This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Greasemonkey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What's "Active Browsing"? I'm heavily involved with the Greasemonkey community and I've never heard of it.
Begging and pandering are also not business models. Relying on ad impressions is a defective business model. If one has desirable content explicitly charge for viewing -- whatever the market will support.
Kubatonmax, a Protest Warrior 01:40, 2006 Jan 30 (PST)
What use is the Forrester link? It doesn't contain any more information. Markus Schmaus 02:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I was just wondering why there was no article to
this company.
Just thought it might help Wikipedia to include an article on that company.
Does anyone know why it isn't on here? Thanks!
-- MaraNeo127 talk 17:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Which if any of the points in section 3 are ethical issues? (and why?) DFH 14:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I really fail to see why any of the items in the "issues" section should be there at all. The first example of an issue is roughly equivalent to changing the channel when a television commercial comes on, which is hardly unethical. Advertisers have no right to the attention of the viewer, and the program does not change the content at the source. If the real issue is that it can game AdSense, then we should put that. As for the second example, that any public website like del.icio.us would be upset over increased traffic would fly in the face of the fact they spend so much time trying to spread word about their service and increase viewers. On the third example, if any web programmer cannot figure out how to turn off greasemonkey in order to test a web page, he should find a new job. That said, if the real issue is the greasemonkey creates bugs when viewing web pages, then we should say that. Bantab 15:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The Ethical Issues needs to be either removed or cited. Wikipedia is not for people to write essays on why they think stuff sucks. I vote to remove it. STRONG REMOVE even. 121.221.217.149 ( talk) 09:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This is basically just a "Criticism" section, where people lump laundry lists of criticisms that are not related to each other in any way. Can we integrate the list more properly into the article itself? — Omegatron 02:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I Agree:
Ethical issues arising from user scripting have no business under a particular scripting engine and not another. If it is not already on Wiki, a new section on such ethical issues should be created and perhaps a link could be included from the greasemonkey page.
JG Estiot (
talk) 09:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Since no one seems to have any objections, I've removed the section. You can debate it here, but please don't revert my edit without discussing first. Thanks. — Fatal Error 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Image:Jfader greasemonkey bookburro.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The image on this site depicts Bookburro, referring to it as a Greasemonkey script. I don't think that's correct. Bookburro is an extension independent of Greasemonkey. I have it installed and working, and I don't have Greasemonkey installed. The Bookburro site, [1] makes no mention of Greasemonkey. TJRC ( talk) 18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
http://bookburro.org/about.html
What is the connection with Greasemonkey?
Book Burro was created as a script for Greasemonkey, another extension, but has since grown to be an extension of its own
That is diffucult to underestand. Whom shall relocating of context to a more neutral placement help? Is this page on Greasemonkey describing Greasemonkey or not? If you like to reorder contents, prepare the new location first and prove with quality of contents of that new location that this new page is a qualified location for the contents from Greasemonkey, thus allowing better e.g. for comparison with similar concepts. Where are these locations, eH? 91.64.77.78 ( talk) 05:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The popular WP:POPUPS script does something conceptually similar to the putatively unethical Greasemonkey script "that retrieves data for every link on the page through XMLHttpRequests." Of course, that script is just for Wikipedia via Monobook.js. I don't feel confident to compare and contrast all the differences between these approaches technically, and so I would hesitate to compare directly between the ethical impact of running POPUPS against a nonprofit donation-supported server vs. running Greasemonkey against a range of commercial sites. Still, if you want to go there, this should be a comparison worth making on the way, simply to relate the content to something better known among Wikipedia users. Wnt ( talk) 17:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
greasemonkey download is web browser dependent
When I searched google for this add-on, it returns https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/748
However, when I opened the two different browser, it gives me the following
The browser that I use was firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748
The browser that I use was Flock https://addons.mozilla.org/zh-CN/firefox/addon/748
Where can I find the doc of this add-on
Both pages give me the link of http://www.greasespot.net/
for technical support and the link seems dead-- 58.38.44.177 ( talk) 07:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
There was a useful list of alternatives to Greasemonkey growing on this page, including clones for other browsers. This block was removed in edit http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Greasemonkey&diff=prev&oldid=301777460
The original text was preserved offsite: http://wiki.greasespot.net/index.php?title=Cross-browser_userscripting
The new place on Wikipedia for such information is here: List of augmented browsing software
82.45.8.208 ( talk) 21:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
