This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
First off, I want to say I agree with the decison to keep Jett Travolta's name off of this page. While his death was tragic, neither his life nor the circumstances of his death were of sufficient notabilty to warrant inclusion on this page.
That being said, I believe that there is a bit of an imbalance in the criteria used for alowing names to be posted and remain on the page. No disrespect to Don Sanderson, but he still lacks an article and any article that is created will mainly be covering his death.
What makes his inclusion okay and not that of Jett Travolta? This isn't an attack, just an observation. Ulric1313 ( talk) 03:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Smurfmeister ( talk) 17:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article alone is not proof of notability - otherwise anyone who wanted to add a name to the notable deaths page could simply create a Wikipedia page to justify it. The point is that if Jett Travolta was only notable by who his parents were, India was only notable by who his owner was - so if that's the line we're taking, India should be removed. Smurfmeister ( talk) 10:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
No CP, this page is NOT a list 'to show who or what died in 2009' - it is a list of NOTABLE deaths in 2009. If it is just going to be a list of deaths my mate's aunt should be on it. You are correct in saying that this page is not intended to establish notability; however, that nobility does need to be established before the subject is included here. You say India's article has 'survived' three deletion attempts and that 'consensus rules the day'; all you have to do is look at the page's history and you will see all those discussions resulted in NO CONSENSUS. You are completely contradicting yourself, and if you are going to use the concept of consensus to revert my edits, at least make sure it exists. Smurfmeister ( talk) 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
But the whole point I was making was that if Jett Travolta (famous dad) is not notable, India the cat (famous owner) isn't either! Smurfmeister ( talk) 14:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hardly a ringing endorsement of the article's value, is it? Smurfmeister ( talk) 21:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that "notable in media" is a very US-centric view. With due respect, who cares outside the US that Jettdied, or Bush's cat died? For example, China, having more than 1.2 billion people, and India having 1 billion has also numerous famous persons, and 100 times more persons/cats/dogs related to them. Sometimes, the deaths of such cats / dogs make it to newspapers having circulations much larger than Washington Post. However, still no one would consider these events or cats notable. A systemic bias occurs as a result of the obsession with US news sources, and the general undue weight put on pets in the US. For much of the outside world, a notable person's cat is simply NOT at all notable. -- Ragib ( talk) 21:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently one of Gordon Brown's kids had nits a few weeks back. Do nits count as pets? I'll get working on the article ;0) Smurfmeister ( talk) 22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Asheton was found dead on 6 January, having died about 31 December or 1 January. His death notice has been bouncing between 1 January and 6 January (currently in BOTH). Can we get some agreement? Personally, since the d.o.d. is unclear, I favour 6 January with a statement like "body found on this date". Thoughts? WWGB ( talk) 01:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Due to the ongoing edit war over a dead cat the page is now protected. Let me know when you sort it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
With edit wars on high-profile articles, especially this one with only two editors edit warning, the editors should be blocked instead of the article being protected as it gives a bad reputation. Should have been mentioned in at least WP:AN first. I'm about to unprotect it, any objections. Secret account 13:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to say this...the news worthy death of Oscar Grant is apparently not worthy of note, despite cultural impact, whereas the President's cat is? Ragan651 ( talk) 06:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggest we have a discussion here before changing "aviatrix" to the less appropriate "aviator" simply because one user has decided it's too complicated a word to use. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 15:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak for all dialects of English, but in mine (basically Midwestern American/Californian), the use of "aviator" to describe someone known to be female is just plain wrong. It's one of the few words (like waiter/waitress, steward/stewardess, actor/actress) that preserves a gender distinction.— Kww( talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
In my annoyance, I have just realised that, while edit-warring, neither of us actually broke 3RR. Neither of us reverted more than three times, which makes your warning even more unhelpful. I apologise for saying you broke 3RR, and I'd appreciate a similar apology from you. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been invited to comment here on the use of aviator or aviatrix at Nancy Bird Walton. I will not as this is plainly not the right place. Please see that article's talk page instead. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 20:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, nonsense. Of course it matters. I suggest that Talk:Aviator is obviously the right place for this discussion, and the correct choice for Walton is on Talk:Nancy Bird Walton. As if you're going to resolve a general WP issue *here* is plain ridiculous. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
But while I'm here. Earlier Kww did comment:
