Talk:May 2014 San Diego County wildfires

About that section heading "Fires"...

I think the section heading "Fires" should be removed. It is not helpful in organizing the article; per WP:MOS the purpose of section headings is to divide the content into sections within a hierarchy. A section heading that includes the entire contents of the article does not do this and is not helpful to the reader. It would be like calling the entire contents of a book "Chapter One". If no one objects I am going to remove the section heading "Fires" and restore the actual fires as the primary section headings. --MelanieN (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No, this should stay, because it is grouped into one section, with many smaller subsections. Also, there is also the School Closures section, so in order to stress the level of significance, the titles should remain the way the are. LightandDark2000 (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what others think. I continue to think the "Wildfires" heading is not helpful and is equivalent to calling the entire contents of a book "Chapter One".

In addition, IMO there is absolutely no need for the "school closures" section; I think it should be deleted. School closure information is mentioned in the lead, and covered in detail in the individual sections. School closure information is of only passing/temporary interest, and I could not find any other wildfire article that has a separate section about school closures. In any case, the presence of another insignificant section does not eliminate the problem: the entire article is about the wildfires, so it is counterproductive to have a section titled "wildfires". --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact I am going to delete the "school closures" section. It adds nothing to the article. Let's talk separately about the other section heading. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the "Wildfires" section is necessary, because remember, we have other major sections on this article as well. Same thing with TV Series episode listings (which is why the Seasons are all listed under the section "Episode List" for the shorter articles). In the same way, the wildfires need to be organized under one main, "Wildfire" section. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

So no, you can't delete it. It's just how articles similar to this one are formatted, both for TV series episode listings and for any wildfire(s) article listing several major named fires. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

San Diego Complex Fire

If the new name "San Diego Complex Fire" catches on, we should consider renaming this article to that name. At this point the media have not picked it up (or have picked it up wrong, saying it is synonymous with the Poinsettia Fire), so it is not yet in common enough usage to use as the article name. But if it catches on it would be a better name than "May 2014 San Diego County Wildfires". --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW I am not entirely convinced by the official position that every one of these fires was caused by the Bernardo Fire. Earlier it was said that the Poinsettia Fire was caused by a truck fire, but now the same (updated) reference says the cause is unknown. Also, we haven't mentioned this story in the article and it may not be relevant, but there were a couple of teenagers arrested for arson; they were caught setting small brush fires that were quickly extinguished; at the time of their arrest they were not blamed for any of the wildfires. Anyhow I think we may need to wait for the investigations to be sure of the various causes. The current reporting in the article seems about right. --MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

