A news item involving Roadrunner (supercomputer) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 10 June 2008. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Introduction totally wrong and clearly outdated!
Nowadays, roadrunner is 19th on the last top500.org list and I couldn't find it anywhere (quick search) on the greentop500 list..
"Purpose: used for predicting outcomes of nuclear war" ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.188.220 ( talk) 21:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I FAIL! :)
Actually is there any news on how much it costs? Thanks -- Drmike ( talk) 14:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The system operations section is probably just great for systems operations experts. The trouble is, this is an encyclapedia for the general reader.. -- Philopedia ( talk) 15:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could also include a simplified system description so that non-techy people could understand the computer along with the techy types?
148.134.37.1 (
talk) 16:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
it's a beautiful article, but yeah, I'd like lots more layman stuff - for example, an explanation of what a 'blade' is Adambrowne666 ( talk) 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Does it come with a copy of the Internet? Or else I won't buy it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.179.50 ( talk) 13:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Please define. The article on supercomputers does not define the term either. -- 212.63.43.180 ( talk) 15:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Would this computer be able to predict what my girlfriend's mood is going to be like today? Or have we not reached that level of computing power yet? 12.192.132.130 ( talk) 19:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The article says that it was constructed for the DOE, but it doesn't say what the DOE needs it for. It might be important to know what the world's most powerful computer is being used for... Van Tucky 20:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
DOE refers to the "Department Of Energy" united states... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.27.159.99 (
talk) 14:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I've heard from conversation that the processing output of Roadrunner for one day is equal to 6 billion normal computers working for 40 years. Can anyone confirm this and find a reliable source to cite it? RobSoko315 ( talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There's more to this than hardware. The cost inludes desining the system, designing software models, operating systems, staffing, housing, cooling, storage, networking. Roadrunner has been under development for a couple of years employing quite a few highly paid engineers. And I see that I was comparing the teoretical performance of a PS3 to the actual performance of Roadrunner. The theoretical peak of Roadrunner is about three times as high, so I should have made the estimation more like 75000 PS3s. And I really don't think it's possible to build a meaningful supercomuter of this magnitude using just PS3s so the estimation might bee moot to begin with. I think you can do an equally invalid comparison by chucking in a couple of thousand GPUs and just multiplying the cost of the graphics card to reach the desired performance. -- Henriok ( talk) 07:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
How does a computer have "almost 6,912 AMD Opteron dual core processors and almost 12,960 IBM PowerXCell[5] 8i CPUs." It either has that many or it doesn't... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.198.205 ( talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that too. It's 3^3 *2^8, which perhaps has something to do with the fact that Roadrunner apparently is organized in 3s at various levels? 192.5.109.49 ( talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm adding a second comment to go with the one I put above. This article lacks definitions of technical terms, it sounds like an advertisement, it lacks citations to specific claims, and it's completely unclear to anyone unfamiliar with high-speed digital compiter hardware and software. For example, what is a "petaflop"? It sounds vaguely obscene and no, it is NOT obvious that a "petaflop" is a measure of computational speed. I'd flag this article with all kinds of comments, like "needs citations," "original research," and related criticisms, but maybe this comment will stimulate someone to rewrite the article to Wiki standards. It sure needs it. Timothy Perper ( talk) 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Can't say I agree. And I noticed that someone else added an overall comment about clarity and jargon. Thanks.
If one actually clicks on the petaflops wikilink, one gets to "flops." The only time "petaflops" appears is in the text box at the top, where it says that a petaflop is 1015 flops. So? What's so special about petaflops? Actually, I was using petaflops as an example of a problem that runs through the whole article, but I guess I wasn't clear enough. OK, here it is again,
For example, what is an Opteron core? Or a aPowerXCell 8i CPU? Or an eLS21 Opteron blade, an expansion blade, or a QS22 Cell blade? What us an Infiniband 4x DDR adapter? What is a 288-port Voltaire ISR2012 Infiniband switch? Why are any of these even remotely interesting or significant?
Let me say as clearly as I can that all this sounds like somebody copied a section of a technical manual directly to Wikipedia. Or, worse, they copied an advertisement or publicity blurb from IBM.
