This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jay Brannan 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 |
Archives: 1 |
|
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It seems Mr. Brannan himself feels this article is not factual or neutral. I have asked him to specifically identify the problems here so that they can be resolved. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
i have done that over and over, and it constantly changes and i dont have the time that you have to stay here and check on it all the time
and as the latest example, i feel my public distaste with wikipedia is very relevant to my article here
but you keep deleting it because you think you are jesus
and then you tell me to bring up my concerns on the "discussion" page --- which you promptly "archived" right after i did so
this is crazy behavior, am i the only one who sees how cultish and weird this is?
pleeeease delete me from this site!!!!!! please!!!!!!!!!!!
jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaybrannan ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
i am trying to participate in the discussion, but wikipedia user "zhang he" continues to delete even my comments on the discussion page, telling me they are "vandalism"
this proves my point 100%
i give up.
once again, the wikipedia cult comes out on top.
congratulations everyone.
jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaybrannan ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
i'm not the one being insulting
you try battling the shit i have read about myself on wikipedia for the past...3 or 4 years?
i cant wait til you have a wikipedia article and you can see how horrible it is to watch other people try to control you, and pass it off as an "encyclopedia" article
this is unbelievable. i cant stand this site.
i just want to make sure that everyone knows i have tried, even if you delete my presence from the world altogether.
-- Jaybrannan ( talk) 02:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
--ha yeah right, the second i make another edit, you'll be back to undo it
--
Jaybrannan (
talk)
02:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually Jay Brannan has been telling us what is wrong with the article from February 2008 as User:Jaybrannan (confirmed to be Jay Brannan, the subject of the article), and before that as an anon user. He is frustrated because he can't work his way through what appears to be an impenetrable Wikipedia process and culture.
I think that covers the major points. If not, please add to it, Jay Brannan. He has made some major points that deserve an answer and fixing if possible. Further comments on BLP:
More later with specific responses, as I have to run. — Becksguy ( talk) 15:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
---in any case the gay thing is only a minute fraction of my issue with the page here. the rest of my concerns i have voiced a million times, but no one listens (or cares). so....have it your way with your crazy site of inaccuracies that you pretend is an "encyclopedia"
and by the way, all you people who have nothing better to do than research where the photo came from -- when i was referring to copyrights i owned, i was referring to the photo that was posted before this one, not that any of you were around then.
it's always one problem or another with this stupid page (usually 10 problems at once)...i really can't wait til the whole site goes up in flames. and it will, eventually.
i'm sure you'll just delete this paragraph, too, or reverse the page like i was never here...again.
bye! -- Jaybrannan ( talk) 05:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I tend support Mr. Brannan here: if he were publicly making an issue of his sexuality, it might be noteworthy, for example if he held a major position in an activist group. Otherwise, it seems gossipy and intrusive. We don't normally state sexual orientation on articles: I don't believe we have any articles which state "S/He is a heterosexual [whatever]" and I'd be surprised if we have any which state "S/He is a bisexual ..." but somehow if the subject is homosexual that is considered valid, and even important, content. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but right now this looks like intrusive gossip of the worst kind. Mr. Brannan has requested it be removed: we should respect his request. We're not Weekly World News, after all. We should have higher standards. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 13:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
He's not an activist. He's not in any :GBT organization. I think its fairly obvious that Barak Obama has sex, since he has two children, but he's not in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality, because he's not a sex researcher or have anything notable to do with sex. Likewise, there needs to be a stronger rationale than "he's gay!" to toss him in LGBT, especially as he's requested per BLP that not be made a focus of here. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 20:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Please keep a cool head and don't let this debate escalate. Thank you.
