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 |
As of 3/25/2014 the article makes two mentions of Gillespie's role in "founding" American Crossroads & Crossroads GPS. However, as FactCheck.org notes,
Ed Gillespie, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Karl Rove, who served as senior adviser to President George W. Bush, were instrumental in helping to launch American Crossroads in 2010. Although neither serve in any official capacity, Gillespie and Rove “encouraged the formation” of American Crossroads and serve as “informal advisers” and fundraisers, says the group’s spokesman, Jonathan Collegio.
As such, I'd like to suggest revising the opening paragraph of the article to omit this phrase "and together with Karl Rove, founded Crossroads GPS."
Later, the article notes "Gillespie is an adviser to American Crossroads, a 527 organization that plans to help Republican Party members get elected." As a candidate for federal office Gillespie no longer has any connection to the organization. Additionally, the language is dated and more information exists about the organization's activities, which are well-documented at its page. I'd suggest revising the sentence to read:
"Gillespie has served as an adviser to American Crossroads."
Ericjwilson ( talk) 22:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
In 2001, Quinn Gillespie and Associates LLC was one of the registered lobbyists for the Enron Corporation. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
References
The material above was deleted by NazariyKaminski on the basis that the material is "not notable". This, after I added sources that support the fact that it is notable. There are additional sources that can be used if needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
NazariyKaminski: Please engage in a discussion about this, and present your arguments for deletion. Reverting without discussion is not the way to resolve content disputes. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Since NazariyKaminski has not replied in this thread, can we reinstate the material above? 108.28.193.226 ( talk) 20:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I, user Juankimnoah, submitted the following below factual addition to page "Ed Gillespie."; however, user Jytdog deleted it on the grounds "(BLP violation - need to use reliable sources, and summarize them neutrally." I attest that my edit clearly hyperlinks to obviously credible sources. Furthermore, the summary is stark and direct. I now seek honorable resolution to this block to positing bonafide information
<redact>
At the right of this page displays an excerpt from the Gillespie "Public Citizen" document...
-- Juankimnoah ( talk) 00:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC).
See here [1].
1: This is inappropriate for the lede: "Gillespie, along with Democrat Jack Quinn, founded Quinn Gillespie & Associates, a bipartisan lobbying firm. Gillespie is also the founder of Ed Gillespie Strategies, a strategic consulting firm that provides high-level advice to companies and CEOs, coalitions, and trade associations." The first firms is mentioned once in the article, the other firm never again in the article. A WP:LEDE should summarize the content of the main body. It's extremely problematic to use the firm's own puffed up language ("strategic consulting firm" instead of lobbying firm, "provides high-level advice"). The other firm is described as "bipartisan" without any source.
2: I am of the view that when possible (when no vital information is lost), we should seek to trim text. This is my preferred version of the latter part of the lede: "Gillespie ran for Virginia's U.S. Senate seat held by Mark Warner in 2014, narrowly losing to Warner by a margin of 0.8%.[1] In June 2017, he won the Republican nomination for Governor of Virginia in the 2017 election where faces Democratic nominee Ralph Northam." I don't see how the much lengthier version is better (does anyone care when somebody announced their candidacy?): "In January 2014, Gillespie announced he was running for Virginia's U.S. Senate seat held by Mark Warner. In the 2014 general election, Gillespie ended up narrowly losing to Warner by a margin of 0.8% in a surprisingly close race.[1] In October 2015, Gillespie announced his plans to run for Governor of Virginia in 2017.[2] In June 2017, he won the Republican nomination for governor in the 2017 election and faces Democratic nominee Ralph Northam in the general election.[3]"
3: Having multiple one-sentence or two-sentence paragraphs looks extremely ugly and makes it hard to read and navigate the article. For example, if there are only 5-6 sentences about his 2014 run, why keep them split up in three paragraphs?
