This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Andrea Mitchell article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Not much info on her career, just incidents. The background info isn'r enough. Please improve this article. thanks. -Alan
can anyone document when she had her face lifts? Kingturtle 19:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Sean7phil 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Is she a republican - her husband certainly is?
Who was her first husband?
What relevance is it to put it in the infobox? It's not there for other TV journalists. Dogru144 04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Andrea Mitchell, a 1963 graduate of New Rochelle (NY) High School was an accomplished second alto who performed as a soloist with the NRHS 'A' Choir, and was a member of Double Octet and All State Choir.
Did she succeed the late Tim Russert as NBC News Washington Bureau chief? WAVY 10 Fan ( talk) 16:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This seems to violate Wikipedia:No original research. I am removing it and it can be restored when or if it gets sourced. -- Brian Halvorsen ( talk) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have added some sources for the criticism and ridicule Mitchell has come under for the incident. There is no question it exists. That some sources may not be reliable for some material hardly impeaches words verifiable in print and video. μηδείς ( talk) 18:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Your sarcastic emotional tone and suggestion I abuse drugs is not well taken and it won't look good if this goes to administration. "Misrepresent" and "invent" are verbatim from the sources. The current wording is perfectly neutral and verifiable--we agree no verifiable source says she "had been led to believe" anything. Mitchell took responsibility for her own broadcast the following day and stood behind it, she didn't say the show aired in her name mislead her. Bozell's comments were broadcast on Fox news and his verbatim words are sourced in the ref from Fox, not Newsmax. Newsmax was given only as a source for the video, a primary source which Fox and Huffpost also provide. Likewise for politico. It is a redundant source supporting soopermexican's credit for revealing the scandal. The Washington Post says the same thing. Given your distaste for these unnecessary sources I will remove them. The are unnecessary as supoprts for the text as it stands. μηδείς ( talk) 02:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The consensus opposes the view that this section should be deleted, or, barring that, references to the reason for the controversy be deleted in favor of just mentioning that Mitchell aired a show. I have restored the verbatim "misreprent" and "invent" so that readers will know why there is a scandal. I changed "for misrepresenting" (fact) to "as having misrepresented" (criticism). I have fixed the Wawa piping. The last two sentences are abrupt and need work. μηδείς ( talk) 15:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The claim: "After a June 18, 2012 segment on her show Andrea Mitchell Reports, Mitchell came under criticism as having misrepresented... [11]" Fact: The source does NOT say Mitchell misrepresented anything, nor does it say that anyone made that claim. The source says, "MSNBC Misrepresents Romney Speech, Invents Wawa ‘Gaffe’". Discuss.- SummerPhD ( talk) 00:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The claim: "Mitchell came under criticism [12] [13] [14] [15] Fact: Four sources are given, clearly implying that Mitchell was widely criticized. The first three sources clearly single out MSNBC, NOT Mitchell. Of the numerous sources presented in the contentious history of this claimed controversy, that last source, Fox News, is the only source that clearly states Mitchell was criticized. All of the rest clearly hang this on MSNBC. The Politico source, one of the first ones ever cited in this section, specifically and directly exonerated Mitchell. After I pointed this out, that source was removed. In a fair and balanced kinda way. Discuss. - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I have suggested: ""MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell came under fire [16] for a video the network had edited [17] in such a way that it appeared that Mitt Romney is not in touch with everyday voters. [18] Mitchell, who had been led to believe Romney was wowed a machine at a convenience store, [19] briefly address the controversy the following day. [20]" There still have not been any comments on this suggestion. Does it misrepresent any of the sources? Which ones and how? Is there any reliably sourced material about Mitchell missing? What and which sources present the material? Comments? - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The claim: "(Mitchell) laugh(ed) at him for the invented gaffe. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/msnbc-misquotes-romney-invents-wawa-gaffe.html" Fact: The source cited does not say Mitchell "laughed at him". In fact, the source cited doesn't even mention laughter. The only thing this particular source says about Mitchell is, "On her show today Andrea Mitchell dubbed the incident Romney's 'super market scanner moment.'" There is nothing remotely related to what the source is cited for. - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I have fixed Canoe1967's edit inserting MSNBC since it implied MSNBC had laughed at Romeny, not Mitchell and her guest. μηδείς ( talk) 19:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The source given for "she mocked presidential candidate Mitt Romney" does not say she mocked anyone. The only thing Mitchell does in the source is "(suppose) that the comments could be Romney’s 'supermarket scanner moment.'" Discuss. - SummerPhD ( talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