Hekerui (
talk)
22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Placement of the
WP:LGBT project banner on article talk pages means that the subject is of interest to the project, nothing more. Articles on many people and multiple subjects are included within the scope of the project. I agree with Allstar: "Being an activist or being a member of a gay organization is not sole criteria for being within the scope of the project." Obviously those of interest will include LGBT individuals, but there are also many individuals included for which there is no identification, or even rumors, of non-heterosexuality. Non-LGBT individuals that have been considered to be within the scope of the project include gay icons (
Bea Arthur as an example), and those that are important because of their significant support for LGBT rights, or significant opposition to LGBT rights (
James Dobson as an example). Actors, straight or gay, that have done significant gay roles on film or TV might be of interest, not necessarily because of their orientation, but because of their impact on LGBT life or culture. Jay Brannan, regardless of his orientation, is a person of interest to the project because of his acting in an unsimulated gay sex scene within the very groundbreaking major indie film
Shortbus, as well as his gay themed songs, and his involvement in another gay themed film
Holding Trevor. Bottom line: The
WP:LGBT project banner is not a category for LGBT people. That would be
Category:LGBT people. —
Becksguy (
talk)
09:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Some categories were removed (as seen here). There was no consensus for removal of all references to orientation from what I read on this talkpage. For clarity, I spelled out the source for the categories in the article, in case the factual veracity were to be disputed. The New York Times reported his sexual orientation in 2006 and the use of words is such that he doesn't dispute the fact and readily acknowledges it ("openly gay"), which means a privacy argument can't be made. The inclusion of the categories follows Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and is appropriate. Hekerui ( talk) 00:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have removed the three LGBT/Gay related categories mentioned above as WP:BLP violations. There is extensive talk page discussion on this issue. — Becksguy ( talk) 08:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Removing a reference because Brannan is uncomfortable with it being written about despite him talking about it to printmedia is the censorship. It's a disparity to be openly gay in print media and on sold records and to appear in movies with LGBT themes and then wanting it to go unmentioned in an article sourced with reports on those. Besides, the article did not put undue weight on his orientation with only one article body reference in a comparison sourced in the NYT. Hekerui ( talk) 15:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I've read those discussions I don't see any kind of broad consensus for censoring the article according to Mr. Brannan's wishes. And if such a consensus had been reached, it's wrong and needs to be overturned. Dlabtot ( talk) 22:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
No one is disputing that he's gay. However, that characterization in the article is clearly violating his personal privacy by turning him into a gay poster child when he does not present himself as such. He has not presented himself as a gay actor, gay singer, gay activist, or gay spokesman. He is not running around advocating for gay marriage. He is a notable singer/songwriter and actor, but his sexuality is not central to understanding his notability, rather it's personal. Much of the notability is from acting in the groundbreaking Shortbus, but he was not packaged as a gay actor playing a gay part. Compare that with Will, of Will & Grace, who happens to be played by a straight actor in a gay role, but that is not made into a big thing that defines his notability. Read Brannan's complaints here and on his blog and see if he feels that his dignity is being respected. Brannan feels that Wikipedia has treated him very badly. And he has some right to feel that way, as an admin in the AfD commented. And I agree. We are violating WP:BLP policy by being a tabloid paper relative to this aspect of his life. We would not treat his religion, political, or social views the same way. Further, the Foundation's statement on BLP is a high level policy and vision statement, not intended to be used for a detailed point by point argument. The more detailed policy is laid out in WP:BLP and other places. Also, those of us that are removing BLP violations are not supporting Brannan in controlling his biography, rather we are following the spirit and word of BLP policy, the ArbCom decision, the Foundation's overarching policy statement, and supporting human dignity and privacy. — Becksguy ( talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The New York Times referred to Brannan as openly gay, is it then a BLP issue to include him in the categories Category:Gay musicians, Category:LGBT musicians from the United States, and Category:Gay actors? Hekerui ( talk) 09:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I am responding to the request for comment. I think that this person should be in Category:Gay musicians, Category:LGBT musicians from the United States, and Category:Gay actors on the grounds that those categories each contain approximately 250 other biographies of similar format as this one, and depicting people of similar social status. I say this despite the claim that this person is not a figurehead for gay-related causes, because that precedent does not appear to have ever been set for including other people into those categories. A more interesting discussion would be whether those categories should contain these types of people, but that is not part of this debate, so find the relevant page to talk about that if that is anyone's point of contention. Blue Rasberry 19:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I am also responding to the request for comment. I agree with Blue Rassberry and other users here who support the inclusion of this page in Category:Gay musicians, Category:LGBT musicians from the United States, and Category:Gay actors. The intended purpose of those categories is to categorize people who are openly Gay, LGBT, or Gay actors. There is no issue here. Additionally, consensus on this issue appears to have been reached. Please move on everyone. There's lots of pages on Wikipedia that we can edit. -- S.dedalus ( talk) 09:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I am responding to the request for comment. While I would personally support inclusion of this page in gay related groups, I think Jay's wishes need to be heeded as the policy of "Biographies of living persons" clearly states "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." When there is conflict, favor must fall to the option that protects privacy.