The female form of profession names and job titles is disparaged throughout much of the English-speaking world. It is held to be discriminatory in many (perhaps PC) circles. That the word "aviatrix" is understood does not mean it should be used. cf coolie. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There will be a WP guideline about this. I suggest we find it and follow it. If anyone doesn't like it (who knows, it might be me) then that should be discussed on that guideline's Talk page. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 21:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a guideline/rule, somewhere, saying: should a guideline be widely ignored, this is not an excuse for ignoring the guideline. The issue is not over. If you don't like the guideline go fight your corner on the guideline's talk page. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 21:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's clear that as soon as I was aware of the guideline, I accepted it as the way Wikipedia works, for exactly the reasons you set out. I wasn't advocating a diversion from the guideline at any point. My views on the nature of the guideline were aired, briefly, solely as part of the discussion, not as an out-of-the-blue attack on the guideline itself. If my views on the PC nature of current language trends and the guidelines that develop thereof are out of place here, then so is any belated critique of those views. I should clarify, though, that my comment of 00:18 on January 17 was not aimed at the guideline in any way, more the comment immediately prior. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 02:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
"Pilot" and "aviator" are not synonymous. A flight engineer, bombardier or navigator is an aviator. You cannot simultaneously have aviator as the collective noun and then suggest that it has a male gender. No. Aviator is gender neutral and the term aviatrix is feminine. Aviatrix is used (those who take offense do say) to imply that it is unusual or uncommon for women to be aviators in that they are not suited for the role because of their gender. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 22:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the wrong place for this discussion and the discussion has been had. See Talk:Aviator. But you cannot say, surely, that aviator implies "male pilot, male flight engineer, male navigator, male bombardier, or male wing-walker"? If so then duty would have you hurry over to aviator and correct that article. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 23:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The position in English as it is used currently, by practically everybody, throughout the world, is this, I contend: An aviatrix is a female aviator but the term aviatrix is not in common, popular use. An aviator is a person (of either gender) who is a crew member of an aircraft. An aviatrix is an aviator, an aviator is not necessarily an aviatrix. It seems to me that WP ought to reflect that. And I think WP guidelines do reflect that. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
John Edmondson, 2nd Baron Sandford listed 13th January 2009, has a request for a citation,. The only one I can find is wikipedia itself, which does not answer the need at all. Should it be removed? Edmund Patrick – confer 20:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is Matt Sczesny listed in both Jan. 3rd and Jan. 4th sections? -- 212.36.9.145 ( talk) 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I have hidden Sonny Fai on January 4. He is missing and presumed dead, but his death hasn't been confirmed yet. Saying that he's not coming back is unsourced crystalballing. What we need for inclusion in this list is a reliable source that says that he is actually dead. Reports that his friends have given up the hope of finding him alive or reports that he is probably/presumably/likely dead are not enough. Aecis·(away) talk 07:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not immediately editing this as I'm not sure on the standard set, but shouldn't John Updike be listed as being known for the Rabbit series of novels, rather than one of the novels? Two of them won Pulitzer's after all. If that's not really correct, can someone give me an answer on what decides what works should be noted after people's names? Is it just down to the original editor or is there a guideline somewhere? Fol de rol troll ( talk) 17:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there some way someone can get a template up there for the coming months of 2009? I'll look but as of right now this article is kind of...well looking crude with all those red links up there. -- Amaraiel Send Message 01:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
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:
(?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$)
on the local blacklist(?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$)
on the local blacklistIf 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 19:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Deaths in January 2009. 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.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090110/pelletier_obit_090110/20090110?hub=TopStoriesWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 9 external links on Deaths in January 2009. 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://404/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.chelseafc.com/news-article/article/1511948{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900290.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.toutlecine.com/cinema/l-actu-cinema/0000/people-00006892-mort-du-realisateur-francois-villiers.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 54 external links on Deaths in January 2009. 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.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=112135http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acadvertiser.co.uk%2Flanarkshire-news%2Flocal-news%2Flocal-news-lanarkshire%2F2009%2F01%2F12%2Fboxing-soul-legend-freddie-mack-dies-aged-74-65864-22675201%2F{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/37685109.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nola.com/timespic/stories/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fobits-33%2F123217268677100.xml&coll=1{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20090131/NEWS02/901310372/1009When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 8 external links on Deaths in January 2009. 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. An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
First off, I want to say I agree with the decison to keep Jett Travolta's name off of this page. While his death was tragic, neither his life nor the circumstances of his death were of sufficient notabilty to warrant inclusion on this page.
