Talk:Ed Hochuli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Ed Hochuli/Comments)
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Ed Hochuli has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 9, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
November 10, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

External Link?[edit]

The second external link supposedly goes to an article on Hochuli being puzzled about his celebrity status, but instead goes to a short article explaining who the crew for that Superbowl will be, and how they were chosen. Darquis 18:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you may be confused about which citation method is currently being used on this article. Footnotes are not being used. Instead it is embedded HTML citations with a seperate external links section. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
If you are referring about the Palm Beach Post article, I had to remove the external link because they removed from public view.[1] It may be best to move it a "further reading" section. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Stan Kemp[edit]

Who's the fucking genius who provided the 'Stan Kemp' link? It goes to a list of one-time NHLers. Seriously, what is the matter with you guys? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jakomull (talkcontribs) 08:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Well, if you find something wrong then fix it! Be BOLD! That's the beauty of Wikipedia, anyone can edit it. RyguyMN 20:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This template must be substituted. Replace {{GAList with {{subst:GAList.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Congratulations; this article has passed the GA nomination process! It's obvious a lot of work has gone into it...it's outstanding. I was really impressed with the quality of the references, and how his personality and life outside of football are so well integrated into the article.

Looking towards the future, the non-free status of the pictures currently included might hold it back from A or FA status. Playing devil's advocate, I could imagine someone arguing, "you could just go to a game and take his picture, so it's not impossible to get a free alternative." Also, I would suggest only listing the lowest and highest seniority per-game salary levels in the examples of offical's pay before the 2001 contract agreement.

Thanks for your great contribution to Wikipedia, and good luck with the article in the future! Monowi 08:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to review this article. It was fun to clean up. I've changed the salary information to make it a range between a rookie official and twenty-year veteran official. RyguyMN 16:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Pretty sure the ticket you buy to get in the game includes a contract where you agree not to use video/pictures taken there for commercial purposes. --Rividian (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Since when did Wikipedia become a commercial site? The last time I checked they are not for profit. RyguyMN (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
See the GFDL or public domain and any other "free" copyright status, they all require the images be allowed to be used for any purpose. Some of our mirrors are for profit. --Rividian (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I see what you are saying, but I'm still not convinced there's been any wrongdoing. I think this should be addressed at a higher level since many NFL related articles contain in-stadium photos. Take Brett Favre as one example. It should be "all-or-nothing" in this case for consistency with policy. RyguyMN (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
If there's any wrongdoing, it's between the stadium/team and the ticketholder/photographer; they are the ones who have the contract. Wikipedia is using photographs released freely by the photographer. Whether the photographer should have done so is between that person and the team. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Under the status quo, yes, we could have an image of him taken from a game, despite the ticket contract. And I doubt that contract would hold up in court, but who knows. As far as I know the leagues have not gone after fan-created media from games, despite prominently claiming fans are restricted from sharing the media they record at games. Nevertheless, people did raise a real issue at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4).JPG, I think they got shot down but you can read the full discussion if you want. --Rividian (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why remove Questionable call edits?[edit]

The article on Ed Hochuli is no longer factual. Prior to this past weekend, he may have been one of the most respected referees in the NFL. This is no longer true. He is currently the least respected referee in the NFL. A large number of football fans do not believe he should be a referee in the NFL. Therefore the article should be corrected according to rule number 2, to state that he is the least respected referee in the NFL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.63.51 (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

