Talk:Muhammed al-Ahari

Untitled

- There has not been a valid non-sock puppet or hacker discussion of contents of this article and no discussion of a NPOV in the discussion section, so why was the NPOV tag put on this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.115.22 (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.187.73 (talk)

Perhaps because of the inordinately large proportion of anonymous edits, and the way it so obviously reads like it was written by the subject himself? --Sarabseth (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If you actually read the article you would see that it was started by bektashi110 (who is Huseyn Abiva not me). I only added the bibliography at the end and have about 80 other items I've written to add. -- Muhammed Al-Ahari — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.221.218 (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC) I was the one who wrote the name of the person who wrote the article. I didn't try to change it. Obviously someone else tried to change it. -- Muhammed Al-Ahari — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.221.218 (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

When somebody makes edits using just an anonymous IP address -- and when they admit to having edited their own article anonymously, which is strictly a non-no on Wikipedia -- it's hard to know who's doing what. --Sarabseth (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You can look at the logins and see MoorishAm1965, MoorishGrammarian, and MoorishAm1965a are all me when I tried to reset my Wikipedia account it wouldn't work. You can see my edits were done under those names and even the so-calle anonymous I actually wrote my own name on them. comment added by MoorishAm1965a (talk • contribs) 06:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't be obtuse. I was referring to the 6 different edits made to the article between May and December 2011 which only identify the editor as 71.201.221.218 (talk).

And I'm not terribly amused, either, that on January 1 you tried to edit your 25 December and 31 comments above so that your name is no longer associated with this I.P. address.

You, sir, are skating on very thin ice here. I suggest you stop doing so. --Sarabseth (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The edits I made were adding sources to what was already written and they can all be found with a simple search of the Internet as can all information that was in the original article. The sources added to the article were in the sources section not the original. It seems that you have some agenda against me since you put a message that the article needs sourcing and when sources were added you deleted them.MoorishAm1965a (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have more than 60 articles published in Muslim periodicals in English, Bosnian, and Arabic; more than 20 works that I wrote the preface to and edited; about a dozen works in which I wrote the entire contents; several works I translated from Arabic and Bosnian; and more than a dozen places where I am mentioned as a source for reasearch. Many can be found with a search of GoogleBooks and others by a basic Google search. How can these be added if I don't add them? I am not adding biographic material if I add them but I am only adding sources of content. Why don't you do it yourself? MoorishAm1965a (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

How can these be added if I don't add them?

Yes, of course, and how are you to have a Wikipedia article if a friend doesn't start it for you? That's pretty much how all Wikipedia biographies of living persons work. A friend starts it for you, and then you add content to it (anonymously), because if you don't, then who will?

Also, I am extremely interested in knowing when and where you think I "put a message that the article needs sourcing". (Incidentally, it appears you don't quite understand what the word sourcing means in the context of Wikipedia articles.) --Sarabseth (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

For clarity, what this article needs in its current state are reliable sources, that is those that are independant of the subject. So articles/interviews about/with the subject, critiques or criticisms of their work etc. It's this that helps to establish notability within the Wikipedia definition. Currently, all we have are a list of publications and links to online versions. GedUK  12:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarabseth has been disingenious with his edits. He has made edits that made the subject of the article (myself) less notable and cut proof of my knowledge of the subjects that I write and speak about (such as my connections to various Islamic groups and my attending an Islamic College in addition to my secular education). I have been an active member of the Moorish Science Temple since 1985 and have written on the general history of Islam in American since the early 1980s. He deleted all mention of that even when other scholar such as Michael Muhammad Knight, Dr. C. Eric Lincoln, Paul Greenhouse, Amina McCloud, and other scholars have quoted me as primary sources due to my travels and research. I can post everywhere I have been quoted or interviewed but that list is over 50 magazine articles and books. That list would be in addition to items that I have edited and published or that other publishers have published. A search of Amazon.com and WorldCat will show this many of these.I have also been interiewed on Turkish Televison (Ibru)and on Bosnian Television (Canton One). My works have also been published by university presses (St.Martin University and Upsalla University are two examples). Muhammed Al-Ahari (MoorishAm@aol.com) (talk • contribs

You claim to be a scholar, but you are not able to get your basic facts straight. You seem to be ascribing to me edits that were actually made by GedUK . He's a Wikipedia admin. You want to argue that he's also out to hound you?