re. missing Greasekit (in relation to Safari) section on Greasemonkey page: someone knowledgeable about this (I'm not, unfortunately) needs to re-add info on Safari in relation to Greasekit. Probably best under a new History section on Greasemonkey page. Perhaps a rewrite/cleanup may be better done at same time, as page rather messy and unfathomable for the casual not-as-informed users reading this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimthing ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the built-in support, for Windows there's also Greasemetal that offers limited support. It doesn't seem to be actively developed though. -- Avbentem ( talk) 13:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
No since Greasmetal is not Greasemonkey. Also Chrome offers native sopport for user scripts as of version 4. therefore i removed chrome from the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.35.229 ( talk) 08:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
See http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/11/google-chrome-converts-user-scripts.html
-- Avbentem ( talk) 17:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
What Greasemonkey scripts can be used on Wikipedia? Where can I find them? Allen ( talk) 02:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that this page should be split, giving Userscript its own page (instead of having it redirect to this page). "Userscript" is/can/should be the generic term, instead of "Greasemonkey Script". Such script functionality is now broader than Greasemonkey, http://userscripts.org/ is the largest repository of scripts, and the term is even used on this site on List of augmented browsing software. I'm tagging this article with Split to see if there is a consensus. Gpk-urmc ( talk) 01:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. Implemented all requested changes except the userscripts.org port. |
I couldn't find a template specifically for requesting edits to pages where one might have a COI. This page could use the following:
Thanks to whoever wants to deal with this :) equazcion → 01:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
As of Tuesday, May 27, 2014, Google is blocking extensions for chrome that are not hosted on the chrome web store. http://chrome.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/protecting-chrome-users-from-malicious.html
Chrome's internal userscript support treats userscripts as extensions. Consequently, userscripts cannot be used natively with chrome because they aren't hosted on the chrome web store. Limited scripting support is available with the Tampermonkey extension but compatibility is an issue with many scripts.
Cfuse ( talk) 08:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Let it be said that Jesse Andrews made a call for new voluntary admin of userscript.org already in 2010, citing work overload [HackerNews Aug 2010] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.220.0.141 ( talk) 15:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
This stub on a fork of Greasemonkey can just be a section here. Someone Prod'ed it, but it looked encyclopedically relevant to me, while probably failing WP:GNG as a stand-alone article. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Does Sleipnir allow userscripts to run on Internet Explorer? The articles says that it does. But Sleipnir doesn't seem an extension to IE. It seems to be an (otherwise) entirely separate browser, that uses the same layout engine as IE. And the source says nothing about it enabling userscrips on IE itself (the source says nothing about IE at all).
I've removed the mention of Sleipnir from the article, but only because of WP:NOW. If it turns out that Sleipnir does allows userscripts to run on IE, feel free to re-add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Why was Tampermonkey removed from the "Equivalents for other browsers" section? I know the article is about Greasemonkey, but the point of that section is to describe Greasemonkey-equivalents for other browsers. Why remove Tampermonkey, but leave Kango and Adguard?
Considering that Tampermonkey works on almost all desktop browsers (except IE), and that it's probably the most popular userscript extension there is, I think it's worth listing. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 17:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I removed those snippets because:
Adding summaries of other products does not make this article any more encyclopedic than it already is. Please see WP:TPA, or read AdblockPlus, StumbleUpon and NoScript for examples. Pengolin ( talk) 01:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Adguard is an Adblocker. Yes, maybe it can execute Greasemonkey scripts, but this is not the purpose of Adguard. Should this redirection not better go to this one? /info/en/?search=Ad_blocking#External_programs -- Lastwebpage ( talk) 11:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, it does not make sense to link AdGuard to this page especially since most users will not immediately understand the connection. Venator 02:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZfJames ( talk • contribs)
Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...
If you are interested in collaborating on JavaScript articles or would like to see where you could help, stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript and feel free to add your name to the participants list. Both editors and programmers are welcome.
We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list.
The WikiProject is also taking on the organization of the Wikipedia community's user script support pages. If you are interested in helping to organize information on the user scripts (or are curious about what we are up to), let us know!
If you have need for a user script that does not yet exist, or you have a cool idea for a user script or gadget, you can post it at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. And if you are a JavaScript programmer, that's a great place to find tasks if you are bored.
If you come across a JavaScript article desperately in need of editor attention, and it's beyond your ability to handle, you can add it to our list of JavaScript-related articles that need attention.