Hence, I think Jay's privacy would be best served by heeding his request to detach any LBGT tags and to even delete the article entirely. Daniel518 ( talk) 17:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source for March 29? Hekerui ( talk) 15:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
There was never concensus to remove the LGBT categories, only page ownership and reverting the addition of the categories, so I'll list the arguments for inclusion of the categories again:
I'll readd the categories. Hekerui ( talk) 10:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I restored structure to the article, it recently lost its lead and the sections. Putting it all in one section reduces readability and the lead needs no citations per WP:LEAD as a summary of the article. The article also lost sourced info on his style that was partly replaced with unsourced info, as well as categories, which I fixed. I removed the external links in the article body per WP:LAYOUT and also removed unsourced material and a list of appearances that make the article sound promotional. Wikipedia is not a directory. The videography makes no sense since every song of his has a video and the list included more than the professionally produced, and there is no evidence cited that the song with Margaret Cho was commercially released. Hekerui ( talk) 15:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Re "openly gay" and the LGBT category, please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jay_Brannan. -- J N 466 12:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jay Brannan. 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) 02:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jay Brannan 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 |
Archives: 1 |
|
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It seems Mr. Brannan himself feels this article is not factual or neutral. I have asked him to specifically identify the problems here so that they can be resolved. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
i have done that over and over, and it constantly changes and i dont have the time that you have to stay here and check on it all the time
and as the latest example, i feel my public distaste with wikipedia is very relevant to my article here
but you keep deleting it because you think you are jesus
and then you tell me to bring up my concerns on the "discussion" page --- which you promptly "archived" right after i did so
this is crazy behavior, am i the only one who sees how cultish and weird this is?
pleeeease delete me from this site!!!!!! please!!!!!!!!!!!
jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaybrannan ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
i am trying to participate in the discussion, but wikipedia user "zhang he" continues to delete even my comments on the discussion page, telling me they are "vandalism"
this proves my point 100%
i give up.
once again, the wikipedia cult comes out on top.
congratulations everyone.
jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaybrannan ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
i'm not the one being insulting
you try battling the shit i have read about myself on wikipedia for the past...3 or 4 years?
i cant wait til you have a wikipedia article and you can see how horrible it is to watch other people try to control you, and pass it off as an "encyclopedia" article
this is unbelievable. i cant stand this site.
i just want to make sure that everyone knows i have tried, even if you delete my presence from the world altogether.
-- Jaybrannan ( talk) 02:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
--ha yeah right, the second i make another edit, you'll be back to undo it
--
Jaybrannan (
talk)
02:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually Jay Brannan has been telling us what is wrong with the article from February 2008 as User:Jaybrannan (confirmed to be Jay Brannan, the subject of the article), and before that as an anon user. He is frustrated because he can't work his way through what appears to be an impenetrable Wikipedia process and culture.