4: This reliably sourced and accurate text was removed without explanation from the Governor's race section: "Up to June 2017, Gillespie ran as an establishment Republican and focused on economic issues rather social issues.[29][30][31] The August 2017 move to hire the controversial Trump operative was described by the Washington Post as an effort to "win over Trump voters".[28] According to Politico, "Gillespie’s out-and-out breaks with Trump during his primary campaign have been rare."[31]"
5: Reliably sourced text on (A) both Gillespie's criticism and support of Trump's action, (B) Gillespie's position on climate change, and (C) Gillespie's position on same-sex marriage was removed without explanation. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help); External link in |last=
(
help)This text [2] is absolutely not undue. The claim is even more ridiculous when the same editor keeps and tweaks another piece of text [3] that emphasizes Gillespie's moderate tendencies. Just as the latter text is reliably sourced and relevant, so is mine. If one text has to go because they relate to the campaign for Governor, then logically both should. That is to say, if the people who are editing this page are actually sincere when they cite Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
According to the New York Times, Gillespie's has been largely focused on economic issues rather social issues.....Gillespie's.... what? Jytdog ( talk) 01:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Instaurare what is this about? Creature? And why you are removing the sourced content about Morgan. Please explain. Thx. Jytdog ( talk) 03:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
This sentence is stranded in the "Political positions" section without context: "According to a New York Times in 2014, at that time Gillespie had “ties to both Republican grass-roots and establishment wings”." 108.28.193.226 ( talk) 19:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Last-minute ad campaigns also tend to be important (which is why they're saved for last; the candidate is making his closing argument). See, e.g.
The last link shows that Gillespie is giving it high billing on his own website as well. Katarina Couteau ( talk) 00:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
(i) This Wikpedia article uses Fox News' interpretation of a statement by the Northam campaign. Fox News is not a RS. If you believe that Fox News is a RS, why not use the Northam campaign's own statement from the Fox News source?
(ii) This Wikipedia article also claims that the ad "drew widespread condemnation", which is found neither in the Fox News source or the Hill source.
(iii) Furthermore, this revert [4] removed the Nortam campaign's statement that it was appropriate to pull the ad. This is important, no? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog, I addressed the concerns above by incorporating the full statements. Please write out your concerns here so we can attempt a compromise. Instaurare ( talk) 19:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
New proposed text A week before the election, the Latino Victory Fund, which supports Northam, released an ad depicting a white man in a pickup truck with a Gillespie bumper sticker, a " Don't tread on me" license plate, and a Confederate flag chasing down two Latino boys, a girl wearing a hijab, and an African-American boy, and cornering them in an alley before the ad cuts to one of the children waking up and realizing it was a nightmare. [1] [2] [3] The ad was condemned by Gillespie, many conservatives, some Democrat members of the House of Delegates, [4] [1] and the Washington Post editorial board, which called the ad "vile". [5] Northam campaign spokesman Ofirah Yheskel defended the ad, saying, "It's not shocking that communities of color are scared of what his Trump-like policy positions mean for them." [6] The ad was pulled the following day in the hours after the terrorist attack in New York City, in which a man killed several people by running them over with a truck. [7] [8] [9] A Northam campaign spokesman said it did not ask the Latino Victory Fund to pull the ad, but that it was "appropriate and the right thing to do." [10]
References
Instaurare ( talk) 18:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Should the article include content on the Latino Victory Fund ad as covered by these two removed diffs and discussed in the section above? Instaurare ( talk) 22:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd rather not wade into this - things are always going to be heated when discussing politics, but...can we try to cool it down a couple notches? I support the compromise (considering that I wrote it myself, over at the Northam page), although I'd honestly be fine with moving any discussion about campaign ads out of Northam and Gillespie's personal pages and into the Virginia gubernatorial election, 2017 page. I do think that the ads should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. I haven't agreed with all of Instaurare's edits, but I'm assuming good faith and would expect others to do the same. Thanks. -- Jpcase ( talk) 15:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
This is an unsourced claim. An IP account has repeatedly added it to the article for the last few weeks. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Instaurare changed "the scientific consensus on climate change" to "the scientific opinion on climate change". Per WP:FRINGE, ideas that depart from the prevailing views in a particular field should be described as such in clear language. The term 'scientific opinion' fails to communicate clearly to readers that there is a scientific consensus on climate change (note that the Scientific opinion on climate change does clearly communicate this, so it's unclear what Instaurare's point is with the title of that page). Instaurare of course knows this, which is why the user did this edit: to intentionally make the text hazy and confuse readers as to the scientific status of climate change. Furthermore, the user did not go to the talk after having his ill-advised change of long-standing content challenged. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 09:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Can someone explain why Ed Gillespie ran such a racist campaign.
