Wikipedia

Talk:Timeline of the Barack Obama presidency (2009)

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

What to include

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

During the AfD discussion there have been worries brought up about the content of this article. As this should be decided here rather than there, I thought I'd give a quick stab at trying to lay out what is suitable info to add and what is not. Please feel free to add or subtract how you see fit. Joshdboz (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Things NOT to include

edit
  • Routine activities (calls, meetings, weekly addresses, trips to Capitol Hill, etc)
  • Unremarkable ceremonies (obscure legislation/executive orders, obscure nominations/speeches/announcements, etc)
    • When in doubt, many items can be judged by how much coverage they generate (breadth and depth).

Things TO include

edit
  • Firsts (presidential orders, Predator-drone attack, etc) - obviously this means it will be somewhat frontloaded
  • Major speeches
  • Signings of major pieces of legislation
  • Foreign trips/Major diplomatic meetings
  • Other major events by administration personnel (resignations, major diplomacy (Cuba/Iran/DPRK...), etc)

To sum it up, basically use commonsense, and discuss things that are borderline or questionable. Joshdboz (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Suggested Guidelines

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In order to maintain a strict bipartisan nature extreme brevity and conciseness will be required. Even in its first few days the article has begun to display imprudent edits. Not imprudent in that they are false or in error. Just imprudent in that they lay the groundwork for future intrusions of political mayhem. A clear, concise detailing of Obama's Presidential activities for that day is the goal. IMO, the following are a few examples of the beginnings of unnecessary edits;

  • Jan20...Due to the economic crisis....
  • Jan20...the waiver (for William Lynn)...did Obama request it on Jan 20? If not, it should not be mentioned.
  • Jan22...Torture will be...
  • Jan24...The policy is likened to...

A timeline needs to be succinct and to the point. A lean mean machine. The barest of information. He did this, he signed that. There will be hundreds of sources for the details. I would like to revert the above examples but I will wait an appropriate time to do so.--Buster7 (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agree completely. Most dates should have a subject (Obama), verb, and object. Clauses on consequences, contexts, reasons, etc should only be included if absolutely necessary to understand the action. If there is much additional information, it can usually be placed in corresponding articles. Joshdboz (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why this page should NOT be deleted

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello- The main case for this page is that it covers important accomplishments and actions of President Obama in a convienient and efficient way that no other page does. In fact, it appears as though the "Presidency of Barack Obama page was specifically revised to avoid a timeline approach of all of Obama's accomplishments as we have here. Because of this strong case, I'm removing the "proposed for deletion" banner Edit: I realized it is not my place to remove the banner, but I simply wish that this page stays. 71.175.44.152 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Abroad

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  1. Outside one's country...in foreign parts...
  2. Overseas...beyond the seas...
  3. in Europe...on the continent

--Buster7 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Heh, this is pretty minor, but in American English if you say "I'm going abroad" it simply means out of the country (that is why students study "abroad", even in Canada), as Webster notes. If you are concerned about this go ahead and change it back - either way works fine. Joshdboz (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
no prob, Josh. Ive lived in Chicago for 55 years and, to the best of my knowledge, we spoke Amer Eng. When we said abroad we meant we were going overseas. I agree...either way is fine. But, surprisingly, out of the country seems to be the preferred def. You live and learn!--Buster7 (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

References

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

At first I was bothered by the growing length of the references and was going to suggest that we just use one for each situation----(since we strive to keep the timeline as bare-boned as possible)----Then I realized the worthiness of two sometimes three references. Different sources give different flavor to their response and should be available to the future visitor.--Buster7 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

On a related note, I just spent a long amount of time loading the references. Over half the length of this article is references, and it's slowing loading times immensely. I loaded the pictures faster than the references. Perhaps there's a better way to do references? Perhaps hide them in a drop down box or something? Fightin' Phillie (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, according to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Scrolling_lists, we cannot attempt to "hide" the references section. There must be some way to reduce the load time of the references. User:Buster7 recommended not linking anything in references; I'm not sure how it would help, but have been doing so since he recommended. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

photo

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At first I was bothered...o, nevermind! I prefer the second picture. The first shows the teleprompter and only half an audience. Can the second be cropped a bit, top/down, in order to lose the lights?--Buster7 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Move to Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2009-2010)

