The song is called 'Knife Prty'. It says so on their official website. -- James599 23:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
When Googling, I used deftones "white pony" -ebay -lyrics -torrent -mp3 -wikipedia -amazon -myspace -youtube -mp3s to filter the cruft.
Here's some half-decent stuff:
Fucking hell. Every link at Metacritic is broken, except the Rolling Stone one. Every fucking link! Damn internet. This is suddenly a lot less feasible. Seegoon ( talk) 17:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
"[...] This is the proper version of the album, and "Back to School" was only added as a marketing strategy; Chino Moreno has stated that he wasn't happy about it.[2]"
The reference provided for this statement is no longer accessible, however, the most recent Way Back Machine copy does not imply that Chino Moreno was unhappy about the re-release of the album with the "Back to School" track. Perhaps this sentence requires rewording? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.241.193 ( talk) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There's no source for this being an experimental rock album. Allmusic's review states that this isn't a nu metal album. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 23:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
here some tips to keep the line at the moment of describe songs:
1-Don't make reference to other bands to describe a song unless there were a direct colaboration among artists.
2-Keep an objetive point of view, don't dissmiss songs that you don't like & don't magnifi your favorites (this one is hard to do).
3-Cite your sources as much as possible.
4-Use the least words possible
5-Don't use profesional technisism unless necesary situations (Not everyone out here is musician).
6-The songs should be on it's correct order & category (b-sides with b-sides, album songs with album songs and so on bonus tracks). -
Carnotaurus044
OK, so maybe I didn't discuss this in the talk page before doing it. But seriously, the entire track overview section is horrendous. Poor grammar and writing style aside, it's not even necessary for an album overview. I am yet to see a Wikipedia article (on an album, as well) aside from this one which actually has such an in-depth analysis of the tracks. I'm a Deftones fan myself; however, I feel as though this is entirely inappropriate for an encylopaedia. Am I the only one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/124.185.219.62|124.185.219.62[[ ( talk) 11:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, acord to the quality scale featured in "Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment" the description of album's songs is necesary for an articlecle in C-Class or superior (see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment).
the coment below has been sectioned to make easier their response
"Alternately, descriptions of the songs and the album in general may be included." Note well the phrase IN GENERAL. That's the only thing I can find. And although a description of songs may be necessary, that does not mean an in-depth, somewhat (to be kind) subjective description of every song ON AN ALBUM PAGE.
Please, take those descriptions to individual song pages.
And if anything, use more musically precise terms rather than very vague terms such as "soaring, epic chorus" (How objective is that phrase?)
*(epic chorus phrase fixed)
"Constant light drums" (What do you mean by light? Minimal drumming? Soft drumming?)
And "heavy and fast paced" (What is heavy? Lamb of God? Dubstep? What is fast-paced? DragonForce? Hardstyle?).
"why better don't just listen to the song, that'll give you a clear idea of the terms used in the Korea song's section"
This statement renders your entire argument useless Carnotaurus.
What's the point of the track overview when everyone could just go and listen to the song(s)?
1- To improve article's quality whitin the quality scale (acord to it, a C-class or superior article about a music album must contain descriptions for the songs in it) what you're doing here is trying to decrease article's quality, wich isn't cool acord to the quality scale and wikipedia site.
2- To seed curiosity among people who haven't heard the album.
3- To interchange and preserve knowledge about the band Deftones.
This is an encyclopedia that tells FACTS, not your descriptions of songs.
A description of a song is far too subjective (as Seegon proved above) to be used in an encyclopedia. Even if you could find a quote by Chino Moreno or any of the deftones describing a song then that would still be their description and thus subjective.
None of your descriptions of the songs feature any referencing at all. The meanings do but thats not what I'm getting at. Even if you used your comment about going to listen to Korea instead of looking at the track overview sarcastically it still renders your argument useless. You literally cannot describe a song to somebody who has never heard the song. Whilst Mr Moreno may be able to provide insight into the meaning of the songs he cannot give a description of the track without it being subjective. I'm sure that Chino and Stephen could very easily give totally different descriptions of the same track because they are giving personal opinions, there is no set criteria for what makes a song "heavy" or "sleepy". My younger brother considers Nickelback to be heavy, I do not, You may consider them heavy, do you see what I'm saying here? Also please let go of this belief that just because I'm trying to remove the unverified research you added that I am not a Deftones fan. I am a Deftones fan but i put the quality of a website used by millions of people every day before my love of Deftones.
As Seegon previously stated, just because there are articles that are somewhat against wiki standards that doesn't mean you should add to that list. I'm fairly certain its not withing wiki policy to link to songs so people can hear them or at least it isn't done on a large scale.