That being said, I believe that there is a bit of an imbalance in the criteria used for alowing names to be posted and remain on the page. No disrespect to Don Sanderson, but he still lacks an article and any article that is created will mainly be covering his death.
What makes his inclusion okay and not that of Jett Travolta? This isn't an attack, just an observation. Ulric1313 ( talk) 03:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Smurfmeister ( talk) 17:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article alone is not proof of notability - otherwise anyone who wanted to add a name to the notable deaths page could simply create a Wikipedia page to justify it. The point is that if Jett Travolta was only notable by who his parents were, India was only notable by who his owner was - so if that's the line we're taking, India should be removed. Smurfmeister ( talk) 10:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
No CP, this page is NOT a list 'to show who or what died in 2009' - it is a list of NOTABLE deaths in 2009. If it is just going to be a list of deaths my mate's aunt should be on it. You are correct in saying that this page is not intended to establish notability; however, that nobility does need to be established before the subject is included here. You say India's article has 'survived' three deletion attempts and that 'consensus rules the day'; all you have to do is look at the page's history and you will see all those discussions resulted in NO CONSENSUS. You are completely contradicting yourself, and if you are going to use the concept of consensus to revert my edits, at least make sure it exists. Smurfmeister ( talk) 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
But the whole point I was making was that if Jett Travolta (famous dad) is not notable, India the cat (famous owner) isn't either! Smurfmeister ( talk) 14:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hardly a ringing endorsement of the article's value, is it? Smurfmeister ( talk) 21:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that "notable in media" is a very US-centric view. With due respect, who cares outside the US that Jettdied, or Bush's cat died? For example, China, having more than 1.2 billion people, and India having 1 billion has also numerous famous persons, and 100 times more persons/cats/dogs related to them. Sometimes, the deaths of such cats / dogs make it to newspapers having circulations much larger than Washington Post. However, still no one would consider these events or cats notable. A systemic bias occurs as a result of the obsession with US news sources, and the general undue weight put on pets in the US. For much of the outside world, a notable person's cat is simply NOT at all notable. -- Ragib ( talk) 21:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently one of Gordon Brown's kids had nits a few weeks back. Do nits count as pets? I'll get working on the article ;0) Smurfmeister ( talk) 22:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Asheton was found dead on 6 January, having died about 31 December or 1 January. His death notice has been bouncing between 1 January and 6 January (currently in BOTH). Can we get some agreement? Personally, since the d.o.d. is unclear, I favour 6 January with a statement like "body found on this date". Thoughts? WWGB ( talk) 01:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Due to the ongoing edit war over a dead cat the page is now protected. Let me know when you sort it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
With edit wars on high-profile articles, especially this one with only two editors edit warning, the editors should be blocked instead of the article being protected as it gives a bad reputation. Should have been mentioned in at least WP:AN first. I'm about to unprotect it, any objections. Secret account 13:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to say this...the news worthy death of Oscar Grant is apparently not worthy of note, despite cultural impact, whereas the President's cat is? Ragan651 ( talk) 06:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggest we have a discussion here before changing "aviatrix" to the less appropriate "aviator" simply because one user has decided it's too complicated a word to use. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 15:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak for all dialects of English, but in mine (basically Midwestern American/Californian), the use of "aviator" to describe someone known to be female is just plain wrong. It's one of the few words (like waiter/waitress, steward/stewardess, actor/actress) that preserves a gender distinction.— Kww( talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
In my annoyance, I have just realised that, while edit-warring, neither of us actually broke 3RR. Neither of us reverted more than three times, which makes your warning even more unhelpful. I apologise for saying you broke 3RR, and I'd appreciate a similar apology from you. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 19:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been invited to comment here on the use of aviator or aviatrix at Nancy Bird Walton. I will not as this is plainly not the right place. Please see that article's talk page instead. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 20:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, nonsense. Of course it matters. I suggest that Talk:Aviator is obviously the right place for this discussion, and the correct choice for Walton is on Talk:Nancy Bird Walton. As if you're going to resolve a general WP issue *here* is plain ridiculous. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
But while I'm here. Earlier Kww did comment:
The female form of profession names and job titles is disparaged throughout much of the English-speaking world. It is held to be discriminatory in many (perhaps PC) circles. That the word "aviatrix" is understood does not mean it should be used. cf coolie. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There will be a WP guideline about this. I suggest we find it and follow it. If anyone doesn't like it (who knows, it might be me) then that should be discussed on that guideline's Talk page. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 21:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a guideline/rule, somewhere, saying: should a guideline be widely ignored, this is not an excuse for ignoring the guideline. The issue is not over. If you don't like the guideline go fight your corner on the guideline's talk page. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 21:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's clear that as soon as I was aware of the guideline, I accepted it as the way Wikipedia works, for exactly the reasons you set out. I wasn't advocating a diversion from the guideline at any point. My views on the nature of the guideline were aired, briefly, solely as part of the discussion, not as an out-of-the-blue attack on the guideline itself. If my views on the PC nature of current language trends and the guidelines that develop thereof are out of place here, then so is any belated critique of those views. I should clarify, though, that my comment of 00:18 on January 17 was not aimed at the guideline in any way, more the comment immediately prior. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 02:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
"Pilot" and "aviator" are not synonymous. A flight engineer, bombardier or navigator is an aviator. You cannot simultaneously have aviator as the collective noun and then suggest that it has a male gender. No. Aviator is gender neutral and the term aviatrix is feminine. Aviatrix is used (those who take offense do say) to imply that it is unusual or uncommon for women to be aviators in that they are not suited for the role because of their gender. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 22:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the wrong place for this discussion and the discussion has been had. See Talk:Aviator. But you cannot say, surely, that aviator implies "male pilot, male flight engineer, male navigator, male bombardier, or male wing-walker"? If so then duty would have you hurry over to aviator and correct that article. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 23:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The position in English as it is used currently, by practically everybody, throughout the world, is this, I contend: An aviatrix is a female aviator but the term aviatrix is not in common, popular use. An aviator is a person (of either gender) who is a crew member of an aircraft. An aviatrix is an aviator, an aviator is not necessarily an aviatrix. It seems to me that WP ought to reflect that. And I think WP guidelines do reflect that. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
John Edmondson, 2nd Baron Sandford listed 13th January 2009, has a request for a citation,. The only one I can find is wikipedia itself, which does not answer the need at all. Should it be removed? Edmund Patrick – confer 20:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is Matt Sczesny listed in both Jan. 3rd and Jan. 4th sections? -- 212.36.9.145 ( talk) 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I have hidden Sonny Fai on January 4. He is missing and presumed dead, but his death hasn't been confirmed yet. Saying that he's not coming back is unsourced crystalballing. What we need for inclusion in this list is a reliable source that says that he is actually dead. Reports that his friends have given up the hope of finding him alive or reports that he is probably/presumably/likely dead are not enough. Aecis·(away) talk 07:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not immediately editing this as I'm not sure on the standard set, but shouldn't John Updike be listed as being known for the Rabbit series of novels, rather than one of the novels? Two of them won Pulitzer's after all. If that's not really correct, can someone give me an answer on what decides what works should be noted after people's names? Is it just down to the original editor or is there a guideline somewhere? Fol de rol troll ( talk) 17:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there some way someone can get a template up there for the coming months of 2009? I'll look but as of right now this article is kind of...well looking crude with all those red links up there. -- Amaraiel Send Message 01:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
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:
(?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$)
on the local blacklist(?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$)
on the local blacklistIf 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 19:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Deaths in January 2009. 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.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090110/pelletier_obit_090110/20090110?hub=TopStoriesWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 9 external links on Deaths in January 2009. 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://404/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.chelseafc.com/news-article/article/1511948{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900290.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.toutlecine.com/cinema/l-actu-cinema/0000/people-00006892-mort-du-realisateur-francois-villiers.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 54 external links on Deaths in January 2009. 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.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=112135http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acadvertiser.co.uk%2Flanarkshire-news%2Flocal-news%2Flocal-news-lanarkshire%2F2009%2F01%2F12%2Fboxing-soul-legend-freddie-mack-dies-aged-74-65864-22675201%2F{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/37685109.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nola.com/timespic/stories/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fobits-33%2F123217268677100.xml&coll=1{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20090131/NEWS02/901310372/1009When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 8 external links on Deaths in January 2009. 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. An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)