They're not all related, which is why I didn't label every one of them with the title. Even though the media has caught on, we can't rename the article because not all of the fires were caused by the Bernardo Fire. However, CAL FIRE has confirmed that most of them are related, so the titles should't be removed. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the Poinsettia Fire is a completely different, and thus, unrelated fire. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not what your map says.[1] "Poinsettia Fire Perimeter - San Diego Complex Perimeters 5/16/14" At this point, that map is the only evidence we have of what is and is not included in the San Diego Complex. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops. I actually meant the Cocos Fire. Sorry for the misunderstanding. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear about which ones actually ARE regarded as part of the Complex. So far the only source of information we have is that map, right? I haven't been able to find the term anyplace else, including the Cal Fire incident reporting system. The map identifies the Bernardo, Highway, Tomahawk, Poinsettia, River, and Aurora fires as part of the San Diego Complex. That's only six but the article says nine; what am I missing? Some fires in the article may be misidentified as part of the Complex, and that should be corrected. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There are others identified via the News and older fire maps (which I have access to). That makes 8. As for the others, I'm sure that the San Diego Complex Fire began the Combat Fire as well as many of the smaller, unnamed fires, making it at least 10, so that solves our counting issues. LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any other identifications of Complex fires "in the news"; the media either doesn't use the term at all, or they think San Diego Complex means the Poinsettia Fire (I saw three separate news reports stating that the Poinsettia Fire had been renamed the San Diego Complex Fire.) As for your statement that "you are sure" certain fires were begun by the San Diego Complex, that does not cut it here. Let's either have actual sources, or leave it out; we can't put things into an encyclopedia just on our hunch. I'm actually getting uncomfortable with using this term at all, since it is so poorly documented; they don't even use it on their incident website. --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the term San Diego Complex was used by CAL FIRE to identify all the concurrent operations under CAL FIRE command. It implies absolutely nothing about the source of the fires and whether they are related or not, but simply identifies the fires that need coordination of available resources in the region. This is why when CAL FIRE took over command from Carlsbad Fire Department over the Poinsettia Fire, they started referring to it as part of the SD Complex fire. Some of the smaller fires remained under local fire department command, and were therefore never made part of the SD Complex (for example the River Fire in Oceanside) Officially, the causes of all but the Bernardo fire are currently still under investigation. It is pretty much physically impossible for all of them to be caused by embers from the Bernardo fire however. Some of the fires which are part of the complex (Tomahawk and Highway) started over 25 miles north of the Bernardo fire, and could not possibly have been started by embers carried by the wind from the Bernardo fire given the wind direction at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:C4A0:4501:14B0:AC3F:437C:EA56 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It was not used to refer to all fires concurrently burning at that time. I don't know where you got the idea that it was, but, that was an incorrect usage of the term. Also, NASA has confirmed that most of the fires were ignited by the Bernardo Fire, so thus the title San Diego Complex Fire was administered in order to differentiate those fires from others burning at that time. So stop changing this, or you may find yourself in deep trouble. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Have fun. Hopefully you will fix the article when the actual cause of the fires becomes public, and admit you were wrong. Your sources are not authoritative - NASA does has no capacity to confirm anything about these fires, and they already edited the article in your link to remove the statement about the fires being ignited from Bernardo fire. It is physically impossible. Based on CAL FIRE references, ambers can fly as far as 1 mile down wind ahead of the fire front. Not 25 miles against it. Officially, CAL FIRE still has all but one of the fire listed as "cause under investigation". That should be what is stated in this article, not your personal baseless speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:C4A0:4501:14B0:AC3F:437C:EA56 (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does. NASA is a GOVERMENT agency, so its authority is legit... Seriously, next time you want to accuse someone of doing something wrong, please do some research and be informed about it first. Secondly, while the work on Wikipedia may make me a bit busy, I actually enjoy doing some of it, which is why people even bother volunteering to edit in the first place. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah right. NASA did not edit it out; it's still there. Besides, embers can fly pretty far in the wind, especially, Santa Ana winds. And have you forgotten that the wind reverses directions every night, due to the ocean breeze? So given that, there is a perfectly good way of explaining how the fires spread so far without claiming that the "embers had to go against the wind." So basically, you have just contradicted yourself twice. Always think twice before making an argument. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

People like you ruin Wikipedia. Your little power trip is clouding your sound judgment. Look at any news article from today about the fires. All the county, police and fire officials are still quoted saying that the causes of these fires are still under investigation. There is not a single reliable news or government agency source, other than 1 vague reference in the NASA photo caption (not even an article) by (to quote) "Lynn Jenner with information from CNN.com" She clearly connected the fires herself, without consulting with anybody at CAL FIRE. The NASA caption initially claimed that arson was confirmed as source of the fires, and they were called out for it by the local San Diego news paper (U-T) here: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/16/nasa-satellite-image-san-diego-wildfires/ ! Look at the headline : "NASA shares good photo, bad facts about San Diego wildfires" I live in Carlsbad, work for the city government, and have been following all the press conferences by the local officials. Guess what is the first question always asked by the media ? "Who or what caused these fires" - This is what is on everybody's mind here. Once officials announce their findings, it will be widely reported news, not a small caption on a NASA photo. Notice when the cause of the Bernardo fire was announced for example here: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/San-Diego-Bernardo-Fire-Cause-MAST-Investigators-259573401.html, there is no mention by the officials that it was also the cause of any other fires. Here are just some examples from today's local media: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Investigation-Seeks-Answers-in-San-Diego-Fires--259674291.html , http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/u-s-world/investigators-look-for-arson-in-san-diego-wildfires-20k-acres-scorched-causing-millions-in-damage05162014 "Eight of the San Diego County blazes popped up between late morning and sundown on Wednesday, raising suspicions that some had been set. Investigators will visit each burn site and go down a list to determine a cause, marking what they know and don't know.", http://abc7.com/weather/san-diego-county-fires-cause-$20m-in-damage/62990/ "Investigators said eight of the 10 fires are suspicious in nature because they erupted about an hour apart from each other.", http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/15/task-force-investigation-fire-cause-bernardo/ Not a single mention in any local media of Bernardo fire being a cause of any of the other 9 fires. Face the facts, you are 100% wrong about this, and Wikipedia should be no place for you to be soapboxing your unsourced pet theories. Every person reading this popular article right now is getting bad factually incorrect information, because of your conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:C4A0:4501:14B0:AC3F:437C:EA56 (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@LightandDark, you are the very LAST person who should be telling people to "stop changing this" and warning them that reversions could get them into "deep trouble" - because you have reverted me and other editors dozens of times over the last few days. You do not WP:OWN this article; what goes into the article is determined by consensus; but you have insisted on inserting your own version and interpretation on several controversial matters. I have expressed skepticism about some of this information, including the notion that other fires were caused by the Bernardo Fire, and especially the poorly documented "San Diego Complex Fire" name. But I have not changed it, because I am just one person and I do not own the article either. But now we have a second opinion that there are problems with this information, so we need to take a fresh look at it.

