Talk:Timeline of ISIL-related events/Archive 1

Archive 1

Orphaned references in Timeline of Aggression by the Islamic state of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS) in the Middle East: December 2013-Present

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Timeline of Aggression by the Islamic state of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS) in the Middle East: December 2013-Present's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "newname":

• From Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: Withnall, Adam (30 June 2014). "Iraq crisis: Isis changes name and declares its territories a new Islamic state with 'restoration of caliphate' in Middle East". The Independent. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
• From Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: Withnall, Adam (29 June 2014). "Iraq crisis: Isis changes name and declares its territories a new Islamic state with 'restoration of caliphate' in Middle East". The Independent. Retrieved 29 June 2014.
• From Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014): Iraq crisis: Isis declares its territories a new Islamic state with 'restoration of caliphate' in Middle East - Middle East - World - The Independent

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Add "edit" tab

Would it not be a good idea, now the timeline for each month is getting longer and longer, to have an "edit" tab for each month? It would make editing so much easier. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1 Edit tabs are now working for me.~Technophant (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant There were no edit tabs when I posted my comment and someone added them very quickly! --P123ct1 (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Transclusion - onlyinclude tags

I've transcluded the most recent part of timeline with the adjustable <includeonly>text here</includeonly> markup tags. That way any recently added text should instantly show up on this page, with the Timeline page being the only place where timeline events should be added.~Technophant (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

By changing some formatting I now have both sections (august and september) with the edit functions working correctly. Once October begins the includeonly line can be moved down to only list sept and oct.~Technophant (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I've adjusted the tags to have around 30 days of material at one time transcluded to the main page. This will need to be manually adjusted by moving the tag. Be careful when moving the tag to make sure you do not introduce a new line break.~Technophant (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Suq al Ghazi

Just a comment on the name. There is nothing anywhere that calls this airstrike this name...except for this Wikipedia article. It has been referenced as the US' first airstrike against the Islamic state, "an important strike" in Sadr al-Yusufiya, the 162nd air strike since 8 August, first strike in expanded fight, first strike under new Obama orders, the 162nd since early August, the 162nd bombing by the US Air Force, first missile strike against ISIS militants, the start of an expanded action etc. I think the naming is a confusing. Since its the 162nd airstrike since August 8th, the way this is written, there would be 162 more "battles." ? MeropeRiddle (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent beheading in Oklahoma

Just in the news a recently terminated worker at a food distribution plant who has been described as a recent convert to Islam beheaded a co-worker and stabbed another. It's too early to say if this person is responding to Abu Mohammad al-Adnani's call to "kill a disbelieving American or European". Discussion is at Talk:2014 ISIL beheading incidents#Recent beheading in Oklahoma ~Technophant (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Rename and expand

I moved the page to Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events (dropped the 2014) and included all entries from the renaming in April 2013 to the present. This clears up the main article ~Technophant (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: already closed and moved to Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant weeks ago. Please initiate a new request if a new move is desired. Dekimasuよ! 01:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Timeline of ISIS aggression: December 2013-Present → Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events in 2014 – Article names should be as regular and neutral as possible. Subpages aren't allowed, ie. "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/2014 timeline", see WP:TITLEFORMAT. The word aggression should not be used. Also, I'm not sure why Dec 2013 was included in this timeline. It makes sense to make this 2014 only. ~Technophant (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the current name is completely ludicrous. Gazkthul (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - upon discussion with Gazkthul and seeing the note from the page creator to "go ahead and rename" if needed I moved the page. The move discussion can continue.~Technophant (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Please change this title to something else. IT makes no sense. After all wars and battles are NOT mere "events." BTW, the original title was very specific, and the denial of that a war is going on in Iraq and Syria is really aggrivating.Ericl (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This has become rather a mess. The move as proposed has occurred, apparently without consensus on the destination, and there seems to be no intention to close the move request. Andrewa (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kobane

About the last info added on 16 October, "16 October: ISIL has been driven out of most of Kobane, except for two pockets of resistance in the east of the town.", I don't know if it should remain. The battle is still ongoing, and we cannot know how is it going to evolve; moreover, this is just a stage like others of the battle, when ISIL took nearly5 50 % of the town or when the YPG tore down the ISIL flag on the hill it was not added, for example. I think we should put all these info in the Siege of Kobane page, leaving here only the info on beginning and the (when it will come) outcome of the battle.--2.35.58.16 (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree @2.35.58.16: Detailed discussion should be at Siege of Kobanê. This a timeline of ISIL, not a blow by blow of individual battles. See also thread Talk:ISIL#mention of major battles in cities, i.e., Kobani which has been redirected here.~Technophant (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Propose move of Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events → Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant related events