And yes, it is necessary to explain what a "watt" is -- it's a unit of electrical power. Now, what's a petaflop? The answer is NOT that it's 1015 flops. Why not? Let's say I'm writing a wiki article about gnushes, and mention that the RTPX gnush contains 1024 polygnushes. Someone asks me what a polygnush is, and I tell them that it's a subordinated array of from 24 to 512 gnushes. That is no help, no help AT ALL.
In brief, if you write a technical article for the general public -- and Wikipedia has to be written for the general public, because that's who reads it -- you have to explain technical terms. That is not optional: you can't fob it off on another, equally opaque article.
Timothy Perper ( talk) 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This is going nowhere. You're being uncivil, aka offensive. Do not blame the reader when what is written is unclear. And this article is not clear. But I'm not going to discuss it further with you. Timothy Perper ( talk) 04:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The one datum I was looking for, viz. how much power this thing consumes, wasn't here. It might also be nice to know how it's cooled, as all that power has to be dissipated somewhere. Shalom S. ( talk) 21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The "System Overview" section opens with a description of a "Triblade", with no context or explanation given as to why how triblade relates to the system. An introductory sentence is needed explaining that the system is built up of fundamental units called "triblades" (if indeed that is the case, which I can't tell from the current description). Alternatively, the system can be described in the reverse order that it is currently, which is in bottom-up fashion, from lowest-level building block to the complete system. It could be described instead in a top-down fashion, describing its major components, then the subcomponents, etc., down to the lowest fundamental computational unit. This might make the description more comprehensible. — Loadmaster ( talk) 15:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You bring up a good point. When I first read the article, I myself had to backtrack, or rather move forward to see why I needed to know about a Triblade. Comprehensibility of the article will be improved by describing it in a top-down fashion, as readers are interested in the main thing itself, and then will further read on if they are interested or want to know more. Right now, readers need to cut through the connected units and the description of the triblade to read about the Roadrunner itself. Further, it's easier to break things down, instead of build things up especially with such technical jargon. However, if the article won't work in a top down fashion, there should at least put an introductory sentence before the description of the Triblade. (And, on further reading of the article, it looks like it is built from triblades.) ProjectTux ( talk) 22:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Timothy Perper ( talk) 05:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is about a individual supercomputer. It's not an article about general computing, it's not an article about why USA needs so simulate degradation of nuclear weapons, how and why it's not an article about defining what a supercomputer is nor an article about defining physical units, mathematical anotation, concepts in computer science or high performance computing in general. This is not an article that should describe parts of an computer and computer network in any detail, similarly, it should not describe why and how one should develop applications for a system like this or the general the ins and outs of supercomputing. This is not an article discussing the interconnects between components, nor discussing processor or memory architectures. And so forth.. Stay on topic people! There is plenty of room discussing all these other topics on their respective pages. If they are lacking, enhance those pages. It's not a fault of the article about Roadrunner if the page describing clustered file systems leaves much to be desired.
There's a lot stuff that might enhance this article, that _is_ on topic, such as describing how it is built, top-down, the other way of both. Illustrations might help too. There's a lot of illustrations in the reference materials, and they are there to be read, not just as proof that the data on this page is correct. If you want to know more, in detail, please consult the references, or liked pages on other topics.
Wikpedia is not a finished product, so there are probably tems and jaron that might need to be explained, but it's not a topic for this page, but another. This article is about a supercomputer. Stay on topic! -- Henriok ( talk) 13:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Remain calm, Henriok. I'm not calling you names, and I don't think you're calling me names. Instead, a LANL source is using an example that is clear, if not perfect, to explain something. If you disagree with LANL, email them and complain. If the example is seriously wrong, then correct it. If it's false, prove that with the appropriately cited references. But I don't think you can claim that there are no examples on Wiki that can be comprehended by the general public. I have more comments below, under the item about the images. Timothy Perper ( talk) 20:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Henriok just added two new images of the system design for Roadrunner, which is useful -- the images are too small to see, but at least it's a step in the right direction. The copyright permission item for the first of these images says "I created this work entirely by myself" and is dated 2008-06-15, signed "Henriok (talk)". Well, OK -- so I pulled up the IBM technical reference (reference 7, except it's actually not an engineering description at all -- it was written for the general, educated public). It's dated March 13, 2008 and written by Ken Koch, identified as Roadrunner Technical Manager with the website as given in reference 7 of the Wiki article. So I downloaded it. Slides 21 and 22 sure look a great deal like the first of the two images Henriok says were done by him entirely by himself. No references were given in the captions of the two Wiki images from Henriok (they should be referenced to something). Entirely by yourself, Henriok, or did you, shall we say, borrow extensively from reference 7? If so, that needs to be credited, for example, by changing the caption by adding "Source: reference 7" with a modification in the Wikipedia copyright permission item for the image. At the very minimum, the two new figures need citations to sources. (The principle here is that if you draw something based on someone else's work, you have to cite the other person, and not claim that your drawing was done "entirely" by yourself.)
