![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Several editors (or possibly one editor using several ids) have been removing a quote from Tikkun magazine on the grounds that it is "not a serious source". On the contrary, Tikkun is an extremely serious and influential magazine. It is worthy of its own entry in Wikipedia, and many other articles link to or cite it. I do not believe that this is a "good faith" edit, rather that the editors do not wish Wikipedia readers to know that "Writing under assumed names, Plaut has a long history of attacking, labeling, and targeting left-wing scholars in Israel" I have accordingly reinstated the quote. -- RolandR 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps removing material that provides a more balanced perspective on the matter (material from Tikkun, by David Newman, reproduced in other places as well). This is unacceptable. It is particularly ironic that the person who removed the material from Tikkun, under the excuse that it is a 'smear', has no problems with other claims that appear in the same section: that some academics are 'self-hating' Jews who are 'apologists' for terrorism. Why is that not a 'smear' or a 'libellous' claim? You cannot be selective here. Rangreen 13:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The Threat to Academic Freedom in Israel-Palestine by David Newman Tikkun Magazine July/August 2004
(text refactored, but available here. [1])—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.233.226 ( talk) 08:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Due to Haaretz's archiving practices, some of the urls in the article now lead to "Page not found" errors. Please note that Footnotes 7, 8 and 9, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/724857.html should be replaced by http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=724857 RolandR ( talk) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what the overlap is with other EL's, but how about: http://www.newyorkmonthlyherald.com/column_of_professor_steven_plaut.htm ? Andyvphil ( talk) 12:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Steven Plaut is no longer involved with Israel Academia Monitor due to his extreme views and speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.212.254 ( talk) 12:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Appeals court overturns earlier verdict. Plaut beats Gordon on almost all counts.
Breaking News: The "Steven Plaut" entry is out of date - please add the updated information from this
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8431B5B9-9777-4A3D-8218-94679BB9DCF9 --- Borisyy —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.109.51.71 (
talk)
15:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually the bottom line is that Plaut is NOT a libeler. The court ruled that Plaut was factually correct in reporting Gordon's pro-terror illegal "human shield" sedition, but opposed attaching to it the adjective "judenrat-wannabe." But that adjective is not only accurate but would be protected speech in any other democratic legal system. I suggest that RolandR take off his anti-Israel blinders and admit that an anti-Israel radical got creamed well deservedly for attempting to suppress freedom of speech! Or maybe RolandR just is opposed to freedom of speech for non-communists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisyy ( talk • contribs) 07:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
(restoring indent)In the only two online law journal articles I could find that specifically discussed an Israeli libel case, both referred to the defendant as being "found liable" not "convicted." In C 032986/03 Moshe Boshmitz v. Anat Aronowitz, Magistrates Court of Tel-Aviv Jaffa, Israeli Judge Shoshana Almagor held that the manager of an online forum may be liable for the content published by the forum users on a theory of negligence. etc. [3] [4] I think that IBLS has greater authority on the proper terminology than casual journalistic usage or Plaut talking about a guy he doesn't like.-- Mantanmoreland ( talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this article still protected after seven months?? Of course, I can almost see why, given the depths of animosity over "convicted of" vs. "liable for". Roland, it strikes me that you might be able to extract more cooperation from your opponents on this article by giving in on this one. cheers, Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 22:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
to update the appeal... "Both sides appealed to the District Court in Nazareth and In March 2008, the court rejected the appeal by Gordon and accepted Plaut's appeal, except for one publication depicted in the verdict as the "third publication". In regards to this publication, the appeal by Plaut was rejected by a majority ruling. In this publiction, Plaut called Gordon a "Judenrat Wannabe". The court then reduced the damages to just 10,000 shekels, or about $2,700, with no payment of legal costs required, because "Gordon put himself in the eye of the storm of public discussion". There is an ongoing appeal to the Supreme Court of Israel. [2] [3]" - also to shorten it all out. Amoruso ( talk) 10:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Consequently, I cut down the whole section and used the paragraph from Neve Gordon article to review the issue. Amoruso ( talk) 17:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Need help with a correction: I do not have an account but wish to see the schools at which Plaut has taught edited so that Athens Laboratory of Business Administration (ALBA) is correct and has a hyperlink to its web page. That web page can be found at: www.alba.edu.gr —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.236.35.142 (
talk)
21:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
In addition to some very minor "clean-up" editing, I changed the "Apartheid Wall" reference to "Israeli West Bank Barrier". The latter is the title of the linked-to Wikipedia article, and the change reflects my understanding that Wikipedia articles are supposed to present factual information rather than editorializing. Whether one likes Steve Plaut or not (and, for the record, I do not like the man), a biographical article on him is not the place to express an opinion on the Barrier - or, for that matter, on any other Israeli security policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Radlauer ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC).
