Talk:Mike Mendoza (broadcaster)

Anti-French?

Wikipedia:Citing sources#When adding material to the biography of a living person:

Biographies of living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All negative material about living persons must be sourced to a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately. Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page. This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Editors should remove any negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. This action is listed as an exception to the three-revert rule.

- With these clear rules in mind vague and potentially controversial statements like Mike Mendoza hates the French are not acceptable.

Biographies of a living page need to be sourced... Disillusioned-

Mendoza's outspoken, almost comical hatred of French people is one of his trademarks, and he would regard the material you have censored as a fair assessment of his views. His show thrives on controversy, very much in the tradition of conservative talk radio. The fact that he is not famous enough to merit widespread internet coverage (and therefore source material for something that is clearly not libellous) does not excuse your deletions. 195.92.67.75 14:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think criticism of the French government/French farmers/etc is being blurred with outright xenophobia. Regardless, the rules concerning the biography of a living person are pretty clear. Vague comments such as those I have removed – saying that he detests the people of France and Germany could be if untrue – libellous. In the absence of any solid source such comments cannot stay. I can also detect an element of this page being used to try and discredit the personality in question by perhaps exaggerating certain alleged comments. I hope that is not the case but I hope 195.92.67.75 understands the need stipulated by wikipedia for proper souring. Disillusioned-

Mendoza is a supporter of Israel

I'm not sure what is meant by this unsourced remark. Does it mean Mendoza supports the existence of the State of Israel? If that is the case I don't think it is noteworthy - there are few people in this country who admit to openly not supporting the existence of Israel.

Or does the remark mean that Mendoza directly supports causes relating to supporting Israel? e.g. Zionist charities. Disillusioned-

Err, I think it means he supports the policies of Israel in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Malangyar (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Current dispute

As reverting isn't being productive, I've requested another pair of eyes. To summarise, here are the sections under dispute:

• Whether Mendoza should be described as "right-wing". Added by IP, removed by User:Mike mendoza, who has been confirmed as the subject of the article via email. Unsourced.
• Whether the subject of this article was a Tory councillor. Added by IP, removed by Mendoza. There clearly was a Tory councillor called Mike Mendoza [1] [2] [3], but I think it's a different guy, because I've seen no article which said they were the same; and "popular DJ becomes councillor" is something we could expect the press to report on.
• Whether "Mendoza is Jewish and has co-founded a London-based Jewish radio station, Shalom FM, in order to provide, he says, "some balanced reporting about the community and Israel." [4]". Added by IP, removed by Mendoza. The fact that this Mendoza co-founded Shalom FM does seems sourced by this - I've asked Mendoza why the source is wrong, but he hasn't replied as yet. I don't see that co-founding a Jewish radio station necessarily makes him Jewish, however.

That's where we are. My position is that the right-wing and councillor bits should remain out unless sourced, and the Shalom FM mention should remain in unless the source is shown to be unreliable. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. Second all of that. Cheers Samuel.Disillusioned-^(talk)

Thanks, I'm glad I'm not the only one taking this position any more. Semi- or full protection may still become necessary if IPs and User:Mike mendoza continue blind reverting without proper discussion (i.e. not an edit summary saying "check the phone book"). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In his interview with JTA, Mendoza said: "We are one of the few ethnic groups in London without a radio voice". [5] He said we are, not they are, therefore he is a member of the Jewish ethnic group. Secondly, on his show, Mendoza has stated on many occasions that he served on Adur District Council, and many thousands of his listeners and the Talksport archive can testify to the fact. If User:Mike mendoza is the genuine article then he has proven himself to be a slippery liar who is ashamed of his Jewish identity and his past political activities.

Regards 217.134.86.106 15:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that per WP:RS, no information that you get via email can be included in the article. You're welcome to use such information to help you decide how to edit the article, but please do not quote it, cite it, or otherwise mention it in the article itself.

Also, please note that per Wikipedia:Username, Names of well-known living or recently deceased people, such as Chuck Norris or Ken Lay, [are not allowed as usernames] unless you are that living person. If you are, please note this on your user page. These accounts may be temporarily blocked pending confirmation, if in an administrator's best judgment, or per discussion, there may be doubt over the validity of the claim. I'm not sure if Mr. Mendoza is considered to be "well-known", but perhaps you might want to suggest to him that he should, as a minimum, make such a note on his user page. John Broughton | Talk 14:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mike mendoza has confirmed his identity via email, as can be seen in his block log.