You're better off trying to a) lose the persecution complex, b) understand the difference between a Wikipedia article and a resume, and c) understand Wikipedia's policies about citation and sourcing. And if you're going to edit your own article, you need to stop doing it anonymously (as I have already pointed out in edit summaries in the article). --Sarabseth (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of previous content

I'm just recording here, for the sake of completeness, that on 21 January 2012, Muhammed al-Ahari (the subject of this article) removed all the previous comments from this Talk page, and replaced them with this comment:

I deleted all the comments above since I agreed to make any edits under a login and do not which to continue a fight about edits. I would prefer anyone but Sarabseth do edits. I corrected a minor error where someone changed a title of a journal I was published in from al-Talib to al-Taliban and he reverted it to the deragatory edit of al-Taliban. MoorishAm1965a (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That edit was reverted by me, but I think the fact that such an edit was made should be noted here, for completeness.

I would also like to respond to this very strange comment.

You, sir, have some really strange notions of how Wikipedia works. One, it is not okay for anyone to delete comments made on a Talk page by someone else. This should have been clear to you from this recent edit summary by GedUK , who has already been identified on this page as a Wikipedia admin: "don't change other people's comments". You, of course, blithely ignored that, which is pretty consistent with your previous behavior.

Two, the subject of an article really does not get to choose who will or won't edit their article.

Also, since you insist on distorting facts, let me make it clear to everyone that the reversion edit you are complaining about above was accompanied by this edit summary: "IT IS NOT OKAY FOR YOU TO EDIT YOUR OWN ARTICLE ANONYMOUSLY; if you want to add this stuff, do it under your user id".

Since you seem to have trouble following that, let me spell it out for you. There was clearly no objection to the substance of the edit, only to your repeated practice of editing your own article anonymously. So to complain about the substance of the reversion makes no sense at all. --Sarabseth (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Again your comment shows your general lack of manners and demeaning tone. You also reverted edits that I made with a login so even your complaint against me is half-baked as I agreed to do edits when using a login. I have two Bachelor degrees, two Masters, 100 semester hours beyond a Master, and have finished all but a Dissertation for a Doctorate in Education Leadership after those 100 hours, so I am very much troubled when you said "you call yourself a scholar". I don't call myself a scholar -- my education and other scholars quoting my writings and inviting me to speak would imply I have some degree of scholarship. Also I have 15 years of work experience as a public school teacher and a year of experience as a principal of an Islamic weekend school.

You undid edits when they were done with and without a login. You don't have to spell out anything to me as I agree to stop doing edits without lgging in. In the past all the comments were moved by another editor to a history page after I requested another editor to do so because of numerous biased changes that had nothing to do with the article (such as saying I was a character in Star Wars, an asshole, gay when I have never been gay, etc., and that was done both on the article and talk page. If you read the edits from 2006 and following, when the article was started by Bektashi110, you will see every comment you made about me writing the article and doing extensive edits was totally false.

Your refusal to be civil and just discuss what I am doing right or wrong is another reason I would prefer you avoid even looking at this article. I was asking that anyone but you edit the article because you have no manners and are demeaning and unprofessional in your tone. Also, you have no knowledge of the subject of the article and thus make highly biased edits. I am not distorting facts you were the one who reverted to an edit that said I published in a journal called al-Taliban. I was wrong do an edit without a login but you were worse since you reverted an edit to something that was biased which is against the Wikipedia policy also. In addition you also reverted materials that I edited with a login so you saying yoy edited materials I did without a login is only parially true. I disagree with edits you have done but what I disagree with more is the tone and manner of the language that you correspond with. MoorishAm1965a (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarabeth's most recent bias is shown in his adding a view on homosexuality to the article. It is not a view specific to me. Traditionally in Islam Homosexuality was viewed as a sin and I was refering to people attacking and mislabeling me when the article was first put up in 2006. This proves he should be banned from editing the article. MoorishAm1965a (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)12:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter why you expressed your views on homosexuality. The fact is that those are your views, and that's all the article says. You can't censor your own article and remove things that you don't want to see in there. Please be aware that that is an absolute violation of Wikipedia policy. I added something that is factually true and reliably sourced. To say that I should be banned for that is truly laughable.

What is also laughable is that you say that you believe homosexuality to be a mortal sin, but you are ashamed to see that view ascribed to you. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You are showing why you should not edit the article. I said Islam teaches that Homosexuality is a sin and I am a Muslim. Previous attacks against me were calling me homosexual which is against Wikipedia policy. I was discusing why I was against be libeled and slandered. Also you don't login and sign your comment.MoorishAm1965a (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you get your facts wrong. I did log in; the edit summary shows exactly who added the comment. I forgot to add my signature; that's really not a big deal.

