This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Patriotic Nigras article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
A fact from Patriotic Nigras appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 August 2008 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patriotic_Nigras_(4th_nomination)
-Recommended deletion, as this is a troll organization, is not notable, and lacks significant sources after months of edits. Da Killa Wabbit ( talk) 01:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems strange that GNAA is deleted par ordre de mufti while this isn't. I'm not buying the verifiability line. GNAA was deleted because the lemma itself is offensive and putting up an article about it would only be a continuation of the troll. So why not here? Or conversely, why not articlify each and every racist troll out there?-- 87.162.43.121 ( talk) 21:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Da Killa Wabbit is most likely oppised to this article due to beliefs and opposed to the ideals of the PN, disregard him, he is making a biased opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanrockslol ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- According to Section A7 Of the Criteria for Speedy deletion an article that is about "a real person, individual animal(s), organization or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" is subject to speedy deletion. I cannot see how a group of internet trolls is a significant group of people that has any difference to anyone apart from those they disrupt online. This group conducts itself in many cases illegally however has had no major or notable effect on any online community otherwise it would have become duly noted by such organisations they conduct against. For example the group Anonymous I would consider to be worthy and within the guidelines of Section A7 as it has had a noticeable effect on a group or organisation that has expressed in media and relevant formats this, however is not reflected by this group. In comparison the "Patriotic Nigras" is a small, attention seeking group of people who are getting just that from an unnecessary article. comment added by olowe2011 ( talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The PN are a very well known group. They had an interview in the New Scientist magazine a while back. - Icewedge ( talk) 07:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Note that the OVER NINE THOUSAAAAANNDDD! is a *Chan inside joke,a nd not an actual estimate on the number of accounts operated by PN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.189.254 ( talk) 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I think with work, this can be taken up to featured article status. The first thing the article needs are some good pictures plus more length. Are you ready for IPv6? ( talk) 21:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The information on the Patriotic Nigras page serve as code examples and are reported to be of more help than the 'advanced' scripters who often refuse to help or charge extravagant amounts for a simple scripting tutorial. Are reported to be? Reported to be by who? This whole line just reeks of POV trash. Prio ( talk) 05:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm tired of the coming here and changing the article to call them "internet terrorists". Are you saying they're the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden, and they got bombs strapped to them while they run into the US Embassy? The term griefers is enough.
Quite honestly, depicting griefers as "internet terrorists" is like depicting the school bully as Osama. Just stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.118.41 ( talk) 05:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Suggest a merge with the article Residents this topic does not need a separate stub article. --— MrBucket T/ C 17:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The link to PN's website seems dead, maybe remove it
Recently User:Jgbuford has been adding information to this article covering the recent (2012-2013) activities of this group. In order to make this material appear as if it were supported by citations he has taken some of the existing citations and slapped them on. It looks nice from a distance, but if you actually read the citations you find that they do not cover the claims Jgbuford has added. Why? Because these citations are dated 2008 and 2009. Logically it is impossible to use them to cite information covering 2012-2013 because this period would have been 3 to 5 years the future at the time of their publication. I initially reverted this addition because it looked like a clear hoax. When I was reverted, I added cleanup tags so that readers would be alerted to the fact that this information is not in fact cited by any sources despite the appearance that they were. This was also reverted. I have written to Jgbuford twice and also to the IP account he is using to edit war but I have received no response. I am now writing this in anticipation of filing an edit warring report. I have restored the cleanup tags again (this makes my third addition of these tags) and I urge Jgbuford to communicate rather than revert. Failure to do so may result in editing restrictions. - Thibbs ( talk) 15:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Jgbuford/User:68.11.129.178 has now taken to inserting huge blocks of material about the Patriotic Nigras copied wholesale from Encyclopedia Dramatica. Not only is plagiarism like this forbidden on Wikipedia, but the quality of the information falls woefully short of the standards expected here. It is redolent with non-neutral terms like "furfag" and racist links like anchoring the term "derkaderp" to Muslim, and the level of shock humor is intensely juvenile. Humor in general is really something that serious encyclopedias avoid. The article can be expanded and if User:Jgbuford/User:68.11.129.178 is interested in making helpful contributions to the article then there are certainly ways he can provide positive help here. One of the most important issues that needs to be considered is that of sourcing. None of the Encyclopedia Dramatica material has any sources. It was all concocted by editors who were acting as primary sources. I urge Jgbuford/68.11.129.178 to at least skim through some of Wikipedia's core policies like WP:V and guidelines like WP:RS. I've continued to restore the properly sourced versions of the article but I want to stress that the article isn't in its final form and it can easily be changed as long as the basic rules are followed. I'm very willing to work with editors who want to make appropriate changes here. If Jgbuford/68.11.129.178 has questions about what may be appropriate or inappropriate, then this talk page is the place to ask. Failure to discuss these edits and resumption of the edit warring will likely result in editing sanctions. - Thibbs ( talk) 11:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the link to the website shown on this article for two reasons: (RE: http://who.is/whois/http://www.patrioticnigras.org)
