Jump to content

Talk:Barry O'Farrell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opposition leader section

[edit]

This section appears to only cover the high points in O'Farrell's time as opposition leader. The whole article reads like it was written by the Liberal Party, but this is the most important section to get right. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? what bit of his leadership period do you suggest we add? I'm not sure this NPOV dispute is justified..what bits of the article suggest a biased point of view? I have been improving this artice for some time and I would appreciate a little more information justifying your dispute. Regards Stravin (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D has already gone quite a way in cleaning up the Liberal bias in the article. Timeshift (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal bias?! How about labor biased editors? you still havent answered my questions. Allow me to dispute a few little edits:

a) HM opposition remains the official title and I would not think of it as 'antiquated' as he so eloquently put it. It is used quite a lot, a simple websearch of the title would prove that and is even used in the reference no. 2 by Quentn Dempster on Stateline, a show that I would not consider to be 'antiquated'.

b) stating that the 1999 referendum 'failed' is important to inform in the article that o'farrell voted against the republic that failed against the majority of voters.

That said, i commmend the edits removing some of the PR-like information, though i would prefer it if you tried rewriting or adding some better information, as opposed to just removing it and letting it stand.

Still waiting for your answers... Stravin (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


No articles? oh really...is he not an opposition leader? Stravin (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section doesn't mention a single setback, any criticisms of his actions/polices [for instance, the editorials in the SMH and The Australian saying that the opposition isn't much better than the Government] or responses to his arguments from the Government. That's a bit of an oversight for an article on any politician. Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Point taken. That's an oversight on my part. Maybe its because i find any Government responses not credible? any help with that on this page woud be greatly appreciated. Regards Stravin (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no Australian opposition leaders. But you really should pull back a bit on your Liberal bias Stravin... it's not pretty. Timeshift (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My liberal bias?! Maybe i like a bit of stability in this country, constitutionally, socially, and economically...anyway thats for another time.

May i point out that i'm arguing for its use on this page, not advocating what others have done on other pages. I'd like to point you to these references where it is used, and a simple google search will produce thus:

  • ABC Stateline: [1] "QUENTIN DEMPSTER: The other big news over Easter was the election of Barry O'Farrell as leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party and Her Majesty’s Opposition."
  • Parliament of Tasmania: [2] "In fact, the Opposition is so much a part of the structure that it has been known as His or Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition."
  • Parliament of NSW, where it is discussed by a former Labor Treasurer: [3]

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and their support for the bill. I thought the Hon. D. T. Harwin delivered a very impressive speech. It could have been even more impressive. The most impressive speech that has ever been made in this House - and it was made on at least 30 occasions - consisted of five words: "The Opposition supports the bill." It was a speech that was regularly made by the then leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, the Hon. Michael Egan.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Bryan Vaughan said, "Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition".

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Okay, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

  • Sydney Morning Herald 27 February 2009: [4]

Burke flexed his rod and cast effortlessly, mentioning that he had had the privilege of viewing an interview on Tuesday night between Kerry O'Brien of the ABC and Malcolm Turnbull of her majesty's loyal Opposition.

Are they not credible sources? and while 'Opposition Leader' or 'Leader of the Opposition' is quite common, may i point out that 'Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition' is the official title and is not in such disuse as some would have you believe Stravin (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said HMLO was incorrect. I simply said it wasn't in common use in Australian politics articles on wikipedia. Leader of the Opposition is what is commonly used, and acceptable. There is no need for HMLO. I suggest if you wish HMLO to be used all over the oz politics pages, that you gain consensus for it. And there's a massive difference between liberalism and Liberal Party ideology - modern Labor is more liberal than the Liberal Party. But yes, that's for another time. Timeshift (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said i wanted for every article but if it is not acceptable for sake of consistency then i will concede. Perhaps i counld put it somewhere else in the article just to note that that is his official title. In the Opposition leader section perhaps? cheers Stravin (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's pointless on this page. The full HMLO title is given in the lead at Opposition (Australia). It could also be woven in somewhere at Leader of the Opposition (New South Wales). But no opposition leaders in Australia have HMLO, so there's no reason why it needs to be on here. I'm just arguing for consistency's sake. Why you're so intent on the full HMLO title for this page, which is such a triviality, has me baffled. Timeshift (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, i won't. I'll put it into Leader of the Opposition (New South Wales) but not Barry who will just have to be a plain old leader instead of a loyal one. As long as we're clear and i know the reasons why. Regards Stravin (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Children Section

[edit]

O'Farrells children are not elected to parliament. They do not have to be named or for the extreme morons their middle names published. They are under 18 and are still at school. If you think it is fair to have their names there have a look at Kevin Rudd's article it doesn't have his childrens names on his article or Malcolm Turnbull's article, his childrens middle names are not there. Or even the president of the United States of America, Barack Obama it does not state his childrens middle names either.

