Talk:Greystones

Marina, Overpopulation and other complaints

Could residents who have objections to changes in the town please not try and write with such ridiculous POV in this article. Here's some text I just had to edit out:

...the council and developers are fools if they think the decent people of Greystones are in favour of it...:

...which threatens to turn the area into some sort of cheaper version of Benidorm, with an excessive number of high-rise apartments, etc...:

Its really annoying to see Wikipedia in such a dreadful state, and I'd request for people to maintain objectivity. Cheers

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.14.67 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 24 February 2006

Perhaps the person (or persons) who keeps inserting this sentence:

Both Greystones and Blackrock are seen as desirable places to live, but wits insist that the former is but a pale shadow of the latter.

would like to create an account at Uncyclopedia. That would be a better place for this "joke". And please don't assert, as has been done by email, that I don't get it. It's irrelevant whether any contributer or reader gets the joke; the point is that this isn't the place for jokes, particularly when the statement, taken literally, is so clearly in violation of the NPOV policy.

If someone cares enough to find a way to insert this piece back into the article without being so apparently POV then it might well add character to the article. But please don't put it back unless you can find such a way. —Rory ☺ 18:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

These sentences I deleted are either tendentious or outright false. The number of submissions from outside Greystones is currently unknown. The Department of Marine says the marina will do nothing to stop coastal erosion. I'm a resident and I'd prefer the harbor reverted to natural beach than any development of this kind happened. (You may or may not agree with me, but my opinion disproves the statement that "all residents" want some kind of development). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.53.223 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 23 May 2006

Sorry about that, it was a bit of a stupid revert on my part... I saw the anon IP and just made assumptions. :) Jhonan ^talk 13:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, as long as its equal in its point of view —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.214.43 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the guidelines for edits and discussion ask that contribs be signed. Hmmm... So, 86.40.14.67, and those like you, why have you not got a user name instead of an IP address? And why don't you sign your contribs?

Bwmiller 12:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV on Father Ted

I have repeatedly edited this section to remove somebody's point of view of Father Ted as 'The Greatest Comedy of all time' and the person keeps replacing it. It's not appropriate and shouldn't be included! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.153.50 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 6 January 2006 Obviously no sense of humour mate, why do you care so much.. Father Ted is the 'Greatest Comedy of all time'!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.214.43 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Famous People

Why have Joe Sweeney, Gordon, Mrs. Mooney, etc. been removed from the "Famous Residents" section? They are certainly very well-known within the community. Does the fact that they are unknown outside of Greystones disqualify them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.162.201 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 10 April 2006

here here, bring back our famous residents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.185.46 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 26 April 2006

How are they famous? Well known yes, but famous NO. Josie from Supervalue, come on will ya. 83.141.80.130 (Talk)

Before you add people you consider famous to Wikipedia, I suggest you first read this Wikipedia guide page on notability to see if your people pass the basic test of notability. Unfortunately, these Greystones additions are not famous people though they may be local characters and known locally. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and these people will likely never be regarded as famous enough for any encyclopaedia. If you wish to contribute, Wikipedia will be happy to see constructive work so that others can benefit from greater encyclopaedic knowledge about Greystones or other articles that you have verifiable information about. ww2censor 03:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Juan Cullen, as I could not find any reference as to why they were Internationaly popular, googling for "Juan Cullen" +greystones returned zero hits. Regards, MartinRe 23:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are SWay/ I've never heard of them.

Citation checking

As the current debate seems to be centered over one paragraph, I've copied it here as there does still seem to be problems with uncited claims:

"Currently the most topical issue ..." - looks okay enough, possibly better not to say "most topical", why not "A major topical issue"?
"some 6000+ submissions, with over half coming from outside the Greystones Delgany area" - are there sources for a) the 6000 submission figure, and b) that half are outside the area? If not, better to remove unverified claims.
"Those in favour look forward ..." - citation? "those in favour" sound worringly like weasal words
"The coastal erosion will also be much reduced by the plan" - citation? According to whom/what study?
"All inhabitants are in favour.." citation? "All inhabitants" needs a WP:RS to avoid being another weasal word

