Talk:Deaths in January 2008

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

Is this necessary so early?[edit]

Is this necessary so early? I haven't seen anything about people that have already died on 01/01/2008. 84.193.48.9 (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its already 2008. xero-7 (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • here's to another year of death hoaxes, memorials and schoolboy rubbish! tomasz. 07:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Granville - motive unclear[edit]

Until we have a source supporting the argument that he was assassinated, we should not decide on the motivation for his murder. It might have been a random, unprovoked shooting. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 01:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Benham - No Source[edit]

This death has no source attached to it and I cannot find any information via google. Please can someone either reference this death or remove it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.49.238 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's what the "citation needed" tag was for. however i have removed this entry anyway as it's been unreferenced for long enough. tomasz. 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Imiko "Imi" Okazaki Mullins[edit]

This person seems to have no notability outside her relationship to her father. Should her entry be deleted? Be best (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WWGB (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Can I ask if it's okay for me to delete such cases, or is it better to raise it with an admin (and if so, is this the way to do it?) Be best (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The general "consensus" around here is that most "redlinks" (death notices without a corresponding Wikipedia article) remain for one month before deletion. This gives editors sufficient time to write an article about a recently-deceased person. Having said that, some death notices refer to those who appear not to be notable (like this case in point). In such cases, the notice might be deleted immediately. Remember the Wikipedia guideline: be bold. WWGB (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if the article was deleted in an WP:AfD vote, it can be removed before the month is up, as the community has decided de jure that the individual is not notable (I consider a month-long red link to be de facto). Cheers, CP 04:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Shearer[edit]

This is another one of those sensational criminal cases where CNN picks up the death of perfectly NN person at the hands of another perfectly NN person, due to vanish into utter obscurity in about ten days. I think an AfD is in order. Thoughts? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cannibalism aspect makes it notable, if gruesome, because it's incredibly rare. But whether the victim should have her own entry, or even the crime should, is highly debatable.Be best (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting debate. Food for thought. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject, I don't believe that Meredith Emerson is notable, but she is a death in 2008 and she does have her own page. Rather than start a revert war, since we don't have a date of death, is there any objection to listing her under January 7 with a "body discovered" notification as we did for that one singer whose body was found a few months after Hurricane Katrina? I'm not talking about an objection regarding her notability (she's presume notable for the purposes of this list until her article disappears, and that can be debate on her page), but rather an objection based on style. Cheers, CP 04:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was Barry Cowsill, whose death is noted at Deaths in September 2005 on 1 September, which was the last day that he was known to be alive [1]. WWGB (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript: this article seems to confirm that Emerson's date of death was 4 January. WWGB (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meredith is off to prod-land. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and immediately declined without comment by an anon. tomasz. 17:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is cordially invited to take part in a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredith Emerson. Jana is clearly next. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well wait until the AfD finishes before adding. I also that my latest addition to the list, Wei Wenhua, won't last long either. Cheers, CP 17:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shu Uemura[edit]

I read his obit via the AP recently, yet his name is conspicuously missing from this page. Surely the praise circulating his work and self-named line of cosmetics makes him notable, no? I realize he doesn't have an article yet, but it wouldn't be the first time that someone gets their first Wiki article post-mortem. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 09:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I just looked it up and he passed away in late December but only now is his death being reported. Hence he doesn't belong on this page. D'oh. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 09:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Hillary[edit]

