Jump to content

Talk:Dunoon/Archives/2017 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Notability of news story

As discussed, I'm opening this up for wider discussion. User:Scancoaches claims this sort of road traffic accident is commonplace; I, however, disagree. Comments welcomed. - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. OK, I'll start this. My argument against its inclusion has nothing to do with it being commonplace or otherwise. My reasoning is that a single vehicle RTA (commonplace or otherwise) is not noteworthy in an encyclopedia article on a small town in Scotland. I refer again to Wikipedia Notability Section'.

"Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability."

Yes, comments welcome scancoaches (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

newtestleper79

WHY UNDO LINKS TO MAIN ARTICLE PAGES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.213.111 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

NewTestLeper79

Why are you such a pedantic know it all?

At the top of this page it asks for "verification", if verification can not be found on the web-sites of the subjects mentioned on this page, where do you expect to find verification?

Again you have deleted links to "main articles" already on Wikipedia, why? If they are not fit to be linked to, why are they still on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.136.165 (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

out dated and just wrong old information

WIKIPEDIA BECOMES SO OUT OF DATE AND JUST WRONG. People like newtestleper79 who adjudicate from thousands of miles away, what a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.136.165 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Dunoon. 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 11:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dunoon. 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 03:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hope Page reads better now?

Sorry for so many little edits. Hope that all the edits together, means the page reads better? (Springchickensoup (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC))

Overlinking

I've left a comment at User talk:Springchickensoup. PamD 14:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I was carried away. Looks better now. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springchickensoup (talk • contribs) 16:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

First time edeting

As no one else has tried to improve the Dunoon page in years, thought I would try. So be gentle. I'm learning on the job!(Springchickensoup (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC))

Topic headings

Can someone who knows how, Please sort out the different topic headings "boldness" as they seem messed up to me. (Springchickensoup (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC))

Done. (Springchickensoup (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC))

Reverted: Wikipedia headings must be used in a standard order, level 2 before level 3 before level 4 etc. Jumping around the order causes all sorts of problems. The headings were not "messed up", they were quite standard. And are again. PamD 19:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

To me, the sub headings eg those under Transport, are more noticeable than the heading above, as they are in a bolder type face.

(Springchickensoup (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC))

Sorry, you'll just have to get used to it! The line across the page emphasises the higher-level headings. PamD 22:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


Hi, is there a way of sorting the section headings and contents alphabetically and automatically? (Springchickensoup (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC))

(Please sign after your posts, not before - I've moved your sig!) No, A-Z is unlikely to be the ideal order for sections except possibly within a larger section like "Sport". You might find it useful to look at the list of sections in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. PamD 16:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

History of Dunoon

Someone with more knowledge of the history of Dunoon than I have, please add a Heading/section. (Springchickensoup (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC))

Sections

No, Notable residents and the Mod are not subsections of "Popular culture". No time to fix it right now but it needs attention. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements for ideas about sections. PamD 19:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


Made a start. (Springchickensoup (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC))

Lead section

The lead section should summarise the key aspects covered in the rest of the article: this one reads like the opening page of a tourist information brochure. Needs some attention! It might be useful to look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and at some of the articles in Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places, to see what the Lead Sections of some of Wikipedia's best articles look like, such as Birchington-on-Sea, Altrincham or Ashton-under-Lyne. PamD 11:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, however, there is no depth in most of the sections in this article. Due to lack of interest/input from those who have the knowledge to share, or have the time. Now that the article has more clearly defined headings hopefully people will start infilling information. I'm not holding my breath, though. (Springchickensoup (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC))
PamD is right, especially with regard to descriptions such as "nestles amongst attractive scenery". But I can see new problems that go far beyond the lead. While the article was lacking in many areas before the recent changes have introduced some new problems. Springchickensoup has made more than 400 edits to this article in the past 2 weeks or so. While some of the sourcing is good, the recent sequence of edits have also added quite a few low-quality references. Not all of the content relates to notable entities and some should be removed according to WP:NOTDIR. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Quite so. If Springchickensoup really wants to learn how best to be a productive and valued editor here, they should concentrate on learning where and how to get access to, and then to summarise in neutral language and cite, reliable sources - rather than editing on the basis of what they believe or "know" to be true. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dunoon. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