It now turns out that Mitchell had virtually nothing to do with the clip. She played it, apparently unaware that it was out of context ("Mitchell...broke out into laughter -- which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine." [22]), laughed and, in response to accusations by "conservatives and media writers" [23] later played the full clip. Much of the discussion here defending strongly worded edits (ironically taking words from sources out of context) has hinged on claims that Mistchell was or did this, that or the other thing. It now turns out the video did not originate on Andrea Mitchell Reports. It came from MSNBC's Way Too Early with Willie Geist. - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The claim: "The edited clip was made to appear as though Romney was amazed by fairly standard technology at a local Wawa convenience store." Fact: Changing this from "The edited clip made it appear..." inserts the idea that this was the intent of those who edited the clip. None of the sources support this idea. Discuss. - SummerPhD ( talk) 12:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The claim: "Others said Romney was not taken out of context deliberately, despite all of the evidence to the opposite." Fact: The source cited says, "Others defended the edit, saying it was not taken out of context." That sentence links to " Inconvenient Untruth: Mitt Romney’s ‘Wawas’ Story Was A Big Fat Lie". Mostly, it discusses whether or not Romney's optometrist story holds water. That said, it directly says, "...they leapt to condemn MSNBC’s completely reasonable editing of the clip, even as they ignored the glaring lie Romney told in the longer clip." This is not a discussion of whether or not it was "deliberately" taken out of context (the other editor's "not taken out of context deliberately"). This is clearly arguing that it was not taken out of context at all: "it was not taken out of context" is pretty damned straight forward way of saying, "was not taken out of context" (as in my version that says "was not taken out of context"). The remaining portion, "despite all of the evidence to the opposite", is simple soap-boxing, not supported by any of the sources. We could just as easily say "Conservatives and media writers accused MSNBC of making Romney appear out of touch by deliberately distorting his comments, despite all of the evidence to the contrary." - SummerPhD ( talk) 12:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems the old one was deleted from commons. I went through flickr and this was the best I could find. I did crop it to make it fit the infobox better. The flickr user had cropped it before that from a larger image. Feel free to overwrite the file in commons if anyone finds a better one.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Andrea Mitchell is NBC Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent. Richard Engel is NBC Chief Foreign Correspondent. Is there a difference? Does anyone know? 74.69.8.195 ( talk) 11:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The first version of this cited only the Huffington Post coverage which quite clearly laid the "blame" on the network: "Andrea Mitchell Had To Interrupt An NSA Discussion With Breaking Bieber News: We would LOVE to know what was going on in Andrea Mitchell's head when she was forced to cut off a discussion about the NSA for breaking news about Justin Bieber's arrest." [26](emphasis mine). The text added to the article, however, was directed at Mitchell: "In January, 2014, Mitchell received criticism for interrupting and breaking away from an interview with former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA), speaking on the topic of NSA spying, to report the breaking news of a Justin Bieber court hearing on charges related to a possible drunk drag racing incident." (emphasis mine) No, in the source cited she did not have a choice, was not criticized and there was no "controversy".
For the new version, the editor is "open to a different characterization" (so long as it lays this at Mitchell's feet, apparently). The new sources include the Huffington Post coverage (above) that detracts from the claim it is cited to support.
Next up is a snarky blog post from philly.com (whose owner also controls The Inqy and Daily News): "So, Mitchell did what any sane person in her position would do and interrupted Congresswoman Harman in the middle of her sentence so that she could throw coverage to Miami, where Justin Bieber was in front of a judge to face his charges, including resisting arrest."
RT.com (I don't know who this is) is next with "Unbebiebable! MSNBC cuts Congresswoman during NSA LIVE to report... Justin Bieber" [27](emphasis mine) The closest to a "controversy" involving Mitchell here is "...announced Andrea Mitchell, the MSNBC news anchor, interrupting the congresswoman."