Hillary was not the first person to climb Everest. He was apparently the first person to put his foot on the summit, but he was part of a team, which included Tenzing Norgay, who also climbed the mountain. Might be nice to not maintain the idea that only white men's achievements count?.Be best (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue for the article talk page, not here. I've changed the entry to just read "mountaineer". Tevildo (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't revert but I strongly disagree with that edit. Some indication of notability in the deaths page is not uncommon, and in this case, it's like 'first man on the moon'. He's not just a mountaineer - he's the mountaineer for many people.Be best (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is madness! The "team" did not reach the summit, Hillary and Tenzing did. Whether Hillary was first alone, or first together with Tenzing, he was still first. And that's what the notice states. WWGB (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
why are you yelling at me? I agree with you! It's simply inaccurate to say he's the first to climb the mountain, but he reached the summit first, and that's what my last edit says. I'm not doing this in the interest of 'political correctness', I'm interested in accuracy. I didn't remove the references to 'first on the summit' - I put them there.Be best (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be best, I certainly wasn't yelling at you. I was just very frustrated, like you, at editors who seek to diminish Sir Edmund's achievement and regard him as just another "mountaineer". I will adjust the indentation to make clear where my response is directed. Regards, WWGB (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you've moved your comment under my original one. If you want to object to Tevildo's edit, you should reply to him. You reverted his edit to the one I made, so I assume you found mine more acceptable. I am in agreement that merely stating he was a 'mountaineer' is ridiculously understating the man's notability (when I said I objected to 'that edit', I meant Tevildo's edit.) I do not agree that he should be described as the first person to climb Mt Everest, as that's palpably untrue even from the cited sources. Describing him as the first person to reach the top is a rather ethnocentric and debatable description, but it's an acceptable shorthand for what is more properly discussed, if at all, in his main article. I hope this makes my position clear. I won't be editing his deaths entry again, as it's now becoming contentious. You guys can hash it out between yourselves. Be best (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for any upset caused. The current version is accurate, and, I hope, uncontroversial; the version I replaced ([2]) wasn't, in my opinion. Tevildo (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the Edmund_Hillary page it states that although initially they claimed they had reached the summit together after Norgays death he revealed that he was actually first. 194.200.145.5 (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can someone explain the difference between being the first to climb a mountain and being the first to reach its summit? i feel there's a subtle distinction i'm missing somehow. tomasz. 13:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mountaineering is a team sport - Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary did it together, and who put their foot on the top first is almost irrelevant. They climbed it together. If you know the least thing about Sir Edmund, you'd know he'd be the first person to point that out. It's like - two people race hand in hand to a stile, but only one person can cross at a time. Do you claim only that person was 'first' purely because of that physical limitation? That's my feeling anyway. Others can and will disagree. Be best (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many people "climbed Mt Everest" before Hillary and Tenzing, but none of them as far as we know reached the summit. If I set out to reach the top of Everest, and got to within 200 metres of the summit before turning back, I would feel quite justified in saying that I "climbed Mt Everest". It doesn't necessarily imply I reached the top. It just means that I clambered over parts of the surface of the mountain, which may or may not include the summit. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Competition?[edit]

Seems we have a competitor. See Deaths in 2008/Wikinews (unless a speedy deletion occurs). WWGB (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page has been moved to Template:Wikinewshas/Deaths in 2008 and the resulting redirect deleted. Миша13 23:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. "If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so." The territoriality exhibited by WWGB is unbecoming of a valued editor. RichardF (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Wikinews update on obits is not vandalism or just plain goofy. It is part of a broader effort to more closely collaborate between the Wikinews and Wikipedia projects! See User:Wikinews Importer Bot and n:Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous#The Wikinews Importer Bot. No maintenance is involved. The Wikinews list will be updated hourly, as needed, by the User:Wikinews Importer Bot. The value of this link is it clearly shows the obituary items available at Wikinews for readers and editors, thus promoting and encouraging further inter project collaboration. This is a good thing! RichardF (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see WP:REDUNDANT. "Before creating a new article, run a search for the topic — you may find a related one that already exists. Consider adding to existing articles before creating an entirely new one." I agree that your Wikinews update is neither vandalism nor goofy, it just promotes incorrect information (wrong dates of death). WWGB (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a candidate for speedy! I'm not totally following what the dispute/disagreement is. We want to increase the visibility of Wikinews on Wikpedia and this bot is the best tool - to date - for this. If it draws in a handful of new contributors who want to see stories on their favourite portals then it is serving its purpose. --Brian McNeil /talk 14:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would putting it in a sisterlinks box be more acceptable? Bawolff (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews has obituaries for:
I'll try that. RichardF (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow indeed! You view this as competition? Wikimedia sister projects are supposed to cooperate, not compete with each other. At first glance you can notice that Wikinews items are massively linking to articles on Wikipedia. It is only fair that it gets some traffic (a.k.a. potential contributors) back as well. Миша13 18:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current format with the links in this box seems to work out nicely. Cirt (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

If the only purpose is transclusion this should be a template and not something in the article namespace. --W.marsh 23:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine with me, as long as it's not just moving the deletion sentiments to a new namespace. RichardF (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an article... so I oppose it as one. Articles stand alone and thus have prose introductions and categories at the minimum, it looks like this page never will. But as a template it seems okay. --W.marsh 23:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict, third today! Template upgraded, pages moved out of article space. Миша13 23:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entries without an online reference[edit]