• What is the evidence that some or all or "at least nine of the wildfires are believed to have originated from the Bernardo Fire"? Answer: Very weak. That information appeared in the caption of a NASA photo, not any kind of official report (interesting to see that the UT called out NASA for inaccurate information in another photo caption). The "caused by the Bernardo Fire" claim has not been confirmed or even repeated by any other source in the days since NASA posted it. I am going to remove that claim entirely. However I would not object to inserting something like this: "There was an initial claim that many of these fires were ignited by embers from the Bernardo Fire, which ignited on May 13, 2014;(NASA reference) however, that claim has not been confirmed, and all the fires subsequent to the Bernardo Fire are still listed as "cause under investigation." I prefer deletion.
• What is the evidence that certain "wildfires were collectively dubbed the San Diego Complex Fire" by CAL FIRE"? Answer: Very weak. The only use of that term by Cal Fire has been to identify a "San Diego Complex perimeter" on some maps. Cal Fire has NEVER used the term "San Diego Complex" in any other context, and has never used the term "San Diego Complex Fire" at all. I am going to change it to to "Several of the wildfires were identified by CAL FIRE at various times as being inside the perimeter of a collective "San Diego Complex". These included the Bernardo, Highway, Tomahawk, Poinsettia, River, and Aurora fires." And then we need not mention it under every separate fire.
• What is the evidence that the name San Diego Complex Fire applies to those fires which are believed to have originated from the Bernardo Fire? Surprising answer: Absolutely none! There is no source anywhere that has linked the name "San Diego Complex Fire" to the idea that that those are fires which originated with the Bernardo Fire. None! This claim appears to have been WP:Synthesis or WP:Original research and I am going to delete it right now. I'm embarrassed that I didn't catch it earlier.

LightandDark, I must now turn your own warning against you: When I or someone else makes these changes, do not revert them. These changes are supported by consensus. You should not reinsert your version of the information unless you get consensus here first.--MelanieN (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: Now I see that the Tomahawk Fire, which on May 16 was identified as within the "San Diego Complex perimeter", is now identified as within the "Basilone perimeter." This makes it clear that these perimeter designations are merely temporary and have no permanent significance. Accordingly I am going to remove all mention of them. --MelanieN (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I will leave the data out of the article for now, given that only one source has stated this so far and the fact that it appears to be unreliable. However, please remain civil in all discussions, no matter what kind of evidence you may have to present. Please avoid attacking other users and assume good faith; after all, most of us are here to improve the encyclopedia, not to tear it down, and no one should harbor that impression against any other editor, unless their edit explicitly implies that their only intent is to cause vandalism. In all cases, just present your stance and the issue and strong supporting points to back it up and then leave it at that; there's no need to get all heated up and accuse each other. You have some very good points; however, please keep in mind that there is a point in which it can go too far. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

PS, please always state the reason/evidence behind your actions every time in the edit summary, no matter how big or small the edit is. If you don't others may not know the reason why you added/removed information, and as such, your edit may be reverted subsequently. In such cases, you will be fully responsible if your edits get reverted, so please remember to always explain your reasoning. This applies not only to the both of you, but also everyone else who contributes to any Wikimedia project. Thank you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Heat