Regards, MartinRe 11:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job Martin on revision of the topical issue and the external links. Let's hope the vandals stay off it, otherwise we shall have to protect it for registered users only as the same people keep adding the same non-notables over and over again. ww2censor 15:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, nice to be noticed :) I don't think protection will be necessary, as relatively speaking, this is getting very few edits, well within the limit of being reverted by other editors. It would be nice to have a source for the 6,000 submissions, though. I felt it was reasonable to leave in for the moment as from the searches I did several blogs came up with similar figures, but as blogs aren't reliable sources I didn't list them as a source, but it did give me enough confidence that a source could be found, so left it in, but uncited for the moment. Regards, MartinRe 19:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6,000 does seem like the number and this Irish Independent citation [1] (you might need to register {free} to view it) seems like a reasonable one as does this one [2]. Hope that helps clarify the number of submissions. ww2censor 01:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. (You can see the figure without registering by going to http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?issue_id=13862 which shows the headlines, from which I got the publication date and verified the figure. I had found the second link myself, but as it described itself as a blog, I was wary of putting it in as the only source. Regards, MartinRe 10:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one! - Thanks for finally sorting out that piece. Jhonan ^talk 10:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regular vandalism

As I mentioned here, and on the Irish Wikipedian's page, I think this page really needs some protection from anonymous users. Some of you have been reverting repeated vandalism here as i have too. I would do it but am not sure how, so maybe you guys know better. Don't you think it is about time we make this vandalism more difficult? ww2censor 01:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think semi-protection is necessary at this stage. The recent edits have been easily reverted by several editors, and are infrequent enough that the benefits are outweighed by the downside of stopping all new/anon editors contributing. Plus, this has been ongoing over several weeks, and as protection is only applied for a limited time, it would only hide the problem for a day or two. If you want to apply for page protection, you can request it at WP:RPP but I would be surprised if it was done, for the above reasons. The alternatives to protection (other editors reverting) seem to be working well enough, and the additions are only done once a day, so not a big issue, in the scheme of things. Regards, MartinRe 08:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding anti-development (of ANY kind) POV being inserted into articles about Greystones; the same happened to Blackrock, which started to read like some absolutist preservationist tract. Ditto Dún Laoghaire, and numerous roads articles. It would appear some people regard promoting a POV as the primary function of Wiki! (Sarah777 00:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The text about population growth doesn't make a lot of sense and is inconsistent...

As it stands, it reads :- "Greystones has experienced a huge increase in its population since the 1970s, with the construction of several large housing estates. As of the national census of 2002, Greystones had a population of 7,315, making it the third largest town in County Wicklow. There is currently large-scale construction at Charlesland, including new housing and retail developments just south of the town with over 1,000 dwelling units. Preliminary 2006 Census figures show a small decrease of 209 in Greystones' population leaving it at 7,106.

Indeed, the population of Greystones has expanded steadily over the last 25 years. Some residents are concerned that over-population may result, and the town and its surrounding landscapes could be damaged."

So has the population of Greystones "expanded steadily over the last 25 years", (a timeframe starting in 1982, which I'm pretty sure is factually wrong), or has it experienced "a huge increase since the 1970's" ? (The 2 phrases are not synonymous). Turning to wikipedia to resolve this puzzle, I find the population has in fact declined between 2002 and 2006.BUT there were 1000 dwellling units built in Charlesland (so they must all be empty, or something).

Snarkiness aside, I'd go ahead and change it to something better, but I'm not entirely sure of the explanation of the census decline. The Charlesland dwellings clearly exist, and are largely not empty. I suspect that Charlesland isn't regarded by the CSO as being in Greystones, but don't have time to research it now. Anyone around who's better informed and could confirm this ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alanperkins (talk • contribs) 05:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Blindingly true

I was glad to find this note here, but surprised that the guardians of probity such as Rory and WW2censor or whatever have allowed the ludicrously inaccurate entry on population to stand. The CSO figures refer only to a strictly-defined area of territory which is not congruent with what either most people or the county council define as 'Greystones', and certainly does not include Charlesland or several other large-scale housing developments nearby. The result is that the figure of just over 7000 bears no relationship to the true population of Greystones, which is closer to 17,000 now and expected to rise to over 22,000 by 2010.