I've been doing this long enough, so I'm not sure why this hasn't come up sooner, but what do we do for entries whose death was published in a reliable source offline, but not online? I suppose this list doesn't need everyone on it (thought it would be nice for completeness sake), but I was just curious. I'm referring to Joan Dingley in this case, and I'm assuming good faith since I haven't seen the work myself (and probably won't, since that citation seems a bit incomplete). Just wondering. Cheers, CP 00:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've generally found that if a person is sufficiently notable to warrant a WP article, then their death is usually covered somewhere on the web, meaning that the awkward "non-web" reference is not necessary. Applying the {{Fact}} tag for a couple of days usually ensures that an editor will find a reference somewhere. WWGB (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. I'll give it a few days and see what turns up. Cheers, CP 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

testicles[edit]

Plz remove the picture of testicles on this page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.136.51 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the balls, please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.14.44 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try reloading the page (shift-reload). You probably just have an older version. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • looks like i missed the balls. next time tho, it might be quicker to remove them yourself than to post a message asking someone else. tomasz. 12:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove them yourself? Ouch! WWGB (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
haha, thanks for making me giggle Cryomaniac (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i frankly walked into that one. WWGB, you tone-lowerer. :-p tomasz. 13:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffes?[edit]

Do 'notable animals' belong in this section? (Gemima, Jan 9th) I was surprised to see her here. Tempra mental (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Deaths in 2007#Animals. Deceased notable animals have been reported here for quite some time. WWGB (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't really BELONG here, but get reported here all the same. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Disabled[edit]

Editing has been disabled for non-registered users such as myself, presumably due to vandalism because of the high-profiled nature of Heath Ledger's passing. Can someone therefore add this death as I cannot

Paddy McGuinness, 69, Australian, editor of Quadrant Magazine. [3]

Thank you. 210.50.60.19 (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Deaths in 2008 has indeed been semi-protected, I believe the block should be removed forthwith. The experienced editors here can deal with any vandalism promptly. This is a page where new editors often make their first contribution to Wikipedia. That opportunity should not be stifled. WWGB (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the semi-protection... but kept move protection. --W.marsh 01:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Brando[edit]

Is it completely necessary to include such a lengthy notability/biographical note for his entry on this page? I reverted an edit once which has been undone - can an admin please made a decision on this? If someone is convicted of voluntary manslaughter, they've been convicted of killing and 'once' suggests that most people are convicted more than once! Be best (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered user 68.9.118.210 keeps reverting it, always without explanation. I have edited once more. WWGB (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names and piping in Recent Deaths[edit]

There are different opinions about the use of the "Wikiname" (article title) of a deceased person, or an alternate name (perhaps a name by which they were more commonly known). Here are two recent examples:
[[Padraic McGuinness]] or [[Padraic McGuinness|P.P. McGuinness]], [[Evelyn Barbirolli]] or [[Evelyn Barbirolli|Lady Barbirolli]].

Is there any chance of a consensus on this matter? I don't think there is any specific Wikipedia policy or guideline that covers this situation.