Let's not get into an edit war over this, but "heat" is not appropriate for describing the SOURCE of a fire. "Source" means IGNITION source, as you can see in the infobox. "Heat" does not ignite fires, it just spreads them. There is always a source of ignition. When officials issue a report on the cause of the fire, it will say "natural" (such as lightning) or "accidental" (such as a vehicle fire) or "intentional" (arson). It will NEVER say the cause of a fire was "heat". And they haven't said so for any of the fires listed here, or at "2014 California wildfires". --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. As for "arson", none of the fires have been attributed to arson at this point. One guy has been arrested and accused of adding fuel to an existing wildfire, but they specifically say that he did NOT start it. Oceanside police Lt. Sean Marshand said (name of suspect redacted) is believed to have added fuel to the fire but not to have started it. "Unfortunately we don't have the guy that we really want," he said. There has been speculation about arson in the media, and that is all it is: speculation. In some cases, it's just politicians shooting off their mouths with admittedly no evidence. We must not have "arson" in this article until we can attribute it to a Reliable Source. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Heat can ignite fire, an example of this is when you hold a magnifier over a dry leaf and then it catches fire... This has been listed a a source of wildfires for many other articles, and now I have provided proof so please don't remove it again. By the way, it was either an Escondido fire or the Cocos Fire in which the media identified an arsonist fleeing the scene. A guy happened to be right next to the freeway when the fire started and he decided to film it, and he saw a guy in a white shirt driving away from the new fire in a golf cart. So there you go, proof for both arsonist and heat causes.

PS, 2 people were arrested in Escondido for attempting to ignite a new wildfire. That's definitely an arsonist cause. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my, where to start? We have GOT to have reliable sources for this stuff. Thousands of people a day are viewing this article, the information has GOT to be accurate. Our need for reliable sources here is even stronger than for a normal article.

Yes, I mentioned that case above already (the two teenagers attempting to start fires). They are not charged with any of the fires in this article. Similarly, the guy who was adding fuel to the fires is not charged with starting any of them. The infobox says "Ignition source", meaning the source that ignited the fires reported in the article. The fact that there were some unsuccessful arson attempts during the time does not mean that any of these fires were started by arson.

Yes, you can focus the sun's heat to start a fire. There is NO evidence that this happened in any of these cases. "now you have provided proof" what proof? Proof that it is theoretically possible? Proof will be when a Reliable Source says "heat" ignited one of these fires.

An unconfirmed report of someone "fleeing the scene" of one of the fires, not sure which one - that is hardly evidence of arson. If you regard this as "proof of arson" I would hate to have you sit on any jury! When someone in authority says it was arson, or even says they are looking for a suspect, then we can put it in - as cited information in the body of the text, and in the infobox supported by the text. At this point there is NOTHING in the article to support putting "arson" in the infobox.

Look, listing "heat" as an ignition source only makes us look silly; it doesn't really harm the article. But it is wildly irresponsible for us to promote speculation by putting "arson" in the infobox as if there was actually arson listed as a cause of any of those fires. If you insist on putting that in there I may have to go looking for informed third opinions. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I will remove the arsonist for now. But excessive heat is known to cause wildfires, so it should stay. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for removing "arsonist". I won't argue about "heat" since at least having it there isn't doing any harm. --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

San Mateo Fire vs. Combat Fire

It seems like Camp Pendleton is officially called it San Mateo on their official update page. http://www.mccscp.com/brushfire. Should we change the heading? I see it listed with the formerly known section on the wiki page, but it seems to be the current name. Ghostkrashers (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that is that Cal Fire is calling it the Combat Fire,[2] and Cal Fire names are usually regarded as the official names. So I think it should stay Combat fire with the other names as alternates. --MelanieN (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The media are uniformly calling it the San Mateo Fire (following Camp Pendleton's lead) so I altered the paragraph to show that both names are being used. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Which one is the most common name? Rename the section to that name, as per WP:COMMONNAME. (but still include both names in the section itself). LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Cal Fire is now calling it the San Mateo Fire, so I made that the primary name. I made the section heading "San Mateo Fire (Combat Fire)" but feel free to delete "(Combat Fire)" from the section heading if you think it doesn't belong there. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just cleaned it up. However, I moved it to the lead sentence of the San Mateo Fire section, due to the importance of the name. Please also note that the secondary titles (such as the former names of wildfires) are supposed to be italicized, not bolded. Please try to keep this in mind next time. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sycamore Fire??