Please stop undoing my edits to protect there privacy. Watchover —Preceding undated comment added 06:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

What exists or doesn't exist in other articles is not relevant. This is an encyclopaedia and while we required to do many things, like maintaining a neutral point of view, protecting someone's privacy is not one of them. Threee editors have now opposed your removal of this information. Please do not continue to delete it. Wikipedia uses consensus and so far it appears that consensus is to retain the information. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"so far it appears that consensus is to retain the information." No it doesn't; there is no consensus. The guy who doesn't sign his posts is adamant that the information shouldn't be there. The children have no place in the encyclopaedia anyway, since they're not notable. I remember an argument in the David Copperfield (illusionist) article, where it listed his grandfather etc. This is even more ridiculous than the David Copperfield article, since the children are by no means noteworthy and there is the obvious privacy issue.(Huey45 (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
It's pretty basic really. To make contentious changes, you need WP:CONSENSUS, or at least a majority of users agreeing with your position. So far you aren't close to either. Timeshift (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

[edit]

Please see talk:Kristina Keneally for more discussion about this topic.

Re: Nationality flag in the Nationality section of the info box. Watchover (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the discussion is in the Kristina Keneally article talk page, I'm in support of no flags as they add no educational value to the article and person. Bidgee (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

info box picture

[edit]
1
2
3
4
5

Has anyone any suggestions to which is the better of the three pictures to be used in the info box. They are all usefull to the article although the 3rd one I suggest would be better suited for the purpose as it is a close up, has less distractions (i.e does not posses a sign [picture one], does not have a big red box reading 'FIRE HOSE REEL' nor an obscure lamp and brick work in the picture [picture two]. Also the third picture when compared to the second is not revealing anything unusual in the crutch region similar to that of a cameltoe as seen in the 2nd picture. It is also of better quality of the three with less shade interference and is a close up, allowing the viewer to recognise the individuals facial and body size. Cactus1974 (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is the "magic watch" that mysteriously jumps from his left wrist to his right wrist between pics 1 and 3. If you can reverse pic 3 then I think it is the best option, without shadow or distracting background. WWGB (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised some concerns about the editor to an Admin. I do have other photos (Trying to locate my High res photos) but did find one mid res (which I've cropped). Bidgee (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a 4th picture, I originally flipped it horizontal because his left shoulder dissappears in the clouds, after it was flipped I played with the contrast the best I could. Any suggestions regarding the 4th one? Cactus1974 (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone any objections about changing the picture in the info box from picture #2 to picture #4? Speak now (give it a day) or forever hold your peace. Cactus1974 (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support pic#4 in principle, however, it requires more work to separate the shirt from the background. WWGB (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No support from me, overexposed. Bidgee (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still looking for the other DVD (as I used two memory cards on the day), only one image from the one I found is ok (have uploaded the high res cropped over the mid res). Also Cactus1974 is a sock of Stravin/Watchover. Bidgee (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What has a blocked user got to do with the photos. I found a reference for the photos [5] photo four is my choice if it is cleaned up to something like pic three. Photo five is useless compared to the others as it is not front on, so between four, three and two in that order. 124.179.0.131 (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be posting a picture that you've manipulated. It goes against the whole principle underlying a photograph. You are giving a falsified view of the world. Your picture has him wearing his watch on the wrong arm. The encyclopaedia should contain real photographs only. You're lying to us about the extent of your changes anyway. There's part of a man's head sticking out from behind the leg but the size of the head indicates that he can't possibly have been standing behind Barry O'Farrell.(Huey45 (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Is this in regards to flipping images? Personally I don't think images should be flipped, but if there's a compelling reason, I don't see a big issue. Flipping doesn't change an image in the way that typical "photoshopping" does. Timeshift (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ranga

[edit]

Should this be included? Timeshift (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it even newsworthy? I dont think the gutter press has mad an issue of it either. At least not yet anyway. I'm inclined to think not. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless it develops into anything important. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further infobox photo discussion

[edit]

There has been recent discussion about these two photographs for the infobox. I must say that I prefer the second photo. It is closer, more open and informs more about the subject. Moreover, he looks so glum in the first photo. Any other opinions? WWGB (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal level, I don't mind, but I think we should go for the status quo here until we find a better photo of him. The current photo is clear and it shows the liberal logo behind him. It also gives information as to where he was when the photo was taken. The second one, however, is poor in resolution and doesn't tell us where or exactly when it was taken. If someone uploads a superior and informative image I will gladly support it but currently, in my view, we don't have any suitable alternative.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Premier/Premier-elect