As an otherwise uninvolved editor I've seen (through pending changes review) several unsupported edits claiming Plaut's involvement with either Israel Monitor or Isracampus websites. In the end I deleted the contentious clause for the want of any cited source confirming or refuting either claim. The present version has the Isracampus claim reisntated, supported by a source which appears to be a personal opinion, claiming to be posted by a Ted Belman who?, the content of which claims to be a message from Plaut. This seems pretty weak to me and not up to the standard required by WP:BLP. The truth of the matter may be blatantly obvious to editors familiar with the subject, but as wiki's inclusion criteria is based on WP:V and WP:RS I would like to see a much stronger source to support this. I'm aware that Plaut has his critics and there may be attempts to harm his image by maliciosly associating him with websites whose views provoke offence or repugnance, and wiki should be sure that it's not inadvertantly being drawn into such tactics. Any offers -- Timberframe ( talk) 11:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC).
Thanks, RolandR, for your explanation. The trouble is that all you've cited in addition is more unsupported claims of "close association", "wide circulation" and "well attested", and a blog that could be by anyone. None of them comes close to being grounds for inclusion. Can you (or anyone) please offer some reliable sources? If none of the reputable news outlets have picked up his alleged association with particular websites then I have to ask whether the alleged association is even notable. -- Timberframe ( talk) 13:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thamks, RolandR, I appreciate the time you put in to that. I can't say - because I've no knowledge of the subject - what aspects are or aren't potentially controversial, but it's clear that the subject himself attracts controversy, not to mention lawsuits, so forgive me if on this occasion I'm making mountains out of molehills; all I can go by is the standard set by WP:BLP. -- Timberframe ( talk) 22:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I've just pointed out to two editors that there is a 1RR restriction on this article. The only exceptions are clear vandalism, which I don't think was the case, and IP edits. Dougweller ( talk) 09:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Three important aspects of the political views of Plaut are missing - 1) the anti- Palestinian writings and comments. The following source published Plaut's own words: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11654 ("Op Ed: Happy Nakba Day"). It is at least as reliable a source as the source (Frontpagemag) of a lengthy citation of Plaut's writing in the present article, presenting his attitude to a different target of his sharp pen - the Palestinians. As this issue is "hidden" behind most of the writings of Plaut against "self hating Jews", as he defines them, It is appropriate to include the Palestinians specifically. There is currently only vague mention of his criticism of the "Israeli-Arab piece process", but not a single mention of Palestinians about which he writes much more than about "Israeli-Arab". Other sources for Plaut's writing about the Palestinians: http://www.terrorismawareness.org/news/162/how-nakba-proves-theres-no-palestinian-nation/ http://frontpagemag.com/2011/steven-plaut/the-%E2%80%9Cnakba%E2%80%9D-debunked/ http://mondoweiss.net/2012/05/u-of-haifa-stops-nakba-commemoration-as-prof-writes-hate-post-calling-for-many-nakbas.html http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7964 But the "Happy nakba day" summarizes it all.
2) The [Palestinian] issue as well as many writings against Israeli academics are abundant on http://stevenplaut.blogspot.co.il/ which contains his current writings and comments as well as an archive.