The material contained in reference 7 is **very** clear. It's technical, but it was written with precisely the kind of non-expert audience in mind that I've been saying the Wikipedia article has. So it's not tilting at windmills to ask that the Wiki article be rewritten at least as well as the IBM-LANL piece cited in reference 7. If they can do it, so can we. I won't and can't do that rewrite; I am not a technical expert. But someone else can, and I think should, rewrite this article.
Timothy Perper ( talk) 13:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
From TP: I'm going to call it quits with this article. Henriok and I have irreconcilable differences that come from very different perspectives about what Wikipedia is and should do. Both of us are operating in good faith, but I have other things to do than follow this article or argue about it. I hope it works out, and I hope that someone comes along and clarifies the obscurities and opacities. But I'm taking this article off my watchlist. Timothy Perper ( talk) 05:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Can it run Crysis?-- 74.127.192.40 ( talk) 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Stop saying nonsense here, go to a forum. -- 201.212.140.93 ( talk) 19:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Info needed - why was this machine designed as it was? What is the logic behind its hybrid structure? FT2 ( Talk | email) 22:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
As the intro says, its "Currently the world's second fastest computer", so whats the first? Seems like it might be an idea to include it-- Jac16888 Talk 14:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
What is the correct price: $133M as the article text says or $125M as the infobox says ? -- Juergen 91.52.162.175 ( talk) 22:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Anyone else feel this edit about "shredding" from a single source on April 1st seem, well, suspicious? For one, ArsTechnica is the only source and it is an article posted on April 1st. Second, "contributor" is new to this article and did a many edits. At least wait until April 2nd or a 2nd verifiable source for confirmation. -- Mofoq ( talk) 06:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on IBM Roadrunner. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
A news item involving Roadrunner (supercomputer) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 10 June 2008. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Introduction totally wrong and clearly outdated!
Nowadays, roadrunner is 19th on the last top500.org list and I couldn't find it anywhere (quick search) on the greentop500 list..
"Purpose: used for predicting outcomes of nuclear war" ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.188.220 ( talk) 21:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I FAIL! :)
Actually is there any news on how much it costs? Thanks -- Drmike ( talk) 14:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The system operations section is probably just great for systems operations experts. The trouble is, this is an encyclapedia for the general reader.. -- Philopedia ( talk) 15:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could also include a simplified system description so that non-techy people could understand the computer along with the techy types?
148.134.37.1 (
talk) 16:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
it's a beautiful article, but yeah, I'd like lots more layman stuff - for example, an explanation of what a 'blade' is Adambrowne666 ( talk) 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Does it come with a copy of the Internet? Or else I won't buy it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.179.50 ( talk) 13:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Please define. The article on supercomputers does not define the term either. -- 212.63.43.180 ( talk) 15:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Would this computer be able to predict what my girlfriend's mood is going to be like today? Or have we not reached that level of computing power yet? 12.192.132.130 ( talk) 19:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The article says that it was constructed for the DOE, but it doesn't say what the DOE needs it for. It might be important to know what the world's most powerful computer is being used for... Van Tucky 20:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
DOE refers to the "Department Of Energy" united states... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.27.159.99 (
talk) 14:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I've heard from conversation that the processing output of Roadrunner for one day is equal to 6 billion normal computers working for 40 years. Can anyone confirm this and find a reliable source to cite it? RobSoko315 ( talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There's more to this than hardware. The cost inludes desining the system, designing software models, operating systems, staffing, housing, cooling, storage, networking. Roadrunner has been under development for a couple of years employing quite a few highly paid engineers. And I see that I was comparing the teoretical performance of a PS3 to the actual performance of Roadrunner. The theoretical peak of Roadrunner is about three times as high, so I should have made the estimation more like 75000 PS3s. And I really don't think it's possible to build a meaningful supercomuter of this magnitude using just PS3s so the estimation might bee moot to begin with. I think you can do an equally invalid comparison by chucking in a couple of thousand GPUs and just multiplying the cost of the graphics card to reach the desired performance. -- Henriok ( talk) 07:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
How does a computer have "almost 6,912 AMD Opteron dual core processors and almost 12,960 IBM PowerXCell[5] 8i CPUs." It either has that many or it doesn't... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.198.205 ( talk) 21:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that too. It's 3^3 *2^8, which perhaps has something to do with the fact that Roadrunner apparently is organized in 3s at various levels? 192.5.109.49 ( talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm adding a second comment to go with the one I put above. This article lacks definitions of technical terms, it sounds like an advertisement, it lacks citations to specific claims, and it's completely unclear to anyone unfamiliar with high-speed digital compiter hardware and software. For example, what is a "petaflop"? It sounds vaguely obscene and no, it is NOT obvious that a "petaflop" is a measure of computational speed. I'd flag this article with all kinds of comments, like "needs citations," "original research," and related criticisms, but maybe this comment will stimulate someone to rewrite the article to Wiki standards. It sure needs it. Timothy Perper ( talk) 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Can't say I agree. And I noticed that someone else added an overall comment about clarity and jargon. Thanks.