At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article. Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Greasemonkey. 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) 21:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Greasemonkey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What's "Active Browsing"? I'm heavily involved with the Greasemonkey community and I've never heard of it.
Begging and pandering are also not business models. Relying on ad impressions is a defective business model. If one has desirable content explicitly charge for viewing -- whatever the market will support.
Kubatonmax, a Protest Warrior 01:40, 2006 Jan 30 (PST)
What use is the Forrester link? It doesn't contain any more information. Markus Schmaus 02:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I was just wondering why there was no article to
this company.
Just thought it might help Wikipedia to include an article on that company.
Does anyone know why it isn't on here? Thanks!
-- MaraNeo127 talk 17:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Which if any of the points in section 3 are ethical issues? (and why?) DFH 14:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I really fail to see why any of the items in the "issues" section should be there at all. The first example of an issue is roughly equivalent to changing the channel when a television commercial comes on, which is hardly unethical. Advertisers have no right to the attention of the viewer, and the program does not change the content at the source. If the real issue is that it can game AdSense, then we should put that. As for the second example, that any public website like del.icio.us would be upset over increased traffic would fly in the face of the fact they spend so much time trying to spread word about their service and increase viewers. On the third example, if any web programmer cannot figure out how to turn off greasemonkey in order to test a web page, he should find a new job. That said, if the real issue is the greasemonkey creates bugs when viewing web pages, then we should say that. Bantab 15:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The Ethical Issues needs to be either removed or cited. Wikipedia is not for people to write essays on why they think stuff sucks. I vote to remove it. STRONG REMOVE even. 121.221.217.149 ( talk) 09:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This is basically just a "Criticism" section, where people lump laundry lists of criticisms that are not related to each other in any way. Can we integrate the list more properly into the article itself? — Omegatron 02:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I Agree:
Ethical issues arising from user scripting have no business under a particular scripting engine and not another. If it is not already on Wiki, a new section on such ethical issues should be created and perhaps a link could be included from the greasemonkey page.
JG Estiot (
talk) 09:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Since no one seems to have any objections, I've removed the section. You can debate it here, but please don't revert my edit without discussing first. Thanks. — Fatal Error 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Image:Jfader greasemonkey bookburro.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The image on this site depicts Bookburro, referring to it as a Greasemonkey script. I don't think that's correct. Bookburro is an extension independent of Greasemonkey. I have it installed and working, and I don't have Greasemonkey installed. The Bookburro site, [1] makes no mention of Greasemonkey. TJRC ( talk) 18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
http://bookburro.org/about.html
What is the connection with Greasemonkey?
Book Burro was created as a script for Greasemonkey, another extension, but has since grown to be an extension of its own
That is diffucult to underestand. Whom shall relocating of context to a more neutral placement help? Is this page on Greasemonkey describing Greasemonkey or not? If you like to reorder contents, prepare the new location first and prove with quality of contents of that new location that this new page is a qualified location for the contents from Greasemonkey, thus allowing better e.g. for comparison with similar concepts. Where are these locations, eH? 91.64.77.78 ( talk) 05:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The popular WP:POPUPS script does something conceptually similar to the putatively unethical Greasemonkey script "that retrieves data for every link on the page through XMLHttpRequests." Of course, that script is just for Wikipedia via Monobook.js. I don't feel confident to compare and contrast all the differences between these approaches technically, and so I would hesitate to compare directly between the ethical impact of running POPUPS against a nonprofit donation-supported server vs. running Greasemonkey against a range of commercial sites. Still, if you want to go there, this should be a comparison worth making on the way, simply to relate the content to something better known among Wikipedia users. Wnt ( talk) 17:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
greasemonkey download is web browser dependent
When I searched google for this add-on, it returns https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/748
However, when I opened the two different browser, it gives me the following
The browser that I use was firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748
The browser that I use was Flock https://addons.mozilla.org/zh-CN/firefox/addon/748
Where can I find the doc of this add-on
Both pages give me the link of http://www.greasespot.net/
for technical support and the link seems dead-- 58.38.44.177 ( talk) 07:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
There was a useful list of alternatives to Greasemonkey growing on this page, including clones for other browsers. This block was removed in edit http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Greasemonkey&diff=prev&oldid=301777460
The original text was preserved offsite: http://wiki.greasespot.net/index.php?title=Cross-browser_userscripting
The new place on Wikipedia for such information is here: List of augmented browsing software
82.45.8.208 ( talk) 21:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