One call doesn't define an entire career --- WP:Recent RyguyMN (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that some of the edits on the San Diego Chargers and Denver Broncos game were rude and not within reason, but there was one edit that was good. Why did someone delete it? Wait until monday, when the papers come out. If you want citations, I will give you 50 tomorrow. Jojhutton (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the person who reverted the single edit you are referring to. What I will say is that I will immediately object to anything that does not comply with such policy pages as WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. And then I am going to reassess this article after the season ends to see if we need to rewrite as per WP:RECENT, because currently it only involves one regular season week 2 game that happened less than 24 hours ago – not a playoff or season-ending game like the tuck game or the phantom roughing the passer penalty, or one that leads to a rule change like a certain coin flip in 1998, or one that is listed in NFL lore. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
What you are saying, for the record, is that you will take it upon youself to determine what is worthy of this article and what is not without even having a discussion on it? So you will delete anything that YOU don't like? How many times have you done that before? Jojhutton (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I would not say that exactly. I cannot make that determination until some time has passed, and some discussion. Again, this week 2 regular season game only happened less than 24 hours ago, so I do not know the long term impact of such a questionable call. Does it lead to a rule change? Does the league fine Hochuli for an unprecedented amount? Is it repeated over and over again by the media in the future in 2009, 2010, etc. There have been a lot of questionable, game-ending calls during the regular season that have been forgotten by the media and fans (I can think of one of the top of my head that happened in 2000 that cost one of the more popular NFL teams a regular season game in September, and eventually left them one game out of the playoffs). All I know is that without the current semi-protection on the article, a lot of irate Chargers fans would try to repeatedly vandalise the page for the next few days. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
So my current basic position is that you can put something up for now as long it is properly cited so it reasonably passes the basic WP:BLP rules. In fact, I fully expect other established Wikipedia users who are Chargers fans to edit this page. But if it eventually becomes, as one user once said about a controversial officiating call, "hardly has any notoriety outside of fans of one team"[2], it may have to be removed in the future because it may give undue weight, especially if it is the only questionable call listed on the page out of the handful of controversial calls he has made during the regular season since becoming a NFL referee in the early 1990s. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Not a fan of either team, but this blown call needs to be mentioned. The NFL should still allow replays to overturn things even if the ref blows the whistle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.237.29.125 (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got a pretty good paragraph about that game in there now with three different citations of articles which mention Hochuli specifically, two of them in the title of the article. Feel free to edit if you think I've covered it inappropriately, but I certainly think this game qualifies as a significant game for Hochuli. Jredwards (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how necessary it is to mention the "interception" that was unable to be reviewed in the first half. It did have a big impact in the game, setting up an easy TD for the Broncos, but compared to everything that happened later on, it almost seems like more of an early sidenote. Hochuli's amazingly poor decision to blow Cutler's fumble dead is what really made this game notable, and that definitely warrants being included in this article. ChargersFan (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The first quarter incident is important because the replay was not working and that is very unusual in the NFL. I cannot recall the replay never working in an NFL game ever, but it doesn't mean it has never happened. Hochuli was the man in charge and is therefore responsible for the equipment malfunction, so it should be added as a notable addition to his article. Jojhutton (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
How is Hochuli directly responsible for the replay equipment malfunction? Unless he's directly responsible, I don't see how this is relevant at all to include in this article. He wasn't even the covering official who made the call on the field. RyguyMN (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Ed Hochuli was the lead official in the game and is responsible for his crew and equipment. Jojhutton (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense, the fault on that incident rests squarely on the official who made the call and whoever the techs were working the game. Unless Mr. Hochuli were to have delayed the game until the system could be repaired, he would have had no way, within the rules, to over turn the call, even if he knew the call was wrong.Londubh (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that Jojhutton's argument has no merit. So if your computer breaks down at work and you can't get any work done, it's your fault? I mean come on...give me a break, this is ridiculous. Talk about things beyond your control. RyguyMN (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Certain things may be beyond ones control, but he is responsible for the TV malfunction. He should have made sure that the equipment was operational before the game. If a computer breaks down at work, the boss is responsible for the loss of income and productivity, because the boss should have made sure that his equipment is in the best running order and working properly. The NFL is a billion dollar business and the league needs to hold officials accountable for everything that goes wrong, even the replay snafu. If Hochuli didn't have a ball, would he continue with the game anyway? No he would stop the game and rectify the situation. He should have done the same here. getting the call correct is the most importanat issue in this case. He should have found a way, even if that meant physically walking upstairs to see the booth TV, he should have done it.Jojhutton (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The equipment is tested prior to the game as well as the PA system. Officials don't come into these games without having their ducks in a row. I think you're being a little too prudent here. The referee isn't even allowed by rule to go up to the press box to review the play, so you're suggestion isn't possible. Still waiting for someone to come up with a rational argument on why Hochuli is to be blamed for the technical snafu. RyguyMN (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, without the first bad call, the Chargers still would've won the game, making Hochuli's later bad call far less high-profile. Jredwards (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the first quarter incident adds to the notoriety of the game. Jredwards (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
How? Missed calls aren't unusual since humans are officiating these games. They happen every game. The onlt difference here was that the instant replay was down. RyguyMN (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I've now cited the league indicating that this call may potentially result in a changing of NFL rules. I think that places it squarely in the "significant" category. Jredwards (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Any game that results in the NFL immediately considering (and probably instituting at the end of the season) a rule change, MUST be included as one of Hochuli's significant games. ChargersFan (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As another aside, I would point out that whoever removed the first edits also took it upon himself to LOCK this page! Talk about a questionable call. Huangdi (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the edits that were made to this page before I began this section of the talk page. I actually agree with the decision to lock this page. Most of the edits would be considered vandalism on most any page and were not in good taste. There was one very good edit done, but was removed by the same said user. That user left no explanation for the removal. I can only imagine that perosn considered the original edit in poor taste and it provided no citation, but that should have discussed first, rather than just removing the post. That is why I began this section of the talk page and I never imagined that this issue would have so much interest. Jojhutton (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So another user deletd part of the article without even having a discussion. What is wrong with these people. Jojhutton (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