If one actually clicks on the petaflops wikilink, one gets to "flops." The only time "petaflops" appears is in the text box at the top, where it says that a petaflop is 1015 flops. So? What's so special about petaflops? Actually, I was using petaflops as an example of a problem that runs through the whole article, but I guess I wasn't clear enough. OK, here it is again,
For example, what is an Opteron core? Or a aPowerXCell 8i CPU? Or an eLS21 Opteron blade, an expansion blade, or a QS22 Cell blade? What us an Infiniband 4x DDR adapter? What is a 288-port Voltaire ISR2012 Infiniband switch? Why are any of these even remotely interesting or significant?
Let me say as clearly as I can that all this sounds like somebody copied a section of a technical manual directly to Wikipedia. Or, worse, they copied an advertisement or publicity blurb from IBM.
And yes, it is necessary to explain what a "watt" is -- it's a unit of electrical power. Now, what's a petaflop? The answer is NOT that it's 1015 flops. Why not? Let's say I'm writing a wiki article about gnushes, and mention that the RTPX gnush contains 1024 polygnushes. Someone asks me what a polygnush is, and I tell them that it's a subordinated array of from 24 to 512 gnushes. That is no help, no help AT ALL.
In brief, if you write a technical article for the general public -- and Wikipedia has to be written for the general public, because that's who reads it -- you have to explain technical terms. That is not optional: you can't fob it off on another, equally opaque article.
Timothy Perper ( talk) 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This is going nowhere. You're being uncivil, aka offensive. Do not blame the reader when what is written is unclear. And this article is not clear. But I'm not going to discuss it further with you. Timothy Perper ( talk) 04:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The one datum I was looking for, viz. how much power this thing consumes, wasn't here. It might also be nice to know how it's cooled, as all that power has to be dissipated somewhere. Shalom S. ( talk) 21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The "System Overview" section opens with a description of a "Triblade", with no context or explanation given as to why how triblade relates to the system. An introductory sentence is needed explaining that the system is built up of fundamental units called "triblades" (if indeed that is the case, which I can't tell from the current description). Alternatively, the system can be described in the reverse order that it is currently, which is in bottom-up fashion, from lowest-level building block to the complete system. It could be described instead in a top-down fashion, describing its major components, then the subcomponents, etc., down to the lowest fundamental computational unit. This might make the description more comprehensible. — Loadmaster ( talk) 15:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You bring up a good point. When I first read the article, I myself had to backtrack, or rather move forward to see why I needed to know about a Triblade. Comprehensibility of the article will be improved by describing it in a top-down fashion, as readers are interested in the main thing itself, and then will further read on if they are interested or want to know more. Right now, readers need to cut through the connected units and the description of the triblade to read about the Roadrunner itself. Further, it's easier to break things down, instead of build things up especially with such technical jargon. However, if the article won't work in a top down fashion, there should at least put an introductory sentence before the description of the Triblade. (And, on further reading of the article, it looks like it is built from triblades.) ProjectTux ( talk) 22:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Timothy Perper ( talk) 05:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is about a individual supercomputer. It's not an article about general computing, it's not an article about why USA needs so simulate degradation of nuclear weapons, how and why it's not an article about defining what a supercomputer is nor an article about defining physical units, mathematical anotation, concepts in computer science or high performance computing in general. This is not an article that should describe parts of an computer and computer network in any detail, similarly, it should not describe why and how one should develop applications for a system like this or the general the ins and outs of supercomputing. This is not an article discussing the interconnects between components, nor discussing processor or memory architectures. And so forth.. Stay on topic people! There is plenty of room discussing all these other topics on their respective pages. If they are lacking, enhance those pages. It's not a fault of the article about Roadrunner if the page describing clustered file systems leaves much to be desired.