[edit]

Others may have noticed that I created an editnotice regarding O'Farrell not being Premier until sworn in by the Governor (see Template:Editnotices/Page/Barry O'Farrell). Given that there appear to be similar problems with the addition of "Premier-elect", perhaps we should form a consensus around the use of this title, and whether the editnotice should be changed to reflect this consensus.  -- Lear's Fool 02:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit notice was a good idea, but I think we will just have to tough this out until BOF is sworn in. The same thing happened when Rudd became PM. Well-meaning but uninformed editors think they need to update the Premier info asap. WWGB (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


As far as I am aware there is no such title of premier-elect, informal or official in the Commonwealth of Australia or any other Commonwealths realm. This is due to the constitutional conventions surrounding the Powers of the Crown which give the right to choose the Prime Minister to the Governor as representative of HM Queen Elizabeth in the State of New South Wales; The appointment of Prime Minister is by convention by way of the leader of the largest party or leader of the group most capable of being able to deliver government and hold confidence of the State parliament. Essentially, O'Farrell remains Leader of the Liberals and an MP until he is invited to the State governor's house or wherever else the Governor chooses to appoint and swear in Mr O'Farrell. Kaiserm (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid a hidden revision of someone putting in O'Farrell as 43rd Premier - is there any consensus on that? Kaiserm (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to go through this same discussion all over again every time there's a change of government anywhere in Australia. What you say is true about there being no official status as "premier-elect". But unofficially, and colloquially, and for practical purposes, B O'F is indeed the premier-elect. It would be unthinkable for the Governor to invite anyone but him to become Premier. The millions who voted for his party did so in the expectation that he and he alone would become the Premier, and in their eyes, he is now the Premier in all but name until he's sworn in, i.e Premier-elect. The term is very widely used in the media and in the general community in these periods. We don't need some act of parliament to allow us to use very widely-used political terminology. Last question: He is not the Premier yet, and should not be shown as such until he's actually sworn in. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with Premier-elect is that there is no election, in parliament, the party or the electorate, for the position of Premier. The Leader is elected by the parliamentary party, but the Premiership flows as a consequence of the party's majority. In view of the apparent acceptance of the term Prime Minister-designate, perhaps we could use Premier-designate? WWGB (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The -designate suffix is used for people announced as the next governor or governor-general. They are appointed to the post, i.e. designated without ever being elected. The -elect suffix is used for elected offices. The governor has not yet called on BOF to form a government, so even if we wanted to use the premier-designate terminology (which I don't), it's not yet time. So what is he till then? It's true that in Australia we don't have a US presidential system where the president is directly elected by the people (technically, that doesn't apply even there, because they elect the Electoral College, which in turn elects the President - but let's not quibble). But in practical terms, people who voted Labor yesterday did so in the hope that KK would continue as premier, and those who voted Liberal did so in the hope that BOF would become premier. Those were the only two possible outcomes here. People in Byron Bay or Bourke would say "I voted for Keneally", or "I voted for O'Farrell", when actually they voted for whoever their local candidates were. In that sense, it's as close to a direct election for premier as we're likely to get, and the reality is that BOF has been elected premier and is therefore currently the premier-elect. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy

[edit]

The statement recently added "O'Farrell's first marriage was to xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx in 1987, but the union lasted for less than a year and he seeks to maintain the privacy of his former wife.[46][47]" Respecting a BLP's privacy is important. The naming his first wife is unnecessary in the context of this article. I note that both cites (tabloid media) also name his first wife. I have removed this statement. CamV8 (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the sentence without the name. I think at least that is required for a good biography (especially since it's the context for a dispute in parliament). Reliable sources should not be removed because *they* name someone. This clearly complies with WP:WELLKNOWN, and I still think the reliable sources justify using a name per WP:BLPNAME, but I'm happy to leave it if editorial consensus is against. --99of9 (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a spouse or ex-spouses name should be included, that's just common sense and is the norm for all political leader articles. Timeshift (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resides

[edit]

Premier O'Farrell lives in Turramurra. Reliable source http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/0/275291281FA0F28E4A2567450001658A CamV8 (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early life section

[edit]

States: "In 1985, O'Farrell was employed as Chief of Staff for Bruce Baird, a cabinet minister in the New South Wales government." However the Greiner Government was not elected until 1988, when Bruce Baird was first appointed a Minister. Suggest 1985 should read 1988. Katieqs (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When can this article be split into "O'Farrell" the person, and "The O'Farrell Government"?

