![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As I've just made several changes, I thought it best to provide the reasoning behind the edits:
1) I've removed a great many redundant hyperlinks.
2) I've restored the second paragraph in the Nature Challenge section - removed without comment.
3) I have corrected the comment made on the John Oakley Show concerning corporate donations (and have provided a reference).
4) I have removed information concerning donations made by the OPG Employees' and Pensioners' Charity Trust as it is not a corporation and is off-topic.
5) As blogs "are largely not acceptable as sources" (see WP:V#SELF), I have removed www.smalldeadanimals.com as a reference, replacing it with the Annual Report in question. Victoriagirl 04:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I am moving this section here, for discussion. The content of the section is as follows:
My concern is that this constitutes original research. In other words, the editor who added this has drawn personal conclusions, rather than those of a reliable source. The support for the foundation is very broad (40,000 donors). We have no idea how much money has been provided by corporations. Suzuki says that they have not been interested in funding the Foundation. That logically implies that corporate funding is a relatively small percentage of the total. Who are we to argue? Unless we can find a citation that states that corporations provide a significant portion of funding for the Foundation, I don't see how we can use this. Sunray 22:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
____________________
Dear Sunray. The section which you repeatedly delete constitutes not original research but official info which can be easily checked on web-sites of CFMJ and DSF. The statement "who we are to argue" doesn't seem to be appropriate in context of the section editing: there's not a word of argument, opinion or interpretation in the section, just bare facts. If there's a concern of percentage of the funding, it would be logical to add "the ammount of the corporate donation to DSF is not known", not delete the information informing that such donations has been done.
Taking into account the following statement at About Me section of your page:
"Some people I know are working at creating alternatives that don't depend on petroleum"
With all due respect I see your position as possibly biased, and your actions as a possible attemt to cover unconvenient information.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 21:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that the new name of the section (Criticism) and reference to the actual criticism give wider picture of the situation. But if you don't find these changes neutral, so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 23:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've read policy on original research and can't see absolutely nothiing in the section that represents original research. Would you please specify which part of the section you consider the original research and on what part of original research definition your conclusion is based? I would especially appreciate if you show me any analysis of the facts mentioned in the section. Why wouldn't you call "original research" any facts that are listed in the previous sections? What in your opinion differs the facts in the last section from the facts in the other sections of the article? I'd appreciate if you answer this questions before deleting the facts you apparently do not like.
Original source where Suzuki says about funding is right there, in the audio file from the radio station website. Suzuki says it there himself. There's a reference.
No conclusions are made in this section. If you think otherwise, please cite the conclusion you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 06:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Before we continue, could you please answer two questions:
1. Which of the three sources do you find unreliable? The page of Institute for Canadian Values where you can find Be-Ami criticism of Suzuki, the page of 640Toronto radio station where you can hear Suzuki claim made by himself or the page of David Suzuki Foundation where you can find the list of sponsors?
2. What unreliable do you find in this source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 15:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Canadian Institute is as real as David Suzuki Foundation. It's Executive Director is a real person too, so there's no reasons to doubt the accuracy of his words on the page of the Institute he leads.
Annual report is an original document of DSF. The words refer not to the amount of corporate support but to the fact of it's existence, so I believe the report of DSF is the primary source of the names of the donors.
All you say about the amount is your speculations and your original research and doesn't apply to the sections.
Are any there facts in the section you believe are wrong? If so, point to it. Anything else is just your speculations. And we report facts there, not opinions or speculations. If you are not happy with the facts, you better add another facts, not delete the facts that you don't like. Deleting inconvenient information is vandalism and censoring.
I'm asking you once again: are there any facts in the section you believe are wrong? Try not to speculate about it, just name a wrong information in a couple of words.
Let's say I think that David Suzuki is a charlatan. I hear him say something that I think questionable. I find a report that shows some facts that might be evidence supporting what I think. I then find someone at a think tank with the same view.
Ехcuse me, but your are going too far. Or the next thing you would say would be I wrote to Ben-Ami and urged him to criticize Suzuki? You're trying to read my mind and "recreate" my actions. If you continue the discussion along these lines it wouldn't lead anywhere. So try to be reasonable. You can check it out in history - I didn't write the section. Actually, I've been doing a research on Suzuki, and went across the article in the Wikipedia. Then the next time I visited it the critical section wasn't there. Because I don't like censoring, either from right or from the left, I've undeleted it.
Now, there're two statements in the section.
1. Suzuki said that companies are not interested in sponsoring his foundation and it's funded by original people. That statement can be checked at the original source - the radio
2 a) Executive director of an established organization states that companies support Suzuki Foundation. That fact that a public person said it can be checked at the original source - the Institute
2 b) Finally we can check that his statement is true on the site of Suzuki foundation.