Once this thing gets unlocked, can we get the score at the time of the ref-urrection inserted? It's relevant data. Londubh (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected, so some users can make changes. Only new users cannot make a change at this time. Jojhutton (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Be that as it may, would someone please insert it? I cannot, but believe that were it not for the fact that the presumable effect of the call was an 8 point swing and the result of the game, such a mistake would likely have been overlooked by the general populace.Londubh (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I cannot speak for the information that you want to edit in, but I would not be against such information. In order to edit semi-protected articles you only need to edit a few unprotected articles, I think ten, then you auatomatically become an established user under wikipedia rules. Then you can edit any article that is not fully protected, but only a few articles are fully protected. Jojhutton (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm alright with removing the reference to Peter King bashing Hochuli, but I've edited the article to re-insert a fact that King mentioned: the call changed the outcome of the game. I think that's important to note. Jredwards (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

One person's opinion is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV, especially "goat of the week", so that's why I made that edit. I did so without discussion because the edit was against Wikipedia guidelines. RyguyMN (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I know that Ryguy is only looking out for the best interests of this article and I commend his efforts to improve this article and make it worthy of being one of wikipedias great articles, but he is forgetting that wikipedia belongs to all of its users and that he must assume good faith in other users users before deciding to remove words and sections of this article. Please lets have a discussion on the topics before removing anything. If someone edits something that is questionable based on WP:NPOV, then lets have a discussion on it rather than becoming the sole judge. For the record, I believe that the particular wording of the deletions did merit deletion and were in violation of WP:NPOV, but that is for the community to decide, rather than just one person. Jojhutton (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want a community discussion on every edit to be made on this article, no matter the circumstance, then I'm fine with it. But let's eliminate the double standard. If I'm going to be slapped on the wrist for deleting content, then nobody should be allowed to add additional content to this page until there is a consenus. How does that sound? RyguyMN (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean, I know that you have been working on this article for a while, and feel that the rest of us are invaders. Please don't confuse my position on the issues. I agree with your deletions, I only disagree with your methods. Once something is added, then please assume good faithand allow that user his/her right to improve this article. The locking of this page has kept out many vandals, so only established users have been allowed to edit since Sunday, but adding is very differant then subtracting. Jojhutton (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Yes, I've spent two years or so making edits to this article because I appreciate officiating and to gain a better understanding of one of the more well-known referees in the NFL. I welcome others to stick and around and make edits in good faith and also using Wikipedia policy as a guide. I believe in being BOLD, but I didn't relize this was going to become that controversial of an issue. My concern is the one time "hit-and-run" edits from upset users over the call and potential abuse/vandalism of the article. I've done a lot of work to make this GA, and I don't want to see the integrity breached because of one situation. RyguyMN (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I completly agree. All articles should uphold the standards of Wikipedia and as I said before, I believe that you have nothing but the best intentions in mind. I also believe that those subtractions that you made were also made in good faith, and that you were correct in citing WP:NPOV in thier removal. Some of the earliest edits on Sunday, before the protection, were completly off base and those deletions were made on the spot, as they should have been. The semi-protection of this article helps to eliviate most of those minor problems. Good luck and keep up the good work on the article, but Football is a game played only once a week, so fans have a tendancy to drag things out much longer in this sport than in others.Jojhutton (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have extended the semi-protection for at least another week because a couple of anonymous users recently vandalised the article after the original protection expired, and the media is still talking about it (which may lead more people to want to vandalise the page). Again, my position is that as long as everything is reasonably cited, and everyone agrees that it does not violate WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, etc., I will be neutral on the content for now. But I will probably not make an actual opinion on its the long term status of the content until at least after the league meetings in Spring 2009 when they might discuss a possible rule change. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The current update is awful. It is full of opinion about referees huddling after every call, it is not neutral and partly implies that Hochuli wanted Denver to win. It is yellow-journalism at its best. Big2cat (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the article or is this Charger fan hatred? RyguyMN (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added information which is very pertinent to the controversy surrounding Hochuli's call late in the game. Without knowing at least some details of the circumstances at the time the call occurred -- such as where the line of scrimmage was prior to the call being made, the reader might not understand why this particular officiating error was considered so controversial. I did not add any commentary such as "probably cost San Diego the game" or anything like that, I merely listed some pertinent and factual details. ChargersFan (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The clarification was good. Don't have any issues with it. Yes, it was wise to leave out "probably cost San Diego the game". That is speculation and you end up running into issues with WP:OPINION. RyguyMN (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Locking in of 'Was'[edit]