What's missing

Despite a vast number of recent edits, nothing in the article tells the reader much about Dunoon. Why does it exist? Is it a tourist town, a dormitory suburb, a retirement mecca, or a commercial port, industrial town (what industry/ies, current or past), former fishing port etc? The "history" section talks about a couple of castles and recent military links but zero about establishment and growth of the town. Lots of rather random and directory-style info but very little of really encyclopedic content about the town. PamD 16:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Instead of complaining about the lack of information, please feel free to add the information. You are able to add and this would be much more constructive than continually putting down other peoples efforts. {SCS 22:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springchickensoup (talk • contribs) 22:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Springchickensoup: There's no need for such a hostile response. Some of us have put a lot of effort into tidying up this article after your enthusiastic but inexperienced editing. You are so interested in the town that you presumably have access to reliable sources from which you could improve the article as suggested. Local public library could help. I live in a different country and have probably never visited Dunoon. PamD 00:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
There are too many headings, too many images and very little substance. @PamD: is quite right, perhaps @Springchickensoup: could consult WP:UKCITIES for some excellent advice on constructing settlement articles. J3Mrs (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Again feel free to add "substance"! Rather than just talking/writing about the problem! {Springchickensoup (talk)}
I cut the number of headings and PamD, reverted the changes! {Springchickensoup (talk)}
Well I'm cutting a lot more and removing off-topic content and pictures. I can't do any more now but do continue. J3Mrs (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I think SCS may be referring to edits like this one where I formatted his/her non-standard bolded headings into correctly formatted section headings. Yes, removing the headings altogether is probably a much better alternative. See later section for discussion of section headings, which SCS appears not quite to understand at present. PamD 11:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The headings have gone, the major problem is the jumble of content. I've shuffled a bit. J3Mrs (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Holy Loch

The Holy Loch Heading, the use of the loch has in the past had a massive influence on the economy and social life of Dunoon, that is why I think it should have a heading on the article. Just my opinion. {Springchickensoup (talk)}

Headings

Wikipedia articles use a specific system for headings. Please do not try to invent a new system by adding bolded text to use as section headings. Either a subsection needs a heading, which should be part of the proper hierarchy, accessible to screen-readers, etc, or the subsection is a paragraph which forms part of a larger section but does not require a heading. The middle way, of using bolded text to create a pseudo-heading, goes against the WP:MOS: see WP:BOLDFACE for discussion of the limited circumstances in which bolded text is used. Thanks. PamD 11:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

More nonsense, the bolded headings are still under a section heading, which the Wikipedia system can sort. {Springchickensoup (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)}
If the subject under the bold heading rates an article then create the article! {Springchickensoup (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)}
I have removed the headings and most of the main article templates. Links are adequate here. Single sentence paragraphs don't warrant headings. Better to reorganise the content in a more coherent manner. PamD does know how the encyclopedia works, her advice is sound. J3Mrs (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah!

At last, someone who knows what they are doing, rather than loads of talk and no action. Thank you J3Mrs. {[[User:Sp ringchickensoup|Springchickensoup]] (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)}

It's better than all action without knowing what you're doing and taking no notice of good advice from experienced editors. I've done my bit especially as your attitude and pointy remark leave much to be desired. J3Mrs (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Those that like to comment but have not actually made any meaningful improvements for years that this article has been left to fester had plenty of opportunities to contribute and improve the article, but just talked. If Wikipedia is going to publish articles that a lot of other websites access, Wikipedia surely should manage said articles better? New users of the site only receive negative comments and are referred to help pages that contradict themselves and are themselves poorly maintained. The sites coding really needs improving and vastly better policed, to be a consistent methodology across the whole. {Springchickensoup (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)}