I think that covers the major points. If not, please add to it, Jay Brannan. He has made some major points that deserve an answer and fixing if possible. Further comments on BLP:
More later with specific responses, as I have to run. — Becksguy ( talk) 15:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
---in any case the gay thing is only a minute fraction of my issue with the page here. the rest of my concerns i have voiced a million times, but no one listens (or cares). so....have it your way with your crazy site of inaccuracies that you pretend is an "encyclopedia"
and by the way, all you people who have nothing better to do than research where the photo came from -- when i was referring to copyrights i owned, i was referring to the photo that was posted before this one, not that any of you were around then.
it's always one problem or another with this stupid page (usually 10 problems at once)...i really can't wait til the whole site goes up in flames. and it will, eventually.
i'm sure you'll just delete this paragraph, too, or reverse the page like i was never here...again.
bye! -- Jaybrannan ( talk) 05:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I tend support Mr. Brannan here: if he were publicly making an issue of his sexuality, it might be noteworthy, for example if he held a major position in an activist group. Otherwise, it seems gossipy and intrusive. We don't normally state sexual orientation on articles: I don't believe we have any articles which state "S/He is a heterosexual [whatever]" and I'd be surprised if we have any which state "S/He is a bisexual ..." but somehow if the subject is homosexual that is considered valid, and even important, content. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but right now this looks like intrusive gossip of the worst kind. Mr. Brannan has requested it be removed: we should respect his request. We're not Weekly World News, after all. We should have higher standards. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 13:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
He's not an activist. He's not in any :GBT organization. I think its fairly obvious that Barak Obama has sex, since he has two children, but he's not in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality, because he's not a sex researcher or have anything notable to do with sex. Likewise, there needs to be a stronger rationale than "he's gay!" to toss him in LGBT, especially as he's requested per BLP that not be made a focus of here. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 20:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Please keep a cool head and don't let this debate escalate. Thank you.
Hekerui (
talk)
22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Placement of the
WP:LGBT project banner on article talk pages means that the subject is of interest to the project, nothing more. Articles on many people and multiple subjects are included within the scope of the project. I agree with Allstar: "Being an activist or being a member of a gay organization is not sole criteria for being within the scope of the project." Obviously those of interest will include LGBT individuals, but there are also many individuals included for which there is no identification, or even rumors, of non-heterosexuality. Non-LGBT individuals that have been considered to be within the scope of the project include gay icons (
Bea Arthur as an example), and those that are important because of their significant support for LGBT rights, or significant opposition to LGBT rights (
James Dobson as an example). Actors, straight or gay, that have done significant gay roles on film or TV might be of interest, not necessarily because of their orientation, but because of their impact on LGBT life or culture. Jay Brannan, regardless of his orientation, is a person of interest to the project because of his acting in an unsimulated gay sex scene within the very groundbreaking major indie film
Shortbus, as well as his gay themed songs, and his involvement in another gay themed film
Holding Trevor. Bottom line: The
WP:LGBT project banner is not a category for LGBT people. That would be
Category:LGBT people. —
Becksguy (
talk)
09:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Some categories were removed (as seen here). There was no consensus for removal of all references to orientation from what I read on this talkpage. For clarity, I spelled out the source for the categories in the article, in case the factual veracity were to be disputed. The New York Times reported his sexual orientation in 2006 and the use of words is such that he doesn't dispute the fact and readily acknowledges it ("openly gay"), which means a privacy argument can't be made. The inclusion of the categories follows Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and is appropriate. Hekerui ( talk) 00:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have removed the three LGBT/Gay related categories mentioned above as WP:BLP violations. There is extensive talk page discussion on this issue. — Becksguy ( talk) 08:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Removing a reference because Brannan is uncomfortable with it being written about despite him talking about it to printmedia is the censorship. It's a disparity to be openly gay in print media and on sold records and to appear in movies with LGBT themes and then wanting it to go unmentioned in an article sourced with reports on those. Besides, the article did not put undue weight on his orientation with only one article body reference in a comparison sourced in the NYT. Hekerui ( talk) 15:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I've read those discussions I don't see any kind of broad consensus for censoring the article according to Mr. Brannan's wishes. And if such a consensus had been reached, it's wrong and needs to be overturned. Dlabtot ( talk) 22:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