Unfortunately, I know that if I edit the entry to reflect the actuality these self-important guardians of the Greystones entry, whose over-conservative approach you can taste from their entries above, will delete it and reinsert these ludicrous figures. Just as well the true population is reflected in voting figures -- perhaps Rory and his cohort would care to check the figures from ALL Greystones' voting districts from the election on May 24 and find out just how wrong their choice of figures is.

For example, figures from the 2002 census for persons over one year old & in their usual residence on the night of the census are: Greystones 11,423 ([3] For 2006, a similar figure is Greystones 14,569 [4]

I suggest the all-powerful ones make a phone call to the CSO to find out where they have gone wrong and are so dazzlingly misleading wikipedis users with information which is plain wrong! Advice? If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. Bwmiller 15:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population figures are plain wrong = untrue = inaccurate = misleading

Concerns expressed about the figures given for Greystones' population have not been addressed by the page bosses. Why not? The population figures are plain wrong! (They've been selected from the wrong CSO table, thus betraying the ignorance of the authors, who do not appear to have signed their work...)

Take a look at the previous topic on population for some clues, lads & lassies...

Bwmiller 15:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As another minder of the Greystones article I might add that you have a point, This very debate was is replicated somewhere (can't remember where) where one editor insisted in reducing "grossly inflated population figures" for Dublin, Cork, etcetera by reverting to the population of the core City Council only; thus Dublin ended up with a population of 500,000 or so. From memory, the debate ended with Dublin getting it's 1.2 million restored on the basis that a local authority administrative area doesn't necessarily define the population of a town/city when the commonly accepted boundaries are very different. Charlesland is certainly in Greystones in my view; indeed a case could be made that Delgany and Kilcoole are now merely parts of Greystones - but of course by the same reasoning Bray is part of Dublin's population. Thank God for Bray head and the Little Sugar Loaf! (Sarah777 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think I see the difficulty. I live in Greystones, and I don't regard Charlesland as being in Greystones (Are you a resident, Sarah777 ?). But that's just my personal opinion, of course. The fact remains, the article is inconsistent .. either ignore Charlesland entirely (or mention it as a new town being built south of Greystones), or include Charlesland in the population figures. Or,possibly, (briefly) summarise the whole ambiguity ? Alanperkins 22:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly am a resident, I parked the trailer permanently some years back! It does surprise me to hear that Charlesland is considered by anyone not to be part of Greystones though....never heard that one before. It is, after all, a mere few hundred meters from Greystones Main Street. (Sarah777 22:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Mmmm... Point is, folks, that certain powers that be do regard the population of Greystones as including Charlesland and certain other places -- Killincarrig, Delgany, Blacklion -- Planning concerns dominate here, as well as political, and as a result what is normal usage should rule when establishing population. The planners say the population of Greystones is certainly over 16,000 by now, but Wikipedia is telling the entire world that they are wrong by 10,000 people or so... Get a grip!

Interesting, too, that these immortals, the page pedants, are apparently uninterested in these discussions... do they read them? They certainly don't respond... It makes you wonder about the accuracy of other Wiki pages, doesn't it? Maybe I'll go back to Britannica...

Bwmiller 18:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit. Don't go; sensible folk are rare enough here! (Sarah777 20:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK, Sarah, I'll stay a while longer. Quis custodiet? and all that... But it really amazes me that the Page Pedants, so insistent on OBSERVING THE RULES and removing POV, can get the FACTS completely wrong (and then stay away from the discussion). each day, we learn anew. Bwmiller 12:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be entirely happy with the current text on this issue, but can't formulate a rule whereby I can change it. The fact remains that there's another part of the CSO document where they present the c. 7000 figure for the population of Greystones. Sarah777, I don't think the analogy of Dublin applies .. no one would argue that UCD isn't in Dublin, yet it's outside the corporation area. There's a broad consensus that "Dublin" refers to an area other than it's strict local authority area. I don't believe such a consensus exists for Greystones :- that it includes Delgany, for example. Ask a Delgany homeowner if they live in Greystones (house prices are higher in Delgany, they'll say no). Ask a UCD student if they're studying in Dublin, 99.99% will say yes. So the issue is more complex than the current text suggests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.141.97.62 (talk • contribs) 02:33, June 24, 2007

