From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Health and fitness  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Movember started in Australia in 2003. It has spread from down under to South Africa and Europe, and five years ago it reached American shores. [1]

Some of the facts in the wikipedia entry I don't beleive are correct. While Movember may have been independently thought of in a few places, one of the earliest places (if not the first) was actually Adelaide, by a bunch of Adelaide uni students led by Mike Jerudini (sorry Mike on the spelling!) and Nick Goode. There was a news report on seven news in Adelaide, I think it might have been earlier than 1999 (1997 maybe? Cannot recall), and it was filmed at my friends house (Richard Smith) by Seven news reporter Jennifer Ashcroft (Now she is Jennifer Bennett and works for channel 9 in adelaide). That year the motto was 'grow whiskers for whiskers' - we raised a few hundred dollars for the RSPCA. We had the inaugural Mo-ball at the German Arms hotel and everyone turned up as their MOdentity - the character who's moustache they were trying to emulate. The orginal movember website is and is still running

Clarifying the above, Jerudini is spelled Jureidini. The inaugural Mo-Ball was held at the German Club, Adelaide. The news report (referred to on the original Movember website in the Mo Wars section) was actually screened in 1999.

Please ensure that modifications to this page do not merely delete original text for the sake of rewriting history. This is the equivalent of reverting.

I could not find the's rules published still. I think it would be useful to include those in parallel to the original rules.

NB. The original Movember website was instrumental in building the starting blocks for the charity event Movember has become (starting in 1999) and its Movember celebrations still run parallel and separate to the charity event. Syscrusher 07:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Movember takes place in the fall


Movember has been going on for years all around universities (and probably cricket clubs, footy clubs etc) The first one was not at 'your friends place' in adelaide. This whole page needs to be rewritten, I mean, in a way it is good to spread awareness of etc etc but the charities have hijacked the original concept of movember, and the wikipedia page should reflect this. Disco 12:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The charities have ABSOLUTELY hijacked this. Yeah, good is being made out of it, no question, but this is a different Movember to it's pub crawl origins. One of the first iterations of this was to grow the facial hair for the month and shave ONLY the moustache, leaving a very gooby looking patch of of absent facial hair. ( (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

Agree. Adelaide University and Flinders University students were unofficially participating in "Movember" back in 1995. It served no purpose other than giving students an excuse to grow 70 style porn moustaches. The concept has now been taken over by a charity group-- (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

controversy over copyright/non-profit status?[edit]

Someone told me they heard about Movember on one of the newsmagazine shows (Today Tonight or A Current Affair) about how Movember only forwards a small pecentage of the donations to the charities, and pays a large royalty to the "copyright holders" of Movember. In other words, the founders are making money off donations to charity, much more than reasonable costs of running the site. Does anyone have any information about this? I've been having trouble locating reliable sources. Jpp42 06:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For the Movember Foundation (that runs the sites) this page has a brief overview of their financials, including links to obtain a full financial report, which apparently is currently being audited by price waterhouse coopers -

I too have been told (but not seen) of this report, of which the founders of movember were on. The link shows quite the opposite. So the stats are being fiddled with by someone - who? Movemeber or Today Tonight... Disco (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I work for Movember, as a team leader, and can shed some light on the Today Tonight (TT) issue. There was a very misleading and inaccurate report run by TT before Movember 2007 and in the interest of balance that mention should be heavily qualified or removed, if that's possible. For the record, no other news organisation picked up the false story. Not one.

There is no question about the propriety of the Founders of the organisation but please don’t just take our word for it, visit the GiveWell Australia website, who looked closely at Movember’s annual report and audited financial records and were very pleased with the work Movember does and the funds sent through to the beneficiaries. Also, please see the websites of all the Movember beneficiaries for more details about Movember’s dealings with them (links below).

The Mo Bros and Sistas who participate in Movember do great work and continuing to give credence to the TT report does nothing for their morale. It’s for that reason, should the TT mention stay on the page, that it should be made clear that the TT story is a one-off and totally inaccurate. Movember has its audited financial records available through the website so please visit the Movember site to request a copy of the annual report and verify the situation for yourself.