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved, without opposition, to the most grammatically correct option. bd2412 T 14:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events → Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant related events – To place a proposed move: "I think that this safeguard should be added to ensure that any accounting of relevant history will be presented as a two sided story" by Gregkaye, under the RM process PBS (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a proposal that I first made on the ISIL talk page as this. Contributions so far are as follows:

I think that this safeguard should be added to ensure that any accounting of relevant history will be presented as a two sided story. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: (ping page creator @Ericl:) - I think that's a sensible move proposal. To be official it needs to be placed on the Timeline talk page.~Technophant (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I've no problem with that as the title now in use wasn't mine.Ericl (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment My formalising this request with an RM was an administrative action. I have no opinion on whether the article should or should not be moved. -- PBS (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support as original proposer for reasons mentioned above. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support makes good sense, and no hyphen needed Legacypac (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• That's not grammatical ("X-related" adjectival constructions are hyphenated in English). Rename to Timeline of events related to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• I support SMcCandlish's proposed name. --IJBall (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Happy with SMcCandlish's suggestion or Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant-related events or Timeline of ISIL-related events, but can't support the proposed title without the hyphen. Dekimasuよ! 19:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

@Gregkaye I have add an RM template to the top of this section, because the names of these pages have proved controversial and so I think any move of these pages needs to be discussed using the RM process. -- PBS (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS Thanks for moving this forward. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There should be a hyphen before "related", right? 107.77.83.86 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that the hyphen contributes anything but I think it detracts from readability, Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Paris and Charlie

What is with the Paris attack and Je suis Charlie stuff? Is this caused by ISIS? Check? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No.

The opening paragraphs of the article says it was Al-Qaeda.

JamesThomasMoon1979 00:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"If you can kill a disbelieving American or European...

...especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him". This was Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, the ISIL spokesman, a month ago. Now this happens. Should such "incidents" be included in the timeline?--37.116.57.244 (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Only if a reliable source confirms that the perpetrator was acting under orders from ISIL. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

37.116.57.244 JRSpriggs A fair scope of the article has been discussed and this is reflected in the RM below. ISIL have made extensive use of propaganda and with wide dissemination of messages such as the one presented above. Peoples actions in the context of these inputs may, on an individual basis, warrant recording. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

So far, only unusual propaganda and definite violent actions are included. It just seems far too work to also include every single ISIL proganda message. If you wanted to do such a thing, it would merit it's own article Timeline of Propaganda From ISIL.

JamesThomasMoon1979 04:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Al-Qaida?

What is the difference between Al-Qaida and ISIL with the simplest words possible? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Qwertyxp2000: Al-Qaeda (AQ) was formed by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan which then spread to North Africa (AQ in the maghreb), Yemen (AQ in the Arabian Peninsula) and recently into India I think. It also spread to Iraq during the early years of the Iraq war and was called AQ in Iraq. All these seperate entities pledged allegience to the head of AQ and functioned in a decentralised fashion. During the Syrian civil war, the last group; AQ in Iraq, decided to venture into Syria against the instruction of the head of AQ, Ayman Al Zawahiri. They ended up declaring an Islamic State and were thus no longer part of Al Qaeda and they now demand Al Qaeda's allegiance. That is a very rudimentary explanation of the difference but hopefully it explains how they are different. Mbcap (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. There is also a problem in the understanding in the article ISIS in the part about the relationship between ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Please could you add in the part about the separation too, because I never understood anything about what the Simple English article said as to what your explanation says. But your explanation is great. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that I always write "ISIS" instead of "ISIL". Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your explaination!

JamesThomasMoon1979 04:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Kenji Goto! Japan Deaths!

There is news about this, and related ones. Pay attention to the news. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Qwertyxp2000, please update the article as needed.

JamesThomasMoon1979 04:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Update the February

Apparently, the "February 2015" doesn't work but others do. Why is this the case? Don't forget to update the other ISIL article for the "February 2015" hyperlink. I don't know how to make that work and I tried as I might. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Difference? ISIS ISIL

What is the difference between Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Islamic State, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, along with other names similar? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As Far As I Know... they are the same thing. News organizations had to pick an acronym. some chose ISIL and some chose ISIS . I think it's because the official title of the group changed from "Islamic State of Iraq and the Syria" to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" some months into their existence.