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

If this page is going to have an entry for every single day of his presidency, we're going to wind up with more than a thousand entries on one page. If he wins re-election in 2012, by the end of his second term there will be 2,921 entries. That will be far too unwieldy. I propose that there should be a separate page for every year of his presidency to keep it manageable. --Mr. Billion (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agreed...which can be done in about 11 months. By that time the references alone will be as big as the deficit. But your point IS well taken. Maybe break it into quarters or based on the seasons. Some logical demarcation...--Buster7 (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Definitely this may be necessary, though I'd say we can cross that bridge when we get there. It might be useful to have a very general timeline for the entire administration (be that 4 or 8 years) and then from that link to specific years for the details. Joshdboz (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Airstrikes in Pakistan, or anywhere else

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I undid the January 23 mention of an airstrike killing 18 people. I left the reference since the airstrike mention may be pertinent since it was the first in his presidency. However, I suggest we do not continue to include every airstrike everywhere in the world. Obama is Commander-in-chief, we are fighting two wars, a sad fact. While I mourn the casualties, this timeline is not the proper place to erect their tombstones. Maybe a seperate article can be created listing the Airstrikes During the Presidency of Barack Obama. Also....the additions of the airstrikes where classified as 'm'...Minor edits...666 bytes is not a minor edit.--Buster7 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense, unless its Osama or the likes of that. Joshdboz (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Just a personal opinion, if someone is going to talk about the air strikes, then it is right to have the numbers of casualties, as long as there is a reliable source, and it is not used against anyone. in keeping with the neutral code. not like its being pinned on obama anyway (we all know who is to blame: but i didnt say that) Boygenius 13 (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Also JMO...the FIRST airstrike is notable since it establishes that, as President, he has decided to continue with War Policy. Sadly, the victimization on both sides continues and so the #'s are, IMHO, not notable. And (just as a fellow editor at this article) every attempt should be made to assure that we stay focussed on the fact that this is a Timeline. The Barest of facts. No conjecture, no added POV, or hint of POV. So, what is notable is that he ordered the airstrikes as a continued Policy of the United States Govt. I am aware that what would truly be notable would be to list the names of the airstrike victims. And I say that to make the point that it is a difficult door to open...especially in an article that is created to be a Timeline. It lets the flies in.--Buster7 (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Airstrikes, even ones with a few dozen casualties, fall under the "routine occurrences" clause. - PM 05:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Trips of Staff Personnel

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Currently, there's a listing for March 27-30, stating * March 27-30 - Vice President Joe Biden will travel to Latin America, visiting Chile and Costa Rica. To me, this doesn't seem like a part of Barack Obama's presidency, since Joe Biden isn't Obama. Where does the line of who to include fall? Fightin' Phillie (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd say the actions of Biden, Clinton, Geithner, etc. are all integral parts of his administration and presidency, and the major actions belong here. I'd say we want to include everyone listed at United States Cabinet#Cabinet (as well as Gary Locke and Kathleen Sebelius when they're confirmed), as well as Biden, and to a certain extent Rahm Emanuel. Other cabinet-level officials should be mentioned in relation to nominations and confirmations and not much else. Of course, this is all flexible; it's probably more practical to keep the overarching guidelines loose and consider potentially controversial additions on their own merits. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 21:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, "presidency" here loosely refers to his whole time in office and what occurs around him. If we had a timeline for Lincoln it would obviously include Gettysburg even if he wasn't on the battlefield. As for trips, it would probably get too detailed to include the foreign trips of every cabinet member, but I don't think Obama+Biden is too burdensome. Joshdboz (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
It has been historically common for the Vice-president to be the emissary of the president in those occasions when "The Chief" can not appear. His (Biden's) trips, as well as the Secretary of State's trips, give emphasis and prominence to the foreign affairs direction of President Obama. Taken as a whole, they are indicative of America's Global Plan (good or bad)....--Buster7 (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Another grumble:

March 25-26 - Secretary of State Clinton travels to Mexico City and Monterrey, Mexico.[1]

True as it may be, this doesn't say why. Did she go there for a conference, to meet someone, or just for a vacation? When we list a trip, we should also be listing why the trip was made. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Be bold ; ) Joshdboz (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I was, but I also encourage others to include this information; less time maintaining articles is more time writing articles :^) Fightin' Phillie (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Heh, agreed so long as it can be kept as concise. Joshdboz (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ "Secretary Clinton: Travel to Mexico, March 25-26, 2009". United States Department of State. Retrieved March 22, 2009.