The section has two statements and they all are supported by reliable sources. The section doesn't say whether corporate donations were substantial or not. It's just your insinuations.
Now, if you like Suzuki so much that you aim is to hush any criticism, then the discussion is futile and we should apply to Wikipedia administration to settle this matter.
But if you want to get the section in line with Wikipedia standards, as you say, - then help me to find a wording and references that would make this section suitable for all people, either they adore Suzuki or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 01:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I can assure you that I'm familiar with Wikipedia policies. And I'm trying to edit the section in question to everybody's content. You're just keeping deleting it. If you really has a concern about that article, please make some suggestions how to improve the section in question, not just how to get rid of it. Are you ready to work on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 05:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point it to you once again, that it's not my version. I haven't added it to the article. But I believe it should be there because criticism of David Suzuki Foundation being hypocrite in relation to donations policy exists, and it's rather wide.
If your only interest is in removing this criticism from the article, I would ask administrators to exclude us both from the editing process and assign a team of independent editors to resolve this dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking you a simle question: are you willing to work to improve this section or you just want to remove it? Would you please answer it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 17:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your last statement. Some consensus at last. I'm placing a request for comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I work in the donor relations area of the David Suzuki Foundation and access donation records. I have edited the 'list of donors' section of the article, to reflect that the gifts reported to be made by Corporations in the 2005/200 annual report, were from employee giving programs and not gifts from corporations. The David Suzuki Foundation does not accept corporate gifts from corporations which have been defined to have a conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzukination ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
On September 8, I moved the "List of Donors" section here for discussion. In the discussion that followed, I pointed out that the way it was written constituted original research and that the addition of a questionable source did not change the situation. No reliable source has yet been found to support the contention made. Despite this, the section was repeatedly reinserted into the article by an editor. Only three editors have commented on the talk page. Two have supported the removal of the text. I will therefore remove it once more. Since the section casts aspersions on a living person, I think it is important to keep WP:BLP in mind:
In light of Wikipedia policy and due to the concerns raised, the text should not be restored to the article. Sunray 06:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Sunray, you've failed to show why the sources cited in the section are less reliable then any other sources in the article. Moreover, your attention to sources seems somehow selective. For example you never minded the "OECD research" statement which in reality wasn't conducted by OECD. If you want to be consistent, you should move all the article to the discussion page. Because all other sections either do not cite any sources at all, or the sources they cite are not reliable by your criteria. Would you like to do it? Vryadly 22:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding reliable sources. Ben Ami's, essay, as I have outlined above in considerable detail, is not a reliable source. His contentions are essentially an attack on Suzuk from a website with no peer review. Victoriagirl and I have made a case (above) that he has his facts wrong. Use of this as a citation creates a problem of neutrality.
However, I note that you have added two sources from mainstream media. This is legitimate criticism. However, the way the section is written is far from neutral. In any case, I won't revert it again for now. Instead, I will put a "neutrality" tag on it, so that editors can work on improving it. Because of the concerns raised above ( WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:BLP), it is important that we get this right. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle to attack people. Sunray 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
=== Cover me boys, I'm going in! ==
I read the commentary and then looked at the section. (Bear in mind, I'm fairly new and still learning).
*The quote attributed to suzuki was referenced first
[5]
which was backed up
[6] this was
corroborated by candianvalues.ca. I don't know much about them, So I can't judge whether they're
acceptable as a source, HOWEVER, we have three sources in agreement with each other.
NONE of them are the editor's own source / website / self-published book / pamphlet / whatever.
This editor added in this content because other sources (not himself) showed this to be
factual.
* The evidence against his "claim" was provided by his own list of donors. True, you can't
see how much each donor gave, but in the report you can see a range of dollar amounts
for each category of donor, so you can what range their donation was in. Again, this information
is provided by Suzuki's own organization.
* All of these resources were outside of the editor's sphere of influence.
None of these resources were the editor's own work/website/pamphlet/flyer/whatever.
This is clearly not original research or synth. The editor is reporting what is already
written. I don't see where he's stating anything resembling A+B=C (example: if "a" is true and "b" is
false then the truth is "c" , "C" being the editor's own version.).
This looks 'not to be original research
KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Suzuki Foundation. 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://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Suzuki+steps+down+from+foundation/6463470/story.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://wayback.archive-it.org/227/*/http:/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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Suzuki Foundation. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on David Suzuki Foundation. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I have tentatively removed the maintenance template re: "reads like an advertisement". This article has a robust criticisms section and otherwise reads like an article about an NGO. If there are specific words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs that are too celebratory, please remove and or replace them. So many editors work collaboratively on articles—templates that challenge the reliability of an entire article are discouraging for all the volunteers who have contributed to them, and—in the end—are not that productive in improving the article. Oceanflynn ( talk) 16:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As I've just made several changes, I thought it best to provide the reasoning behind the edits:
1) I've removed a great many redundant hyperlinks.