There was nothing in his background to suggest he would run like this - he had a history of being moderate and had worked for the Bush family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 ( talk) 10:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Ed Gillespie had a leading role in the Republican REDMAP project which served as a prototype for the modern-day Republican gerrymandering. This should probably be a section in his article.
Gillespie took partisan mapmaking to a new level. Try turning that into a bumper sticker.
While he is better known as the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, a Washington lobbyist and a counselor to President George W. Bush, Gillespie helped pull off a stunning political coup — one that gave Republicans unprecedented muscle to reshape the nation’s congressional maps to their advantage.
Inaugural RSLC REDMAP Report Predicts Significant Republican Gains
“The Republican Party has an opportunity to impact the redrawing of dozens of congressional districts across the country following this election cycle,” said Tom Reynolds, Vice Chair of the RSLC and head of REDMAP. “In the end, we will see an effect that lasts for the next decade.”
“There is little doubt that the political landscape continues to favor Republicans at all levels this election cycle. Voters are looking to Republicans who will move their states in a direction of smaller government and less spending and who will protect them from what is becoming the repeated Democrat over-reach,” said RSLC Chairman Ed Gillespie. “This report spells out how fragile Democrat majorities will quickly turn into Republican-led chambers resulting in common sense conservative policies.”
GOP REDMAP Memo Admits Gerrymandering To Thank For Congressional Election Success
While the RSLC’s report may come as an unusually candid presentation of the fruits of its gerrymandering campaign, the GOP’s redistricting strategy and emergent advantage is not a newly reported phenomenon, nor is it a practice only exercised by Republicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakesmcjunkie123 ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ed Gillespie. 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) 04:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
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 |
As of 3/25/2014 the article makes two mentions of Gillespie's role in "founding" American Crossroads & Crossroads GPS. However, as FactCheck.org notes,
Ed Gillespie, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Karl Rove, who served as senior adviser to President George W. Bush, were instrumental in helping to launch American Crossroads in 2010. Although neither serve in any official capacity, Gillespie and Rove “encouraged the formation” of American Crossroads and serve as “informal advisers” and fundraisers, says the group’s spokesman, Jonathan Collegio.
As such, I'd like to suggest revising the opening paragraph of the article to omit this phrase "and together with Karl Rove, founded Crossroads GPS."
Later, the article notes "Gillespie is an adviser to American Crossroads, a 527 organization that plans to help Republican Party members get elected." As a candidate for federal office Gillespie no longer has any connection to the organization. Additionally, the language is dated and more information exists about the organization's activities, which are well-documented at its page. I'd suggest revising the sentence to read:
"Gillespie has served as an adviser to American Crossroads."
Ericjwilson ( talk) 22:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
In 2001, Quinn Gillespie and Associates LLC was one of the registered lobbyists for the Enron Corporation. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
References
The material above was deleted by NazariyKaminski on the basis that the material is "not notable". This, after I added sources that support the fact that it is notable. There are additional sources that can be used if needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
NazariyKaminski: Please engage in a discussion about this, and present your arguments for deletion. Reverting without discussion is not the way to resolve content disputes. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Since NazariyKaminski has not replied in this thread, can we reinstate the material above? 108.28.193.226 ( talk) 20:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I, user Juankimnoah, submitted the following below factual addition to page "Ed Gillespie."; however, user Jytdog deleted it on the grounds "(BLP violation - need to use reliable sources, and summarize them neutrally." I attest that my edit clearly hyperlinks to obviously credible sources. Furthermore, the summary is stark and direct. I now seek honorable resolution to this block to positing bonafide information
<redact>
At the right of this page displays an excerpt from the Gillespie "Public Citizen" document...
-- Juankimnoah ( talk) 00:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC).
