Talk:James T. Walsh
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Neutrality / POV
editIt would appear that an individual concerned with only one particular issue (Stem Cell Research), has taken a significant portion of this already short article to complain about this representative's voting record in that specific area. This does not conform, in my opinion, to the Neutral Point-of-View policy. Comments? --Pylon 02:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
One of the listings this article is said to be categorized under is pro-choice candidates. I would be VERY surprised if Mr. Walsh is pro-choice on abortion. Ms. F.M., constituent, Liverpool, NY
- There's one short sentence in there now. I removed the tag. Howard Cleeves 04:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Jim Walsh's Official Statement on Stem Cells
editWalsh claims to support stem cell research, just not those derived from embryonic stem cells.
http://www.house.gov/list/speech/ny25_walsh/jj_060720.html
I agree that this section needs to be rewritten to conform to the NPOV policy. Jeh25 14:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Stem Cell Research
editLike many articles, this one has incorrectly stated that Walsh supports Stem Cell research, this Vote smart link shows this clearly, http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3879&can_id=H2822103 . Please chance this immediately.
Stem Cell Research
editThe reason most people object to Mr. Walsh's stand on embryonic stem cell research is that embryonic stem cells have the potential to repair more injuries and cure more diseases than the other types of stem cells. Walsh opposes it all for the sake of an abstraction. A few cells connected together do not a human being make. We drop dead skin cells every day. And what about the parents of in vitro babies? Are they obligated to bring to term every embryo in the petrie dish? Wojto 01:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
External links and usage of FreeRepublic
editMy removal of most of the external links (per our guideline) as well as the removal of the non-reliable source Free Republic was reverted. Can someone please explain how the inclusion of those items meets our policies and guidelines? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Talk to User: Thargor Orlando:
- Regarding this article, the external links provided in said section adhere to Wiki guidelines because they provide additional information about the subject. Most of these links have been attached to the article for more than 7 years. I am wondering why you are choosing to remove them now? If you look at other politicians' articles, such as Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush, for examples, all of these types of external links are included and maintained in the article. Therefore, the same should be done for this article regarding James T. Walsh. Adding a tag about excessive external links that may not conform to Wiki guidelines is inappropriate, incorrect, and misleading because this, in fact, is not the case. Should you insist upon including such a tag, then you should also do so for every politician's article. Also, I have noticed your repeated removal of references regarding information and quotes provided about Rudy Giuliani and the subject. All references included regarding this topic are genuine and relevant to the topic and subjects. The references are from reputable and recognized organizations, and also conform to Wiki guidelines. Please add to and build up the article rather than unnecessarily removing information from it that will help readers better understand and be knowledgeable about the subject. Daniellagreen (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Additionally, in your first removal of external links, you noted that it was a "trim," however you simply removed 9 of 10 external links. If there is a desire to remove external links, then the links should also be provided within the article, as per the tag in this section that you have added. It is good policy to add and/or replace links within the article rather than just removing them. Removing 9 of 10 links is not simply a trim. Daniellagreen (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- First I agree that the external links are inappropriate in many political articles. I'll get there eventually. The point is that the links currently within the article are not appropriate now. If you want to include them in the article, please do! The burden is on the person who wants to include the information. As for my removal of FreeRepublic links, they are not a reliable source for information about a living person, and are often blatant copyright violations at that. They are simply additional sources to what's quoted anyway, so we do not need them. Do you have any policy-based arguments for the inclusion of the external links as they currently stand or the FreeRepublic pieces, or can we safely remove them and move forward? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's fine that the external links may not be relevant to the subject at this moment, however the article is a biography, and as such, to me, they continue to be relevant. Much as George W. Bush or Bill Clinton are not currently US Presidents, the external links are still maintained in their articles because they provide additional information about them that is not found in the article. In my reading of the Wiki guidelines, this is a legitimate reason for including and maintaining the external links. I think it would be unfair to be required to include every single detail that is in the external links, placing those details in the article, itself. This is another reason why external links are added to the article. People who want to know additional information and details about the subject are provided such information by going to the external links - they simply add to and build up information and sourcing regarding the subject. This is my argument for maintaining the external links. While you state there may be a burden on the individual including the links in the article for citing them as references within the article, they, therefore, also should not simply be axed without any effort being made to include them. It's easy just to delete information without making an attempt to add to or replace it. That should be done first. For these reasons, the