You are truly a very funny man. The question is not what you were discussing and why you added the statement that homosexuality is a mortal sin. The question is: since these are your sincere beliefs, why did you delete this section from the article?

And for the record, on a Talk page, you are not allowed to go back and remove even your own comments. Once a discussion has taken place, it must be preserved. You can't remove things even if you're sorry you wrote them. So please don't try to do this again. If you do, I will have to ask an admin to protect the page. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You truly have no manners or ethics. you attack people and when they complain you call them names and mock them. [User:MoorishAm1965a|MoorishAm1965a]] (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I really don't care about the personal attacks. However, you've dodged the question twice now. What is your objection to the section which accurately states your sincere beliefs about homosexuality? --Sarabseth (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You were the one attacking me so its obvious you don't care about personal attacks. I was accused of being homosexual in previous edits of this article, which I'm not. I'm a practicing Muslim and do not believe of any sex outside of marriage and in the strengthening of family and cultural values. Your edits clearly show you as being anti-heterosexual and holding an anti-Islamic bias since I said I am Muslim. Saying I am anti-homosexual is slander and I will report you if you continue such edits as slander and libel are against Wikipedia policies.MoorishAm1965a (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You claim to sincerely believe that homosexuality is a mortal sin. Yet including that view in your article is slander and libel? Why don't you go ahead and report me to whomever you like?

Also, for the record, my history as a Wikipedia editor over the years speaks for itself. It will be clear to anyone who looks at it that to accuse me of anti-Islamic bias is laughable. As laughable as your ludicrous claim of slander and libel. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you stop Sarabseth from adding his attack of calling me homophobic in the article Muhammed al-Ahari. I have never attacked any individual for being homosexual, but as a Muslim I am against incest, rape, any sex outside of marriage, and child marriage. Since, as a writer and religious school teacher I teach the roles of husband and wife in the family and community he has labelled me as homophobic. His attacks have become more verilant and he keeps reverting libelous and slanderous materials that were in the article Muhammed al-Ahari. Can you stop him from editing or at least allow him only to edit the content that has to do with me as a writer and the contents of my writings?MoorishAm1965a (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarabseth's most recent edit clearly shows a bias on his part, a pogram against me and a clear bias against Islam since he deleted all proof against the slander of accusing me of homophobia. He clearly show you havee no knowledge of me or Islam and is only trying to exact an agenda against me. He obviously has an agenda against Islam since he deleted all references suporting that I am not Homophobic, and that he is infact clearly in favor of a homosexual lifestyle and against a person practicing Islam who only said he had been accused of being Homosexual by earlier editors and when I said I was not homosexual, he began the attacks. MoorishAm1965a (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia guidelines what Sarabseth has been doing is a personal attack. The below is from the guidelines page. "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." As you notice accusing someone of being homohobic is in the list, so please follow the Wikpedia rules. The last sentence clearly shows his attacks are biased and hateful.MoorishAm1965a (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Get real, dude! You are the one who said, right here on this Talk page, that you regard homosexuality as a mortal sin. That is universally regarded as a homophobic statement. All I did was accurately record that statement in the article. To call that a personal attack is not just ludicrous but seriously delusional. To start throwing words like pogrom around is even more absurd.

You are the one who has repeatedly tried to whitewash and obfuscate that statement as well as your views on homosexuality. All I have is to accurately record your own statement, and to resist all attempts by you to whitewash both the original statement and the section in the article that reports it.

My edit history at Wikipedia over many years is ample proof that far from having any agenda against Islam, I have a deep love for many aspects of Islamic culture.

Your statement that I am "infact clearly in favor of a homosexual lifestyle" is once again ludicrous and absurd, and totally unsupported by my edit history at Wikipedia over many years.

If that is the case why did ypou start your attacks when I said I did not want to be called homosexual because I was a practicing Muslim? Your edits of my article have proven I am totally right in this case and the edits on your part have been malicious and mean spirited as have many of your comments.MoorishAm1965a 05:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said before, if you are so convinced that I have acted in violation of Wikipedia policies, why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and go ahead and report me to a Wikipedia admin? --Sarabseth (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I showed where you acted against the policies. If you were honest, you would take it at that and stop your personal attacks which are also against Wikipedia policies. MoorishAm1965a 05:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrator intervention

There was a request on the conflict of interest noticeboard seeking help for a dispute at this article. There is indeed a conflict of interest when a person edits their own biography. It is discouraged, but not forbidden. I see that things are getting pretty heated so let me try to get a few things sorted out here. I'm an administrator, which doesn't give me any special authority in regards to what is in the article, but I am given the tools to deal with improper behavior, so let's try to make sure that people are able to collaborate respectfully at this article.