G20 sidemeetings

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The BBC has a fantastic table here that says this:

  1. Tuesday: Arrives in London
  2. Wednesday: Mr and Mrs Obama breakfast with the Browns at 10 Downing Street; Mr Obama holds talks with Gordon Brown; meets Russian and Chinese presidents, David Cameron, and the Queen
  3. Thursday: G20 summit; Mr Obama will also meet the Indian PM, the South Korean president and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia during the day
  4. Friday: Departs for Strasbourg; meets French president; holds town-hall meeting; visits German Chancellor in Baden-Baden, returns to Strasbourg
  5. Saturday: Attends Nato summit in Strasbourg; departs for Prague
  6. Sunday: Attends EU-US summit, departs for Ankara
  7. Monday: Departs Ankara for US

How they all be shown in the article? Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC) "Reply

day by day....--Buster7 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Delinking

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As Fightin' Phillie mentioned above, loadtime is becoming (or will become) a problem with this article, especially because of the high number of refs (averaging over 1 per entry, which will mean several hundred by year's end). I don't know if there are technical solutions available, but for now I would suggest that we get rid of 1) redundant bluelinks in text and 2) all ref bluelinks to publishers. This isn't a perfect solution, but it will lighten the page slightly without compromising on content. Joshdboz (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick thought...don't know if it's legit or not...but...what if we defered some of the edits to the talk page. The ones that Josh suggests maybe? Nah!!! Just realized...that will not speed up loadtime at all. Can we move them to a different article/site/location and use a "see also references for Timeline of_________________??? I may ask Editor:Ikip from the ARS (Article Rescue Squad) for advice. He seems to be good at the technical stuff.--Buster7 (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Phillies Trip

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The Philadelphia Phillies were supposed to visit the White House today; however, they indefinately postponed the trip after the death of Harry Kalas.[1] I assume that they were going to meet Mr. Obama, as is tradition with the World Series champions - however, now I'm not sure what will happen. I do feel that such meetings are important (ie President meets with Famous Americans for some famous cause), but if this is rescheduled to happen later, I don't think it's worth mentioning that it didn't happen now.

If the Phillies do meet with Mr. Obama in the future, I think that we should remove the April 14th Phillies clause and instead mention that and why it was rescheduled in a new clause on the day when they do meet. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Share the Love!!! Shades of Dick Allen! I predict that this time next year The Chicago Cubs WILL be visiting the President as Champions of Baseball, Lords of the Diamond, Masters of the Known Universe. Enjoy your time in the limelight, it can not and will not last.--Buster7 (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I understand what you're saying, although I disagree with your statement about the Cubs. I also think that if Obama meets with, for example, the Pittsburgh Steelers or whomever wins a major sporting event, that's a large part of American Culture that Obama took part in (solely because he is President - regardless of if he is a fan of the sport). I also think it would be worth mentioning if he met with specific War Heroes (ie a new Medal of Honor recipient(s)), or the Nobel Prize winner, or someone else of notability. For the moment, that just so happens to be the Phillies.
I also just wanted to put my thoughts in writing, incase the Phillies meet with the President while I don't have computer access (ie I'm away for training). Fightin' Phillie (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ "Phils announcer Harry Kalas rushed to the hospital". Philadelphia Inquirer. April 13, 2009. Retrieved April 13, 2009.

Days of the Week

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I am against listing the days of the week. It is useless clutter. Completely unnecessary. It will be difficult to convince future editors of the need for brevity if this is allowed to remain. Lets discuss.--Buster7 (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Concur. DotW is just an additional qualifier. If they really want to know the DotW, it can be derived from the information provided. Also, there's increased maintenance to fix all the mistakes made: forgotten parenthesis, removal of Easter from Easter Sunday, etc. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'll remove these tomorrow unless there's more comments. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Great, Thanks. --Buster7 (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