[edit]

I note the O'Farrell government has now made some decisions (both good and bad) depending on your point of view. For example the recent addition to this article "O'Farrell" about public housing. Could this be separated into a new article called "O'Farrell Government"? The reason I ask is that I don't want to go to the trouble of writing it if I shouldn't bother. CamV8 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually expressed concern about the recent housing addition at Talk:Sydney. The public housing addition was originally added to Sydney under "Housing",[6] but it violated WP:NOTNEWS. After I removed it, it was partially restored, but was then added to Pru Goward and here as well, so I'm concerned at the motives behind the additions. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to be concerned, as my inclusion of the information is based on the historic nature of the buildings in question, thereby qualifying notability—this is not based on any political motivation, believe me. I was initially intending to include the update in the "O'Farrell Ministry" page, but it did not seem appropriate, as the page reads like one large table. I am unsure how to best resolve this, but I will certainly be further exploring the "Housing" section of the Sydney page so that its content is of a broader nature.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't be much of an article now :) If only we could all forget a $3000 bottle of vintage Grange and a letter of thanks. Timeshift (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is remarkably little coverage of his government here - the fairly heavy editing of NSW Liberal Party-related articles when they were in opposition suddenly stopped when they formed government. I can't help but suspect that the people doing the editing suddenly became much busier ;) (but at least they followed WP:COI, if only by fortunate coincidence). Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there's any Australian political party that had drones here, it's the NSW branch of the Liberal Party. I would dispute WP:COI was followed during that time. Timeshift (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly wasn't being followed before the election Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I propose removal of the following text in the article:
In mid-March 2014, the O'Farrell state government's Community Services Minister, Pru Goward, announced the prospective sale of around 300 harbourfront public housing properties under the management of Government Property NSW. Goward explained that the proceeds generated from the sale, expected to be in the hundreds of millions, will be reinvested into the public housing system. Considered historic structures, the harbourfront properties are located at Millers Point, The Rocks and on Gloucester Street, and include the Sirius complex, a high-rise, 79-unit apartment complex near the Harbour Bridge that is an example of brutalist architecture.
on the basis that the decision is not a clearly defining moment or decision in the life of Barry O'Farrell, in his term as Premier, or even perhaps in the term of his Government. There are possibly many other defining decisions (e.g. 2nd casino, rail lines and ticketing solutions, health service delivery, planning laws, privatisation, etc.) that may be worthy of inclusion that relate to his personal values. However this one very recent decision is, in this editor's humble opinion, not worthy of inclusion on the article about Barry O'Farrell (the person). Given that there are no direct quotes from O'Farrell about this decision, I propose its removal. If anything, the paragraph may be edited and placed under The Rocks, which is desperately lacking citations for wide claims about property prices and public tenants. Comments and feedback from other editors are welcome. Thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese honorary doctorate

[edit]

I suggest removing:

During a visit to Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates in May 2012, O'Farrell was awarded an Honorary Doctorate from the Lebanese Maronite Order Université Saint-Esprit de Kaslik. In receiving the honour, O'Farrell said:[49] "This Honorary Doctorate from a renowned university honours the relationship between the people of NSW and the people of Lebanon, as much as it does any individual. It is therefore particularly humbling to receive it. I sincerely hope that my current visit to Lebanon conveys the high esteem in which the Government and people of NSW hold the Lebanese community, and reflects my desire to foster an even closer and more productive relationship, including in the field of education."

He got an honorary doctorate and said something nice on the occasion, as one does. Maybe a brief mention in a "community relations" subsection (compare the structure of the article Bob Carr). But of course we should mention this award in an "Awards" section. Wikiain (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Note

[edit]

THis section is not quite right. The note was given to the Telegraph firstly, and a copy to ICAC. There was no way ICAC could then ignore it, even though they wanted to. Watson expressed regret over the $3000 bottle of wine affair. Yet Watson had belittled MacDonald in public for the $500 services of Tiffany. Unlike MacDonald and Obeid, O'Farrell is a proven liar. The source of the note is still a mystery.220.240.251.230 (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a place for blasphemy against others. If you have a claim or statement to make, please back it in up with links to sources. Also consider bold editing backed with references. Others will either agree or disagree and progress will be made. Rangasyd (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

change in status?

[edit]

a bunch of changes were made, changing verbs to past tense etc. apparently his status has changed, sourced content needs to be introduced explaining that before all those changes are made. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He retired fromn parliament before the election - see [7]. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks that makes sense. my revert was just an abundance of caution since this is a BLP and the changes were made with no edit notes. thanks for taking the time to write that, Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Barry O'Farrell. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barry O'Farrell. 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, 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: 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) 18:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Barry O'Farrell. 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, 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: 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) 13:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Barry O'Farrell. 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) 08:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barry O'Farrell. 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) 00:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barry O'Farrell. 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) 15:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barry_O%27Farrell&oldid=1202929538"