See here [1].
1: This is inappropriate for the lede: "Gillespie, along with Democrat Jack Quinn, founded Quinn Gillespie & Associates, a bipartisan lobbying firm. Gillespie is also the founder of Ed Gillespie Strategies, a strategic consulting firm that provides high-level advice to companies and CEOs, coalitions, and trade associations." The first firms is mentioned once in the article, the other firm never again in the article. A WP:LEDE should summarize the content of the main body. It's extremely problematic to use the firm's own puffed up language ("strategic consulting firm" instead of lobbying firm, "provides high-level advice"). The other firm is described as "bipartisan" without any source.
2: I am of the view that when possible (when no vital information is lost), we should seek to trim text. This is my preferred version of the latter part of the lede: "Gillespie ran for Virginia's U.S. Senate seat held by Mark Warner in 2014, narrowly losing to Warner by a margin of 0.8%.[1] In June 2017, he won the Republican nomination for Governor of Virginia in the 2017 election where faces Democratic nominee Ralph Northam." I don't see how the much lengthier version is better (does anyone care when somebody announced their candidacy?): "In January 2014, Gillespie announced he was running for Virginia's U.S. Senate seat held by Mark Warner. In the 2014 general election, Gillespie ended up narrowly losing to Warner by a margin of 0.8% in a surprisingly close race.[1] In October 2015, Gillespie announced his plans to run for Governor of Virginia in 2017.[2] In June 2017, he won the Republican nomination for governor in the 2017 election and faces Democratic nominee Ralph Northam in the general election.[3]"
3: Having multiple one-sentence or two-sentence paragraphs looks extremely ugly and makes it hard to read and navigate the article. For example, if there are only 5-6 sentences about his 2014 run, why keep them split up in three paragraphs?
4: This reliably sourced and accurate text was removed without explanation from the Governor's race section: "Up to June 2017, Gillespie ran as an establishment Republican and focused on economic issues rather social issues.[29][30][31] The August 2017 move to hire the controversial Trump operative was described by the Washington Post as an effort to "win over Trump voters".[28] According to Politico, "Gillespie’s out-and-out breaks with Trump during his primary campaign have been rare."[31]"
5: Reliably sourced text on (A) both Gillespie's criticism and support of Trump's action, (B) Gillespie's position on climate change, and (C) Gillespie's position on same-sex marriage was removed without explanation. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help); External link in |last=
(
help)This text [2] is absolutely not undue. The claim is even more ridiculous when the same editor keeps and tweaks another piece of text [3] that emphasizes Gillespie's moderate tendencies. Just as the latter text is reliably sourced and relevant, so is mine. If one text has to go because they relate to the campaign for Governor, then logically both should. That is to say, if the people who are editing this page are actually sincere when they cite Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
According to the New York Times, Gillespie's has been largely focused on economic issues rather social issues.....Gillespie's.... what? Jytdog ( talk) 01:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Instaurare what is this about? Creature? And why you are removing the sourced content about Morgan. Please explain. Thx. Jytdog ( talk) 03:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
This sentence is stranded in the "Political positions" section without context: "According to a New York Times in 2014, at that time Gillespie had “ties to both Republican grass-roots and establishment wings”." 108.28.193.226 ( talk) 19:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Last-minute ad campaigns also tend to be important (which is why they're saved for last; the candidate is making his closing argument). See, e.g.
The last link shows that Gillespie is giving it high billing on his own website as well. Katarina Couteau ( talk) 00:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
(i) This Wikpedia article uses Fox News' interpretation of a statement by the Northam campaign. Fox News is not a RS. If you believe that Fox News is a RS, why not use the Northam campaign's own statement from the Fox News source?
(ii) This Wikipedia article also claims that the ad "drew widespread condemnation", which is found neither in the Fox News source or the Hill source.
