Talk:Giuliano Mignini

Change in prosecution

I've rollbacked this edit because if the notability of Mignini is related to his role in Kercher's case, all details about prosecution have to be cited. Especially if the new prosecutor share the same line. --Lenore (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

...was removed by an IP who errantly believes that the date on the tag is one of expiry. Vituzzu placed the tag and may be able to offer further explanation for the IP.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

In short this section gives the idea Italian prosecutors are loose cannons. Also the whole page has an underlying meaning "hey! Look which kind of person charged Knox!" (it recalls me when Berlusconi's newspapers cried scandal about a prosecutor wearing weird socks). Mignini is definitely not notable but this page passed to RfDs, so I won't insist, but if a page about him must exist it shouldn't prompt anything. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you placed the POV tag ten days ago this article has prompted nothing other than your POV claim and two people contradicting it. I have therefore removed the tag. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Mignini is definitely notable. I have removed the tag as i find nothing in your comment to justify a tag disputing neutrality, just subjective impressions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.67.105 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Any decision about removal is not up to you neither to me. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

To whom is it up? JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

To 3rd-party users, ofc. I raised a problem about your edits, now other uninvolved users will give their opinion. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You raised no problem concerning my edits. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If this is supposed to be a discussion about NPOV then I'll state that I see no biased POV, only several suitably referenced examples of his work that make the subject noteworthy at the international level. I suggest that the NPOV tag be removed. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of procedural formality, when does this discussion end? At the moment it's two-to-one against Vituzzu and until the matter is resolved, it's Vituzzu's opinion that remains advertised loud and clear in the article, which doesn't seem at all balanced to me. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure we aren't dealing with *your* edits? --Vituzzu (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

My edits are correctly attributed to me. Which of my edits concern you, or is this just another example of your POV? JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Answering the question above about procedural formalities: There are no deadlines with respect to time. I would suggest that editors read about dispute resolution and if there seems to be an impasse then consider requesting a third opinion. If that doesn't work then file at the dispute resolution noticeboard. In the meantime, I would suggest that editors stop removing the tag as that will be seen as slow edit warring and does no one any good.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but having a POV tag in an article casts obvious doubt on its objectivity and if there's no reasonable doubt about its objectivity then the placing of the POV tag effects POV. It may be legitimate but it's a ploy and a misuse of Wikipedia protocols and procedures. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm neutral and not in a position to comment either way because this is an issue that I know nothing about. If I could, I would try to help with a compromise. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have left a note here at WikiProject Italy requesting more input.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

A POV tag doesn't need any support, can you point me out any policy saying someone must give some weird *preventive* support in order to raise a problem? You're not the owner of this page, you're simply someone with a very strong bias trying to attack (see sections above) everyone raising some of the multiple issues affecting this page. --Vituzzu (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I've referred this for Dispute Resolution. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile going on removing, that's utterly ridiculous. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Vituzzu, your opinions of me are your POV. Kindly cease including them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia freely available for all who seek factually based knowledge, not your POV. If you have anything more to say on this issue then kindly say it on the Dispute Resolution facility, where it belongs. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope, you're wrong. There are two different problems and you're violating lots of policies at least about one of them. Again I must ask you, why are you ignoring the dispute resolution process going non removing the tag? --Vituzzu (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am removing the POV tag according to the Wikipedia policy dscribed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV#When_to_remove. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really, you failed all three points. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't fail. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's list them:

• consensus: where is consensus?
• lack of explanations: I gave explanations, you might disagree with them but I gave them.
• absence of discussion: though this discussion isn't working well it exists.

--Vituzzu (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, if you feel the article can be improved then edit the article using reliable sources.109.145.67.105 (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually I said one of the current sources is outdated and some of those contents aren't relevant to the article, which is different. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, if you feel the article can be improved then edit the article using reliable sources.109.145.67.105 (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

So I'll move the paragraph about prosecutors to judiciary of Italy. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No, that would constitute blanking content from the article. If you wish to improve the article then add or update reliably sourced information. If you blank the section I'll revert and report you for vandalism.109.145.67.105 (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You can try, moving disputed content is not a vandalism, anywhere. Again, the "improve with source" solution doesn't work with contents non-relevant POV contents, it may solve the second aspect, not the first one. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

In that case, be prepared for a WP:BOOMERANG, because vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia and a good-faith content dispute is never considered vandalism. In this case, the section in question is not really wrong, though some aspects of it are a bit oversimplified, but the point is that it has no place in an article about a living person. That's rather what wikilinks are for: if a person wants to know how prosecutors operate in Italy, he should read the relevant article.