For this article, only ISIL is used.

Also read this.

JamesThomasMoon1979 04:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but my server cannot read this website. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

December - gay man being thrown down

A user has put in something about gay man being killed by ISIL. I was trying to find some trustable websites of such news and it is true. That user should be accepted. I searched for man thrown off roof by isis for being gay and there are plenty of good citations for gay-man-killed-by-ISIL articles. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Qwertyxp2000. JamesThomasMoon1979 03:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

add US_Airstrike_list events

This Departement Of Defense URL has a long list of Airstrikes that have occurred. The mentions in news is too haphazard to rely on. A TODO for this article is to add more entries to <ref name="US_Airstrike_list"> for these U.S. Airstrike events. But it's a lotta' work! JamesThomasMoon1979 02:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I added a <ref name="US_Airstrike_list"> whereever it helped. In a few cases the connection was weak, but I still think helpful. JamesThomasMoon1979 01:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

too many battle events to track

I'm feeling overwhelmed by upkeeping this article. After reviewing the reports from Institute For The Study Of War and summary reports from reference <ref name="US_Airstrike_list"> (here), I feel there are too many events to list. It would take several days to list all the events these two reputable sources represent.
Currently, this article is somewhat of a hodge podge of ongoing events with a strong selection bias for the big headline stories at the cost of the lesser known stories from the reputable sources I mentioned above. I doubt the few regular editors for this article could keep up or ever find the time to import all the information from those two reputable sources.
⊙﹏⊙ JamesThomasMoon1979 01:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Geller Attacks

The recent Attacks on Pamela Geller and Boston Police has been attributed to ISIL. Is this noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.49.219 (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Proper use of "scare quotes" ?

I have a question regarding the following content, which is based on something I added:

"A video was released, in which ISIS executioners in the Homs province were shown staging a purported display of sympathy wherein they embrace and forgive two gay men for their sins, before bludgeoning them to death with huge rocks."

I had originally put scare quotes in the material so that it read: "...staging a purported display of sympathy wherein they embrace and 'forgive' two gay men for their 'sins'". Otherwise it sort of sounds like WP's encyclopedic voice is being used to call gayness a "sin", even with the prior language couching the incident as a "purported display of sympathy".

In this case, I believe "scare quotes" are actually the most appropriate approach to reflecting this material, because otherwise it appears to lend support to, and compromise the NPOV presentation of, a view that is probably at the fringe. Does anybody agree? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Time to start archiving?

The article page is getting a little long. Are there any objections to setting up ClueBot III and auto archiving the older stuff? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer ClueBot III be set to at least two years old.

JamesThomasMoon1979 03:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Propose breaking this apart into 2013, 2014, and 2015 events

As the page gets longer and longer and has become quite impossible to handle, I propose breaking this apart into 2013 timeline of ISIL related events, 2014 timeline of ISIL related events, and 2015 timeline of ISIL related events. This also helps keeping apart the more historical and the more contemporary content, the former to be mainly improved, the latter to be subsequently updated. How about that? PanchoS (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I like that idea. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of ISIL-related events in 2013 etc. might be better, what do you think? If noone objects, I think I would pick this one. But please join in. PanchoS (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Also, is anyone else bothered with the lack of consistency when it comes to verb tense? Some entries are in past or past perfect tense, while others are in present or present perfect tense. Most timelines use simple present tense as the standard, i.e. "Britain declares war on Germany." I know it sounds like an editing nightmare, but the end result would look much better.Kerdooskis (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with having the year at the end. Splitting it up is probably a good idea as this article is over 500 KB. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

As for me, strongly for splitting the article.—Pietadè (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your unanimous feedback!
  I therefore decided to go ahead and split the page, finally using a parenthesized disambiguator in line with the Timelines of the Syrian Civil War. Next thing to be done would be short summaries for each of the years that can be used as section summaries on this article and as leads on the 2013, 2014, and 1015 articles.
  Now while splitting the timeline into years already seems to be an improvement, the 2014 and 2015 articles are still huge. It might be desirable to further split Timeline of ISIL-related events (2014) and Timeline of ISIL-related events (2015) into individual articles per month clusters or even per individual month.
  IMHO we should continue our discussions here at a central point, at least for now. I therefore redirected the Talk pages here instead of creating new ones.
  Best regards, PanchoS (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to retag the subpages with the unreliable source tag. I feel it still applies to the new pages as the source discussion was never resolved and they still use the questionable references. aremisasling (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

On reviewing the sub-pages, the bulk of the ARA News and Iraqi News references were in the 2015 page. The few Iraqi News refs in the other pages were either fairly minor notes or on entries already cited by other sources. They may be a candidate for cleanup anyway, but I didn't feel it needed a page-level unreliable. I also removed the unreliable tag from the top level as none of the refs reside at that level anymore.