Movember’s auditors are PricewaterhouseCoopers and their staff took out the top fundraising team award for 2007 raising $285,000 for beyondblue through Movember. Do you really think auditors would participate in Movember if it wasn’t operating in an exemplary manner? PwC gives cheque to beyondblue: [2]

Links: GiveWell Australia (not affiliated with US organisation of the same name): [3] beyondblue: [4] Prostate Cancer Foundation NZ: [5] Prostate Cancer Foundation UK: [6] Prostate Cancer Foundation CA: [7]

Wm329 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand how frustraing it must be to deal with current affair shows. Unfortunetely wikipedia is about citation rather than truth. At the moment we have the TT story, as well as your offical stats, so I would say it is fairly balanced. And it is not like we can write on the page "well their auditors raised money, therefore they must be exemplary". Any reports showing the percentage of money (not total!) donated comparing to other charities is welcomed on the front page - especially if we can link it! Any other media that we can link, other reports on movember is weclomed. We cannot remove TT since it is a story. We cannot say "it is totally inaccurate" unless we can find a source to cite that says that. If their are any media reports about how great movember is that are online, cite them here so we can add them. Having said that, I will add givewell's report to the link. Disco (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your constructive comments and for adding the link to Givewell. I appreciate that. Just one further point of clarification. The TT report did not state nor imply that Movember was “… one of the worst charities to give money to, due to the amount of money being made by the owners[citation needed]” [[8]].
The TT report was about how much money raised in the name of charity goes through to beneficiaries. Movember was featured in the story and two Movember directors were interview about that. Other charities were also mentioned and representatives interviewed.
If possible, could you please change the TT paragraph to something like this:
The Movember Foundation was featured on Australian tabloid current affairs program Today Tonight in a story about the percentage of funds given to beneficiaries by fundraisers.[citation needed]. The Foundation state that their fees are well below the expected level.[11] This is backed up by GiveWell Australia, who report that Movember spent only 9% on its running costs in 2007. [12]
There are literally hundreds of online reports as to how good Movember is. I’ve add just a few here for your info:
Sydney Morning Herald - Mat urges mates to say mo the merrier: [9]; Edmonton Journal - Whiskers gone wild: [10]; - Movember under way: [11]; - Dr John D’Arcy – Movember: [12]; - Wide Bay Burnett faces up to Movember: [13]; - ABC Mo Bros take up Movember Challenge: [14]; - The ABC have at least 100 stories that mention Movember: [15]; - Ready, steady, mo! [16]; Borat wants local lady: [17]; NSW Parliamentary Hansard: Movember: [18]. Wm329 (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed the wording of "worst charities" to reflect what was actually said in the TT article. I can't really call it a "tabloid current affairs show" because, imo it is, but that is still PoV as some people will defend it as serious journalism. In terms of the links, I read the first couple, these articles are all about 'how great movember' is. Some stats there might be handy when people get around to expanding the article, but at the moment all I am doing is making sure what is there is accurate, and they don't seem to talk about the specific percentages of money given. Disco (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed my mind on the word "tabloid". The wikipedia entry on TT calls it a tabloid current affairs show, so I assume so can we. Disco (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Disco for considering our comments and for making changes. Cheers Wm329 (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

clarification and suggestions[edit]

Today Tonight and Byran Seymour who did the segment on Movember was just found guilty of 29 cases of defamation -

I don’t understand why Today Tonight is mentioned in the Wiki definition when none of the other literally 1,000s of positive articles from around the world aren’t. This definition of Movember is poorly constructed and needs a total re-write.

clarification and suggestions[edit]

This is the first time I have felt strongly enough to comment about a wiki. A leecher I have been until now. This page is a bit of a mess, it is misleading and the discussions don't really encourage editing.

Some clarification The sites are run by the Movember Foundation - The sites are run by the Movember Committee -

There was a hoax by an imaginary group who claimed to have international copyright on the phrase 'Movember' which was overturned by the Movember Committee. I can find no clarification of either sides of this story outside of, bar a youtube video that they provide a link for on

Quite frankly while there may be debate over who came up with the idea first, and what the rules should be for growing a Mo, the group has the largest exposure to the public/media/charities, and whem poeple think about/discuss Movember, they will think of them. is also by far and away the group that has generated the most help towards the spirit of Movember - both by bringing back the Mo to cult status and also supporting a good cause at the same time.

So I think the best way forward is to make an 'origins' section giving full credit to the people of the Movember Committee for the good work they did, and then move onto the more successful of the schemes today - the Movember Foundation.