Not to mention that the sources chosen are somewhat curious, in that one is horribly outdated (in 1988 the old Code of Criminal Procedure was abrogated and substituted with a new one) and the other only tangentially examines the Italian system. A much better source would be Conso, Giovanni, Grevi, Vittorio, Bargis, Marta (2014), Compendio di procedura penale, Padova: CEDAM; or, alternatively, for something in English, Montana, Riccardo (2012) "Adversarialism in Italy: Using the Concept of Legal Culture to Understand Resistance to Legal Modifications and its Consequences." 20 Eur. J. Crime Crim. L. & Crim. Just., 99-120. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The only person making the claim there is anything POV about the neutrally written section on Italian prosecutors is you. You've been warned. Do not make any further threats to vandalise the article.109.145.67.105 (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning but it should adhere to policies, can you please point me out some policy justifying your being *so* aggressive? --Vituzzu (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You will comply or face the consequences, just as Italy does in international affairs. Now go and do something constructive.109.145.67.105 (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you seem to be confusing discussion with threats, I have just gone ahead and removed the section in question. Should you wish to actually start discussing, you know where to find me. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Do not blank entire sections from an article without discussion or you will be reported. Do not edit war. Discuss first.109.145.67.105 (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Do please report me. You are not discussing, but only reverting other people and resorting to threats (not to mention accusing people of vandalism, when they have done nothing of the sort). I have already clarified why I think the section does not belong in the article. The burden is on you to explain why you think it should be included. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Due to the edit-warring, I have protected this page.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That's unacceptable. You're protecting the abusive removal of informative text.109.145.67.105 (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You would rather that the edit-warring should continue? The idea of protecting it is done to encourage discussion. Admins always protect the wrong version.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't edit war. a whole section of the article was blanked. 109.145.67.105 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

POV aside, the text removed by Salvio giuliano constitutes a short essay on the role of prosecutors in Italy, and does not speak directly to the subject of this article other than describing characteristics of his job and others engaged in it. As such, it may belong at Prosecutor#Italy, but not here in a biographical article. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Says who?109.145.67.105 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Three different editors on this talk page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

it does constitute a short description of the role of prosecutors in Italy. That's relevant to an English speaking audience.109.145.67.105 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of this biographical article is not to educate the reader about the role of prosecutors and prosecutorial powers in Italy. If you want to do that, do it at Prosecutor#Italy or Judiciary of Italy. One of the advantages of the Wiki format is that we don't need to take wild departures from our subject to ensure the reader has a solid understanding of underlying facts; if they need more information, they can follow a link to the appropriate article. Hence reference either or both of these articles here, but do not duplicate them. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll ask for Slim Virgin's input on this one, as I'm a bit baffled as to what's happened here. Does anyone object to that?109.145.67.105 (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Why? Because you believe that she is the one "who was sent". You had no idea then nor do you know now who is who. To ask her, would be canvassing...if you are asking for a review of my admin actions, AN/I would be the place.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well gee, I can either take a common sense view that asking for someone's input is perfectly reasonable and ok, or i can accept your claim that to do so would be in breach of all manner of wikipedia rules. Which view do you think i will go with, Berean Hunter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.67.105 (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The one that violates policies, of course. Canvassing another editor.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with canvassing, and if there's a policy against it then how do you enforce it? JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I found the section informative and I've no doubt others did. Maybe it's out of date, but then someone cited above some better sources. Presumably, you have access to those sources. So, why don't you rewrite the section? Simply scrapping it is destructive, reworking it would be constructive. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• It sounds like CodyJoeBibby is in the house. Behavior and language suggest this.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• This list may be useful for those who are unfamiliar.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Posting that list wasn't wise given that its 2015 and Knox and Sollecito have been fully exonerated. Makes it look like those who were stalking pro innocence advocates were creeps on the wrong side of history. But thank you for stating where you stand.109.145.67.105 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Stalking pro-innocence advocates? Thank you for illustrating that you think it is alright to sock and violate policies just as long as you can right great wrongs. I just thought that I'd help point out for those joining this late who some of the players are; can't tell your players apart without a program, right?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment from (largely) an outsider: I support Salvio's removal of the section. As someone who looks in on this article occasionally, I've never really understood why this information would not better suited to Judiciary of Italy (though Prosecutor#Italy, as suggested Dwpaul, is probably even better). Readers of the Mignini biography will be searching for information about the man, not the role of prosecutors in the Italian judicial system. As written, the paragraph was off-topic. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I’m lost. This started as a dispute over a POV tag, went through allegations of sockpuppetry and on to vandalism, became an edit war, and now it’s a question of redundancy. At least the article needs a “See also” section referring to “Prosecutor#Italy” and “judiciary of Italy” but I can’t do that because the article is locked. I still think the POV tag was misleading but the article has only got worse. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Note to self: Never enter into a dispute with a Wikipedia administrator, no matter how wrong you think said aministrator may be: it results only in your being locked out by four other Wikipedia administrators and with no answer to your question, which was about misuse of the POV tag. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Note to all concerned: I've referred this again to dispute resolution. I want to know in what circumstances a POV tag may be deemed either valid or abusive and I seek informed opinion. Your cooperation will be appreciated. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to know when the editorial block will be lifted. Where I live, it's past 1am on 15th May 2015 and it's past 2am in Italy. It's past midday in New Zealand. Does the Wikipedia world have to wait for someone in the USA to wake up? JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

