Talk:Desiree Horton

Article is Not Encyclopedic

With sentences like "Horton derives great satisfaction from fighting fires because she's saving people's property and maybe even their lives." and "Fans, too, have made it clear they want to again see her on television--at least after fire season. Little wonder. At 5' 7", with long, dark (most of the time) hair and hazel eyes, Horton looks more like a model or a movie star than an aerial firefighter." this reads more like a puff piece in a men's magazine than an encyclopedia entry. Section headers such as "Wanted to be a Helicopter Pilot Since Childhood" do little to detract from this feeling. This article needs some overhauling. - Dravecky 05:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Dravecky, this article is not written in an encyclopedic manner. When I tried to make it a little more like the standard biographical article, I was reverted by Fredadams. "Wanted to be a Helicopter Pilot Since Childhood" is not a proper heading title and it does not even accurately summarize the information in that particular section. Just know, I am committed to improving this article. Ursasapien (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is Not a Fan Site

While fixing the defaultsort tag on the Desiree Horton page (as part of an ongoing effort to properly alphabetize resulting lists) I spent some time to fix grammatical errors, added WP tags, and performed a small amount of clean-up. This has now all been undone twice by Fredadams, a person whose only edits have been to this single article. Many of the other recent edits to this page have been by Rwgutmann & Myohmy who also appear to have only edited articles featuring Desiree Horton. I am unsure how to proceed to keep this from happening again. - Dravecky 17:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

this article is not objective

Aren't insults against the Wikipedia rules?

You seem to believe in following the Wikipedia rules to the letter. Isn't calling other people "sock puppets" against those rules? Fredadams 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No. A sockpuppet is someone who uses multiple accounts to edit, and is generally considered inappropriate. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You are selecting individual sentences instead of keeping them in context

Out of context, they sound much more like a "Fan Site" than the article in its entirety does.

Please Leave Article Alone

I'm pretty much of a novice to Wikipedia, but I liked the article on Desiree Horton as it was originally. I don't know all of the Wikipedia conventions, but I find it distracting & irritating to read an article when almost every other word has a link. If a person is interested, it isn't that hard to copy and paste a word to look it up.

Actually, in wikifying this article I removed a number of links, fixed broken or ambiguous links, and tried to bring the existing links into compliance with Wikipedia standards. This article is still far from perfect but it now sorts properly in lists (she's under H for Horton, not D for Desiree, in those long lists by last name) and reads a bit more like an encyclopedia article. A key tenet of Wikpedia is a "neutral point of view" so while some of the text changes have moved it along towards that goal, much works remains to be done. Oh, and don't forget to sign your comments. - Dravecky 01:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so authoritarian? When someone else changes this article, you call it vandalism. But you think your changes are always an improvement. They aren't. There were no broken or ambiguous links. And why would you remove an interesting and very pertinent link to the invention of the Telecopter? Also, I read up on Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View." It clearly states that 100 percent neutrality is not required. Fredadams 05:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you have a link in the Desiree Horton article to "Chopper Chick?" You already made the article "Chopper Chick" redirect back to "Desiree Horton." It just sends readers in a circle. Whyediteverything 05:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. That was an oversight on my part, easily fixed. - Dravecky 06:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why Would Anyone Say This Article Needs Immediate Attention?

Isn't "needing immediate attention" reserved for controversial material about living persons--things that could be considered libelous? Nothing in this entry is even close to being libelous.

• • • It's not neutral, either. Wikipedia is not a fan page.

I can live with this

Urasapian, I can live with this article as you have edited it--provided Dravecky can quit ruining it. I still think it is a mistake to leave out the link to the invention of the Telecopter, however. Whyediteverything 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This line? "The (http://www.nationalhelicopter.com/telecopter.html Telecopter) was invented by KTLA in 1958." The photos of a press release at that site might make the basis for an interesting article about the Telecopter itself but the sentence was awkward and barely relevant in this biography. I'd also note that a well-referenced sentence or two about KTLA's status as a regional superstation widely carried west of the Mississippi River and into Canada would help explain Horton's supposed "popularity" with Canadians. I'm glad you can live with it and I'm sorry that proper grammar, standard Wikipedia tags, and an encyclopedic tone "ruin" the article for you. - Dravecky 23:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Still a work in progress

I've added an actual link to the actual blog entry that is the source for the paragraph that has been much-reverted the last couple of days. That should end that sequence of edits. Except of course, it's now just a well-sourced unencyclopedic bit of trivia that says more about the cheap bandwidth plan of the blog than any real strain on any server.