Is there any evidence that the Santee fire described here was ever named the Sycamore Fire? or escalated to the level of a named fire? I can't find that it was. If it wasn't, it should be given a paragraph in the "other fires" section, not given a section and name of its own. --MelanieN (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

if there is no response or evidence that this is a major named fire, I am going to move this paragraph to "other fires". MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The name was in a different, but related site. I didn't cite it 'cause I didn't want to clutter up the page. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

We have been very consistent at this article in making section headings only for "named" fires (that is, named by Cal Fire). Cal Fire never named this fire. KPBS reported on it but did not call it the Sycamore Fire in their report. The new reference you added does not use that name that I could find, it is merely a listing of news stories (the one about this fire comes up on page 2). But even if KPBS did refer to it somewhere as the Sycamore Fire, that would not qualify it for a section heading in this article if it wasn't a Cal Fire name. I have moved it to the "other fires" section. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that you added the name to the paragraph under the "other fires" section. Please show me ANYPLACE where it was ever called that. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If you clicked on the correct fire icon on the second source that I had provided, you would have found the name. Here is the link. I believe that it is the second-closest fire to the Cleveland National Forest (one of the bottom-most fires). LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

OIC. I guess that's enough evidence to support that SOMEBODY calls it that, even if CalFire doesn't. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Eh. Some sources just make it harder to find certain pieces of information. Luckily for us, that wasn't a site where the webpage was deleted, or one where you had to pay for a subscription to view. I hate such citations the most, and I believe that Wikipedia should have a policy banning people from citing such unstable sources, unless it happens to be the only place where their information can be found. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that kind of page is problematic - and should probably not be cited in an article. For one thing, the page is temporary (probably won't exist in a month) and for another, it isn't clear where to find the information you want to cite. I suggest we just leave it as agreed-upon here on the talk page to support the name, and otherwise let it go. --MelanieN (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

See Also list

IMO the See Also list has gotten way out of control. There is no reason to list links to other unrelated fires, or to lists of fires in unrelated years. I think the list should be pruned down to just List of California wildfires, 2014 California wildfires, and (possibly) Cedar Fire since it is the other well known "San Diego wildfire". Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It should definitely have the October 2007 fires, because the Witch Creek Fire was one of the worst fires San Diego County has experienced within the past 10 years. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Fire count

@LightandDark2000: Putting this conversation here so that it is visible to others, not just you and I. The "log" you are referencing is not a valid reference (see WP:DEEPLINK). It list all the active fires that are CURRENTLY burning. As in 2015... The reference I added is the after action report for the May 2014 outbreak. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: would appreciate if you could discuss here, and not have a debate in the edit summaries... I think there is a missunderstanding/disagreement about what the "cost" parameter in the {{infobox wildfire}} is for. I was under the impression is was the cost of fighting the fire. That is just my opinion though and I will concede that point until a better consensus is reached. However, there were not 20 fires, there were 14. You cannot point to a source that says there were 20. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on May 2014 San Diego County wildfires. 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/20140515070717/http://www.weather.com/safety/wildfires/san-diego-wildfires-carlsbad-fallbrook-san-marcos-20140514 to http://www.weather.com/safety/wildfires/san-diego-wildfires-carlsbad-fallbrook-san-marcos-20140514
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714143527/http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jul/10/tp-officials-juvenile-started-cocos-blaze/ to http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jul/10/tp-officials-juvenile-started-cocos-blaze/

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) 17:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on May 2014 San Diego County wildfires. 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/20160304204125/http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2014/may/24/tp-county-estimates-wildfire-costs-at-nearly-60/ to http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2014/may/24/tp-county-estimates-wildfire-costs-at-nearly-60/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140515045953/http://www.weather.com/safety/wildfires/southern-california-brush-fire-20140513 to http://www.weather.com/safety/wildfires/southern-california-brush-fire-20140513

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) 01:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)