2) I've restored the second paragraph in the Nature Challenge section - removed without comment.
3) I have corrected the comment made on the John Oakley Show concerning corporate donations (and have provided a reference).
4) I have removed information concerning donations made by the OPG Employees' and Pensioners' Charity Trust as it is not a corporation and is off-topic.
5) As blogs "are largely not acceptable as sources" (see WP:V#SELF), I have removed www.smalldeadanimals.com as a reference, replacing it with the Annual Report in question. Victoriagirl 04:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I am moving this section here, for discussion. The content of the section is as follows:
My concern is that this constitutes original research. In other words, the editor who added this has drawn personal conclusions, rather than those of a reliable source. The support for the foundation is very broad (40,000 donors). We have no idea how much money has been provided by corporations. Suzuki says that they have not been interested in funding the Foundation. That logically implies that corporate funding is a relatively small percentage of the total. Who are we to argue? Unless we can find a citation that states that corporations provide a significant portion of funding for the Foundation, I don't see how we can use this. Sunray 22:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
____________________
Dear Sunray. The section which you repeatedly delete constitutes not original research but official info which can be easily checked on web-sites of CFMJ and DSF. The statement "who we are to argue" doesn't seem to be appropriate in context of the section editing: there's not a word of argument, opinion or interpretation in the section, just bare facts. If there's a concern of percentage of the funding, it would be logical to add "the ammount of the corporate donation to DSF is not known", not delete the information informing that such donations has been done.
Taking into account the following statement at About Me section of your page:
"Some people I know are working at creating alternatives that don't depend on petroleum"
With all due respect I see your position as possibly biased, and your actions as a possible attemt to cover unconvenient information.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 21:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that the new name of the section (Criticism) and reference to the actual criticism give wider picture of the situation. But if you don't find these changes neutral, so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 23:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've read policy on original research and can't see absolutely nothiing in the section that represents original research. Would you please specify which part of the section you consider the original research and on what part of original research definition your conclusion is based? I would especially appreciate if you show me any analysis of the facts mentioned in the section. Why wouldn't you call "original research" any facts that are listed in the previous sections? What in your opinion differs the facts in the last section from the facts in the other sections of the article? I'd appreciate if you answer this questions before deleting the facts you apparently do not like.
Original source where Suzuki says about funding is right there, in the audio file from the radio station website. Suzuki says it there himself. There's a reference.
No conclusions are made in this section. If you think otherwise, please cite the conclusion you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 06:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Before we continue, could you please answer two questions:
1. Which of the three sources do you find unreliable? The page of Institute for Canadian Values where you can find Be-Ami criticism of Suzuki, the page of 640Toronto radio station where you can hear Suzuki claim made by himself or the page of David Suzuki Foundation where you can find the list of sponsors?
2. What unreliable do you find in this source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 15:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Canadian Institute is as real as David Suzuki Foundation. It's Executive Director is a real person too, so there's no reasons to doubt the accuracy of his words on the page of the Institute he leads.
Annual report is an original document of DSF. The words refer not to the amount of corporate support but to the fact of it's existence, so I believe the report of DSF is the primary source of the names of the donors.
All you say about the amount is your speculations and your original research and doesn't apply to the sections.
Are any there facts in the section you believe are wrong? If so, point to it. Anything else is just your speculations. And we report facts there, not opinions or speculations. If you are not happy with the facts, you better add another facts, not delete the facts that you don't like. Deleting inconvenient information is vandalism and censoring.
I'm asking you once again: are there any facts in the section you believe are wrong? Try not to speculate about it, just name a wrong information in a couple of words.
Let's say I think that David Suzuki is a charlatan. I hear him say something that I think questionable. I find a report that shows some facts that might be evidence supporting what I think. I then find someone at a think tank with the same view.
Ехcuse me, but your are going too far. Or the next thing you would say would be I wrote to Ben-Ami and urged him to criticize Suzuki? You're trying to read my mind and "recreate" my actions. If you continue the discussion along these lines it wouldn't lead anywhere. So try to be reasonable. You can check it out in history - I didn't write the section. Actually, I've been doing a research on Suzuki, and went across the article in the Wikipedia. Then the next time I visited it the critical section wasn't there. Because I don't like censoring, either from right or from the left, I've undeleted it.
Now, there're two statements in the section.
1. Suzuki said that companies are not interested in sponsoring his foundation and it's funded by original people. That statement can be checked at the original source - the radio
2 a) Executive director of an established organization states that companies support Suzuki Foundation. That fact that a public person said it can be checked at the original source - the Institute
2 b) Finally we can check that his statement is true on the site of Suzuki foundation.