external links should be maintained, as well as that they are relevant and included in most politicians' biographies in Wikipedia that I know of. Your actions regarding the deletion of them appear that you are simply singling out those related to this subject, James T. Walsh. About the FreeRepublic reference, it appears to me to be a reference from a reputable and recognized organization. Whether or not there are copyright issues is not the case; the issue is that it provides legitimate information about the subject. Is there anywhere in Wikipedia that states, specifically, that FreeRepublic is an unreliable source? As for the inclusion of multiple references regarding that particular information relating to the subject and Rudy Giuliani, the more references that can support a topic, the better. Therefore, if one link becomes dead or unavailable, there are others that can be reviewed. Providing multiple references builds up the article, the subject, and the topics at hand. Daniellagreen (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is not the relevance of the links, it's that we have a guideline to keep external link sections from becoming a directory. Please refer to it, I've linked it above, and you'll understand why your argument runs afoul of how we handle the links. As for FreeRepublic, please read the discussions here and here. The links were actually blacklisted for a time so they could not be linked. As it stands, this is literally the only article that uses FreeRepublic as a source on the entire project, which should tell you something. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Understood, but here again, that hasn't applied to any other politicians' articles on Wiki that I know of, nor in which I have been involved in editing, but this one. The guidelines also state that external links are included so that additional information about the subject is provided. Again, nearly all of these links have already been attached to the article for more than 7 years. Again, it appears that this article is being singled out with the outright, prior deletion of 9 external links without any attempt to include all of their information within the body of the article. And, if that was to occur, the article would probably be 100 pages. Just the Peace Corps link, alone, would provide dozens of pages of information. All of that information is relevant to the subject for providing additional information that is not provided in the article. Per Wiki's guidelines, that is why external links are attached to the article, to provide information about the subject that is not included within the article. That is the best reason for maintaining these external links attached to the article. That also applies to all other articles on Wiki, not just biographies, that include such external links. It is unreasonable to expect any editor to include every single piece of information within a Wiki article from every external link. So, by no means do the external links here rise to the level of being a directory. The meaning of "directory" is subjective. To me, a directory includes dozens, hundreds, or thousands of pieces of information. To you, a directory includes only 10 pieces of information. About the FreeRepublic, I had no familiarity about the site prior to acquiring the one particular reference for the article, and including it. I read the entirety of the links that you provided, and this is the type of information I was really seeking regarding perspectives about references related to this website. It appears that most people simply have very negative thoughts and views about it, and want to blacklist it simply because of that. My point in including the reference from the website is that the information cited is legitimate. It has not been altered or misconstrued in any way. Additionally, the information provided in the reference was released to the press for republication, so there is no issue about copyright infringement. The information relating to this specific reference is completely genuine, whether or not other information from this website is. Also, the website is a legitimate organization. While people may attach comments to it, it is not actually a blog, but a news forum. Based on the links that you provided about the controversy surrounding this particular website, again, it simply appears that people have negative views about it, though it is a forum for free speech. By not including the website as a reliable source, it would seem that whatever various perspectives there are on the website are being quashed, resulting in potentially eliminating a balanced viewpoint. At any rate, I view the website as a news source and, in regard to this particular article, a legitimate reference. However, if there is that much controversy and so many negative feelings about it, it can be removed, however in this particular case, there does not appear to be any need for its removal other than some Wiki editors simply dislike the website. In this particular case, it only appears that everyone but me has jumped on the bandwagon of disliking this website, and limiting its use as a reliable source on Wikipedia, thereby also limiting free speech about particular issues, even when the information provided is completely correct and legitimate - that's what it tells me. One would think that the issue could be considered on a case-by-case basis, rather than blacklisting a website that has provided legitimate information to support the subject of this article. I'm all about building articles and sourcing information with references, so while this information is good to know, I think it reflects that just because many editors dislike the website, they also believe that the website should not be used in referencing. When too many people are willing to just go along with that, it diminishes what we're about - providing information and adequately sourcing it. Just because a majority approves of something, doesn't necessarily mean its right or just. Daniellagreen (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- With the external links, right now I'm hitting any that are tagged and any I'm catching that also have source issues. Whether other articles also need to conform to the policy/guideline in this matter is irrelevant to the need for this article to do so. So if you can explain how those links do not violate WP:EL, please do so. As for FreeRepublic, it is not a reliable source for claims, it is self published, and we do not use it on this site. WP:RS, our policy on reliable sources, is not really negotiable here, and, as I noted, FreeRepublic is not used anywhere else (outside of the article about FreeRepublic) on the project. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Several times, I have explained that the external links provide additional information about the article's subject - that is reason enough to maintain them. At least maintain them until myself or another editor can include them as references within the article. I don't really see what the big deal is about maintaining them, particularly when other articles don't appear to conform to the policy. It still seems that you are nit-picking and obsessing about the external links on this article. I understand that is part of your work, however it is also good policy to give others a chance to include the links within the article, especially if you are not going to do so, yourself. About FreeRepublic, so then, it basically appears that the site is still blacklisted by Wiki. You stated that it had been blacklisted in the past, so that means that it is not right now. As a reliable source, it does appear to be a news source that also includes readers' comments, which does not make it a blog, nor an unreliable source if people can filter readers' comments. If the site is not acceptable for Wiki, it should be specifically stated in the policy guidelines so that editors who include it as a reference do not unknowingly get into this situation. I really don't see a problem with it, so you can go ahead and remove it, however I still make my case that the site is a news source, and provided reliable, genuine, and legitimate information related to the cite in question. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how else to explain to you that the Wikipedia community has decided that simply "additional information" is not "reason enough to maintain them." If you want to hold onto them, add them to a sandbox in your userpage and put them in the article as warranted. As for FreeRepublic, it is not a news source, it is a forum/blog that is self-published and thus a reliable source. Our policy guidelines don't really talk about individual sites because it would be impossible to maintain and would ignore exceptions (such as the use of the FreeRepublic site in a piece about FreeRepublic). As this is no longer controversial, I will remove it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Several times, I have explained that the external links provide additional information about the article's subject - that is reason enough to maintain them. At least maintain them until myself or another editor can include them as references within the article. I don't really see what the big deal is about maintaining them, particularly when other articles don't appear to conform to the policy. It still seems that you are nit-picking and obsessing about the external links on this article. I understand that is part of your work, however it is also good policy to give others a chance to include the links within the article, especially if you are not going to do so, yourself. About FreeRepublic, so then, it basically appears that the site is still blacklisted by Wiki. You stated that it had been blacklisted in the past, so that means that it is not right now. As a reliable source, it does appear to be a news source that also includes readers' comments, which does not make it a blog, nor an unreliable source if people can filter readers' comments. If the site is not acceptable for Wiki, it should be specifically stated in the policy guidelines so that editors who include it as a reference do not unknowingly get into this situation. I really don't see a problem with it, so you can go ahead and remove it, however I still make my case that the site is a news source, and provided reliable, genuine, and legitimate information related to the cite in question. Daniellagreen (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- With the external links, right now I'm hitting any that are tagged and any I'm catching that also have source issues. Whether other articles also need to conform to the policy/guideline in this matter is irrelevant to the need for this article to do so. So if you can explain how those links do not violate WP:EL, please do so. As for FreeRepublic, it is not a reliable source for claims, it is self published, and we do not use it on this site. WP:RS, our policy on reliable sources, is not really negotiable here, and, as I noted, FreeRepublic is not used anywhere else (outside of the article about FreeRepublic) on the project. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Understood, but here again, that hasn't applied to any other politicians' articles on Wiki that I know of, nor in which I have been involved in editing, but this one. The guidelines also state that external links are included so that additional information about the subject is provided. Again, nearly all of these links have already been attached to the article for more than 7 years. Again, it appears that this article is being singled out with the outright, prior deletion of 9 external links without any attempt to include all of their information within the body of the article. And, if that was to occur, the article would probably be 100 pages. Just the Peace Corps link, alone, would provide dozens of pages of information. All of that information is relevant to the subject for providing additional information that is not provided in the article. Per Wiki's guidelines, that is why external links are attached to the article, to provide information about the subject that is not included within the article. That is the best reason for maintaining these external links attached to the article. That also applies to all other articles on Wiki, not just biographies, that include such external links. It is unreasonable to expect any editor to include every single piece of information within a Wiki article from every external link. So, by no means do the external links here rise to the level of being a directory. The meaning of "directory" is subjective. To me, a directory includes dozens, hundreds, or thousands of pieces of information. To you, a directory includes only 10 pieces of information. About the FreeRepublic, I had no