A simple glance at the article history will tell you that the article is protected until 15 May 2015 at 16:34 UTC. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Dwpaul, for relaying the result of your simple glance. Call me blind or stupid if you will but I remain perplexed. Any further constructive input on the essential issue here, from you or anyone else, will be greatly appreciated by me. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

And the essential issue is, as far as I'm concerned, can the placing of a POV tag be deemed abusive? JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The usage guidelines for the maintenance template {{pov}} are found at Template:POV. Any editor may apply the tag if they sincerely believe that the article does not reflect a neutral point of view. The placement of the template can only be abusive if the editor placing it does not sincerely believe it is warranted, and is doing so only to be disruptive. Obviously, an editor who places it is expected to be able to articulate their reasoning on the article's Talk page. If you think an editor is placing a template purely to be disruptive, WP:ANI would be the place to discuss it (with a detailed explanation of your reasoning). Any other editor who sincerely believes the placement is unwarranted can remove it, except that, like any other content, repeatedly adding and removing templates without making any effort to communicate and understand and/or correct the underlying issue identified by the placing editor can get an editor blocked for edit warring, and the template should not be removed while the issue is actively being discussed on the article's Talk page. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I note from this edit that you have already read Template:POV, so I'm not sure why you're asking others to recap these guidelines for you. And that you removed the template while an active discussion was occurring here, after having seen in the template's documentation that it should not be removed under those conditions. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, Dwpaul, but my stand is that a Wikipedia editor placed a fly-by POV tag and, despite my questioning, never came up with a comprehensible reason why the section (now deleted) represented POV. My point is that placing a POV tag in an article graphically discredits the entire article and so, I maintain, the POV tag imposed said editor's POV for all to see and without so much as said editor having to state why. My argument is not about the role of public prosecutors in Italy, nor is it about the Italian judicial system, it is about Vituzzu's fly-by placement of a POV tag which discredited the entire Wikipedia article. Can you, and others, please understand that? I think Vituzzu was entirely out of order (and especially so for a Wikipedia administrator). JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

A POV template doesn't "graphically discredit" anything. It is a mechanism to help editors direct their energies most constructively, including editors who may already be actively editing the article and other editors who may be looking for articles to improve. The only reason I can think of you would think of the placement of a POV template as "discrediting" the article is if you had developed a sense of ownership of it; if that is the case, you might benefit from reading Ownership of articles. It seems to me also that you should review Assume good faith. Generally speaking, other editors edit articles and place templates because they are trying to improve the project, not just to irritate you. Please note also that other editors aren't required to come up with a reason acceptable to you for their placement of templates. We operate under consensus, not unanimity, here, so the fact that you don't agree with the template or another editor's reasoning for placing it doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been placed or should be removed. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud, all of you, please understand that any ordinary Wikipedia reader who sees a big, bold POV flag is persuaded to assume that the entire article is biased. My entire argument is that such a flag should not be placed without comprehensible explanation lest it devalues everything in the article. Most especially, it should not be placed as a fly-by and even more especially, it should not be placed as a fly-by by a Wikipedia administrator. Can any of you understand that or am I to be condemned as a trouble-maker for challenging Vituzzu's discretionry use or, I maintain, abuse of the POV flag? Please get real since both justice and injustice are globally important issues and injustice can tap any of us on the shoulder at any time, especially here on Wikipedia. If you all (administrators all of you) really can't see my point then I give very little hope for the future of the world's most famous free encyclopedia or anyone who believes a word of it. How sad my call for reason has become. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You know, I really think you should drop the stick. Your sense of justice and injustice is apparently not enough to persuade us (not all administrators, by the way) that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. If you are so wrapped up in this one issue concerning one article, it might be time to consider a wikibreak. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Noting that your request for dispute resolution mentioned above was declined primarily on the basis that it had already been attempted unsuccessfully here, but that you have submitted yet another request (albeit in the wrong place). I do think there is some abuse going on, but I don't think it is in the form of placing a {{pov}} template here. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion having nothing to do with improvement of this article