There's a lot stuff that might enhance this article, that _is_ on topic, such as describing how it is built, top-down, the other way of both. Illustrations might help too. There's a lot of illustrations in the reference materials, and they are there to be read, not just as proof that the data on this page is correct. If you want to know more, in detail, please consult the references, or liked pages on other topics.
Wikpedia is not a finished product, so there are probably tems and jaron that might need to be explained, but it's not a topic for this page, but another. This article is about a supercomputer. Stay on topic! -- Henriok ( talk) 13:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Remain calm, Henriok. I'm not calling you names, and I don't think you're calling me names. Instead, a LANL source is using an example that is clear, if not perfect, to explain something. If you disagree with LANL, email them and complain. If the example is seriously wrong, then correct it. If it's false, prove that with the appropriately cited references. But I don't think you can claim that there are no examples on Wiki that can be comprehended by the general public. I have more comments below, under the item about the images. Timothy Perper ( talk) 20:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Henriok just added two new images of the system design for Roadrunner, which is useful -- the images are too small to see, but at least it's a step in the right direction. The copyright permission item for the first of these images says "I created this work entirely by myself" and is dated 2008-06-15, signed "Henriok (talk)". Well, OK -- so I pulled up the IBM technical reference (reference 7, except it's actually not an engineering description at all -- it was written for the general, educated public). It's dated March 13, 2008 and written by Ken Koch, identified as Roadrunner Technical Manager with the website as given in reference 7 of the Wiki article. So I downloaded it. Slides 21 and 22 sure look a great deal like the first of the two images Henriok says were done by him entirely by himself. No references were given in the captions of the two Wiki images from Henriok (they should be referenced to something). Entirely by yourself, Henriok, or did you, shall we say, borrow extensively from reference 7? If so, that needs to be credited, for example, by changing the caption by adding "Source: reference 7" with a modification in the Wikipedia copyright permission item for the image. At the very minimum, the two new figures need citations to sources. (The principle here is that if you draw something based on someone else's work, you have to cite the other person, and not claim that your drawing was done "entirely" by yourself.)
The material contained in reference 7 is **very** clear. It's technical, but it was written with precisely the kind of non-expert audience in mind that I've been saying the Wikipedia article has. So it's not tilting at windmills to ask that the Wiki article be rewritten at least as well as the IBM-LANL piece cited in reference 7. If they can do it, so can we. I won't and can't do that rewrite; I am not a technical expert. But someone else can, and I think should, rewrite this article.
Timothy Perper ( talk) 13:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
From TP: I'm going to call it quits with this article. Henriok and I have irreconcilable differences that come from very different perspectives about what Wikipedia is and should do. Both of us are operating in good faith, but I have other things to do than follow this article or argue about it. I hope it works out, and I hope that someone comes along and clarifies the obscurities and opacities. But I'm taking this article off my watchlist. Timothy Perper ( talk) 05:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Can it run Crysis?-- 74.127.192.40 ( talk) 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Stop saying nonsense here, go to a forum. -- 201.212.140.93 ( talk) 19:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Info needed - why was this machine designed as it was? What is the logic behind its hybrid structure? FT2 ( Talk | email) 22:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
As the intro says, its "Currently the world's second fastest computer", so whats the first? Seems like it might be an idea to include it-- Jac16888 Talk 14:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
What is the correct price: $133M as the article text says or $125M as the infobox says ? -- Juergen 91.52.162.175 ( talk) 22:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Anyone else feel this edit about "shredding" from a single source on April 1st seem, well, suspicious? For one, ArsTechnica is the only source and it is an article posted on April 1st. Second, "contributor" is new to this article and did a many edits. At least wait until April 2nd or a 2nd verifiable source for confirmation. -- Mofoq ( talk) 06:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on IBM Roadrunner. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)