I would like to note that I am not a member of either organisation, just a participant in Movember that was very confused by this wiki. Cheers, Big Merv

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Merv (talkcontribs) 16:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Big Merv, while I understand that you are passionate about men's health, the fact is that the people who run and make money from movember did not come up with the concept, therefore the original wikipedia page should reflect this. Disco (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I might point out Wikipedia is about verifibility not truth. Please provide sources that Movember existed before either of these events.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
grrr, I knew someone would ask for that!  :) I'll do my best, but what more can I say other than "loads of people that I know have been participating for years". I suppose common sense would tell us that the news are NOT going to do a story about something that was invented a week ago, therefore it had been around long enough to build up enough cultural status to warrant a news story. Obviously, wikipedia needs citations... Since this article is very much in its infancy, I ask that these claims remain uncited for now until I can either find a citation or the page becomes good enough to warrent removal of all uncited claims. Disco (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


I've rewrote the lot, after watching the video and reviewing all websites.

Wikipedia is following sources, and is not necessarily supporting the Committee's claim that they invented Movember. However they are the only organisation claiming such a thing as verified in an semi-independent source (hooray Australian media outlets).

No earlier origins for Movember have been claimed by current sources apart from the apparently fictitious "Federation" in 1977.

Further, Movember as a national/international *charity* event seems quite likely to have originated from the Committee's 1999 events.

Also please don't link to the youtube movie, as good/useful it is, it is a copyright violation and we can't have those things here.--ZayZayEM (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care enough to fight you. By the way you might want to check out the Mozart page - they claim he was a composer without sourcing it! Disco (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Read WP:CK. I think several of the sources at Mozart do call him a composer, such as this randomly picked link--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a very bad example. Since you want to take me so literally, just ignore it. But this is my point - when it comes to academic articles it can be easy to gain references, but some things such as subcultured jokes (i.e. movember) are not going to be ever be sourced properly! Since this is a given, pretty much anything that has entered the public sphere will be attributed to whoever can claim it first. If I start a website claiming I invited knock knock jokes, and then get an article printed about it in my student magazine, wikipedia would HAVE to forever after claim that I invented them, unless a source appears claiming otherwise. It wouldn't matter how many users knew it was false. You might now reply "what you say is true but it's the way wikipedia works" and that is fair enough, which is why I am letting this point go. The reason I am frustrated is that this article had nothing in it until I took the time to rewrite that, but as soon as that happened you changed my work. Of course I assume good faith, but I'm sure you can see how that might be frustrating for someone else. One more point, this subject is over, I am not fighting you on this, just explaining my feelings, no matter how false it is, how many friends I could get on here to claim otherwise, according to wikipedia from now on movember was invented in 1999... Disco (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Another bad example. A student magazine would likely be questioned for its credibility per WP:RS, especially when presenting quite readily avialable opposing verifiable sources. If someone dug up a say 1940s authentic newspaper archive article that claims that "a new form of joke" was invented by humourist Gus Gussygus from Chicago, Illinois, wikipedia would include the claim. Wikipedia would say the source, and reference it as claim as it is a claim. As we do here, loaded language like "men who claimed", "The Committee still holds their claims of having invented Movember", whether their claims are true or not is not discussed, but the fact of the actual claims having been made are a matter of record. --ZayZayEM (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
HAHA, and I just watched the youtube clip (I can't steam movies on this one) the NEWS report was aired in 1999 and it CLAIMS that movember has 'been around for years'... Disco (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Really didn't notice that. Quote it and edit the article. Geez. (watched it for at least the fifth time now, definitely claims that Committee claims to have invented it)--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if it was not clear, they claim to have invented it, but not in 1999. That was the date that the news report aired. The reason I did not change the article is because I wanted to run it by you first. Disco (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Again not noticing it. My impression is that it was only a few weeks old. Can you tell who says it and whenabouts. You can change the article. I'm just not sure how I'm missing it.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, if the 1999 committee invented it, why do we need the charity bit in the first paragraph? Disco (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What "charity bit"?--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"Since 2004, the Movember Foundation charity has run Movember events to raise awareness and funds for men's health issues, such as prostate cancer and depression in Australia and New Zealand. In 2007, events were launched in Canada, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States." Disco (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The article is predominantly about Foundation activities (and criticism). The Foundation is bolded in the lead and this article serves as the equivalent article for both Movember and the Movember Foundations. Two articles at this early stage seems premature.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not claiming a second article! Premature would be an understatement. I am saying the way that movember is now used as a part of the charity should be reserved for its own section. The intro should be about what it is and when it was invented. Disco (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Truth and censorship[edit]