1. According to WHOIS Records the sites status shows as inactive. Inactive links are not used on Wikipedia Info boxes.
2. There is no reference sited to show that this is the Official Website for the Patriotic Nigras. All material on Wikipedia should have reliable sources and references. See Wikipedia:RS
-- Olowe2011 ( talk) 15:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
According to academic author, Maria Bäcke, this is the group's official website. I've restored the active website. - Thibbs ( talk) 17:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
For the record, this is not the first time Olowe2011 has tried to remove this website. For more information see this prior discussion. I am concerned by the appearance that this may be a backdoor effort to censor the content of this article, but I assume goodfaith for now. - Thibbs ( talk) 17:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to edit war with you, Olowe2011, but you are wrong. The quote from Bäcke's book published by Continuum International Publishing Group is this:
“ | In SL, well-known griefers such as the Patriotic Nigras, http://www.patrioticnigras.org/, aim to destroy the game experience by taking down sims or create (scripted) explosions for targeted groups such as the Goreans or Furries. | ” |
–Excerpt from Page 133 (ISBN 978082643680).
It is quite clear that this website is listed as the official website and not as just some random website Ms. Bäcke discovered on the internet. Do you have any sources suggesting that this isn't the official website of the group? Perhaps you have a source suggesting that another website is really the official website? Please furnish contrary sources rather than removing the one that academic sources suggest to be the group's website. - Thibbs ( talk) 18:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
A plain reading of the book quote shows that Bäcke is listing the official website of the group she is discussing. Think about it objectively. Do you think an academic author would ever write something like this:
That is not how sources are cited in academic writing. That is how official websites are presented. Again, do you have any sources contradicting this obviously reliable source? - Thibbs ( talk) 18:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that it's not just "quote[d] as a website". Presented immediately inline with the group's name like that amounts to a statement that it is the group's website and not just a random source of information on them. What leads you to think that this isn't the group's website? Do you have a source that refutes this? If you don't then I'd go with a plain understanding of the single reliable source rather than your non-academic opinions. We can let others weigh in on what is the plain meaning of Bäcke's claim if you are convinced that she's just listing a random website instead of the official one. - Thibbs ( talk) 18:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
That is the plain meaning of the sentence, Olowe2011. Here is another source authored by The Alphaville Herald's Mark P. McCahill that is even more explicit. Your claim that this article doesn't meet GNG was already put to rest after your failed AfD attempt for this article. You're welcome to try again, but so long as the consensus is that the article's topic is notable, we shouldn't be trying to remove/censor the group's website. I would like to see outside views on this, but if it's just your own opinion on the matter versus the views of reliable academic sources then I side with the RSes... - Thibbs ( talk) 19:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1. There is plenty of evidence that they are a griefer group and that they use scripts in the SecondLife program to cause mischief
Common Sense would tell you that Linden Labs (Creators of Second Life) would not program scripts into their programs that are intended to be used to cause mischief. There are no Official Scripts that Linden Labs has authorized that can be used for the activities Patriotic Nigras partakes in. Patriotic Nigras use illegally modified scripts and clients to get around the security features used by Linden Labs. This is generally classified as exploiting security. Therefore the group participates in the exploitation of IT security features which is why directing Wikipedia's users to an official website created by them could put them at risk.
