Talk:Les Henderson

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 October 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 March 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Untitled

This page was created by Les Henderson (SooperJoo) to promote his book and his website. Les Henderson is not recognized by any credible source as an authority on Fraud.

This page should be deleted as Les Henderson is not a notable figure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.112.133.254 (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting this article to the Defrawy-drone test 75.112.133.254 talk. You miserably failed, which was of course foreseen. But never mind, the "doctor" will be proud of your libellous smear copy&paste abilities, what this is all about. --SooperJoo 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman Ahmed el-Difrawi

I removed the link to the userfied article on el-Difrawi. After going through the AfD process, the consensus was to delete the article, and it was userfied. Since the article was deleted, it is inappropriate to include a link to it in another article. I am an employee of el-Difrawi and am certain to be attacked (as has happened in the past), so let me point out now that removing the link is the ONLY change I made -- I did not delete the reference to el-Difrawi's fraud conviction. DylanKate 14:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your master must be pleased with your blind faith, dear Dylankate. You can have your way, no link to Ayman El-Difrawi, even though the article was deleted due to non-notability only, not for being untrue. Permit me to give you some links in return about notability, and more.

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development

San Antonio Police Department

Saginaw Charter Township Police

Montgomery County Department of Police

Coldspring Police Alert

City of Alhambra Police Department

Greensburg Police Department

The Financial Crimes Task Force of Southwestern Pennsylvania (under United States Postal Inspection Service)

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Suffolk County District Attorney

State of North Carolina Division of Aging and Adult Services

Nova Scotia Securities Commission

The Royal Netherlands Embassy - Washington DC

Chambersburg District Libraries - Law

FSU College of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Australian Institute of Criminology

University of Denver

Chattanooga State Technical Community College

TU Berlin, Germany

Murdoch University, Australia

The Economist

Canadian Broadcasting Company CBC

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Better Business Bureau Alexandria

Findlaw Crime Prevention Resources

--SooperJoo 17:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Les Henderson is using this site to promote a couple of books he has self published and a website he runs.

The website is not ranked in top 100,000 by alexia and gets virtually no traffic. It is jumbled and impossible to navigate (not in any way professionally done). It is basically a front for Google adwords and selling his books.

The books are rambling with no publisher. (They are basically pamphlets he sells on Amazon and other sites that allow individuals to list books. No reputable book store carries either of his “books”

This site is designed to promote himself as a crime fighter and promote his site and book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.30.137 (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

70.121.30.137, I believe that you are Ayman El-Defrawi, and that you are the subject of legal action from the subject. For that reason, you edits will be intrinsically biased. Shritwod 12:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe too that 70.121.30.137 is Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi or somone worlking for him. This IP address was used almost immediately after banning El-Difrawi's previous IP address. The only activity by theis IP address includes blanking the user page on Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi and vandalizing this entry. I have warned this user and will warn him or her again.--SaltyDawg 13:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Tag

Tagging this article for lack of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Specifically, the subject does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

The self-publication of a book does not meet notability guidelines. Unless notability can be established, article will be nominated for deletion.

In addition, the majority of the references listed in the article violate Wikipedia standards, or lack proper citations.

References 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, violates WP:V

References 6, 13, 15 are broken.

References 12, 18, 19 do not support the claims in the article.

Unless proper references can be cited, then these porttions of the article will be omitted.Munchkin77 (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says the person who created their account today. The zero day self-appointed Wikipedia police strike again. What exactly is your problem with Mr Henderson? Did he get under your skin? Publish something you didn't like? Perhaps you should reveal your interest in Mr Henderson? Munchkin78 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the article, not the editor. The objections to the page's notability and its research stand. Please address the citations that violates WP:V, broken references, and unsupported claims. Printing a Web site, self-publishing books, and being sued for it does not meet the Wikipedia's notability rubric. Take this time to find better sources, and prove notability. Munchkin77 (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WeatherFug - please do not revert edits without addressing concerns about article's content. Obviously not vandalism. Please either try to improve the article by establishing notability and providing third party links. Munchkin77 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave that a shot and changed some POV language. Your raising the notability question again I consider pure vandalism, it was already answered in october 2007. --WeatherFug (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at the discussion it centered around the editor and not the claim itself. What is notable about this individual? There are claims that he's a well-known expert on fraud, but is not listed anywhere in the article as being such from a verifiable source. There are only three newspaper articles that mention him, but all are in relation to his self-published book. As previously quoted from WP:BLP, a person is not notable for simply being mentioned in a newspaper - especially for being mentioned for publishing a book himself. The sites mentioned above also do not establish notability - Web sites are not verifiable sources. Before dismissing this tag as vandalism, address these concerns.

Furthermore, none of the references on the page prove any of the points made. They are outdated, not verified or constitute original research.

The first proves that the subject publishes a Web site, which is not notable enough for the subject having his own Wikipedia article, and constitutes original research.