Aside from being intensely frustrated with this issue still not being resolved, I also want to point out, yet again, that it is impossible for you to write objective descriptions of songs. You said that for "Korea" that it is "heavy and fast-paced" (I may have slightly paraphrased it). I listened to it, and in my opinion, it's nowhere near "heavy and fast-paced". You want "heavy and fast-paced"? Check out some of Protest the Hero's work, particularly the song " Sequoia Throne". I don't know how many times this needs to be brought up, but THE ENTIRE SECTION NEEDS TO GO. 123.211.190.87 ( talk) 03:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Both are heavy and fast-paced, i thing that the main diferencess are which song you listen more loud, and that both songs falls onto diferent genres, and that the protest the hero song is faster, however this is a good article and have to still this way, this is more like you subjetivelly are disgusted with something in particular in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnotaurus044 ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not "subjetivelly [...] disgusted" with something in particular with the section. I am "subjetivelly [...] disgusted" with the entire section. I'm a massive Deftones fan myself, and it pains me to see such a terribly written and absolutely superfluous section because not only does it bring down the quality of an otherwise brilliant page, its inclusion and subsequent poor standard also reflects on the general Deftones fanbase. 121.223.68.4 ( talk) 04:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This has really become a saga. I'd like a resolution here, if only because time spent warring over this non-issue could be much better used in constructive contribution to the article. As such, I suggest we take this issue to WP:RFC. I should point out, before we do so, that they will indisputably come down on the side of deleting the section and that it would basically be a waste of many peoples' time. But it would be a rational and objective answer and pretty binding. Does anyone have any thoughts? Seegoon ( talk) 11:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
there are more articles but with this is enough to make my point clear. Carnotaurus044 ( talk) 04:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there some way we can get a higher authority to come down on this and give us all a final solution?
To be honest, the whole section looks so bad right now and wastes unnecessary space, i'm removing all the unsourced statements, (most related to the "music" section) and modifying it akin to the Achtung Baby album, but keeping the "track by track" layout, that is what i think was done right. Nicrorus ( talk) 01:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This section have been created due the continuos genre warring in pages related with the band Deftones i found that one editor is heavilly determined with introducing the genre "Nu metal" in numerous articles, i've reverted it's edits because and restored the genres to the ones that due convention Deftones is always labeled because:
I'm inviting the I.P. user to discuss his/her point of view and to provide reaal verifiable refernces,otherwise i'll revert all of his/her edits Massivesquid ( talk) 19:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
-- 72.251.108.163 ( talk) 03:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Yeah this is a classic Nu Metal album. Back To School (Mini Maggit) for you diluted hardcore Deftones fans is a Nu Metal song. Please change it. -- 72.251.108.163 ( talk) 03:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Although there's no source here, and I don't think this alone will change anything, I think he's right. Rap metal is similar to Nu metal by the fact that it uses hip-hop elements, but also in the fact that it seems to match the Deftones' style based on what other music similar to theirs IS considered nu metal. DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 19:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a review of the album that suggests White Pony is nu metal, even if that one song mentioned in the last section is not for some odd reason.
It also goes on to say straightforwardly that the band is even nu metal. [1] While iTunes tags right below the artwork and price on the album are not necessarily correct/true/agreed upon/reliable (ex. the Hair Metal classification) their reviews are reliable, right? If not, give me a simple explanation of a reliable source. DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 19:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, now I google Nu metal bands, and the Deftones are the fifth result. We really shouldn't deny this. If White Pony was their most successful album, and this is what they're known for, we need to add this. There has been no counterstatement in over a month. 65.185.86.64 ( talk) 13:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC) aka DannyMusicEditor
--
72.251.108.204 (
talk) 03:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Please add it.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] --
72.251.108.204 (
talk)
03:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears that Scott Weiland assisted with the vocal lines on the song Rx Queen and sang part of the chorus - possibly as a guidance vocal as Moreno noted here. It is hard to hear, but apparently it is there as is discussed here. As the source is a) a forum and b) refers back to the article as a source - it can not be used as a reference; no credit on the album. Karst ( talk) 14:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The allmusic review for it seemingly describes it as post-grunge in the beginning. It does seem to be the only one saying this, but it seems a reasonable description. Would it be okay to add it? DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 21:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
White Pony. 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.