And no, stuff heard on the radio cannot be used as a reliable source, because it's unrepeatable. Unless it's recorded somewhere public, no-one else can check that what you claim you heard on the radio was actually said. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize you were an admin and presumably familiar with the policies.

Mendoza is not on the council now: [6]. And a search of Mendoza Adur Talksport on google (UK pages) found no hits. If it helps, the councilor's full name was Michael David Mendoza, per this, a member of the Conservative Party. (Contrary evidence - that the radio guy and the councilor are the same - evidence that is NOT acceptable per WP:RS, is this forum discussion.)

I even tried archive.org; for some reason, while many Azur district website pages from the past are accessible, access to the page with names (and possibly pictures) of councilors has been blocked. But given that there is NO mention on the talksport website of him being elected to the council, I agree it's necessary to find a reliable source for this before it's appropriate for posting. Personally, I'd even settle for something showing what his middle name is. John Broughton | Talk 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am here responding to a plea on Wikipedia:Third opinion.

• User:Mike Mendoza and the other editors should read the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and the policy Wikipedia:Biography of living persons.
• If there are reliable sources establishing certain facts relevant to the subject, then those facts should be retained. Blanking out factual parts of the article that you disagree with is considered vandalism, and can result in you being blocked from future edits.
• At the same time, any unsourced facts should be quickly removed.
• Futhermore, note that it is possible to collect sourced facts in a malicious way to support a particular POV. If Mendoza is known as "right wing" or Jewish or promotes an Israeli agenda in the guise of "balanced" reporting, and these facts are verifiable from reliable sources or notable media outlets, then these facts should be there — but not at the expense of other facts. Don't make the article into a hatchet job.
• Not sure what else to say. It may help to request semi-protection to prevent biased POV edits from anonymous IP addresses, or even full protection to force the issues into the talk page if the participants aren't talking. -Amatulic 19:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Recap - the main issue seems to be Shalom FM

There are two separate mattes being argued here: (a) is Mike Mendoza of Talksports also the Mike Mendoza who was a councilor, or not?, and (b) Are the quotes in the January 2004 JTA news story and on the Shalom FM website (yes, it's still there) concerning Mendoza and Shalom FM correct or not? Since (a) seems to be not disputed at the moment (no one seems to be trying to put it back), I'll focus here on (b). (For a discussion in some depth on (a), see above.)John Broughton | Talk 14:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The conflict seems to be: (a) User:Mike mendoza's identity has been confirmed by another administrator (see here), and that user says (in his three edit summaries):

• i do not have a my space site. it is a phoney
• i have no connection whatsoever right now with shalom fm. my name was put on their site without my permission. and i believe it is no longer on there
• i am not connected with shalom fm. there is a quote alleged to be from me and is not!

But (b) normally wikipedia would accept the JTA story and the Shalom website as meeting WP:RS criteria for reliable sources. So there is a conflict. (I also note that myspace.com has NO way of verifying claimed identity, so the myspace.com link should stay out of the article - besides, it doesn't have any useful info on it.)

I think it would be helpful for User:Mike mendoza to explain a little more, on this page, what he thinks is going on. Specifically:

• Has he EVER been associated with Shalom FM? (In particular, he says "right now", which implies that at one point he DID.) If so, during what period, and in what way?
• Was the January 2004 story inaccurate? In what way, specifically? In particular, were the quotes in the article accurate?