I've also done quite a bit to expand the descriptions of the external links and the references (after converting the few applicable urls from links to references). This article still needs significantly better sourcing. If what it says is true, please point to a place on a reliable source that backs it up. If there are stats on how many women have these licenses, let's see them.

And why can't one of the ardent Horton fans that keep editing this article (assuming that they're all unique people) add a photo to this article? Surely one fan has taken one photo of her. Or could write to her and ask her to upload a few photos of herself to the Wikimedia Commons. For all the text about her looks this article would be greatly improved by a few photos to illustrate this and the work she does in and out of the pilot's seat. - Dravecky 07:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Dravecky, why don't you write Desiree and ask for her picture if you want one so much? I know her, but I wouldn't involve her with two guys like you and Urasapien. You must be real fun people to be around. And it isn't necessary to insult Gary Sassaman. - unsigned message by Fanofdesiree2

I'm not the editor with the name "Fanofdesiree2" nor am I the equally on-point "Fanofdesiree" or any other other half-dozen editors who only edit articles related to Ms. Horton. I came across this article by chance while adding defaultsort tags to biographies of American television personalities. I've never seen Ms. Horton on television, to my knowledge, and have no personal interest in this article other than the general well-being of Wikipedia. If you indeed know her then you're in the best position to get an acceptable photo uploaded to the Commons with no need to "involve" me in any way. - Dravecky 21:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

First, Fanofdesiree2, please sign your post by typing four tildes (those little squiggly lines that look like this ~~~~) at the end of your post. This will not only sign your name, but will magically date and time stamp your response. Second, no personal attacks please. I don't know Dravecky from Adam, but I can tell you that I am a real fun and crazy guy IRL. Third, like Dravecky, I do not know Ms. Horton and I came across this article while scanning Recent Changes. I thought this article was headed for deletion, so I tried to improve it. Unfortunately, I seem to have garnered your ire in the process. Can't we all just get along? Ursasapien (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It definetely is a work in progress. One line in the first paragraph was patently false, in that Ms. Horton was not and is not the only femal helicopter/on-air reporter. If someone is going to make a very specific statement, it would be recommended to actually...y'know...back it up. Therefore, I made it less ambiguous. And just in case someone decides to revert it, I'd like to cite Jennifer York as an example refuting the idea about Horton. --Kagurae (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Does noone use this discussion page?

I still have no answer from Fanofdesiree2, but there have been dozens of edits since that time. I think discussing changes/improvements/proposed changes on this page will keep us from bumping into each other and help build consensus. For example, Dravecky added her U.S Forest Service certification while Fredadams quickly deleted it. What is this basis of this dispute? Does displaying her U.S Forest Service certification (a public record) somehow violate her privacy or is this simply superfluous information that is unecessary for the article? Also, Fredadams removed a citation request for the statement " She is one of just a handful of female SAG/AFTRA chopper pilots." Now, I think this needs to be clarified and cited. Is a handful, 5 or a couple dozen? 15% or less than 1%? This information would greatly help this article. Ursasapien (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems virtually all of the edits to this article, other than yours and mine, are coming from a half-dozen editors who edit only this article and a few articles closely related to Ms. Horton. Clearly Fredadams, Whyediteverything, Fanofdesiree2, Myohmy, Fanofdesiree, and the anonymous 4.232.105.223 have some personal or fannish attachment to Ms. Horton. This isn't bad in and of itself but it seems to be leading this group to ignore basic Wikipedia tenets and practices.
Claiming that the number of SAG/AFTRA helicopter pilots is "common knowledge" then removing a good faith request for a reference, for example. If it's indeed a well-known fact then surely a single simple reference to this can be found and linked. The same holds for the claim about female USFS-certified pilots. I followed the provided link and found only a database not searchable by gender nor containing any indication of gender. I did add the entry for Ms. Horton in that database as a reference to her actually being USFS-certified but that seems to offend a couple of other editors for no reason I can determine.
And, quite frankly, I'm tired of adding proper WP tags and formatting to this article only to have it repeatedly undone without explanation. That, and having a simple request for a photo, a key part of any biographical article, lead to an odd reply (and no photo). - Dravecky 18:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Urasapien, good luck finding someone to work with Dravecky on resolving anything. The guy is an insulting, know-it-all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fredadams (talk • contribs) 20:34, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Rather than attack each other, can't we all just work to improve this article? Fred, can you provide any evidence/citations for the statement "She is one of just a handful of female SAG/AFTRA chopper pilots." Also, do you or anyone you know have a free-use photo of Ms. Horton we could use? Ursasapien (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is not newsworthy and is entirely a vanity publication. Article should be moved for deletion by an editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.27.84 (talk) 06:39, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