familiarity about the site prior to acquiring the one particular reference for the article, and including it. I read the entirety of the links that you provided, and this is the type of information I was really seeking regarding perspectives about references related to this website. It appears that most people simply have very negative thoughts and views about it, and want to blacklist it simply because of that. My point in including the reference from the website is that the information cited is legitimate. It has not been altered or misconstrued in any way. Additionally, the information provided in the reference was released to the press for republication, so there is no issue about copyright infringement. The information relating to this specific reference is completely genuine, whether or not other information from this website is. Also, the website is a legitimate organization. While people may attach comments to it, it is not actually a blog, but a news forum. Based on the links that you provided about the controversy surrounding this particular website, again, it simply appears that people have negative views about it, though it is a forum for free speech. By not including the website as a reliable source, it would seem that whatever various perspectives there are on the website are being quashed, resulting in potentially eliminating a balanced viewpoint. At any rate, I view the website as a news source and, in regard to this particular article, a legitimate reference. However, if there is that much controversy and so many negative feelings about it, it can be removed, however in this particular case, there does not appear to be any need for its removal other than some Wiki editors simply dislike the website. In this particular case, it only appears that everyone but me has jumped on the bandwagon of disliking this website, and limiting its use as a reliable source on Wikipedia, thereby also limiting free speech about particular issues, even when the information provided is completely correct and legitimate - that's what it tells me. One would think that the issue could be considered on a case-by-case basis, rather than blacklisting a website that has provided legitimate information to support the subject of this article. I'm all about building articles and sourcing information with references, so while this information is good to know, I think it reflects that just because many editors dislike the website, they also believe that the website should not be used in referencing. When too many people are willing to just go along with that, it diminishes what we're about - providing information and adequately sourcing it. Just because a majority approves of something, doesn't necessarily mean its right or just. Daniellagreen (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is not the relevance of the links, it's that we have a guideline to keep external link sections from becoming a directory. Please refer to it, I've linked it above, and you'll understand why your argument runs afoul of how we handle the links. As for FreeRepublic, please read the discussions here and here. The links were actually blacklisted for a time so they could not be linked. As it stands, this is literally the only article that uses FreeRepublic as a source on the entire project, which should tell you something. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's fine that the external links may not be relevant to the subject at this moment, however the article is a biography, and as such, to me, they continue to be relevant. Much as George W. Bush or Bill Clinton are not currently US Presidents, the external links are still maintained in their articles because they provide additional information about them that is not found in the article. In my reading of the Wiki guidelines, this is a legitimate reason for including and maintaining the external links. I think it would be unfair to be required to include every single detail that is in the external links, placing those details in the article, itself. This is another reason why external links are added to the article. People who want to know additional information and details about the subject are provided such information by going to the external links - they simply add to and build up information and sourcing regarding the subject. This is my argument for maintaining the external links. While you state there may be a burden on the individual including the links in the article for citing them as references within the article, they, therefore, also should not simply be axed without any effort being made to include them. It's easy just to delete information without making an attempt to add to or replace it. That should be done first. For these reasons, the external links should be maintained, as well as that they are relevant and included in most politicians' biographies in Wikipedia that I know of. Your actions regarding the deletion of them appear that you are simply singling out those related to this subject, James T. Walsh. About the FreeRepublic reference, it appears to me to be a reference from a reputable and recognized organization. Whether or not there are copyright issues is not the case; the issue is that it provides legitimate information about the subject. Is there anywhere in Wikipedia that states, specifically, that FreeRepublic is an unreliable source? As for the inclusion of multiple references regarding that particular information relating to the subject and Rudy Giuliani, the more references that can support a topic, the better. Therefore, if one link becomes dead or unavailable, there are others that can be reviewed. Providing multiple references builds up the article, the subject, and the topics at hand. Daniellagreen (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