2. This RfC (coming after an unsuccessful AfD, an ELNO-Based removal, aclaim that the URL doesn't in fact reflect an official website, and an AN/I Request) Represents User:olowe2011's 5th attempt to remove this URL or otherwise detract from this article. I don't think he is acting as a neutral party here Firstly the AfD was for a completely different reason and was based upon this article when it had very limited references / sources. Secondly after the ELNO-Based removal claim was made the link was removed and replaced. Thirdly the URL doesn't reflect an official website was another issue based on completely different reasoning, I only thought about the security implications after doing further research on the Patriotic Nigras groups activities therefore raised it as an AN/I Request. Fourthly, the AN/I Request was made so that I could get administrator advice on if the link represented a direct threat to the Wikipedia Community and if it did what could I do about it. Another editor advised me to post this thread as an RfC to get better user consensus on the issue at hand so I followed their advice and here I am. --
Olowe2011 (
talk) 13:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The standard per WP:EXT is that external links can be included, not that they should. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. So saying "there's nothing wrong with it" isn't a valid argument -- ("Not censored" doesn't apply here.) It's essentially a toss-up; I concur that we're not here to "protect" readers from clicking on bad links but we're also not required to provide them and we're certainly not harming the reader's ability to find and visit the site if they want. NE Ent 15:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
"Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking."
The use of an unauthorized third-party client found here which clearly violates Linden Labs rights by circumnavigating their Servers security and attempting to make unauthorized changes to their technical server structure which is copyright infringement as they have no given authorization to use Linden Labs owned servers or tools in their client. Various other copyright infringements that can be found by browsing the website. I mean realistically this looks like one of them things Linden Labs has to make an official notice to the Wikimedia Foundation on one of its articles directing to a website that clearly violates a multitude of their rights... Which is embarrassing but so be it.-- Olowe2011 ( talk) 00:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Patriotic Nigras. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}
).
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Patriotic Nigras article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
A fact from Patriotic Nigras appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 August 2008 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patriotic_Nigras_(4th_nomination)
-Recommended deletion, as this is a troll organization, is not notable, and lacks significant sources after months of edits. Da Killa Wabbit ( talk) 01:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems strange that GNAA is deleted par ordre de mufti while this isn't. I'm not buying the verifiability line. GNAA was deleted because the lemma itself is offensive and putting up an article about it would only be a continuation of the troll. So why not here? Or conversely, why not articlify each and every racist troll out there?-- 87.162.43.121 ( talk) 21:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Da Killa Wabbit is most likely oppised to this article due to beliefs and opposed to the ideals of the PN, disregard him, he is making a biased opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanrockslol ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- According to Section A7 Of the Criteria for Speedy deletion an article that is about "a real person, individual animal(s), organization or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" is subject to speedy deletion. I cannot see how a group of internet trolls is a significant group of people that has any difference to anyone apart from those they disrupt online. This group conducts itself in many cases illegally however has had no major or notable effect on any online community otherwise it would have become duly noted by such organisations they conduct against. For example the group Anonymous I would consider to be worthy and within the guidelines of Section A7 as it has had a noticeable effect on a group or organisation that has expressed in media and relevant formats this, however is not reflected by this group. In comparison the "Patriotic Nigras" is a small, attention seeking group of people who are getting just that from an unnecessary article. comment added by olowe2011 ( talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The PN are a very well known group. They had an interview in the New Scientist magazine a while back. - Icewedge ( talk) 07:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Note that the OVER NINE THOUSAAAAANNDDD! is a *Chan inside joke,a nd not an actual estimate on the number of accounts operated by PN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.189.254 ( talk) 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I think with work, this can be taken up to featured article status. The first thing the article needs are some good pictures plus more length. Are you ready for IPv6? ( talk) 21:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The information on the Patriotic Nigras page serve as code examples and are reported to be of more help than the 'advanced' scripters who often refuse to help or charge extravagant amounts for a simple scripting tutorial. Are reported to be? Reported to be by who? This whole line just reeks of POV trash. Prio ( talk) 05:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm tired of the coming here and changing the article to call them "internet terrorists". Are you saying they're the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden, and they got bombs strapped to them while they run into the US Embassy? The term griefers is enough.