First, don't for get to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. This magically puts your signature and the date/time of your post. Second, be bold! If you think this article needs to be nominated for deletion, go ahead and do it yourself. However, I think this article is a "work in progress" about a arguably notable person. I have no particular problem with the piece you deleted, but I think it is common to put some background information in biographical articles. Perhaps someone could rewrite it to be less of a "vanity" piece. Ursasapien (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The personal life section does still need a rewrite and there are problems with the article but it's so much better now than it was a couple of months ago. Why new accounts keep popping up to edit this one article is a bit of a mystery but positive change is being made. The newest link is to a short blurb commenting on her cleavage so I'm not sure that's a positive step but then you'd have to ask the editor that added it for his/her reasons. I'd be opposed to deletion because Horton is at least somewhat notable and the article is gar more complete than 2/3 of the bios on Wikipedia - Dravecky 03:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Why new accounts keep popping up to edit this one article is a bit of a mystery...." Dravecky, maybe it is because Horton has a lot of admirers. And you would have to know that you have a really bad attitude. Whyediteverything 05:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've made a pass through the text to try to bring this into a more encyclopedic tone. Some points to note:

• all direct quotes require a reference to their source, and so I've added fact tags. They've been removed once and I put them back. If they are removed a second time, that will be considered vandalism and I'll take appropriate action.
• this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Keep the tone formal.
• I've removed a number of blog External Links which are inappropriate.
• Nothing in the "personal life" was applicable there or worth keeping. Hobby stuff has been removed (non-encyclopedic) and two other paragraphs were moved to more appropriate sections.
• ELs come after references.

I also have some serious concerns about sockpuppetry by SPAs, and will be looking into this as well. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a Biography

Akradecki, you may not personally agree with Desiree Horton's use of the word "memorable" regarding the Samantha Runnion murder, but if you check the article in "Los Angeles" magazine, Horton said "memorable" not "significant." This is a biography and you shouldn't misstate what she actually said. Whyediteverything 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I rechecked the "Los Angeles" magazine article and it isn't clear that Horton actually used the word "memorable," it may have just been the author's word. Whyediteverything 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous

Urasapian, your edit changes the meaning. It is no longer clear if Horton was born in North Hollywood or just raised there. 198.147.225.139 03:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've revised the entry to remove the ambiguity. Glad to see your interest in Ms. Horton and would encourage you to register rather than keep using (not very) anonymous IP addresses in San Diego. - Dravecky 06:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been a long-time admirer of Desiree Horton and will be glad to register. I don't know where you got the idea I live in San Diego, though. I'm in Long Beach, CA. 198.147.225.35 09:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The above IP address is registered to an ISP in San Diego. I see that the new IP address from which you are editing this article is registered by MCI to the City of Long Beach. I would still encourage you to register and participate on more articles that just that for Ms. Horton. - Dravecky 00:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dravecky, maybe my ISP is registered in San Diego; I don't know. But I live in Long Beach and haven't been to San Diego in years. Besides, why is this of any concern to you? Are you sure you are even talking about the same editor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.225.77 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

mask

hi, not trying to sound weird, but is is it possible that she once wore a filter or gas mask since she is a firefighter and some pilots sometimes wear an oxygen mask when flying. I'm just asking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.65.17 (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What does that question have to do with improving the article? This page is for discussion of the article, not general discussion regarding the subject of the article. Ursasapien (talk) 05:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Edited factless description in Paragraph 1

Kaguare, what are you saying? That there are/have been other female helicopter pilot/on-camera reporters on Los Angeles television? 198.147.225.74 (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Kaguare cites Jennifer York as "an example refuting the idea" in his entry above, if that helps. - Dravecky (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