3) It is a substantial understatement to mention just the figures of Michael Lerner and Norman Finkelstein as the only two "left wing" Jews targeted by Plaut. In his "Isracampus.org.il" (it can easily be proved that this site is under his full control...) he has more than 100 "academic leftists" from Israeli institutions whom he follows and "reports" about. Please comment on whether those three references should or should not be introduced into the Steven Plaut article Rastiniak ( talk) 12:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak
I can't find any other statement/claim, from Steven Plaut about the 2011-07-22 twin terrorist attacks, other than http://stevenplaut.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html#2515304115003346281 (including "the Norwegian attacks do not appear really to be terrorism.") and http://stevenplaut.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html#4331598175311482114 (including "The fact of the matter is that the Norwegian killings, horrific though they may be, were not acts of terrorism at all [but] murderous acts of the deranged, with no real ideological motivation."). Any guess? Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 21:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Citations that were required since December 2012 and were not supplied were deleted from the article רסטיניאק ( talk) 12:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
A person who writes a single fiction book which is graded lower than 2.4 million books on Amazon can not claim a "literary career"..... רסטיניאק ( talk) 12:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC) רסטיניאק
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Steven Plaut. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Steven Plaut. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Several editors (or possibly one editor using several ids) have been removing a quote from Tikkun magazine on the grounds that it is "not a serious source". On the contrary, Tikkun is an extremely serious and influential magazine. It is worthy of its own entry in Wikipedia, and many other articles link to or cite it. I do not believe that this is a "good faith" edit, rather that the editors do not wish Wikipedia readers to know that "Writing under assumed names, Plaut has a long history of attacking, labeling, and targeting left-wing scholars in Israel" I have accordingly reinstated the quote. -- RolandR 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps removing material that provides a more balanced perspective on the matter (material from Tikkun, by David Newman, reproduced in other places as well). This is unacceptable. It is particularly ironic that the person who removed the material from Tikkun, under the excuse that it is a 'smear', has no problems with other claims that appear in the same section: that some academics are 'self-hating' Jews who are 'apologists' for terrorism. Why is that not a 'smear' or a 'libellous' claim? You cannot be selective here. Rangreen 13:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The Threat to Academic Freedom in Israel-Palestine by David Newman Tikkun Magazine July/August 2004
(text refactored, but available here. [1])—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.233.226 ( talk) 08:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Due to Haaretz's archiving practices, some of the urls in the article now lead to "Page not found" errors. Please note that Footnotes 7, 8 and 9, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/724857.html should be replaced by http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=724857 RolandR ( talk) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what the overlap is with other EL's, but how about: http://www.newyorkmonthlyherald.com/column_of_professor_steven_plaut.htm ? Andyvphil ( talk) 12:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Steven Plaut is no longer involved with Israel Academia Monitor due to his extreme views and speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.212.254 ( talk) 12:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Appeals court overturns earlier verdict. Plaut beats Gordon on almost all counts.
Breaking News: The "Steven Plaut" entry is out of date - please add the updated information from this
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8431B5B9-9777-4A3D-8218-94679BB9DCF9 --- Borisyy —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.109.51.71 (
talk)
15:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually the bottom line is that Plaut is NOT a libeler. The court ruled that Plaut was factually correct in reporting Gordon's pro-terror illegal "human shield" sedition, but opposed attaching to it the adjective "judenrat-wannabe." But that adjective is not only accurate but would be protected speech in any other democratic legal system. I suggest that RolandR take off his anti-Israel blinders and admit that an anti-Israel radical got creamed well deservedly for attempting to suppress freedom of speech! Or maybe RolandR just is opposed to freedom of speech for non-communists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisyy ( talk • contribs) 07:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
(restoring indent)In the only two online law journal articles I could find that specifically discussed an Israeli libel case, both referred to the defendant as being "found liable" not "convicted." In C 032986/03 Moshe Boshmitz v. Anat Aronowitz, Magistrates Court of Tel-Aviv Jaffa, Israeli Judge Shoshana Almagor held that the manager of an online forum may be liable for the content published by the forum users on a theory of negligence. etc. [3] [4] I think that IBLS has greater authority on the proper terminology than casual journalistic usage or Plaut talking about a guy he doesn't like.-- Mantanmoreland ( talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this article still protected after seven months?? Of course, I can almost see why, given the depths of animosity over "convicted of" vs. "liable for". Roland, it strikes me that you might be able to extract more cooperation from your opponents on this article by giving in on this one. cheers, Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 22:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
to update the appeal... "Both sides appealed to the District Court in Nazareth and In March 2008, the court rejected the appeal by Gordon and accepted Plaut's appeal, except for one publication depicted in the verdict as the "third publication". In regards to this publication, the appeal by Plaut was rejected by a majority ruling. In this publiction, Plaut called Gordon a "Judenrat Wannabe". The court then reduced the damages to just 10,000 shekels, or about $2,700, with no payment of legal costs required, because "Gordon put himself in the eye of the storm of public discussion". There is an ongoing appeal to the Supreme Court of Israel. [2] [3]" - also to shorten it all out. Amoruso ( talk) 10:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Consequently, I cut down the whole section and used the paragraph from Neve Gordon article to review the issue. Amoruso ( talk) 17:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Need help with a correction: I do not have an account but wish to see the schools at which Plaut has taught edited so that Athens Laboratory of Business Administration (ALBA) is correct and has a hyperlink to its web page. That web page can be found at: www.alba.edu.gr —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.236.35.142 (
talk)
21:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
In addition to some very minor "clean-up" editing, I changed the "Apartheid Wall" reference to "Israeli West Bank Barrier". The latter is the title of the linked-to Wikipedia article, and the change reflects my understanding that Wikipedia articles are supposed to present factual information rather than editorializing. Whether one likes Steve Plaut or not (and, for the record, I do not like the man), a biographical article on him is not the place to express an opinion on the Barrier - or, for that matter, on any other Israeli security policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Radlauer ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC).