Unreliable sources - Iraqinews.com/aranews.net

Hey, there is a discussion about bias in the main IS article, and I noticed that in fact the recent events section on that article comes from here, so I guess it is here the issue is.

Whichever editor is editing in events with a single citation from those two websites has to stop, because they are both biased propaganda outlets which regularly report false news. If you want to add an event, you have to use BBC or some well established reliable source and have multiple citations, not those two websites as a single citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.165.122 (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there are ludicrous claims and language used in these reports. Adding a unreliable sources tag while they remain in the article. Gazkthul (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree, completely (e.g., compare with Donbass war timeline; sometimes it was kind of "funny" (if this word is ever acceptable in these connections) to cite that every week at least a thousand of "nazis" were terminated...) —Pietadè (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

In light of this tag and due to continued posts from these sources, I'm doing a little clean up. If I'm able to find a source in short order for the claims made from these sources I'll switch the sources, but without reliable sources I'll remove the updates in question. Some of them are very vague and hard to verify, so I suspect quite a few will be removed. But if the sources do, indeed, include false information it's better they be removed than allowed to sit in place anticipating better sources. aremisasling (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've started pulling all of the entries sourced only by ARA News and Iraqi News. After looking for alternative sources for about a half dozen of them it became clear none of them would have corroborating sources. The articles themselves, in addition to having the noted serious POV issues, also seem to lean heavily on heresay where they give their sources at all. Just more supporting evidence for the unreliable source tag. Additionally, the huge blocks of text from those entries and the sometimes near daily entries of operational-level commentary (ISIL plants 3 explosive devices. Peshmerga forces kill 5 ISIS members, etc) are arguably not notable and clouding the more notable events such as cities or villages changing hands, heritage sites being destroyed, etc. Every life matters, to be sure, but this isn't a body count website, particularly when the source counting those killed is unreliable and biased. aremisasling (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding one tiny nuance: when reading today, e.g., of the Vietnam war, I'd prefer to read both the USSR and the USA lines, assuming/hoping that the "candle-holder of my ears" is still in full capacity to analyse, make conclusions, etc.;
besides that, there is a theory, according to which people (mankind as such) are/is completely able to make right choices/decisions (one classic experiment comprised exhibiting transparent plastic figures of some animals, say pigs, filled with some quite big quantity of round things, say, tiny dragées, of 1mm diameter or so, and the respondents, in say in some ten or so cities of 10+ million population had to guess the right number of these round things, no one did, but, the arithmetic mean gave the exact number);
are, e.g., ants (as a "team") cleverer than their queen...
so, the more info we have, the better?.—Pietadè (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A large amount of bad information does not improve the situation. Ants can be led into a death spiral if given a pheromone trail leads back on itself and the whole nest marches until it dies. Including information just for including it all isn't beneficial to Wikipedia or to the better understanding of the subject. And numerous recent studies are finding information overload leads to poor decision making, not better. First and foremost we should not be including large blocks of unreliably sourced material. That's just a basic principle of Wikipedia and, frankly, responsible news consumption. But beyond that, burying reliably sourced material on major events in a wall of text about developments that have little impact on the course of the conflict serves to cloud the available facts. Further, no one is going to read the equivalent of 30 pages of "ISIS left x bombs at a checkpoint on the east side of y small town". The question is not whether or not we're seeing all sides of the story. It's whether or not the stories we're being told reflect reality and fit the scope of the subject at hand. If Syria, Russia, the US, France, Iraqi Kurdistan, or even ISIS put out reliably sourced information on major events of the conflict it has a place here. aremisasling (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Timeline of ISIL-related events (2013). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141006164602/http://www.aydinlikdaily.com/Al-Qaeda-Claims-Responsibility-for-Reyhanl%C4%B1-790 to http://www.aydinlikdaily.com/Al-Qaeda-Claims-Responsibility-for-Reyhanl%C4%B1-790

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)