Quite honestly, depicting griefers as "internet terrorists" is like depicting the school bully as Osama. Just stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.118.41 ( talk) 05:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Suggest a merge with the article Residents this topic does not need a separate stub article. --— MrBucket T/ C 17:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The link to PN's website seems dead, maybe remove it
Recently User:Jgbuford has been adding information to this article covering the recent (2012-2013) activities of this group. In order to make this material appear as if it were supported by citations he has taken some of the existing citations and slapped them on. It looks nice from a distance, but if you actually read the citations you find that they do not cover the claims Jgbuford has added. Why? Because these citations are dated 2008 and 2009. Logically it is impossible to use them to cite information covering 2012-2013 because this period would have been 3 to 5 years the future at the time of their publication. I initially reverted this addition because it looked like a clear hoax. When I was reverted, I added cleanup tags so that readers would be alerted to the fact that this information is not in fact cited by any sources despite the appearance that they were. This was also reverted. I have written to Jgbuford twice and also to the IP account he is using to edit war but I have received no response. I am now writing this in anticipation of filing an edit warring report. I have restored the cleanup tags again (this makes my third addition of these tags) and I urge Jgbuford to communicate rather than revert. Failure to do so may result in editing restrictions. - Thibbs ( talk) 15:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Jgbuford/User:68.11.129.178 has now taken to inserting huge blocks of material about the Patriotic Nigras copied wholesale from Encyclopedia Dramatica. Not only is plagiarism like this forbidden on Wikipedia, but the quality of the information falls woefully short of the standards expected here. It is redolent with non-neutral terms like "furfag" and racist links like anchoring the term "derkaderp" to Muslim, and the level of shock humor is intensely juvenile. Humor in general is really something that serious encyclopedias avoid. The article can be expanded and if User:Jgbuford/User:68.11.129.178 is interested in making helpful contributions to the article then there are certainly ways he can provide positive help here. One of the most important issues that needs to be considered is that of sourcing. None of the Encyclopedia Dramatica material has any sources. It was all concocted by editors who were acting as primary sources. I urge Jgbuford/68.11.129.178 to at least skim through some of Wikipedia's core policies like WP:V and guidelines like WP:RS. I've continued to restore the properly sourced versions of the article but I want to stress that the article isn't in its final form and it can easily be changed as long as the basic rules are followed. I'm very willing to work with editors who want to make appropriate changes here. If Jgbuford/68.11.129.178 has questions about what may be appropriate or inappropriate, then this talk page is the place to ask. Failure to discuss these edits and resumption of the edit warring will likely result in editing sanctions. - Thibbs ( talk) 11:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the link to the website shown on this article for two reasons: (RE: http://who.is/whois/http://www.patrioticnigras.org)
1. According to WHOIS Records the sites status shows as inactive. Inactive links are not used on Wikipedia Info boxes.
2. There is no reference sited to show that this is the Official Website for the Patriotic Nigras. All material on Wikipedia should have reliable sources and references. See Wikipedia:RS
-- Olowe2011 ( talk) 15:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
According to academic author, Maria Bäcke, this is the group's official website. I've restored the active website. - Thibbs ( talk) 17:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
For the record, this is not the first time Olowe2011 has tried to remove this website. For more information see this prior discussion. I am concerned by the appearance that this may be a backdoor effort to censor the content of this article, but I assume goodfaith for now. - Thibbs ( talk) 17:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to edit war with you, Olowe2011, but you are wrong. The quote from Bäcke's book published by Continuum International Publishing Group is this:
“ | In SL, well-known griefers such as the Patriotic Nigras, http://www.patrioticnigras.org/, aim to destroy the game experience by taking down sims or create (scripted) explosions for targeted groups such as the Goreans or Furries. | ” |
–Excerpt from Page 133 (ISBN 978082643680).