Also, it would certainly be indicative that the user Mike is the real person if he were to

• Have the myspace.com page removed (info on how to do this is here).
• Get a change made to his website: for example, this sentence is wrong: Like Houdini, he spent vast amounts of money on so called clairvoyants. Houdini didn't believe in spirtualists, in fact he spent a lot of time (but not money) debunking them, as described here. John Broughton | Talk 14:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the statement out of the current activities section and noted it was a past thing. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like another editor didn't agree with that change. (You might want to continue any further discussion on the talk/discussion page of the article, rather than here. John Broughton | Talk 14:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that not only are there no reliable sources to say that Mendoza left, but he is still listed on Shalom FM's website [7]. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Mendoza wrote in to OTRS; he says that yes, he (co)-founded Shalom FM, but also that he is no longer affiliated with them and that their use of his name is unauthorized. DS 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

But we still have no verification. Information based on emails from the subject is classic original research and something we tell inexperienced editors they can't do all the time. Why doesn't Mendoza just publish the reasons for his leaving somewhere? Even a self-published source would probably suffice, but we cannot use posts to wikis, especially our own, or private emails as verification. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Councillor false info

Perhaps we could discuss here the evidence or otherwise for the claim he's been a tory councillor.

The anon gave a source [8] (not great though)- and I seem to have found another [9]. What's the case against.--Doc^g 02:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK could be different people? But, if so, the anon may be making a good-faith error. Do we know that it is certainly the subject that has contacted us?--Doc^g 02:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is why I hate this article, I have to keep re-explaining this. The identity of User:Mike mendoza has been confirmed by email (check the block log). As for good-faith error, he/they have been making it a lot. Over and over again with monotonous regularity and stubbornness. As have some obvious sockpuppets. Forgive me if I'm starting to sound irritated, but I am. I know you can't be expected to know the details Doc, but the problem is that I'm expected to find new people who can't be expected to know the details every time this goes back in. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, my bad. I've just read the e-mail on the OTRS system myself (For reference OTRS Ticket#: 2006111310002674). You are right, and I can confirm it. Now we just need to get this anon to see sense. The article is on my watchlist. And I can confirm that per WP:BLP reverts here do not count for the 3RR. I will unblock if anyone is idiot enough to block you.--Doc^g 02:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about being blocked, as I try not to even approach the electric fence. (This is the article I've done most reverts in succession on, at least since I became an admin, and that's partly due to the fact that I've fallen into the trap of arguing via edit summaries, which I really should try to stop doing.) The problem is the low availability of sources, the ambiguity, and the fact that this is not a highly-watched article, are making it very difficult to maintain accuracy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not "false information", Mike has repeatedly stated on his talkSPORT show that he was a councillor on Adur District Council. I have checked for a Michael David Mendoza on the Electoral Roll (at www.192.com) and it confirms that he resides with his wife Jennifer (pictured here with Mike and actor Burt Kwouk) in Shoreham-by-Sea, the headquarters of Adur District Council. So, somebody is lying here and it is certainly not me. 217.134.236.140 18:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but let's discuss it here, and get some different folk to look at the evidence. If you are correct, it will bare up and then we can make the changes you want to the article. We don't need to fight about this. We certainly don't need to edit war. Looking forward to a constructive dialogue.--Doc^g 18:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

192.com lists a number of Michael D Mendozas - so we might have a case of mistaken identity. You other link doesn't seem to go anywhere useful. The issue here is that the subject has contacted Wikipedia, and indicated he is not and never has been, a councillor. I see no reason to disbelieve him.--Doc^g 18:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I sense a cover-up going on here. On 192.com, type Michael David Mendoza as the name and Shoreham-by-Sea as the location, and you'll find a Michael David Mendoza living with a Jennifer Mendoza there. Then if you go on the Gadget Detective and find "Dozy World" on the side menu, and then select from the sub-menu the "Mike with Burt Kwouk" photo, you will find the caption reading "Burt Kwouk, Mike Mendoza and his lovely wife Jennifer". 195.92.67.74 23:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Look at what I've just found: from Shalom FM's Community Radio Licence Application Form to Ofcom (Mr. Michael Mendoza has revealed himself to a complete and utter liar, and I wonder what else he has fibbed about to his many listeners across the United Kingdom!): DIRECTORS 3.1 Name of member or director Michael David Mendoza Director of Mike Mendoza Broadcasting Presenter on Talk Sport and Journalist Journalist with Travel News Magazine Councillor with Adur District Council 195.92.67.74 00:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The last time I heard someone say "This is true, he said it on the radio", and I believed them, it was about Iain Lee coming out as gay, and I have no intention of participating in libel and WP:BLP violation again.