(iii) Furthermore, this revert [4] removed the Nortam campaign's statement that it was appropriate to pull the ad. This is important, no? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog, I addressed the concerns above by incorporating the full statements. Please write out your concerns here so we can attempt a compromise. Instaurare ( talk) 19:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
New proposed text A week before the election, the Latino Victory Fund, which supports Northam, released an ad depicting a white man in a pickup truck with a Gillespie bumper sticker, a " Don't tread on me" license plate, and a Confederate flag chasing down two Latino boys, a girl wearing a hijab, and an African-American boy, and cornering them in an alley before the ad cuts to one of the children waking up and realizing it was a nightmare. [1] [2] [3] The ad was condemned by Gillespie, many conservatives, some Democrat members of the House of Delegates, [4] [1] and the Washington Post editorial board, which called the ad "vile". [5] Northam campaign spokesman Ofirah Yheskel defended the ad, saying, "It's not shocking that communities of color are scared of what his Trump-like policy positions mean for them." [6] The ad was pulled the following day in the hours after the terrorist attack in New York City, in which a man killed several people by running them over with a truck. [7] [8] [9] A Northam campaign spokesman said it did not ask the Latino Victory Fund to pull the ad, but that it was "appropriate and the right thing to do." [10]
References
Instaurare ( talk) 18:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Should the article include content on the Latino Victory Fund ad as covered by these two removed diffs and discussed in the section above? Instaurare ( talk) 22:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd rather not wade into this - things are always going to be heated when discussing politics, but...can we try to cool it down a couple notches? I support the compromise (considering that I wrote it myself, over at the Northam page), although I'd honestly be fine with moving any discussion about campaign ads out of Northam and Gillespie's personal pages and into the Virginia gubernatorial election, 2017 page. I do think that the ads should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. I haven't agreed with all of Instaurare's edits, but I'm assuming good faith and would expect others to do the same. Thanks. -- Jpcase ( talk) 15:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
This is an unsourced claim. An IP account has repeatedly added it to the article for the last few weeks. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Instaurare changed "the scientific consensus on climate change" to "the scientific opinion on climate change". Per WP:FRINGE, ideas that depart from the prevailing views in a particular field should be described as such in clear language. The term 'scientific opinion' fails to communicate clearly to readers that there is a scientific consensus on climate change (note that the Scientific opinion on climate change does clearly communicate this, so it's unclear what Instaurare's point is with the title of that page). Instaurare of course knows this, which is why the user did this edit: to intentionally make the text hazy and confuse readers as to the scientific status of climate change. Furthermore, the user did not go to the talk after having his ill-advised change of long-standing content challenged. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 09:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Can someone explain why Ed Gillespie ran such a racist campaign.
There was nothing in his background to suggest he would run like this - he had a history of being moderate and had worked for the Bush family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 ( talk) 10:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Ed Gillespie had a leading role in the Republican REDMAP project which served as a prototype for the modern-day Republican gerrymandering. This should probably be a section in his article.
Gillespie took partisan mapmaking to a new level. Try turning that into a bumper sticker.
While he is better known as the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, a Washington lobbyist and a counselor to President George W. Bush, Gillespie helped pull off a stunning political coup — one that gave Republicans unprecedented muscle to reshape the nation’s congressional maps to their advantage.
Inaugural RSLC REDMAP Report Predicts Significant Republican Gains
“The Republican Party has an opportunity to impact the redrawing of dozens of congressional districts across the country following this election cycle,” said Tom Reynolds, Vice Chair of the RSLC and head of REDMAP. “In the end, we will see an effect that lasts for the next decade.”
“There is little doubt that the political landscape continues to favor Republicans at all levels this election cycle. Voters are looking to Republicans who will move their states in a direction of smaller government and less spending and who will protect them from what is becoming the repeated Democrat over-reach,” said RSLC Chairman Ed Gillespie. “This report spells out how fragile Democrat majorities will quickly turn into Republican-led chambers resulting in common sense conservative policies.”
GOP REDMAP Memo Admits Gerrymandering To Thank For Congressional Election Success
While the RSLC’s report may come as an unusually candid presentation of the fruits of its gerrymandering campaign, the GOP’s redistricting strategy and emergent advantage is not a newly reported phenomenon, nor is it a practice only exercised by Republicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakesmcjunkie123 ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ed Gillespie. 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) 04:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)