To improve an article, a user must have access to reliably-sourced information, the time and enthusiasm to carry out the work, the ability and experience to ascertain what is pertinent and what is not, a knowledge of or willingness to learn how things are done on Wikipedia and the willingness to cooperate with other users in doing this. You and the numerous editors now who have been bending over backwards to assist you, have the above in varying degrees among us in relation to this article and if we co-operate, we should hopefully improve the article. Nobody has access to reliably-sourced information on every topic but the other vital skills can be brought in to assist an editor, possibly you, who does. It would seem that with your enthusiasm for the topic, you may well have access to information that others do not, you are clearly expending a considerable amount of time working on this and other related articles, with evident enthusiasm, yet as a new and inexperienced user you have an understandable deficit in regard to knowing what is pertinent for an article, reliable sourcing and issues of style and formatting. Every editor here has been in the same position when they started editing Wikipedia and any decent editor will take this into account with a new editor. But instead of the willingness to co-operate and to accept the considerable efforts expended towards assisting you, you spit in everyone's face, insisting you know best and everyone else can go hang. From experience with other new but haphazard users I have no doubt that if you have some humility and start to co-operate and to be open to learn you can become a consistently productive editor but you show no sign so far of mending your hostile, dismissive and aggressive attitude. You can not rely on the patience of others to last forever.
Action alone is no virtue if it detracts from the quality of the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem I have with some who have offered "help", is that the "help" was to delete anything I submitted. It would have been much more encouraging if instead of just deleting, said "helpers" could have kept the submissions and made them appropriate for the site, rather than obliterating any effort I made, which took time and reading of offered help pages. That is why at one point I stopped submitting.{Springchickensoup (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)}
But maybe they weren't appropriate, I don't know and can't be bothered to investigate. Nobody is under any obligation to help you do anything especially as you have used my edits to get at other editors and that is completely unacceptable. We are all volunteers, we all get stuff deleted but some of us learn from it. You can lead a horse to water...... J3Mrs (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I have not used edits to "get at other editors", I thanked you for actually editing. I have made no secret of how the constant public admonishments for my spelling and punctuation, that often led to deletions, rather than being correctly edited. If a submission was/is not appropriate that is fine, but at one point anything I submitted was deleted, rather than corrected. Then someone notified me that I was the talk of notice boards asking for other editors help in monitoring my submissions. My experience of Wikipedia has been one of a hostile environment however, I persevered as the Cowal area was hardly mentioned on wikipedia. {Springchickensoup (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)}

What's missing

Despite a vast number of recent edits, nothing in the article tells the reader much about Dunoon. Why does it exist? Is it a tourist town, a dormitory suburb, a retirement mecca, or a commercial port, industrial town (what industry/ies, current or past), former fishing port etc? The "history" section talks about a couple of castles and recent military links but zero about establishment and growth of the town. Lots of rather random and directory-style info but very little of really encyclopedic content about the town. PamD 16:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Instead of complaining about the lack of information, please feel free to add the information. You are able to add and this would be much more constructive than continually putting down other peoples efforts. {SCS 22:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springchickensoup (talk • contribs) 22:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Springchickensoup: There's no need for such a hostile response. Some of us have put a lot of effort into tidying up this article after your enthusiastic but inexperienced editing. You are so interested in the town that you presumably have access to reliable sources from which you could improve the article as suggested. Local public library could help. I live in a different country and have probably never visited Dunoon. PamD 00:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
There are too many headings, too many images and very little substance. @PamD: is quite right, perhaps @Springchickensoup: could consult WP:UKCITIES for some excellent advice on constructing settlement articles. J3Mrs (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Again feel free to add "substance"! Rather than just talking/writing about the problem! {Springchickensoup (talk)}
I cut the number of headings and PamD, reverted the changes! {Springchickensoup (talk)}
Well I'm cutting a lot more and removing off-topic content and pictures. I can't do any more now but do continue. J3Mrs (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I think SCS may be referring to edits like this one where I formatted his/her non-standard bolded headings into correctly formatted section headings. Yes, removing the headings altogether is probably a much better alternative. See later section for discussion of section headings, which SCS appears not quite to understand at present. PamD 11:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The headings have gone, the major problem is the jumble of content. I've shuffled a bit. J3Mrs (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Holy Loch

The Holy Loch Heading, the use of the loch has in the past had a massive influence on the economy and social life of Dunoon, that is why I think it should have a heading on the article. Just my opinion. {Springchickensoup (talk)}

Headings

Wikipedia articles use a specific system for headings. Please do not try to invent a new system by adding bolded text to use as section headings. Either a subsection needs a heading, which should be part of the proper hierarchy, accessible to screen-readers, etc, or the subsection is a paragraph which forms part of a larger section but does not require a heading. The middle way, of using bolded text to create a pseudo-heading, goes against the WP:MOS: see WP:BOLDFACE for discussion of the limited circumstances in which bolded text is used. Thanks. PamD 11:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

More nonsense, the bolded headings are still under a section heading, which the Wikipedia system can sort. {Springchickensoup (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)}
If the subject under the bold heading rates an article then create the article! {Springchickensoup (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)}
I have removed the headings and most of the main article templates. Links are adequate here. Single sentence paragraphs don't warrant headings. Better to reorganise the content in a more coherent manner. PamD does know how the encyclopedia works, her advice is sound. J3Mrs (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah!