No one is disputing that he's gay. However, that characterization in the article is clearly violating his personal privacy by turning him into a gay poster child when he does not present himself as such. He has not presented himself as a gay actor, gay singer, gay activist, or gay spokesman. He is not running around advocating for gay marriage. He is a notable singer/songwriter and actor, but his sexuality is not central to understanding his notability, rather it's personal. Much of the notability is from acting in the groundbreaking Shortbus, but he was not packaged as a gay actor playing a gay part. Compare that with Will, of Will & Grace, who happens to be played by a straight actor in a gay role, but that is not made into a big thing that defines his notability. Read Brannan's complaints here and on his blog and see if he feels that his dignity is being respected. Brannan feels that Wikipedia has treated him very badly. And he has some right to feel that way, as an admin in the AfD commented. And I agree. We are violating WP:BLP policy by being a tabloid paper relative to this aspect of his life. We would not treat his religion, political, or social views the same way. Further, the Foundation's statement on BLP is a high level policy and vision statement, not intended to be used for a detailed point by point argument. The more detailed policy is laid out in WP:BLP and other places. Also, those of us that are removing BLP violations are not supporting Brannan in controlling his biography, rather we are following the spirit and word of BLP policy, the ArbCom decision, the Foundation's overarching policy statement, and supporting human dignity and privacy. — Becksguy ( talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The New York Times referred to Brannan as openly gay, is it then a BLP issue to include him in the categories Category:Gay musicians, Category:LGBT musicians from the United States, and Category:Gay actors? Hekerui ( talk) 09:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I am responding to the request for comment. I think that this person should be in Category:Gay musicians, Category:LGBT musicians from the United States, and Category:Gay actors on the grounds that those categories each contain approximately 250 other biographies of similar format as this one, and depicting people of similar social status. I say this despite the claim that this person is not a figurehead for gay-related causes, because that precedent does not appear to have ever been set for including other people into those categories. A more interesting discussion would be whether those categories should contain these types of people, but that is not part of this debate, so find the relevant page to talk about that if that is anyone's point of contention. Blue Rasberry 19:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I am also responding to the request for comment. I agree with Blue Rassberry and other users here who support the inclusion of this page in Category:Gay musicians, Category:LGBT musicians from the United States, and Category:Gay actors. The intended purpose of those categories is to categorize people who are openly Gay, LGBT, or Gay actors. There is no issue here. Additionally, consensus on this issue appears to have been reached. Please move on everyone. There's lots of pages on Wikipedia that we can edit. -- S.dedalus ( talk) 09:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I am responding to the request for comment. While I would personally support inclusion of this page in gay related groups, I think Jay's wishes need to be heeded as the policy of "Biographies of living persons" clearly states "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." When there is conflict, favor must fall to the option that protects privacy.
Hence, I think Jay's privacy would be best served by heeding his request to detach any LBGT tags and to even delete the article entirely. Daniel518 ( talk) 17:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source for March 29? Hekerui ( talk) 15:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
There was never concensus to remove the LGBT categories, only page ownership and reverting the addition of the categories, so I'll list the arguments for inclusion of the categories again:
I'll readd the categories. Hekerui ( talk) 10:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I restored structure to the article, it recently lost its lead and the sections. Putting it all in one section reduces readability and the lead needs no citations per WP:LEAD as a summary of the article. The article also lost sourced info on his style that was partly replaced with unsourced info, as well as categories, which I fixed. I removed the external links in the article body per WP:LAYOUT and also removed unsourced material and a list of appearances that make the article sound promotional. Wikipedia is not a directory. The videography makes no sense since every song of his has a video and the list included more than the professionally produced, and there is no evidence cited that the song with Margaret Cho was commercially released. Hekerui ( talk) 15:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Re "openly gay" and the LGBT category, please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jay_Brannan. -- J N 466 12:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jay Brannan. 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) 02:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)