First of all, it's not wikified. The W should not be capitalized. Second, have we polled coaches and players since the game occurred to determine if said statement is true? If it is, sure, leave it, but I doubt there is any official data out on that yet, asides from Charger fan bias. (I'm sure Broncos fans think he's pretty awesome). At the very least, fix the typo! Yes, I'm nitpicking, but fix it anyway! Ravenmasterq (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. It was made by an anonymous user during a brief period when semi-protection had expired.[3], which contradicts the cited source currently at the end of that sentence. Any current poll or assertion should have a citation from a cited source, or else it looks more like an opinion or bias from what appears to be an angry Chargers fan. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should remove the entire sentence. Even though there is a citation, it would seem as if the passage violates NPOV. Jojhutton (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspended?[edit]

Why is there no mention of his 2007 5 game suspension for HGH use? Is it because of certain rules on Biographies of living persons? If so, I will look into it. It seems very important information and although it does not show Hochuli in a very good light, it is true and can be cited.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Five-game suspension? Yes, you pretty much need a reliable source cited to get past the BLP rules, and not just from a blog full of rumors. I will tell you that I could probably go through the 2007 Game Books posted on NFL.com, or any news organization that prints the officials working each game, and prove if this assertion is wrong. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thats not hard, I've seen numerous citations on this information. I was just wondering WHY it was not added before this. I know that both Zzyzx11 and Ryuguy have made numerous edits to this article, but how do you miss such and obvious piece of information? --Jojhutton (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not in the article because it's a false story, a joke. Here's the story:[4]. Be careful what you read. RyguyMN (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Now wait.....The article you cited actually supports the suspension idea. Can you provide an article that supports the opposite?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it does not. It's NOT from a reliable source, it's a blog. See what Zzyzx11 wrote and review the policy on using reliable sources. Thanks! RyguyMN (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Another Blown Call?????[edit]

I see that Hochuli is at the center of another controversial call, but I do not think that this is worthy of mention.

  1. The call in no way changed the game, the Panthers still won.
  2. It was a call that could have gone either way, unlike the Chargers-Broncos call.
  3. Every questionable call should not be added.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Correct and good catch on removing this edit! According to WP:BIO, there must be some kind of significance, like a potential rule change, or else you could document every call every official has ever made. As it stands now, I feel it should not be included since this criteria is not meet. RyguyMN (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia is not news. If the AP and other news organizations are going to start writing news articles everytime Hochuli makes a questionable call during the rest of the season, that does not necessarily mean Wikipedia should follow suit. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear this incident once and for all, according to Director of Officiating Mike Pereira from his comments on the NFL Network, the contact by Peppers was considered ILLEGAL. See link for video: [5]. I urge all editors to please discontinue making reference to this incident in the article. It's time to move on. RyguyMN (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Peppers was fined by the league for the hit on the quarterback, according to this AP story: [6]. RyguyMN (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Hochuli[edit]

So under Family there is: "Shawn Hochuli played college football at Pomona College"

Pomona College and Pitzer College have combined Pomona-Pitzer athletics, and as far as I can tell, Shawn is a Pitzer graduate (http://www.pomona.edu/Magazine/pcmf99/39pcmf99.shtml ; http://www.pitzer.edu/participant_online/pdf/2009_spring.pdf). So this should probably either say "Shawn Hochuli played college football for Pomona-Pitzer" or maybe "Shawn Hochuli played college football at Pitzer College" with appropriate college links. Concentriccircles (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ed Hochuli. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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 16:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

HOCHULI ALSO WORKED FOR THE NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS[edit]

WHY ISN'T THAT MENTIONED IN HIS BIO??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.233.58 (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ed Hochuli/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article's fine, but in the photo Ed's wearing long sleeves. There needs to be a photo in short sleeves showing off the famous guns! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.121.181 (talkcontribs) 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 14:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ed Hochuli. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 07:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ed Hochuli. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 02:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)