Time's blog gives us "Watch MSNBC Interrupt a Congresswoman to Break News About Justin Bieber’s Arrest" [28] (emphasis mine). Throughout the piece: "... a news channel interrupts...", "...MSNBC interrupted...", "...so they could...", it's all MSNBC until the snark comes out: "...anchor Andrea Mitchell said without a hint of irony, casually chipping away at the dignity of news reporting with a pick axe moulded from the sharp, shattered discards of our national soul."
The Independent gives us "Justin Bieber arrested: MSNBC interrupts congresswoman during NSA interview for important Bieber news" [29] (emphasis mine) Going deep undercover: "...an MSNBC anchor cut off..." (not exactly "sources close to Kissinger" here...), "...host Andrea Mitchell said..." (demoted from "anchor"?).
The sources so far put this in MSNBC's lap. Those who see this as a "controversy" about Mitchell apparently think Mitchell controls MSNBC, expecting her to weigh the orders from the network coming through on her earpiece against her assessment of the situation, based on the detailed information given to her on the spot, right? - SummerPhD ( talk) 22:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Redtobelieve, who's already been blocked once for BLP violations, has repeatedly added a subsection to the "Controversies" section dealing with leaked private emails between Mitchell and Colin Powell. None of the cited sources report any actual controversy regarding the matter, and none substantively criticize Mitchell's comments or link them to any improper behaviour. This is just a crude attempt to smear a journalist Redtobelieve apparently has a low opinion of, and clearly violates WP:BLP. In addition, all but the closing sentence is essentially cut-and-pasted from a Fox News page, making this text a copyvio as well. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. ( talk) 02:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Andrea Mitchell. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://nrhs.nred.org/site_res_view_folder.aspx?id=f48013ee-45f7-4e7b-a618-7cdecf8ecaacWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
What’s happening to restore our postal service. We have counted on prompt service all our lives and have been disappointed that the Trump slow do has not been restored.
Why doesn’t nato put sanctions on Belarus 174.252.130.104 ( talk) 18:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Andrea Mitchell article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Not much info on her career, just incidents. The background info isn'r enough. Please improve this article. thanks. -Alan
can anyone document when she had her face lifts? Kingturtle 19:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Sean7phil 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Is she a republican - her husband certainly is?
Who was her first husband?
What relevance is it to put it in the infobox? It's not there for other TV journalists. Dogru144 04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Andrea Mitchell, a 1963 graduate of New Rochelle (NY) High School was an accomplished second alto who performed as a soloist with the NRHS 'A' Choir, and was a member of Double Octet and All State Choir.
Did she succeed the late Tim Russert as NBC News Washington Bureau chief? WAVY 10 Fan ( talk) 16:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This seems to violate Wikipedia:No original research. I am removing it and it can be restored when or if it gets sourced. -- Brian Halvorsen ( talk) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have added some sources for the criticism and ridicule Mitchell has come under for the incident. There is no question it exists. That some sources may not be reliable for some material hardly impeaches words verifiable in print and video. μηδείς ( talk) 18:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Your sarcastic emotional tone and suggestion I abuse drugs is not well taken and it won't look good if this goes to administration. "Misrepresent" and "invent" are verbatim from the sources. The current wording is perfectly neutral and verifiable--we agree no verifiable source says she "had been led to believe" anything. Mitchell took responsibility for her own broadcast the following day and stood behind it, she didn't say the show aired in her name mislead her. Bozell's comments were broadcast on Fox news and his verbatim words are sourced in the ref from Fox, not Newsmax. Newsmax was given only as a source for the video, a primary source which Fox and Huffpost also provide. Likewise for politico. It is a redundant source supporting soopermexican's credit for revealing the scandal. The Washington Post says the same thing. Given your distaste for these unnecessary sources I will remove them. The are unnecessary as supoprts for the text as it stands. μηδείς ( talk) 02:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The consensus opposes the view that this section should be deleted, or, barring that, references to the reason for the controversy be deleted in favor of just mentioning that Mitchell aired a show. I have restored the verbatim "misreprent" and "invent" so that readers will know why there is a scandal. I changed "for misrepresenting" (fact) to "as having misrepresented" (criticism). I have fixed the Wawa piping. The last two sentences are abrupt and need work. μηδείς ( talk) 15:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The claim: "After a June 18, 2012 segment on her show Andrea Mitchell Reports, Mitchell came under criticism as having misrepresented... [11]" Fact: The source does NOT say Mitchell misrepresented anything, nor does it say that anyone made that claim. The source says, "MSNBC Misrepresents Romney Speech, Invents Wawa ‘Gaffe’". Discuss.