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. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I think dream pop and post-hardcore should be added as they both flow very well with the album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PugsNotDrugsHD333 ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on White Pony. 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) 22:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on White Pony. 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) 16:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The song is called 'Knife Prty'. It says so on their official website. -- James599 23:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
When Googling, I used deftones "white pony" -ebay -lyrics -torrent -mp3 -wikipedia -amazon -myspace -youtube -mp3s to filter the cruft.
Here's some half-decent stuff:
Fucking hell. Every link at Metacritic is broken, except the Rolling Stone one. Every fucking link! Damn internet. This is suddenly a lot less feasible. Seegoon ( talk) 17:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
"[...] This is the proper version of the album, and "Back to School" was only added as a marketing strategy; Chino Moreno has stated that he wasn't happy about it.[2]"
The reference provided for this statement is no longer accessible, however, the most recent Way Back Machine copy does not imply that Chino Moreno was unhappy about the re-release of the album with the "Back to School" track. Perhaps this sentence requires rewording? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.241.193 ( talk) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There's no source for this being an experimental rock album. Allmusic's review states that this isn't a nu metal album. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 23:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
here some tips to keep the line at the moment of describe songs:
1-Don't make reference to other bands to describe a song unless there were a direct colaboration among artists.
2-Keep an objetive point of view, don't dissmiss songs that you don't like & don't magnifi your favorites (this one is hard to do).
3-Cite your sources as much as possible.
4-Use the least words possible
5-Don't use profesional technisism unless necesary situations (Not everyone out here is musician).
6-The songs should be on it's correct order & category (b-sides with b-sides, album songs with album songs and so on bonus tracks). -
Carnotaurus044
OK, so maybe I didn't discuss this in the talk page before doing it. But seriously, the entire track overview section is horrendous. Poor grammar and writing style aside, it's not even necessary for an album overview. I am yet to see a Wikipedia article (on an album, as well) aside from this one which actually has such an in-depth analysis of the tracks. I'm a Deftones fan myself; however, I feel as though this is entirely inappropriate for an encylopaedia. Am I the only one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/124.185.219.62|124.185.219.62[[ ( talk) 11:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, acord to the quality scale featured in "Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment" the description of album's songs is necesary for an articlecle in C-Class or superior (see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment).
the coment below has been sectioned to make easier their response
"Alternately, descriptions of the songs and the album in general may be included." Note well the phrase IN GENERAL. That's the only thing I can find. And although a description of songs may be necessary, that does not mean an in-depth, somewhat (to be kind) subjective description of every song ON AN ALBUM PAGE.
Please, take those descriptions to individual song pages.
And if anything, use more musically precise terms rather than very vague terms such as "soaring, epic chorus" (How objective is that phrase?)
*(epic chorus phrase fixed)
"Constant light drums" (What do you mean by light? Minimal drumming? Soft drumming?)
And "heavy and fast paced" (What is heavy? Lamb of God? Dubstep? What is fast-paced? DragonForce? Hardstyle?).
"why better don't just listen to the song, that'll give you a clear idea of the terms used in the Korea song's section"
This statement renders your entire argument useless Carnotaurus.
What's the point of the track overview when everyone could just go and listen to the song(s)?
1- To improve article's quality whitin the quality scale (acord to it, a C-class or superior article about a music album must contain descriptions for the songs in it) what you're doing here is trying to decrease article's quality, wich isn't cool acord to the quality scale and wikipedia site.
2- To seed curiosity among people who haven't heard the album.
3- To interchange and preserve knowledge about the band Deftones.
This is an encyclopedia that tells FACTS, not your descriptions of songs.
A description of a song is far too subjective (as Seegon proved above) to be used in an encyclopedia. Even if you could find a quote by Chino Moreno or any of the deftones describing a song then that would still be their description and thus subjective.
None of your descriptions of the songs feature any referencing at all. The meanings do but thats not what I'm getting at. Even if you used your comment about going to listen to Korea instead of looking at the track overview sarcastically it still renders your argument useless. You literally cannot describe a song to somebody who has never heard the song. Whilst Mr Moreno may be able to provide insight into the meaning of the songs he cannot give a description of the track without it being subjective. I'm sure that Chino and Stephen could very easily give totally different descriptions of the same track because they are giving personal opinions, there is no set criteria for what makes a song "heavy" or "sleepy". My younger brother considers Nickelback to be heavy, I do not, You may consider them heavy, do you see what I'm saying here? Also please let go of this belief that just because I'm trying to remove the unverified research you added that I am not a Deftones fan. I am a Deftones fan but i put the quality of a website used by millions of people every day before my love of Deftones.
As Seegon previously stated, just because there are articles that are somewhat against wiki standards that doesn't mean you should add to that list. I'm fairly certain its not withing wiki policy to link to songs so people can hear them or at least it isn't done on a large scale.