I just posted an article on the Movember Wiki. It was instantly removed by Movember. When you look at the number of posts that Movember removes, this wiki appears to be totally censored by Movember. The Channel 7 Today Tonight article was based on facts. Movember Foundation recently had it removed from Youtube. Cluso99 (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you talk to the Movember Wiki abut that. I was not aware Movember had a wiki of its own. The material you added to this article on English Wikipedia was deleted because it was either - content already included in the article (The controversy from the Oct 27 Today Tonight report is already noted), or it was not appropriate encyclopedic content (speculative, POV and not cited appropriately). Please consider your motivation for contributing to this article. We seek to create an objective tertiary free resource of verifiable information.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My motivation is truth. The public have a right to know where their money is going. That was the purpose of the Today Tonight article. The article referred to documents that disclosed the directors of the Movember Foundation were going to take $1million in licence fees from Movember in 2006. That was not denied. If this site is based in the UK, then money is being remitted to the Movember Foundation in Australia and this should be disclosed. The Movember Foundation is seeking to hush this article up. Cluso99 (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've rechceked the sources on the current information in the article. I have removed the rebutall-like material that supported the Movember Foundations rejection of the Today tonight accusations. The archive of the Fundraising Outcomes only dealt with the 2006 running costs (only 15% compared to "acceptable charity costs" of 35%), not 2007 running costs. The GiveWell archive did not refer to running costs, but "costs of fundraising", similar but not the same. No information was found of actual director salries (2 were paid full time and 2 were paid part-time).
I'm loathe to include much more than what is in the aricle. Today Tonight is a tabloid television program, and not a rigourous journalistic source. If you can find a non-tabloid source that discusses the issue objectively that would be helpful in illuminating the matter further.
The main point, Wikipedia is not about exposing the truth or anything like that. It's a tertiary resource, it only re-iterates information available at reliable sources. If you like whistleblowing poor company practice, perhaps WikiLeaks may be more up your alley.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

For instance there is no picture of Tom Selick and this needs to change. (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am lost. I don't know how/where to respond. I posted the "actual letters" which were exposed in the Channel 7 interview and you removed them from both wiki's. So, the Wiki is not about Truth, it is about Censorship of anything that the moderator does not like. The documents I published were the facts (only the expeltives blanked out) and were acknowledged by Movember, so why are you censoring them??? Cluso99 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Beard or not?[edit]

Ok in the first paragraph of the wiki it says it is also known as "Novembeard" yet not far below that in the "Rules" section it essentially states "no beards" (it says you can't do something because that would be a beard). You therefore wouldn't call it Novembeard if you were following the rules for Movember and they shouldn't be equated in the first paragraph.

Could be changed to something like: It is also known as "Novembeard" if a beard is grown instead of a mustache. Adimus28 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that "you can't do something because that would be a beard" was meant to mean that doing this doesn't constitute growing a moustache, and hence isn't a way of participating in Movember. Whether you're allowed to grow a beard for Movember instead of a moustache and whether you're allowed to have a beard as well are two different matters. From the UK website [19]:
Are goatees or beards allowed?
The definition of a Moustache:
  1. There is to be no joining of the Mo to side burns – That’s a beard.
  2. There is to be no joining of the handlebars – That’s a goatee.
  3. A small complimentary growth under the bottom lip is allowed (aka a tickler).
Remember, it’s Movember, not ‘Beardvember’ or ‘Goateevember’
This implies that it must be a moustache that you grow for Movember, but it doesn't say that if you already have a beard then you would have to shave it off, or anything like that. Shaving off a beard you've had for a long time would be another charity event altogether. — Smjg (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You can't change the name of a trademarked company or 501c3 charity. Just like you wouldn't/can't suddenly start calling LIVESTRONG LIVEGOOD. Movember is a licensed, 501c3 charity, unlike these other contest. Movember raises funds for the Prostate Cancer Foundation and LIVESTRONG, in the US. [20] LP1230 (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Movember has nothing to do with any other facial hair growing event. While it's understandable that other facial hair events would want to jump on the Movember bandwagon due to it's success, Movember is a registered 501c3 charity, unlike these other facial hair contests. LP1230 (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Another point, if it's proven from the Movember website that it has no affiliation with other hair growing contests, why is it ok for Wikipedia to put a header at the top of the Movember wiki saying someone is asking to merge it with a non-related hair growing contest- No Shave November? Who is responsible for deleting this, if Wiki posted it?LP1230 (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. This article is about the Movember charity event, not the more general concept of growing or removing hair whether for competitive, charitable or other purposes. If there are other events similar to Movember that meet WP's notability guidelines, they can have separate articles. A generic article about the concept would be another article as well. — Smjg (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The rules...[edit]

Just curious, but when did these 'rules' get sanctioned officially, or is it like the game of pool where different places interpret the rules slightly differently? Having been part of the original group in Adelaide as this was developing, I distinctly remember the original guidelines as being:

1. At the beginning of November, no matter what state your facial hair was in, you did not shave at all until the last weekend in November.