Muhammed al-Ahari (MoorishAm1965a), let me address you first. I'll start by saying that it's commendable that you're open about your identity, and have self-disclosed your conflict of interest here. That helps show that you are acting in good faith. Also, while you have edited with multiple accounts, you've declared what they are and have insisted that you have used them because you have difficulty with the Wikipedia interface. Let me ask you, are you still having problems, or are you able to stick with a single account? If you're still having problems, I might be able to help you. If you've sorted them out by now, can we have your promise that you will stick with just one account? It doesn't matter which one it is, as long as it's the only one you use. Using multiple accounts is forbidden, except for certain specific circumstances that would allow their use. You should also avoid editing while logged out if at all possible, doing so can appear deceptive.

You should also not remove other editors' comments, per our guidelines there are particular situations where removing or editing another editor's comments is allowed, but I don't believe the removal of comments here has been necessary. Please don't do so. Also, it's not a good idea to try to edit a comment you've made weeks, months, or years ago. If you want to modify a comment you made previously, please see our guideline here to avoid the appearance that you're trying to hide or otherwise manipulate comments you've made in the past. Remember that every edit you make is logged and recorded, so removing your comments here won't do a lot of good anyway.

Now, to Sarasbeth. Please understand that our biographies of living persons are among the most sensitive areas of Wikipedia. We need to be cautious in how we deal with such things. Most importantly, because information added to those articles can cause real harm to individuals. That doesn't mean that we need to censor everything, or avoid saying anything negative about a person. But any negative information must be firmly and solidly backed up by a reliable source. That policy applies to all areas of Wikipedia, as well, not just article space. We do give a little leeway to discussion pages, because sometimes allegations need to be talked about before deciding what should or shouldn't be included in article space, but even then we need to take care with such things. It's best to err on the side of caution.

Including information in the article which offers nothing of biographical value, but only casts the subject in a negative light, is very serious. It's clearly an attack on someone. An attack you know is effective, because you have the article subject on this talk page right now protesting you. You've edit-warred with the editor to continually reinsert it into the article. Your "source" is a Wikipedia discussion page comment left by an editor who we presume is the article subject, when Wikipedia is never a reliable source. You mockingly state "out of his own mouth" as the reference title. A comment, which, I might add, was made when the subject was objecting to an older unsubstantiated personal attack (which wasn't made by you) and was pointing out how his religion considers it a sin. You twisted that statement and used it to harass the editor. Consider this your one and only warning, if you continue to attack this editor either on this talk page, or the main article, you will be blocked indefinitely.

That includes milder comments which are still personal attacks, such as attacks on the editor's aptitude as a scholar. You can disagree with an editor without insults.

Having said all of this, let me ask both of you, what changes do each of you feel need to be made to the article to improve it? What should be added, removed, or changed? -- Atama頭 08:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and kind words. The article is fine with me as it is. I still have more writings to add to the bibliography and a section on education. What would you suggest to add (besides links to other Wikipedia articles? What about the comment about multiple accounts? I would want to keep MoorishAm1965a and delete the others I mentioned above since I no longer have a login issue. MoorishAm1965a 22:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoorishAm1965a

I take everything you said in a constructive spirit, but I would like to protest your statement that I twisted Mr. al-Ahari's statement. He said "I think that behavior (i.e. homosexuality) is a mortal sin". What I added to the article was ""Al-Ahari believes that homosexuality "is a mortal sin"". I'm not sure how this constitutes twisting his statement. He declared what he believes. I recorded that in the article, accurately, without changing or twisting anything.

And let me please stress that "was pointing out how his religion considers it a sin" is not accurate. His original statement on the Talk page was only about what he believes, not what his religion says. This was his complete statement:

"In the past all the comments were moved by another editor to a history of ogs page after I requested another editor to do so because of numerous biased changes that had nothing to do with the article (such as saying I was a character in Star Wars, an asshole, gay when I think that behavior is a mortal sin, etc. and that was done both on the article and talk page."