There was somewhere in the guidelines where I read that external links are included to provide additional information about the subject when such information is not otherwise included in the article about the subject. I cannot locate that information now, though I did read it a few days ago. I would contest, however, an insistence on the removal of the external links. Based on the guidelines, as I understand them, links to one's official website or organization, and that which is controlled by the subject, are to be maintained. Also, Wiki sister links are to be maintained. Based on that, my understanding is that the links that can be maintained include the official Congress biography link, the Peace Corps biography link, the Congresspedia link, and the K & L Gates biography link. Therefore, I argue to maintain those four. The others, I will copy and place in my sandbox for further work in the future. Daniellagreen (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the Congressional and K&L bio links. Peace Corps and Congresspedia, however, still do not qualify. Congresspedia is a wiki that is specifically not to be linked to, and the Peace Corps site is not from the official Peace Corps, and is just a link directory. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is very unnecessarily complicated. Congresspedia is a sister Wiki, but it is not to be linked to. The Peace Corps link does appear to be a directory, but the biography is at this link: http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/2629/1009839.html. Is that still not considered official, then? If there is a more official Peace Corps bio link, then, it could be included - I will search. FreeRepublic provides legitimate information, but its not considered a reliable source. There certainly is alot of conflicting information regarding Wiki's policies and guidelines. I have suggested in the past to other editors that increased clarity be provided, and it doesn't happen. I'm sure if I made the suggestions, they would just be shot down anyway, so what's the use? It would certainly save having to go through all of this. Daniellagreen (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Couldn't locate a bio for anyone on the official Peace Corps websites, so I removed the external link associated with that. I also removed Congresspedia. This is now a total of 8 links removed; there are now 2. I hope that is satisfactory, and will work on including information from the deleted links into the article. Daniellagreen (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is very unnecessarily complicated. Congresspedia is a sister Wiki, but it is not to be linked to. The Peace Corps link does appear to be a directory, but the biography is at this link: http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/2629/1009839.html. Is that still not considered official, then? If there is a more official Peace Corps bio link, then, it could be included - I will search. FreeRepublic provides legitimate information, but its not considered a reliable source. There certainly is alot of conflicting information regarding Wiki's policies and guidelines. I have suggested in the past to other editors that increased clarity be provided, and it doesn't happen. I'm sure if I made the suggestions, they would just be shot down anyway, so what's the use? It would certainly save having to go through all of this. Daniellagreen (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on James T. Walsh. 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/20140202113950/http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/ to http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202113854/http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/hearing.htm to http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/hearing.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on James T. Walsh. 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/20140202114200/http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/series_01/The%20Syracuse%20Common%20Council.htm to http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/series_01/The%20Syracuse%20Common%20Council.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140218224926/http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/w000099/ to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/w000099/
- Added archive https://archive.is/20140122023127/http://watchdog.net/p/james_t._walsh to http://watchdog.net/p/james_t._walsh
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202114401/http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/veterans.htm to http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/veterans.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202114055/http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/Hancock%202.htm to http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/Hancock%202.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202114057/http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/images/hancock0002w.jpg to http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/images/hancock0002w.jpg
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201175651/http://jeffmiller.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=134365 to http://jeffmiller.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=134365
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202114204/http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/series_04/Jim_Journals.htm to http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/series_04/Jim_Journals.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202114305/http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/ireland.htm to http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/ireland.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201202437/http://dublin.usembassy.gov/walsh.html to http://dublin.usembassy.gov/walsh.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201175054/http://vanhollen.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=143042 to http://vanhollen.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=143042
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202114302/http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/onondaga_lake.htm to http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/onondaga_lake.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150124231842/http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/technology.htm to http://web.sbu.edu/friedsam/archives/walsh_jt/technology.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201102202/https://forms.house.gov/slaughter/2001news/ritfiresfunding.htm to https://forms.house.gov/slaughter/2001news/ritfiresfunding.htm
- Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20080815012332/http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jim_Walsh to http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jim_Walsh
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)