Personally, I favour consistent use of the article title, but I'm not welded to the position. WWGB (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Evelyn Barbirolli Case, using her first name is far more important than her title (which was not bestowed on her personally, but resulted from marriage.) My feeling is that the name should be what the person was best known by - if it's a byline for a journalist, or a stage name or whatever. The Wiki article title may not always reflect that, but in a 'news' list, which recent deaths is, the best known name is what people will look for.Be best (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Evelyn Barbirolli's case, it's a bit complicated. She was originally Evelyn Rothwell, and she retained that professional name all throughout her career and while Sir John was alive. Only after her husband died did she decide to take his surname professionally - which is a bit odd, and I can't think of any similar case. However her performing career by that stage was finished, although she did go on to teach and write. All her classic recordings were made earlier, by "Evelyn Rothwell". Old-stagers like me will always think of her as Evelyn Rothwell, even though we know she was formally Lady Barbirolli. Most music lovers would not have been aware she had ever changed her name (I wasn't aware until I read her obits). They remember her as Evelyn Rothwell, oboist. Maybe she changed her name to reflect her new life as a teacher/writer; that is, there was an oboist named Evelyn Rothwell, and there was a teacher named Evelyn Barbirolli. But there was never an oboist named Evelyn Barbirolli, and there was never a teacher/writer named Evelyn Rothwell. For notability purposes, I'd suggest she's far, far better known as Evelyn Rothwell, oboist, than under any other name or occupation. If she had never been a performer, but only ever taught and wrote, it's debatable whether she'd be notable enough to qualify for an article at all. So maybe we should move the article to Evelyn Rothwell.
I agree.Be best (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the McGuinness question, his legal name was Padraic Pearse McGuinness, but he was never known as that except on his birth certificate, driver's licence, etc. His byline was always, always "P. P. McGuinness", and he was referred to casually as "Paddy McGuinness". Never, never was he known as just "Padraic McGuinness", except perhaps by his school teachers. Do we have an article on "William Clinton"? Nope, only a disambig page. What this suggests is that the name of McGuinness's article should be changed to his most familiar name - "P. P. McGuinness". Then we'll be able to list him here under that name.
Final comment: The policy on mirroring the exact article title doesn't work in all cases, particularly where a disambiguation is part of the title itself (eg. Alan Jones (Formula 1)). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on in Norway?[edit]

Has anyone noticed a strange spike in the number of deaths reported for Norweigians? 86.0.192.193 (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a bad month to be a head of a church too!Be best (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • i can't offer any comment on being the head of a church, but i noticed the Norwegian thing too. i assumed the spike was due to this page getting some diligent Norwegians editing more regularly, although obviously i don't know whether it's down to that or a strange mortality epidemic in that country (let us hope for the former)... tomasz. 11:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could say the same thing about Poland.74.140.136.51 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Loginova - is she worth an article or not?[edit]

I could create one based on the recent press coverage (do a Google News search), but I am unsure as to whether it might fail WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:BIO1E. Thoughts?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a whole lot of reasons why she could be considered notable: (1) her unusual profession (for a woman) (2) the circumstances of her death (3) the fact that her death was reported on four continents - USA, UK, Russia and Australia. There are lots of people on WP with less notability. If you do write an article, be prepared for those who will say she is "just another murder victim". There may well be requests for speedy deletion or AfD. If you write a strong article (not just a stub) and be prepared to defend it, I think it has a good chance for acceptance. WWGB (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ashcroft[edit]

Briton Peter Ashcroft, the Competitions Manager and later Motorsport Director of Ford of Europe, passed away last Sunday. As he used to live in South Carolina for the last couple of years there is very little information about his death over here in Europe. I was not able to find a quotable source up to WP standards yet, only this forum thread started by the famous rallying codriver Fred Gallagher. Can anyone help with more information to include Ashcroft in the list asap? – RX-Guru (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, based on what I've read on those links, he doesn't seem to be very notable. Your difficulty in finding citations is probably a good indicator of that.Be best (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"He doesn't seem to be very notable"…? Peter Ashcroft ruled Ford’s entire motorsport programmes (incl. in the WRC) for many a year. RX-Guru (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... so it won't be difficult to show us the references? WWGB (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable enough. Daniel (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a paid obituary, not a news item. There's no dispute that the man died, or that he worked for Ford. But anyone can take out an obit and say what they like in it. The forum link originally linked is more use than that.Be best (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Padilla, Jr (29 Jan)[edit]

Why has he been added back? The ref given is not a news source and I've been unable to locate any other reference to his death. Surely a better citation than a bare mention on a website is needed? Be best (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that entry as there is still no independent confirmation anywhere else of his death. Subject is notable enough that some news source somewhere would have carried it.Be best (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about these (not exactly news sources, but):

http://www.einsiders.com/features/columns/jan08obituaries.php

http://www.americangraffiti.net/

Shouldn't this be in the January discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.12.223 (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the notice at Deaths in January 2008 (and moved this discussion to January talk page). The einsiders website is often used here as the reference for deaths. WWGB (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry this one was confirmed, actually. I was a big fan of Jai and the Ron Ely Tarzan series.Be best (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Deaths in January 2008. 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: 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) 00:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Deaths in January 2008. 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: 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) 11:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Deaths in January 2008. 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: 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) 22:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deaths in January 2008. 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: 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) 02:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_January_2008&oldid=1206073008"