April 16th Al Queda/CIA

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Not sure that this is a "fit" in this timeline. More of a Government Agency shift brought about by the new Administration. True that it is due to a change in the tactics condoned by the President. As stated above we are attempting to limit the scope of the Timeline to just cover Obama and the actions and governmental decisions of the major faces of his cabinet.--Buster7 (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's obviously difficult for us to determine what are or are not the most historically important events in his administration, but there's no doubt that the release of the memos was an Obama decision and that it has driven the news cycle for a couple weeks now. Joshdboz (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I wholeheartedly agree. At times I'm too stringent with the restrictions. That's why I didn't take it upon myself to remove. I appreciate the articles many-layered editorial involvement. That's why I bring these things up for discussion. Cheers!--Buster7 (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Extend the Hand

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The following was placed at Editor:GageSkidmore's Talk page;

Great work and additions. My hope is that you won't mind if I caution you to be brief and controlled in your descriptions, etc. It is a timeline which is intended to be a chronology of "He was here, He did that. He met her:then signed a bill into law.'" with as little commentary as possible. The wider the door to commentary gets, the more political POV's we will encounter as the Administration proceeds. So far, it has been understood. Again, great edits and photos. (Not to sure about Judge Sotomayor Mom comments)...Take Care....--Buster7 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, thanks for the comment. And I added a ref for the Sotomayor comment. Gage (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Continued great work.--Buster7 (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Obama Swats Fly

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It won't make the cut for the article but I was hoping it could "fly" here at the talk pages.........

Well, you can always take a shot at the 2009 PETA-Obama fly incident. Joshdboz (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Daily present tense

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@User:19.168----Your edits to the timeline are appreciated but you should understand that each entry is relevent to the day it refers to. The "tense" is present tense for each day not past tense for days that have passed. I'll post this at the Talk if you wish to discuss further, thanks.--Buster7 (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Renaming + New Timeline

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This issue was brought up many months ago here. Essentially this page is getting pretty long, and it appears to make sense to create several timelines, perhaps one for each year of his presidency. As we are nearing the end of this year, I guess we have a couple options

Option 1 Have this timeline go Jan. 20, 2009 to Dec. 31, then one for 2010, one for 2011, and if he loses reelection, one for 2012-Jan. 20, 2013. (possible names Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2009))
Option 2 Have each timeline cover an exact year. So Jan. 20, 2009 to Jan, 20, 2010, and so on. (possible names Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2009-2010), Timeline of the first year of the Presidency of Barack Obama)

Just intuitively I think option 1 makes more sense, but if there is disagreement or any better ideas, please share! -- Joshdboz (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I support the first option. However, now may be he perfect time to consider (or at least discuss) a solution for the length of time the article takes to load throughout the editing process. Perhaps seasonal shifts via 1/4's. Or...How many days is the normal presidency? 365 x 4= 1560 divided into 6 or 7 pieces. ...Anyway. The first option seems the best.--Buster7 (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Requested move

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
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.

The result of the move request was: no move. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply


Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2009) → Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama in 2009 — ATF says not to use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another Marcus Qwertyus 11:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • I think this is a mis-interpretation of the intent of ATF. While obviously similar in layout and design there is no overriding subject. Any chosen titles will be similar. The subject material is gathered at completely different times. While one article begins where the other leaves off the title limits the inclusion to activity that occurs in the specified year. I hope this is not some effort to hide the timelines in some hidden corner of Wikipedia without an obvious title to assist the reader.Buster Seven Talk 15:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Do not move — There is no practical reason to move the articles. "(2009)" and "in 2009" are the same thing. The move request stems from what I would call a hyper-application and misinterpretation of the purpose of WP:NOUN. I think Buster summed up the point above and Powers' suggestion that the convention is similar to the treatment of television series is spot on. Should every television series be moved too? —Diiscool (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • After reading the policy I understand where the concern might come from, but this would seem to be an outlier that is really not at the core of what that particular clause is aiming at, at least judging from the examples. I agree with the above, that (2009) and "in 2009" are essentially the same, and so I'm really indifferent about a change. However, for certain article titles differentiated only by year, like elections, the preferred format is "title, year", if that has any bearing here. This has also been used in historical articles (ex: Russian history, 1855–1892). Joshdboz (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2009). 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2009). 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2009). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 00:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2009). 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:

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) 00:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Barack_Obama_presidency_(2009)&oldid=1243279886"