- SummerPhD ( talk) 00:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The claim: "Mitchell came under criticism [12] [13] [14] [15] Fact: Four sources are given, clearly implying that Mitchell was widely criticized. The first three sources clearly single out MSNBC, NOT Mitchell. Of the numerous sources presented in the contentious history of this claimed controversy, that last source, Fox News, is the only source that clearly states Mitchell was criticized. All of the rest clearly hang this on MSNBC. The Politico source, one of the first ones ever cited in this section, specifically and directly exonerated Mitchell. After I pointed this out, that source was removed. In a fair and balanced kinda way. Discuss. - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I have suggested: ""MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell came under fire [16] for a video the network had edited [17] in such a way that it appeared that Mitt Romney is not in touch with everyday voters. [18] Mitchell, who had been led to believe Romney was wowed a machine at a convenience store, [19] briefly address the controversy the following day. [20]" There still have not been any comments on this suggestion. Does it misrepresent any of the sources? Which ones and how? Is there any reliably sourced material about Mitchell missing? What and which sources present the material? Comments? - SummerPhD ( talk) 00:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The claim: "(Mitchell) laugh(ed) at him for the invented gaffe. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/msnbc-misquotes-romney-invents-wawa-gaffe.html" Fact: The source cited does not say Mitchell "laughed at him". In fact, the source cited doesn't even mention laughter. The only thing this particular source says about Mitchell is, "On her show today Andrea Mitchell dubbed the incident Romney's 'super market scanner moment.'" There is nothing remotely related to what the source is cited for. - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I have fixed Canoe1967's edit inserting MSNBC since it implied MSNBC had laughed at Romeny, not Mitchell and her guest. μηδείς ( talk) 19:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The source given for "she mocked presidential candidate Mitt Romney" does not say she mocked anyone. The only thing Mitchell does in the source is "(suppose) that the comments could be Romney’s 'supermarket scanner moment.'" Discuss. - SummerPhD ( talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
It now turns out that Mitchell had virtually nothing to do with the clip. She played it, apparently unaware that it was out of context ("Mitchell...broke out into laughter -- which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine." [22]), laughed and, in response to accusations by "conservatives and media writers" [23] later played the full clip. Much of the discussion here defending strongly worded edits (ironically taking words from sources out of context) has hinged on claims that Mistchell was or did this, that or the other thing. It now turns out the video did not originate on Andrea Mitchell Reports. It came from MSNBC's Way Too Early with Willie Geist. - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The claim: "The edited clip was made to appear as though Romney was amazed by fairly standard technology at a local Wawa convenience store." Fact: Changing this from "The edited clip made it appear..." inserts the idea that this was the intent of those who edited the clip. None of the sources support this idea. Discuss. - SummerPhD ( talk) 12:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The claim: "Others said Romney was not taken out of context deliberately, despite all of the evidence to the opposite." Fact: The source cited says, "Others defended the edit, saying it was not taken out of context." That sentence links to " Inconvenient Untruth: Mitt Romney’s ‘Wawas’ Story Was A Big Fat Lie". Mostly, it discusses whether or not Romney's optometrist story holds water. That said, it directly says, "...they leapt to condemn MSNBC’s completely reasonable editing of the clip, even as they ignored the glaring lie Romney told in the longer clip." This is not a discussion of whether or not it was "deliberately" taken out of context (the other editor's "not taken out of context deliberately"). This is clearly arguing that it was not taken out of context at all: "it was not taken out of context" is pretty damned straight forward way of saying, "was not taken out of context" (as in my version that says "was not taken out of context"). The remaining portion, "despite all of the evidence to the opposite", is simple soap-boxing, not supported by any of the sources. We could just as easily say "Conservatives and media writers accused MSNBC of making Romney appear out of touch by deliberately distorting his comments, despite all of the evidence to the contrary." - SummerPhD ( talk) 12:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems the old one was deleted from commons. I went through flickr and this was the best I could find. I did crop it to make it fit the infobox better. The flickr user had cropped it before that from a larger image. Feel free to overwrite the file in commons if anyone finds a better one.