It is quite clear that this website is listed as the official website and not as just some random website Ms. Bäcke discovered on the internet. Do you have any sources suggesting that this isn't the official website of the group? Perhaps you have a source suggesting that another website is really the official website? Please furnish contrary sources rather than removing the one that academic sources suggest to be the group's website. - Thibbs ( talk) 18:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
A plain reading of the book quote shows that Bäcke is listing the official website of the group she is discussing. Think about it objectively. Do you think an academic author would ever write something like this:
That is not how sources are cited in academic writing. That is how official websites are presented. Again, do you have any sources contradicting this obviously reliable source? - Thibbs ( talk) 18:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that it's not just "quote[d] as a website". Presented immediately inline with the group's name like that amounts to a statement that it is the group's website and not just a random source of information on them. What leads you to think that this isn't the group's website? Do you have a source that refutes this? If you don't then I'd go with a plain understanding of the single reliable source rather than your non-academic opinions. We can let others weigh in on what is the plain meaning of Bäcke's claim if you are convinced that she's just listing a random website instead of the official one. - Thibbs ( talk) 18:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
That is the plain meaning of the sentence, Olowe2011. Here is another source authored by The Alphaville Herald's Mark P. McCahill that is even more explicit. Your claim that this article doesn't meet GNG was already put to rest after your failed AfD attempt for this article. You're welcome to try again, but so long as the consensus is that the article's topic is notable, we shouldn't be trying to remove/censor the group's website. I would like to see outside views on this, but if it's just your own opinion on the matter versus the views of reliable academic sources then I side with the RSes... - Thibbs ( talk) 19:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1. There is plenty of evidence that they are a griefer group and that they use scripts in the SecondLife program to cause mischief
Common Sense would tell you that Linden Labs (Creators of Second Life) would not program scripts into their programs that are intended to be used to cause mischief. There are no Official Scripts that Linden Labs has authorized that can be used for the activities Patriotic Nigras partakes in. Patriotic Nigras use illegally modified scripts and clients to get around the security features used by Linden Labs. This is generally classified as exploiting security. Therefore the group participates in the exploitation of IT security features which is why directing Wikipedia's users to an official website created by them could put them at risk.
2. This RfC (coming after an unsuccessful AfD, an ELNO-Based removal, aclaim that the URL doesn't in fact reflect an official website, and an AN/I Request) Represents User:olowe2011's 5th attempt to remove this URL or otherwise detract from this article. I don't think he is acting as a neutral party here Firstly the AfD was for a completely different reason and was based upon this article when it had very limited references / sources. Secondly after the ELNO-Based removal claim was made the link was removed and replaced. Thirdly the URL doesn't reflect an official website was another issue based on completely different reasoning, I only thought about the security implications after doing further research on the Patriotic Nigras groups activities therefore raised it as an AN/I Request. Fourthly, the AN/I Request was made so that I could get administrator advice on if the link represented a direct threat to the Wikipedia Community and if it did what could I do about it. Another editor advised me to post this thread as an RfC to get better user consensus on the issue at hand so I followed their advice and here I am. --
Olowe2011 (
talk) 13:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The standard per WP:EXT is that external links can be included, not that they should. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. So saying "there's nothing wrong with it" isn't a valid argument -- ("Not censored" doesn't apply here.) It's essentially a toss-up; I concur that we're not here to "protect" readers from clicking on bad links but we're also not required to provide them and we're certainly not harming the reader's ability to find and visit the site if they want. NE Ent 15:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
"Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking."
The use of an unauthorized third-party client found here which clearly violates Linden Labs rights by circumnavigating their Servers security and attempting to make unauthorized changes to their technical server structure which is copyright infringement as they have no given authorization to use Linden Labs owned servers or tools in their client. Various other copyright infringements that can be found by browsing the website. I mean realistically this looks like one of them things Linden Labs has to make an official notice to the Wikimedia Foundation on one of its articles directing to a website that clearly violates a multitude of their rights... Which is embarrassing but so be it.-- Olowe2011 ( talk) 00:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Patriotic Nigras. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}
).
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)