Hi there completely anonymous unsigned person! True on the issue of what a Delgany resident would say; but using that as a guideline, what Charlesland resident wouldn't simply say "Greystones" if asked? And Delgany, Kilcoole, Killlincarrig - as they merge into a single conurbation; what is the collective name? I looked up the OSi Greystones map and it covers 4 pages; two are called "Greystones" and cover Greystones as far south as the Rugby Club and west to Kindlestown; the next two are called "Delgany" and include Charlesland! (as well as Greystones village; Kindlestwon, Killincarrig). Seems to suggest that whatever the name, the place is all the one! (Sarah777 11:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ah, yes, the completely anonymous unsigned editors and self-appointed guardians of probity — perhaps you'd care to read Wiki's own guidelines on signatures, and observe them?

Look:

Signing your posts on talk pages and other Wikipedia discourse (but not on articles) is not only good etiquette; it also facilitates discussion by helping other users to identify the author of a particular comment, to navigate talk pages, and to address specific comments to the relevant user(s), among other things. Discussion is an important part of collaborative editing as it helps other users to understand the progress and evolution of a work.

Signatures on Wikipedia identify you as a user, and your contributions to Wikipedia. They encourage civility in discussions by identifying the author of a particular comment, and the date and time at which it was made. Because of that, having an uncivil signature is strongly discouraged (in some cases, to the point of blocking the user until they change it). In general, anything that is not allowed in a user name should not be used in a signature either.

Good ETIQUETTE; civility; facilitating good editing... etc.

C'mon, anonymous IP number geeks, start SIGNING. Bwmiller 02:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of marina section

I really think this section has to be toned down a lot. A couple of points - in a town of 14,569 people, 6,200 complaints does not constitute a majority, and it is not encyclopedic to say that "its seems to". But further to this point, I'd like to mention this link [5], which quotes an Irish Times article saying that "many of the 5,500 submissions had come from outside Greystones".

Secondly, this sentence: The Board requested the developers to make certain changes. However, it appears that the developer and county council ignored a number of these recommendations. I think it requires either a "citation needed" stamp, or to simply be deleted. Schcambo 11:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with your suggestions:

Of the total population, many are under 18. 6,200 objections most likely represents a majority of the adult population, entitled to vote, etc etc. So adding the word 'adult' would be enough to increase acccuracy;

The Irish Times article you refer to did not state that many submissions had come from outside Greystones — it quoted a Wicklow County Council spokesmouth as alleging this, a claim later disproved, though not relevant to begin with, as anyone may have an interest in the outcome of a development and is entitled to object irrespective of place of residence under Irish planning law. Here's the actual quote from wicklow.com:

The Irish Times reported a Wicklow County Council spokesperson saying that many of the 5,500 submissions had come from outside Greystones...

'Citation needed': Yes, in the same sense as the medieval scholastics required 'citations', condemning Europa to centuries of ignorance. There is no official textual source for this, but if you had attended the second oral hearing you would have come to the same conclusion. As you did not, perhaps you'd like to check with Bord Pleanala what requests it made of the developers, WCC & Sispar, at the first hearing and then compare their actual responses to those requests, here [6]. --Bwmiller 01:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it easy: The letter from Bord Pleanala to WCC[7].
The written response from WCC/Sispar: [8] and here: [9].
Thing is, you only have to read the documentation to see how the council, which is supposed to act in the interests of the people of Wicklow, and its partner in the PPP, set out to get their way irrespective of the popular view or of the Bord's requirements. If you think this is not a scandal, what can I say?
However, in respect of neutrality and POV in Wiki articles, it demonstrates that if there is bias in this entry, it's in favour of the development. Bwmiller 13:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schcambo, I've checked the guidelines and I feel you have wrongly tagged this page entry as not neutral. Have a look:

The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

--Bwmiller 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On your last point their, stop trying to avoid the argument. I pointed to two very specific points whose neutrality I felt was questionable - i.e. the assertation that 6,200 complaints "seems to" make a majority, and the loose suggestion that WCC and the developers ignored a number of An Board Pleanála's changes.

On to the main point. Just because you clearly and angrily do not agree with what a WCC spokesperson has said, that does not mean you can dismiss it when it is a completely accurate and quotable source. You say this was "a claim later disproved", well I'll be damned but I'd like to place a citation needed stamp on that too! I've taken the liberty of showing you a direct source, well please do the same for me and for everyone else who uses this encyclopedia.