The section has two statements and they all are supported by reliable sources. The section doesn't say whether corporate donations were substantial or not. It's just your insinuations.
Now, if you like Suzuki so much that you aim is to hush any criticism, then the discussion is futile and we should apply to Wikipedia administration to settle this matter.
But if you want to get the section in line with Wikipedia standards, as you say, - then help me to find a wording and references that would make this section suitable for all people, either they adore Suzuki or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 01:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I can assure you that I'm familiar with Wikipedia policies. And I'm trying to edit the section in question to everybody's content. You're just keeping deleting it. If you really has a concern about that article, please make some suggestions how to improve the section in question, not just how to get rid of it. Are you ready to work on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 05:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point it to you once again, that it's not my version. I haven't added it to the article. But I believe it should be there because criticism of David Suzuki Foundation being hypocrite in relation to donations policy exists, and it's rather wide.
If your only interest is in removing this criticism from the article, I would ask administrators to exclude us both from the editing process and assign a team of independent editors to resolve this dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking you a simle question: are you willing to work to improve this section or you just want to remove it? Would you please answer it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 17:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your last statement. Some consensus at last. I'm placing a request for comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.13.13 ( talk) 18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I work in the donor relations area of the David Suzuki Foundation and access donation records. I have edited the 'list of donors' section of the article, to reflect that the gifts reported to be made by Corporations in the 2005/200 annual report, were from employee giving programs and not gifts from corporations. The David Suzuki Foundation does not accept corporate gifts from corporations which have been defined to have a conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzukination ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
On September 8, I moved the "List of Donors" section here for discussion. In the discussion that followed, I pointed out that the way it was written constituted original research and that the addition of a questionable source did not change the situation. No reliable source has yet been found to support the contention made. Despite this, the section was repeatedly reinserted into the article by an editor. Only three editors have commented on the talk page. Two have supported the removal of the text. I will therefore remove it once more. Since the section casts aspersions on a living person, I think it is important to keep WP:BLP in mind:
In light of Wikipedia policy and due to the concerns raised, the text should not be restored to the article. Sunray 06:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Sunray, you've failed to show why the sources cited in the section are less reliable then any other sources in the article. Moreover, your attention to sources seems somehow selective. For example you never minded the "OECD research" statement which in reality wasn't conducted by OECD. If you want to be consistent, you should move all the article to the discussion page. Because all other sections either do not cite any sources at all, or the sources they cite are not reliable by your criteria. Would you like to do it? Vryadly 22:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding reliable sources. Ben Ami's, essay, as I have outlined above in considerable detail, is not a reliable source. His contentions are essentially an attack on Suzuk from a website with no peer review. Victoriagirl and I have made a case (above) that he has his facts wrong. Use of this as a citation creates a problem of neutrality.
However, I note that you have added two sources from mainstream media. This is legitimate criticism. However, the way the section is written is far from neutral. In any case, I won't revert it again for now. Instead, I will put a "neutrality" tag on it, so that editors can work on improving it. Because of the concerns raised above ( WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:BLP), it is important that we get this right. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle to attack people. Sunray 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
=== Cover me boys, I'm going in! ==
I read the commentary and then looked at the section. (Bear in mind, I'm fairly new and still learning).
*The quote attributed to suzuki was referenced first
[5]
which was backed up
[6] this was
corroborated by candianvalues.ca. I don't know much about them, So I can't judge whether they're
acceptable as a source, HOWEVER, we have three sources in agreement with each other.
NONE of them are the editor's own source / website / self-published book / pamphlet / whatever.
This editor added in this content because other sources (not himself) showed this to be
factual.
* The evidence against his "claim" was provided by his own list of donors. True, you can't
see how much each donor gave, but in the report you can see a range of dollar amounts
for each category of donor, so you can what range their donation was in. Again, this information
is provided by Suzuki's own organization.
* All of these resources were outside of the editor's sphere of influence.
None of these resources were the editor's own work/website/pamphlet/flyer/whatever.
This is clearly not original research or synth. The editor is reporting what is already
written. I don't see where he's stating anything resembling A+B=C (example: if "a" is true and "b" is
false then the truth is "c" , "C" being the editor's own version.).
This looks 'not to be original research
KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Suzuki Foundation. 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://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Suzuki+steps+down+from+foundation/6463470/story.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://wayback.archive-it.org/227/*/http:/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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Suzuki Foundation. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on David Suzuki Foundation. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I have tentatively removed the maintenance template re: "reads like an advertisement". This article has a robust criticisms section and otherwise reads like an article about an NGO. If there are specific words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs that are too celebratory, please remove and or replace them. So many editors work collaboratively on articles—templates that challenge the reliability of an entire article are discouraging for all the volunteers who have contributed to them, and—in the end—are not that productive in improving the article. Oceanflynn ( talk) 16:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)