- Yes, Jennifer York was Desiree Horton's predecessor on KTLA 5 from 1992-2004, making her one of the longest running female chopper pilot/on-camera reporters in LA Market history. Kagurae (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dravecky, thanks for pointing out Kagurae's earlier post about Jennifer York. But York is not a pilot. As the statement originally said, only Julie Horvath and Kris Kelley (both for very short periods), and Desiree Horton (for about five years) have FLOWN the helicopter and reported. The other female helicopter reporters, such as those currently with KTLA, have just reported--someone else has always flown the copter. 198.147.225.29 (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fred, given that the article says that there are at least two other women who are pilot/reporters, I don't see how the word "only" can be used here. That would be like saying "except for Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin was the only man to moonwalk during Apollo 11". It's awkward and counterfactual. And given that there is no reliable source credited for this supposed achievement, as its now a source of some controversy perhaps it's best removed entirely until such a reliable source can be found. - Dravecky (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to Dravecky's post. Since it is contentious, it is better to be safe than sorry. Until some actual, hard printed statements are found to back this up and actually LINKED in the post, it should stay that way, instead of ending up in the hands of a Horton otaku. Kagurae (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Kagurae, what's with the insulting term Otaku? Dravecky, Horvath and Kelley are NOT pilot/reporters in Los Angeles, and only were for very brief periods. I think it is important to note in the article that while Horton was not the very first, she is still the "only" female to have done this successfully in L.A.(i.e. for any length of time). Nothing I said was conterfactual.

And what's this "Fred" business? Is that another insulting Wikipedia term? 198.147.225.38 (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Senseless details

First, to write a proper, encyclopedic biographical article, we should use summary style. We are not writing a biography, rather we are writing a small biographical article. Ms. Horton may well have played jacks as a child. I may even find a source for this information. Nevertheless, the information is irrelevant and unnecessary for our readers to get a snapshot of who Ms. Horton is today. The fact that she worked two jobs to pay for flying lessons demonstrates her dedication to her intended profession. The fact that she worked at a car dealership and a pharmacy, as opposed to a gas station and a supermarket, tells me absolutely nothing. It does not add to the article, but it does make the article worse. Ursasapien (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Urasasapien, I couldn't disagree with you more--the details are not senseless. Never read a biography, long or short, where, if I was interested enough in the person to read about him, I didn't want to know what he did prior to his chosen profession. Besides we're talking all of four or five additional words--that's hardly ruining your summary style. 198.147.225.84 (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a paper encyclopedia. It need not be so summarized as to lose information people would probably want. Whyediteverything (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. In order to keep a neutral point of view, we must not give undue weight to trivial details. Ms. Horton is notable for being a helicopter pilot and a television celebrity. Her jobs as an adolescent are not notable (and at this point they are not even verifiable). Ursasapien (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is also not a fansite and it need not be so detailed as to include every bit of trivia that can be collected about a person. Readers seeking this level of obsessive detail can follow one of the many external links to a site dedicated to or written by Ms. Horton. For an article with so many apparent single-topic editors, I'm surprised that this article isn't better sourced and still doesn't include a simple portrait photo. - Dravecky (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've edited quite a number of articles unrelated to Ms. Horton, but what's the crime in someone editing just one article? I keep reading the WP citations Ursasapien gives but can't see how they apply here. Saying how someone was employed prior to their current career is hardly "obsessive detail." As for sourcing, this article is better sourced than three-fourths of the articles on Wikipedia. 198.147.225.45 (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing Chatsworth, Los Angeles, California to add Ms. Horton to the list of residents hardly speaks to a wide range of interests in editing. Perhaps registering a username, as most frequent editors are encouraged to do, would show the true depth of your interests and allay any doubts as to your dedication to WP as a whole. - Dravecky (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at other Wikipedia biographies

Most of the Wikipedia biographies, unless they are "stubs," include far more about a person's earlier jobs than does this one about Desiree Horton. What's so different in this case? Myohmy (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you name a few biographies that talk about early jobs? Ursasapien (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Myohmy (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That was an invitation to post the names of the articles here. I would like to look at them and see in what context this information was included. Ms. Horton's article is rather short (unlike, for example, a U.S. President) and I still contend that this information puts undue emphasis on a minor part of her life. Ursasapien (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Urasasapien, don't you think you are getting a little carried away with this? I think Myohmy should tell you to look up a few of them for yourself. Loads of them have early jobs listed. Why's it such a big deal for you to find a few of them? 198.147.225.50 (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

198.147.225.50, want to bet Urasasapien won't like any of these examples for one reason or another? Well, there are numerous others.