At last, someone who knows what they are doing, rather than loads of talk and no action. Thank you J3Mrs. {[[User:Sp ringchickensoup|Springchickensoup]] (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)}

It's better than all action without knowing what you're doing and taking no notice of good advice from experienced editors. I've done my bit especially as your attitude and pointy remark leave much to be desired. J3Mrs (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Those that like to comment but have not actually made any meaningful improvements for years that this article has been left to fester had plenty of opportunities to contribute and improve the article, but just talked. If Wikipedia is going to publish articles that a lot of other websites access, Wikipedia surely should manage said articles better? New users of the site only receive negative comments and are referred to help pages that contradict themselves and are themselves poorly maintained. The sites coding really needs improving and vastly better policed, to be a consistent methodology across the whole. {Springchickensoup (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)}

To improve an article, a user must have access to reliably-sourced information, the time and enthusiasm to carry out the work, the ability and experience to ascertain what is pertinent and what is not, a knowledge of or willingness to learn how things are done on Wikipedia and the willingness to cooperate with other users in doing this. You and the numerous editors now who have been bending over backwards to assist you, have the above in varying degrees among us in relation to this article and if we co-operate, we should hopefully improve the article. Nobody has access to reliably-sourced information on every topic but the other vital skills can be brought in to assist an editor, possibly you, who does. It would seem that with your enthusiasm for the topic, you may well have access to information that others do not, you are clearly expending a considerable amount of time working on this and other related articles, with evident enthusiasm, yet as a new and inexperienced user you have an understandable deficit in regard to knowing what is pertinent for an article, reliable sourcing and issues of style and formatting. Every editor here has been in the same position when they started editing Wikipedia and any decent editor will take this into account with a new editor. But instead of the willingness to co-operate and to accept the considerable efforts expended towards assisting you, you spit in everyone's face, insisting you know best and everyone else can go hang. From experience with other new but haphazard users I have no doubt that if you have some humility and start to co-operate and to be open to learn you can become a consistently productive editor but you show no sign so far of mending your hostile, dismissive and aggressive attitude. You can not rely on the patience of others to last forever.
Action alone is no virtue if it detracts from the quality of the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem I have with some who have offered "help", is that the "help" was to delete anything I submitted. It would have been much more encouraging if instead of just deleting, said "helpers" could have kept the submissions and made them appropriate for the site, rather than obliterating any effort I made, which took time and reading of offered help pages. That is why at one point I stopped submitting.{Springchickensoup (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)}
But maybe they weren't appropriate, I don't know and can't be bothered to investigate. Nobody is under any obligation to help you do anything especially as you have used my edits to get at other editors and that is completely unacceptable. We are all volunteers, we all get stuff deleted but some of us learn from it. You can lead a horse to water...... J3Mrs (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I have not used edits to "get at other editors", I thanked you for actually editing. I have made no secret of how the constant public admonishments for my spelling and punctuation, that often led to deletions, rather than being correctly edited. If a submission was/is not appropriate that is fine, but at one point anything I submitted was deleted, rather than corrected. Then someone notified me that I was the talk of notice boards asking for other editors help in monitoring my submissions. My experience of Wikipedia has been one of a hostile environment however, I persevered as the Cowal area was hardly mentioned on wikipedia. {Springchickensoup (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)}
By far the easiest solution to your edits which were problematic would have been wholesale reversion of your contributions, throwing out the good with the bad. The editors who have intervened have not done that, attempting to make piecemeal alterations where possible, with explanations and advice along the way, so as to retain any positive edits, to inform you and avoid discouragement as much as possible, balanced with maintaining the integrity of the article, the priority. This is much more time consuming and no easy option. For you to expect problematic content to be left intact and to have others clear up the mess after you while you plough on with further problematic edits is not a reasonable demand and compromises the quality of the encyclopaedia. There are things which are just never going to be “appropriate for the site” and no amount of polishing can make them so. With your level of experience, nobody would hold this against you if you were receptive to constructive criticism but aggressively digging your heels in about poor material is helping no-one.
I note that your auto archiving off this talk page earlier today removed the entire content, much of it concerning criticism of your editing and behaviour and including various recent and active threads. This would appear to be burying material you do not like. Please do not do this.
If you are so thin-skinned and so precious about your contributions you are going to have a tough time here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dunoon. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dunoon. 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) 09:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dunoon. 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) 15:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dunoon/Archives/2017_1&oldid=1136682121"