2. On that last weekend, we would arrange to meet up, usually at Mojowest, Worldsend (sometimes, not often, Supermild) or somewhere with an outdoor area on Hindley West.

3. On the day of the get together, we'd shave our beards, leaving only the mo and where it connects to our chins, thus presenting with a thick, porn star looking mo.

Later on, cheesy outfits a la Beastie Boys Sabotage style became a favourite. There was none of this "must conduct yourself as a true country gentleman" crap as it was a pub crawl, pure and simple. I get the feeling these were either from the American spinoff, or developed late after this trend gained momentum. ( (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

Deleted segment from "charity partners" section which was just copy and pasted from the linked USA Today article - both because it was plagiarised from the linked page and because it contained repeat information. (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

Any second opinions on whether this image of a group of Movember participants is more or less appropriate and representative than this image of a single participant? --McGeddon (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


The current history section (and its sources) seem to claim that Movember began both in 2003 and in 1999. Were the Adelaideans from 1999 just using the name "Movember" by coincidence, or was the Huffington Post wrong to say "They set a humble goal back in 2003: get 30 men to grow their facial hair for 30 days" (a goal which is less ambitious than the "80 men" listed in the 1999 coverage). --McGeddon (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the section was just giving a lot of weight to an alternate group which claims to have formed in 1999. I've bumped it out to "similar events", given that it is unaffiliated. --McGeddon (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I moved this back from 'Similar Events' to 'Origins'. The name, Movember, its rules, format as a monthly charity event, etc. defined on from 1999 were lifted almost word for word when was first published in 2004. There is no doubt that the original Movember was instrumental as the foundation for the event and it deserves to remain in the Origins section. Syscrusher (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The record shows that November beard growing goes back to at least 1993:,1080795 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


Someone remove this so-called Israeli celebrity "Gil Telio" off the ambassadors' list. Ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:43, 5 November 2012‎

 Done, given that no Gil Telio article exists. --McGeddon (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

English Mos[edit]

Seems to be focusing mainly on high profile supporters of Movember from Australia and New Zealand. May be worth mentioning the likes of Sam Allardyce, Peter Crouch, Michael Owen, Toby Flood off the top of my head. (i.e. to show how wide reaching Movember has been, nothing particularly to do with Australia or England). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

October/breast cancer awareness[edit]

I was fully expecting to read something about Movember being essentially the counterpart to breast cancer awareness in October, with the wearing of pink, etc. Why is there no mention of that in the article? Both are very gimmicky, with cancer awareness as their campaign, and occur on consecutive months. Seems like more than coincidence to me. At least link to something via the See also section. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Eight-photo montage[edit]

User:Urorao has uploaded File:Movember1.png, which appears to be eight pictures of the same man (presumably the uploader himself) with eight different moustache styles over the course of Movember, the images rotated at various angles on a black background. I reverted it for being something of a poor-quality image - at thumbnail size, the already small images are made even smaller in order to apply a the jaunty rotation effect, and the poor lighting-from-above on the bottom four photos makes it hard to even see the moustaches. I'll improve the caption, but is this really a useful image? --McGeddon (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

With no response in three months, I've gone ahead and cut the image. --McGeddon (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


This may sound daft but I've had a moustache all my adult life and so have never been able to participate, thus explaining my ignorance. Exactly how does Movember raise money? I can see how it might raise awareness but I don't get the fundraising part. Do people sponsor the moustache growers or do they pay the charity or what? Personally I think it would improve the article to include a brief explanation of how it works as otherwise it makes it seem like little more than a bit of jolly jape posturing by silly boys a la the Ice Bucket Challenge. Keresaspa (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Link to Movember funded project?[edit]

Hi, tried adding a link to a Movember Foundation funded project out of Canada, but it was removed. That's fine if isn't appropriate to add here. The project is for a Men's Depression website: (I am the project coordinator for this website). Much of Movember funding goes to more research based projects that aren't as easily linked too, but since this is a website resource I thought it would be good as an example of where funds are going - and of interest to people looking up Movember on wiki.

I had added the link to the end of the sentence referencing Canada as being one of the top funding nations for Movember. Is there someplace better that a link to this project could be added? Thanks! (Jrb604 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC))

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)