Now, as you've no doubt read on WP:CITE, a source should be provided for "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." There are written sources for just about everything, and I've no problem with you using any or all of the sources you've just given in the main article, as long as they relate to specific points, not to the futility with which medieval scholars condemned Europe or whatever it is you like to think. And as such, in an encyclopedia like Wiki, written sources can only carry a lot more weight than something you heard at an oral hearing, and while I don't doubt your honesty, you quite simply don't have any source to put here.

You seem to be forgetting that this is an encyclopedia, and that all I'm trying to do is make this specific section more accurate. This is not some kind of magazine where you can make wild accusations about the efficiency and work methods of WCC, and where you can self-proclaim such as a "scandal". I placed the tag here as an opening for some sort of debate, not to get dragged into the wheelings and dealings of Wicklow politics.

So please, don't reduce it to that. Schcambo 11:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't actually believe this - YOU were the one who added the part about how a majority of Greystones were against this, by changing a perfectly measured and objectable statement! [10] Schcambo 11:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schambo: Your latest revision was undone for two reasons. Here's what your note said:

Read the source; the statement came from WCC who are a seperate entity to the developers. Also an 'inert' landfill, meaning non-toxic, is relevant in these circumstances.)

1. WCC are part of a PPP, which makes them a 'developer' in this case. WCC (jointly) applied for the planning permission and its top officials led the pro-plan side at Bord Pleanala hearings -- did you attend? I did.
2. 'Inert': this has not been proved, and evidence given to the hearing suggests strongly that the dump will be found not to be inert, and may contain dangerous wastes including chemicals, oil, medical waste etc. Given WCC's record in this (enormous illegal and dangerous dumps all over the 'Garden of Ireland'), it might be a good idea to supply citations for your insistence on 'inert'.
Bwmiller 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Block quote[reply]

Bwmiller:
1) First of all, the source quoted after this point clearly attributes the statement in question to WCC. By calling them the 'developers', you are creating ambiguity, meaning the statement could have been made by either WCC or Sispar.
2) "It might be a good idea to supply citations for your insistence on 'inert'." Well if you'd care to look at the citation directly after this point in the text, you'd see that that a source no less reputable than RTÉ have described it as an "inert landfill."

What you are doing, and have continued to do over a period of several months to this article, amounts to nothing more than casual vandalism and shameless POV pushing. If you don't stop, I really think we'll need an admin around here. Schcambo 16:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schambo: If you're so hot on RTE's reputability as a citation source, why did you not read a little further in their report, where you would have seen this:

Last summer, An Bord Pleanála informed the developers, Wicklow County Council and its private sector partner the Sispar Consortium, that it had deferred a decision on the plans, and sought further information and changes. (my emphasis)

So RTE agrees with me that WCC is a developer in this case.
However, RTE is merely quoting WCC/Sispar when it asserts that the landfill is inert, though it does not make this attribution. RTE is not therefore the primary source for a citation; read the guidelines again.
The landfill's inertness is in fact still a moot point. You should read the transcript of the BP oral hearings — it would enlighten you as to what is evidentially established, what is not established, and what remains in dispute.
Frankly, by constantly reinserting the word 'inert' you are making an ass of yourself. It is your POV, WCC's POV, and Sispar's POV — but it has not been demonstrated.

Bwmiller (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but please read the article once again:

In relation to an inert landfill which is on the site the board has agreed that it can stay, but has ordered that no houses be built on it.

As you can quite clearly see, the assertion is made by An Bord Pleanála - the neutral party - not either WCC or Sispar. Once again, please don't quote me something you say you have heard in an oral hearing - show me a reference. I've reverted you and reported you to an admin for your constant casual vandalism and for violation of WP:NPA. Schcambo (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Greystones. 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).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Greystones. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080215060851/http://www.naznef.org:80/districts/districtdetail.asp?District=Ireland to http://www.naznef.org/districts/districtdetail.asp?District=Ireland

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).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Greystones. 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).

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) 16:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greystones. 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/20090123145508/http://www.greystonestheatre.com/ to http://www.greystonestheatre.com/

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).

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) 05:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]