As an otherwise uninvolved editor I've seen (through pending changes review) several unsupported edits claiming Plaut's involvement with either Israel Monitor or Isracampus websites. In the end I deleted the contentious clause for the want of any cited source confirming or refuting either claim. The present version has the Isracampus claim reisntated, supported by a source which appears to be a personal opinion, claiming to be posted by a Ted Belman who?, the content of which claims to be a message from Plaut. This seems pretty weak to me and not up to the standard required by WP:BLP. The truth of the matter may be blatantly obvious to editors familiar with the subject, but as wiki's inclusion criteria is based on WP:V and WP:RS I would like to see a much stronger source to support this. I'm aware that Plaut has his critics and there may be attempts to harm his image by maliciosly associating him with websites whose views provoke offence or repugnance, and wiki should be sure that it's not inadvertantly being drawn into such tactics. Any offers -- Timberframe ( talk) 11:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC).
Thanks, RolandR, for your explanation. The trouble is that all you've cited in addition is more unsupported claims of "close association", "wide circulation" and "well attested", and a blog that could be by anyone. None of them comes close to being grounds for inclusion. Can you (or anyone) please offer some reliable sources? If none of the reputable news outlets have picked up his alleged association with particular websites then I have to ask whether the alleged association is even notable. -- Timberframe ( talk) 13:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thamks, RolandR, I appreciate the time you put in to that. I can't say - because I've no knowledge of the subject - what aspects are or aren't potentially controversial, but it's clear that the subject himself attracts controversy, not to mention lawsuits, so forgive me if on this occasion I'm making mountains out of molehills; all I can go by is the standard set by WP:BLP. -- Timberframe ( talk) 22:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I've just pointed out to two editors that there is a 1RR restriction on this article. The only exceptions are clear vandalism, which I don't think was the case, and IP edits. Dougweller ( talk) 09:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Three important aspects of the political views of Plaut are missing - 1) the anti- Palestinian writings and comments. The following source published Plaut's own words: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11654 ("Op Ed: Happy Nakba Day"). It is at least as reliable a source as the source (Frontpagemag) of a lengthy citation of Plaut's writing in the present article, presenting his attitude to a different target of his sharp pen - the Palestinians. As this issue is "hidden" behind most of the writings of Plaut against "self hating Jews", as he defines them, It is appropriate to include the Palestinians specifically. There is currently only vague mention of his criticism of the "Israeli-Arab piece process", but not a single mention of Palestinians about which he writes much more than about "Israeli-Arab". Other sources for Plaut's writing about the Palestinians: http://www.terrorismawareness.org/news/162/how-nakba-proves-theres-no-palestinian-nation/ http://frontpagemag.com/2011/steven-plaut/the-%E2%80%9Cnakba%E2%80%9D-debunked/ http://mondoweiss.net/2012/05/u-of-haifa-stops-nakba-commemoration-as-prof-writes-hate-post-calling-for-many-nakbas.html http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7964 But the "Happy nakba day" summarizes it all.
2) The [Palestinian] issue as well as many writings against Israeli academics are abundant on http://stevenplaut.blogspot.co.il/ which contains his current writings and comments as well as an archive.
3) It is a substantial understatement to mention just the figures of Michael Lerner and Norman Finkelstein as the only two "left wing" Jews targeted by Plaut. In his "Isracampus.org.il" (it can easily be proved that this site is under his full control...) he has more than 100 "academic leftists" from Israeli institutions whom he follows and "reports" about. Please comment on whether those three references should or should not be introduced into the Steven Plaut article Rastiniak ( talk) 12:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak
I can't find any other statement/claim, from Steven Plaut about the 2011-07-22 twin terrorist attacks, other than http://stevenplaut.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html#2515304115003346281 (including "the Norwegian attacks do not appear really to be terrorism.") and http://stevenplaut.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html#4331598175311482114 (including "The fact of the matter is that the Norwegian killings, horrific though they may be, were not acts of terrorism at all [but] murderous acts of the deranged, with no real ideological motivation."). Any guess? Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 21:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Citations that were required since December 2012 and were not supplied were deleted from the article רסטיניאק ( talk) 12:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
A person who writes a single fiction book which is graded lower than 2.4 million books on Amazon can not claim a "literary career"..... רסטיניאק ( talk) 12:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC) רסטיניאק
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Steven Plaut. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Steven Plaut. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)