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Andrea Mitchell is NBC Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent. Richard Engel is NBC Chief Foreign Correspondent. Is there a difference? Does anyone know? 74.69.8.195 ( talk) 11:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The first version of this cited only the Huffington Post coverage which quite clearly laid the "blame" on the network: "Andrea Mitchell Had To Interrupt An NSA Discussion With Breaking Bieber News: We would LOVE to know what was going on in Andrea Mitchell's head when she was forced to cut off a discussion about the NSA for breaking news about Justin Bieber's arrest." [26](emphasis mine). The text added to the article, however, was directed at Mitchell: "In January, 2014, Mitchell received criticism for interrupting and breaking away from an interview with former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA), speaking on the topic of NSA spying, to report the breaking news of a Justin Bieber court hearing on charges related to a possible drunk drag racing incident." (emphasis mine) No, in the source cited she did not have a choice, was not criticized and there was no "controversy".
For the new version, the editor is "open to a different characterization" (so long as it lays this at Mitchell's feet, apparently). The new sources include the Huffington Post coverage (above) that detracts from the claim it is cited to support.
Next up is a snarky blog post from philly.com (whose owner also controls The Inqy and Daily News): "So, Mitchell did what any sane person in her position would do and interrupted Congresswoman Harman in the middle of her sentence so that she could throw coverage to Miami, where Justin Bieber was in front of a judge to face his charges, including resisting arrest."
RT.com (I don't know who this is) is next with "Unbebiebable! MSNBC cuts Congresswoman during NSA LIVE to report... Justin Bieber" [27](emphasis mine) The closest to a "controversy" involving Mitchell here is "...announced Andrea Mitchell, the MSNBC news anchor, interrupting the congresswoman."
Time's blog gives us "Watch MSNBC Interrupt a Congresswoman to Break News About Justin Bieber’s Arrest" [28] (emphasis mine). Throughout the piece: "... a news channel interrupts...", "...MSNBC interrupted...", "...so they could...", it's all MSNBC until the snark comes out: "...anchor Andrea Mitchell said without a hint of irony, casually chipping away at the dignity of news reporting with a pick axe moulded from the sharp, shattered discards of our national soul."
The Independent gives us "Justin Bieber arrested: MSNBC interrupts congresswoman during NSA interview for important Bieber news" [29] (emphasis mine) Going deep undercover: "...an MSNBC anchor cut off..." (not exactly "sources close to Kissinger" here...), "...host Andrea Mitchell said..." (demoted from "anchor"?).
The sources so far put this in MSNBC's lap. Those who see this as a "controversy" about Mitchell apparently think Mitchell controls MSNBC, expecting her to weigh the orders from the network coming through on her earpiece against her assessment of the situation, based on the detailed information given to her on the spot, right? - SummerPhD ( talk) 22:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Redtobelieve, who's already been blocked once for BLP violations, has repeatedly added a subsection to the "Controversies" section dealing with leaked private emails between Mitchell and Colin Powell. None of the cited sources report any actual controversy regarding the matter, and none substantively criticize Mitchell's comments or link them to any improper behaviour. This is just a crude attempt to smear a journalist Redtobelieve apparently has a low opinion of, and clearly violates WP:BLP. In addition, all but the closing sentence is essentially cut-and-pasted from a Fox News page, making this text a copyvio as well. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. ( talk) 02:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Andrea Mitchell. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://nrhs.nred.org/site_res_view_folder.aspx?id=f48013ee-45f7-4e7b-a618-7cdecf8ecaacWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
What’s happening to restore our postal service. We have counted on prompt service all our lives and have been disappointed that the Trump slow do has not been restored.
Why doesn’t nato put sanctions on Belarus 174.252.130.104 ( talk) 18:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)