Clint Walker--left school to work at a factory and on a river boat, then joined the United States Merchant Marine at 17 during the tail end of World War II. He then worked at odd jobs in Brownwood Texas, Long Beach, CA and Las Vegas, where he worked as a doorman at the Sands Hotel.

John Wayne--worked in an ice cream shop

Telly Savalas--worked as a lifeguard

Henry Kissinger--worked in a shaving-brush factory

Bob Hope--worked a variety of jobs at a local boardwalk; boxed briefly

Evel Knievel--diamond drill operator in copper mines; drove large earthmover; participated in local rodeos and ski-jumping events; started semi-pro hockey team; started big-game hunting service

Jay Silverheels-before becoming an actor, traveled around North America appearing in boxing and wrestling tournaments

Danny Ainge--played professional baseball with Toronto Blue Jays before playing basketball for Boston Celtics

Kathie Lee Gifford--was a live-in secretary/babysitter for Anita Bryant Myohmy (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying that Danny Ainge, a professional athlete, was a professional athlete in two sports is not an example of detailing minor job history. Kathy Lee Gifford's article is establishing a link with Anita Bryant, not giving us a list of all her college jobs. Most of these are much longer articles, so giving undue weight to minor details is not as much of an issue. That leaves us with Jay Silverheels and Clint Walker, both poorly written in my honest opinion. Nevertheless, I am not going to bother removing this bit of information again, as long as you source it. Ursasapien (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting to be absolute nonsense. But if you think a source is required for Horton's earlier, non-flying jobs, see the article in "Airport Journals" under External links. 198.147.225.84 (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. One or two fans that come to Wikipedia, create a boatload of sock puppets, and edit under different socks on the same article to create the appearance of a large following. Our verifiability policy states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Thank you for pointing out that many of the external links are actually citations, though. Cheers, Ursasapien (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No one needs to "create the appearance of a large following" for Horton. Check how many people have visited her website or clicked to enlarge her Flickr pictures. 198.147.225.84 (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

These "hits" can be manipulated in a similar way. A relatively small number of people can inflate these numbers through repetition. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a fan site. It is an encyclopedia. Let's get back to discussing how we can improve this article in the encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? You actually think someone is sitting out in cyberspace clicking on Horton's site almost 20,000 times? To fool you or what? 198.147.225.84 (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Some, apparently, love her so much they feel it is worth their while to come to WP, set up a number of different accounts, edit her article many times a day (switching ID's between edits), and defend her article from those that would keep out the jobs she worked as an adolescent. Why? I guess because she, "looks more like a model or a movie star than an aerial firefighter." Regardless, we are getting distracted from our goal of creating an encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What an amazing selection of WP:OTHERSTUFF reasoning. Hey, the Abraham Lincoln and Lee Harvey Oswald articles both mention the last thing their subjects saw at the theater, why not a note about what movie Ms. Horton has seen most recently? The Cass Elliot discusses the last sandwich she ate--quick, add a section on what Ms. Horton had for lunch! - Dravecky (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And keep her lunch menu updated daily so we can always have what she last ate! Oh, she's so pretty. Thanks for your humorous yet insightful comment. Ursasapien (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

External links section

This section seems to contain several articles that could be better utilized as references. Typically external links would include the person's official website and any official fan sites. The link to her pictures is an excellent one. It helps us avoid the "non-free" picture issue, but allows us to see what she looks like. The other links should be integrated into references. Ursasapien (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Desiree Horton. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927174658/http://www.airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0512054 to http://www.airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0512054
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aviation.fs.fed.us/carding/searchPilotOne.asp?ID=2670
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209042714/http://www.trutv.com/shows/maui_chopper/episodes.html to http://www.trutv.com/shows/maui_chopper/episodes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928035101/http://www.firerescue1.com/wildland-firefighter/24-12/245227/ to http://www.firerescue1.com/wildland-firefighter/24-12/245227/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)