The above is not verification, it is original research cobbled together from phonebooks and coincidences, and is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Find a reliable source that says "Noted radio host Mike Mendoza is running for political office in Adur", and it can go in. Otherwise, forget it. Quite frankly, the anon's generous use of bolding and vitriol make me even less inclined to believe this. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: We do not build articles on Google cached applications to random quangos. We build them on reliable sources. If Mendoza once held extremely minor political office, and we don't mention it because there are no sources, Wikipedia isn't going to lose all its readers. The importance of verification, the responsibility one of the world's most popular encyclopaedias (the most popular?) towards living subjects and past experience mean I will not accept that anything less than a published, peer-reviewed source is sufficient for information in an article vehemently disputed by its subject. Especially when the information is being added by someone who feels the need to use words like "complete and utter liar" about the subject, in bold. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Samuel is right.--Doc^g 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ofcom document is a verifiable source and proves that the Mike Mendoza of this Wikipedia article is the same as the Tory councillor - which might explain his rabid hatred of the Labour Party and the Left in general. 217.134.118.7 15:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources consist of peer-reviewed press articles, books and the like. Obscure paperwork may be used as a source by an investigative journalist, but not by us. All we need is one press article - if there isn't a single one, clearly what you find so interesting is not significant enough for inclusion. Wikipedia is not for muck-raking. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is documentary proof that this is the one and same person. 217.134.118.7 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And I've explained why this is not sufficient. Stop reverting - if you continue this crusade, you will be blocked for WP:3RR, which you have already violated, although I don't know if you've been warned about it so I won't report it if you stop now. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You're making yourself look completely dishonest and you are breaching Wikipedia's own rules on verifiable sources, please stop vandalising this article. 217.134.118.7 15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, this has turned into a real conspiracy, hasn't it! A revolting spectacle for all to see. 195.92.67.74 15:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Above IP is without doubt the same user as 217, which was just blocked for 3RR. Both IPs are from Energis and their contributions are indistinguishable. I have blocked it, and I don't think I need to worry any more about the charge of using my admin powers in a content dispute on a user so blatantly pursuing a political crusade with no interest in following Wikipedia policy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, crusade or not, given that Mendoza spends most of his time going on about politics, law and order, death penalty, etc., I would say his political background is very relevant, wouldn't you? 217.134.124.197 18:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Goverment documents show that someone with that name won the election:

http://www.adur.gov.uk/docs/elections/2002-05-02-district-elections.pdf

All three names the same and there is a near 100% geographical overlap. If they are not the same person the coincidence would likely be noteable.Geni 00:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What, notable as in we'd have newspapers with the exciting headline "There are two people named Mike Mendoza, we can exclusively reveal"? Verifiability is about what is in reliable sources, not what isn't. If it was notable it would be covered in reliable sources, and if it was covered by reliable sources then we would be able to include it despite the subject's wishes. As it is, it's OR and a BLP violation and that's all there is to it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't regard offcom and goverment websites showing election results as RS then I tend to feel you might as well give up on this project because there wont be anything else more reliable.Geni 12:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source is a document where the information being verified is gathered in that one document, has been peer-reviewed as a whole, and then published. Muck-raking government records is something altogether different. Remember, the question is not whether it is true, but whether it is verified by secondary sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The soruces show that someone with exactly the same name living in exactly the same area won the local election. We are not claiming they are the same person.Geni 13:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it has nothing to do with this article which is about one of them in particular. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Our Abraham Lincoln article mentions that he shares a birthday with Darwin.Geni 20:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Homophobia cat

I've removed Category:Homophobia again for two reasons:

1. He isn't homophobia
2. Homophobia isn't central to who he is or what he did. See Category talk:Homophobia for consensus on how/wen the cat should be used. There's one paragraph in the controversy section, so the cat falls under WP:UNDUE.

Please comment here before reverting. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Regular guests

I hope I am inserting this in the correct place:

I realise that a lot of ridiculous edting of the subject has been carried out over the last few days. However, I stand by one fact that has been deleted. He quite clearly does have a regular guest - Faith from Passion. She comes on approximately every 2 weeks. She does own a sex shop and she does advise on tex toys. A link to Faith from Passion can be found on the subject's myspace and his own web page.

