APA report rejecting conversion therapy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.32.27 (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-4107-Gay--Lesbian-Issues-Examiner~y2009m8d15-Focus-on-the-Family-sells-its-exgay-program-to-Exodus
    Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Love Won Out. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love Won Out. 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) 20:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Love Won Out. 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) 11:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love_Won_Out&oldid=1208598062"