Note to all involved in this section: For many years, I’ve been watching Wikipedia grow from immaturity into something I thought was useful. I joined in, lending a hand here and there to add some useful information and to help correct some popular misconceptions (a major reason for the existence of encyclopedias). Then I found an editor (an administrator) doing something I thought wasn’t right, so I appealed for informed opinion. I appealed repeatedly but I didn’t get the advice I was seeking. What I got was a distinct sense that a crowd of administrators and others ganged up with each other, making me the bad guy, complete with allegations that I’m a sockpuppeteer. When I persisted in my attempts to obtain the required informed opinion, I was told in so many words that I was flogging a dead horse. Ask yourselves, is that how Wikipedia administrators normally treat an editor seeking an informed opinion? Regardless of your personal feelings in this matter, I hope you’ll understand that I’m now thoroughly disillusioned. The moral of this statement is that when a Wikipedia user appeals for informed opinion then, whatever else you do, critical or otherwise, it would be a good idea to offer the informed opinion. Message ends. Matter closed. Please do not reply. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC) PS Already it's clear that I need to state that my strong opinion is in regard to the negative effect of a POV tag and its effective misuse if applied without clear and comprehensible reason. It's an editorial matter. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Could you please either move on. Or stop fishing for attention, attention that you claim you do not want anymore. You need to realise that most users just like yourself wants the best for every single article.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC) I'll say it again: My strong opinion is in regard to the negative effect of a POV tag and its effective misuse if applied without clear and comprehensible reason. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC) OK, you have stated it, over and over again. Time to move on to more important matters, don’t you agree.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC) If you want me to stop then don't ask questions. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Keep digging.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC) השתמש האת שלי JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC) No do it yourself. Good luck. Bye :)--BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giuliano Mignini. 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/20120425081117/http://www.procura.perugia.it/(S(ebcj3luvw2shwu45ice2jnrj))/homemagistrati.aspx to http://www.procura.perugia.it/homemagistrati.aspx

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) 10:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

One user delated true information

I point to your attention that one user deleted important true information on the actual content of the Meredith Kercher verdict. It seems a kind of "hijacking", possibly for POV-related motives, like in order to make it seem as if the final verdict found the suspects "innocent". The user deleted the references reporting the true content of the verdict report. This is a potentially inflammatory issue therefore I call for awarness of moderators. I think a rollback to restore previous content citing trial documents is necessary. Otherwise the page will basically be a piece of propaganda that tells false history. Aki 001 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Cassation ruling: "As for Amanda Knox, her presence inside the house where the murder took place, is a proven fact in the trial" (p.45) "which is also in accord with her own admissions, in the part where she tells […] that she heard the harrowing scream of her friend […]. We agree with the lower court’s reckoning […] that this part of the suspect’s narrative is true". (p.46) "About Mr. Sollecito […] since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is certain, it is not credible that he was not with her" (p.49) 2The lower court was correct in the way they used this finding, since it was in accord with further trial evidence which confirm its reliability: we refer to the multiple evidences - linked to the overall reconstruction of events - which rule out that Guede could have acted alone […]...Such a mechanical action is not attributable to a conduct of a single person" (p.26) Aki 001 (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giuliano Mignini. 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/20120501121157/http://archivio.lastampa.it/LaStampaArchivio/main/History/tmpl_viewObj.jsp?objid=3795894 to http://archivio.lastampa.it/LaStampaArchivio/main/History/tmpl_viewObj.jsp?objid=3795894

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) 01:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)