I would like to formally request that this is re included.

I may have put this in the wrong place previously. Apologies.

Thank you.

Caspar the Ghost. Caspar the ghost (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems this trivia was removed as an unintended victim of the larger vandalism reversion, however I think it would be better to supply a reference, a link, before it's restored. I had a quick look but couldn't find any mention. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

This article is about the notable radio personality (regardless of whether [dare I say envious] vandals) accept that fact or not) Mike Mendoza. Whether Mendoza is broadcasting over the internet or not, the statement by a constant editor that "anyone can broadcast on the web", is academic. By reading the "Mike Mendoza" article, it is indisputable that he has made a name for himself in radio, and it is within this industry which he currently operates. The show he presented when he was at talkSPORT has been transferred to PlayRadioUK, follows the same format, uses the same website, and has the same guests. The show Mendoza presents is regular, it is not a stand-in or a stop-gap, and the fact that he now broadcasts through an internet radio station; does not, from a sensible opinion, require the removal of main point of this particular infobox.

Mendoza is worthy of note- and the purpose of infoboxes (if editors actually thought about it) is to quickly summarise the most important information about the subject, so that "at-a-glance," a person viewing the article will be able to see (in the case of the "Radio Presenter" infobox) what the particular radio personality is doing, when, and where.

The infobox, as I have reverted back to, is accurate. Because of this, I feel that if any editors feel the urge to subsequently revise/remove it, they should discuss it here beforehand, otherwise I believe it should be classed as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.68 (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not vandalism. The only source giving his age is his own Myspace profile, which says he's 52 and not 60. Mendoza is borderline notable (I don't think he merits an encyclopedic entry anyway) and his Internet station has been deleted twice from WP for being even less notable. WP is not here to promote flagging careers. --84.67.64.196 (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How can you expect the Wikipedia community to treat your edits seriously; if the content of your edits is fuelled by your lack of respect for the subject? The edit you made did include vandalism, and your persistent attitude towards the infobox is decidedly unnatural. You might feel the same about my persistence, but my actions are purely in the spirit of Wikipedia, and not based upon a personal grievance.217.171.129.68 (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What "lack of respect"? I didn't notice the "unfortunately" bit, my apologies. I've reverted it back to my previous version. What is "unnatural" about removing non-notable trivia? Are you his agent? If he gets hired by a notable and real radio station, as James Whale just did at LBC, then by all means include details in the infobox. BTW, please find a source that actually states that he is 60 (and superior to his own Myspace profile, which states that he's 52). --81.77.108.32 (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected this page due to a lame edit war which has been going for quite some time. Recent reverts are typified by this edit and its inverse. Please establish some consensus supported by references for the particular parts of this edit instead of revert warring. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Year and location of birth

When and where was he born? The first line states 1948, but the 1955 births category is present. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a very long running lame edit war. Mike Mendoza's official myspace page says 1955[10], while someone claiming to be Mike Mendoza insists that his date of birth is 1948[11]. Someone claiming to be, and apparently verified to be, Mike Mendoza[12] also claims that the MySpace site is not official,[13] but this should probably be disputed. No sources seem very reliable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mike Mendoza. 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/20061213131904/http://www.shalomradio.co.uk/ to http://www.shalomradio.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929103006/http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2003/7/22/130151.html to http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2003/7/22/130151.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927190729/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radio/ifi/rbl/commun_radio/tlproc/archives/applications/England/London/shalomfm.pdf to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radio/ifi/rbl/commun_radio/tlproc/archives/applications/England/London/shalomfm.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928223518/http://www.themikemendozashow.co.uk/2008/02/legend-that-is-alan-dale-is-in-town.html/ to http://www.themikemendozashow.co.uk/2008/02/legend-that-is-alan-dale-is-in-town.html/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930030948/http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb32/issue63.pdf to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/pcb32/issue63.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720204557/http://www.themikemendozashow.co.uk/ to http://www.themikemendozashow.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307055718/http://www2.talksport.net/shows/presenter.asp?presenterId=99975 to http://www1.talksport.net/shows/presenter.asp?presenterId=99975
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061213131904/http://www.shalomradio.co.uk/ to http://www.shalomradio.co.uk/

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) 20:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)