At the moment, the Talk page does not accurately record the original discussion, since Mr. al-Ahari has repeatedly gone back and edited his original comment. In the current version, Mr. al-Ahari's statement reads:

"In the past all the comments were moved by another editor to a history page after I requested another editor to do so because of numerous biased changes that had nothing to do with the article (such as saying I was a character in Star Wars, an asshole, gay when I have never been gay, etc., and that was done both on the article and talk page."

I request that, in the spirit of your comments in your third paragraph above, the original version of Mr. al-Ahari's statement be restored.

Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As to the question of what changes in the article may be helpful, the article is full of references to material published by the Magribine Press. This is especially true of the "Bibliography of Publications" section, where 12 of the 15 entries are Magribine Press publications. However, this is all essentially self-published material. Since the article refers to so many other publications that are not self-published, it will probably help to prune self-publications from the list and focus primarily on arms-length publications. --Sarabseth (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"I request that, in the spirit of your comments in your third paragraph above, the original version of Mr. al-Ahari's statement be restored." No. I don't think you realize the gravity of what you're asking to do. This is extremely serious. You're asking us to reinsert an attack, from you, in bad faith, into a BLP, where the article subject himself is asking you not to do it. All without a reliable source. That is not even close to acceptable, whether or not it's something he said on this talk page before.

On the other matter, if there is too much of a reliance on self-published sources, then other sources should be found. Our policy states that self-published sources are allowed if "the article is not based primarily on such sources". I don't intend to get directly involved in any such discussions myself. I'm here in the administrator capacity but it might be a good idea to ask for a third opinion here. -- Atama頭 05:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"I don't think you realize the gravity of what you're asking to do." You have misunderstood me completely, and I'm not sure why. I was talking only about Mr. Ahari's comment on the Talk page, not about the article. Like I said before, at the moment, the Talk page does not accurately record the original discussion. I'm only asking for his original comment on the Talk page to be restored to its original version. This is in the spirit of the third paragraph of your original comment, where you said: "Also, it's not a good idea to try to edit a comment you've made weeks, months, or years ago". --Sarabseth (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• slap my forehead* Oh, I totally misunderstood you. No, that would be fine. In fact, I see that there has been a lot of discussion that was deleted from this talk page, and WP:TALK#per our guidelines that information should be made available. I will see about restoring those discussions, but putting them into an archive so that this page isn't cluttered. -- Atama頭 07:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you also please respond to two other points I had raised on February 12 above: about your statement that I had twisted Mr. al-Ahari's original Talk page comment, and your statement that in his original Talk page comment Mr. al-Ahari "was pointing out how his religion considers it a sin".

The waters have been muddied considerably by all the edits Mr. al-Ahari has made to previous comments, and by all his subsequent spin about his original statement (spin that is, unfortunately, not very accurate, to put it mildly). I am concerned that you may not have had a clear picture of the facts when you made the made your initial judgements on February 11. (My original COI referral contains not only a clear summary of the facts, but also provides the link to his original statement before all the whitewashing edits started. If it is helpful, I can provide a summary of the rather extensive whitewashing edits.) --Sarabseth (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he said what he originally said. But he's allowed to clarify that his statement was based on his religious teachings. So what of it? Perhaps "twisting" isn't the proper way to put it. But your statement was basically attacking him through his religious beliefs. If his religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin then who are we to single it out for ridicule? Again, what does it matter, how does that information improve this biography in any way?

Yes, I'd like to see the whitewashing. If we ignore the talk page discussion that was removed (it should and will be restored to an archive I promise) and the homosexuality information that doesn't belong in the article, what else was whitewashed? -- Atama頭 08:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The only thing Sarabseth ever attacked me, bsides his nasty attitude and name calling, was that I whitewashed my view on Homosexuality. In the Talk Page I discussed a previous attack and stated my view as a Muslim. His intial attack said I wrote the article and that is when I told a previous editor had archived the Talk page because of attacks calling me homosexual and anything else and of course all were false. Thats when his attacks started.MoorishAm1965a 13:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoorishAm1965a (talk • contribs)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Muhammed al-Ahari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222191323/http://fountainmagazine.com/article.php?ARTICLEID=574 to http://www.fountainmagazine.com/article.php?ARTICLEID=574
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060404220609/http://ilahiyat.sdu.edu.tr/sempozyumlar/alevilikbektasilik/SEMPK-2.pdf to http://ilahiyat.sdu.edu.tr/sempozyumlar/alevilikbektasilik/SEMPK-2.pdf

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) 20:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)