re. missing Greasekit (in relation to Safari) section on Greasemonkey page: someone knowledgeable about this (I'm not, unfortunately) needs to re-add info on Safari in relation to Greasekit. Probably best under a new History section on Greasemonkey page. Perhaps a rewrite/cleanup may be better done at same time, as page rather messy and unfathomable for the casual not-as-informed users reading this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimthing ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the built-in support, for Windows there's also Greasemetal that offers limited support. It doesn't seem to be actively developed though. -- Avbentem ( talk) 13:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
No since Greasmetal is not Greasemonkey. Also Chrome offers native sopport for user scripts as of version 4. therefore i removed chrome from the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.35.229 ( talk) 08:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
See http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/11/google-chrome-converts-user-scripts.html
-- Avbentem ( talk) 17:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
What Greasemonkey scripts can be used on Wikipedia? Where can I find them? Allen ( talk) 02:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that this page should be split, giving Userscript its own page (instead of having it redirect to this page). "Userscript" is/can/should be the generic term, instead of "Greasemonkey Script". Such script functionality is now broader than Greasemonkey, http://userscripts.org/ is the largest repository of scripts, and the term is even used on this site on List of augmented browsing software. I'm tagging this article with Split to see if there is a consensus. Gpk-urmc ( talk) 01:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. Implemented all requested changes except the userscripts.org port. |
I couldn't find a template specifically for requesting edits to pages where one might have a COI. This page could use the following:
Thanks to whoever wants to deal with this :) equazcion → 01:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
As of Tuesday, May 27, 2014, Google is blocking extensions for chrome that are not hosted on the chrome web store. http://chrome.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/protecting-chrome-users-from-malicious.html
Chrome's internal userscript support treats userscripts as extensions. Consequently, userscripts cannot be used natively with chrome because they aren't hosted on the chrome web store. Limited scripting support is available with the Tampermonkey extension but compatibility is an issue with many scripts.
Cfuse ( talk) 08:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Let it be said that Jesse Andrews made a call for new voluntary admin of userscript.org already in 2010, citing work overload [HackerNews Aug 2010] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.220.0.141 ( talk) 15:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
This stub on a fork of Greasemonkey can just be a section here. Someone Prod'ed it, but it looked encyclopedically relevant to me, while probably failing WP:GNG as a stand-alone article. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Does Sleipnir allow userscripts to run on Internet Explorer? The articles says that it does. But Sleipnir doesn't seem an extension to IE. It seems to be an (otherwise) entirely separate browser, that uses the same layout engine as IE. And the source says nothing about it enabling userscrips on IE itself (the source says nothing about IE at all).
I've removed the mention of Sleipnir from the article, but only because of WP:NOW. If it turns out that Sleipnir does allows userscripts to run on IE, feel free to re-add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Why was Tampermonkey removed from the "Equivalents for other browsers" section? I know the article is about Greasemonkey, but the point of that section is to describe Greasemonkey-equivalents for other browsers. Why remove Tampermonkey, but leave Kango and Adguard?
Considering that Tampermonkey works on almost all desktop browsers (except IE), and that it's probably the most popular userscript extension there is, I think it's worth listing. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 17:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I removed those snippets because:
Adding summaries of other products does not make this article any more encyclopedic than it already is. Please see WP:TPA, or read AdblockPlus, StumbleUpon and NoScript for examples. Pengolin ( talk) 01:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Adguard is an Adblocker. Yes, maybe it can execute Greasemonkey scripts, but this is not the purpose of Adguard. Should this redirection not better go to this one? /info/en/?search=Ad_blocking#External_programs -- Lastwebpage ( talk) 11:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, it does not make sense to link AdGuard to this page especially since most users will not immediately understand the connection. Venator 02:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZfJames ( talk • contribs)
Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...
If you are interested in collaborating on JavaScript articles or would like to see where you could help, stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript and feel free to add your name to the participants list. Both editors and programmers are welcome.
We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list.
The WikiProject is also taking on the organization of the Wikipedia community's user script support pages. If you are interested in helping to organize information on the user scripts (or are curious about what we are up to), let us know!
If you have need for a user script that does not yet exist, or you have a cool idea for a user script or gadget, you can post it at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. And if you are a JavaScript programmer, that's a great place to find tasks if you are bored.
If you come across a JavaScript article desperately in need of editor attention, and it's beyond your ability to handle, you can add it to our list of JavaScript-related articles that need attention.
At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article. Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Greasemonkey. 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) 21:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)