Aside from being intensely frustrated with this issue still not being resolved, I also want to point out, yet again, that it is impossible for you to write objective descriptions of songs. You said that for "Korea" that it is "heavy and fast-paced" (I may have slightly paraphrased it). I listened to it, and in my opinion, it's nowhere near "heavy and fast-paced". You want "heavy and fast-paced"? Check out some of Protest the Hero's work, particularly the song " Sequoia Throne". I don't know how many times this needs to be brought up, but THE ENTIRE SECTION NEEDS TO GO. 123.211.190.87 ( talk) 03:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Both are heavy and fast-paced, i thing that the main diferencess are which song you listen more loud, and that both songs falls onto diferent genres, and that the protest the hero song is faster, however this is a good article and have to still this way, this is more like you subjetivelly are disgusted with something in particular in the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnotaurus044 ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not "subjetivelly [...] disgusted" with something in particular with the section. I am "subjetivelly [...] disgusted" with the entire section. I'm a massive Deftones fan myself, and it pains me to see such a terribly written and absolutely superfluous section because not only does it bring down the quality of an otherwise brilliant page, its inclusion and subsequent poor standard also reflects on the general Deftones fanbase. 121.223.68.4 ( talk) 04:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This has really become a saga. I'd like a resolution here, if only because time spent warring over this non-issue could be much better used in constructive contribution to the article. As such, I suggest we take this issue to WP:RFC. I should point out, before we do so, that they will indisputably come down on the side of deleting the section and that it would basically be a waste of many peoples' time. But it would be a rational and objective answer and pretty binding. Does anyone have any thoughts? Seegoon ( talk) 11:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
there are more articles but with this is enough to make my point clear. Carnotaurus044 ( talk) 04:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there some way we can get a higher authority to come down on this and give us all a final solution?
To be honest, the whole section looks so bad right now and wastes unnecessary space, i'm removing all the unsourced statements, (most related to the "music" section) and modifying it akin to the Achtung Baby album, but keeping the "track by track" layout, that is what i think was done right. Nicrorus ( talk) 01:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This section have been created due the continuos genre warring in pages related with the band Deftones i found that one editor is heavilly determined with introducing the genre "Nu metal" in numerous articles, i've reverted it's edits because and restored the genres to the ones that due convention Deftones is always labeled because:
I'm inviting the I.P. user to discuss his/her point of view and to provide reaal verifiable refernces,otherwise i'll revert all of his/her edits Massivesquid ( talk) 19:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
-- 72.251.108.163 ( talk) 03:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Yeah this is a classic Nu Metal album. Back To School (Mini Maggit) for you diluted hardcore Deftones fans is a Nu Metal song. Please change it. -- 72.251.108.163 ( talk) 03:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Although there's no source here, and I don't think this alone will change anything, I think he's right. Rap metal is similar to Nu metal by the fact that it uses hip-hop elements, but also in the fact that it seems to match the Deftones' style based on what other music similar to theirs IS considered nu metal. DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 19:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a review of the album that suggests White Pony is nu metal, even if that one song mentioned in the last section is not for some odd reason.
It also goes on to say straightforwardly that the band is even nu metal. [1] While iTunes tags right below the artwork and price on the album are not necessarily correct/true/agreed upon/reliable (ex. the Hair Metal classification) their reviews are reliable, right? If not, give me a simple explanation of a reliable source. DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 19:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, now I google Nu metal bands, and the Deftones are the fifth result. We really shouldn't deny this. If White Pony was their most successful album, and this is what they're known for, we need to add this. There has been no counterstatement in over a month. 65.185.86.64 ( talk) 13:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC) aka DannyMusicEditor
--
72.251.108.204 (
talk) 03:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Please add it.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] --
72.251.108.204 (
talk)
03:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears that Scott Weiland assisted with the vocal lines on the song Rx Queen and sang part of the chorus - possibly as a guidance vocal as Moreno noted here. It is hard to hear, but apparently it is there as is discussed here. As the source is a) a forum and b) refers back to the article as a source - it can not be used as a reference; no credit on the album. Karst ( talk) 14:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The allmusic review for it seemingly describes it as post-grunge in the beginning. It does seem to be the only one saying this, but it seems a reasonable description. Would it be okay to add it? DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 21:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
White Pony. 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.
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. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I think dream pop and post-hardcore should be added as they both flow very well with the album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PugsNotDrugsHD333 ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on White Pony. 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) 22:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on White Pony. 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) 16:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)