The second link is to the amazon page where the subject's self-published book is sold on Amazon. That does not constitute editorial oversight for the book as Amazon is merely a retailer and not an editor, which renders the book as an un-verifiable source, and again is original research.

The third citation is merely a brief mention in the New York Post about the subject being sued. Being sued does not establish notability.

The fourth citation is about the book's publication, again which does not establish notability.

Citation five is to support the assertion that "Both Henderson's site and first book are acknowledged to be valuable and reliable sources of information and the site is linked to by a large number of renown other sites." The link is to an Alexa page that does not prove that the subject is acknowledged to be anyone of importance, and only supports the second claim that the site is linked to from many sites - a fact that constitutes original research, and multiple links to a cite does not constitute notability.

The entire section Les_Henderson#Legal_harassment_and_other_nuisances has no bearing on the article to establish notability. Again, being sued does not make a person notable. Some of the language was cleaned up to provide more of a WP:NPOV, but it does not establish notability. If this article is to be saved from nomination for deletion, it needs to have its notability established, with verifiable third party sources for all of its claims.Munchkin77 (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see much in the way of establishing WP:Notability. The subject is still only a self-published author. He may have been interviewed by a few news sources, but if he truly was an expert, his books would have been picked up by a reputable publishing firm. Links from other sites to his also do not establish notability, nor do they constitute a seal of approval by the editors of the sites that link back to his. All it means is that his site ranks high on Google. I think some further discussion on the issue of notability is needed. Munchkin77 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't get your way, so you decided to vandalise the article? Munchkin78 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Okay, so here are my thoughts. I'll start by saying that I believe that Henderson's notability has been established, if only because he's been mentioned by a number of secondary sources.

First, the Legal harassment and other nuisances section is way, way too long. It looks like it was written by a WP:TENDentious author who has an axe to grind. The text in there adds entirely too much weight to the topic at hand. The section needs to be severely chopped down.

Second, the entire article needs a huge rewrite, on the grounds that it contains so much point of view, original research and synthesis. For example, the sentence: "Both Henderson's site and first book are acknowledged to be valuable and reliable sources of information and the site is linked to by a large number of renown other sites (a.o. governmental, municipal, law enforcement, corporate, consumer rights, educational and private)." The only link given to this is to Alexa, which certainly does not back up the claims there. And even if it did, it wouldn't be acceptable here because it would require more sources to back up such claims.

Until these issues are dealt with, the tags should stay. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have dealt with the issues adequately. --WeatherFug (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove the tags until it has been confirmed that the issues have been dealt with. I have to run out now, but I'll give this page a look within the next day to confirm that. Once I feel the issues have been dealt with, I will remove the tags. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Scott, I reverted your edits to last stable version by admin HelloAnnyong. I think you're being a bit drastic. Could you please provide detailed specifications about all your concerns, so I can address them one by one? Thank you. --WeatherFug (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kay, let me deal with this before it gets out of hand. First, I am not an admin. Next: Scott's edits were more than acceptable, so I've reverted your removal of them. Finally, that reference that starts with "Some reputable third party references" is utterly ridiculous. Including that many references to prove the point seems to be synthesis of sources. Just because the site is listed on a page that's a list of links does not back up the claim "widely acknowledged." In fact, the term "widely acknowledged" seems to be a WP:PEACOCK term, which begs the question, "by who." I'm going to chop down that reference. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now given this page a scrubbing. I cleaned up all the references and did some work on the text. It's still not great, but at least it doesn't suffer as many problems. I'll be keeping an eye on this page from now on. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete information well-referenced from public and reliable sources. Please explain in detail each deleted item why you think it is in violation of WP:BLP. Your generalized claim that it does violate is not valid argument. You must explain why. There was minimal WP:SYNTH which I deleted. Only referenced facts remain. Twri (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated "by who" list

The U.S. House of Representatives - Full List of Grants and Other Funding Resources, San Antonio Police Department, Butte County District Attorney: Identity Theft Fraud, Saginaw Charter Township Police, City of Terrell TX Police, Coldspring Police Alert, City of Alhambra Police Department, Dyfed-Powys Police (UK), Royal Canadian Mounted Police, The Financial Crimes Task Force of Southwestern Pennsylvania (under United States Postal Inspection Service), The Roanoke Valley Financial Crimes Task Force, Office of Consumer Affairs - Nassau County, New York, Suffolk County District Attorney, Nova Scotia Securities Commission, The Royal Netherlands Embassy - Washington DC, FSU College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Australian Institute of Criminology, TU Berlin, Germany, Murdoch University, Australia, The Economist, Canadian Broadcasting Company CBC, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Findlaw Crime Prevention Resources, Jackson State Community College handout, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Colorado Coalition for Elder Rights and Adult Protection, TRIAD Of Rockland County, thinkquest.org, The Internet Public Library, BBB Spokane, World News Network, Statement Of Tamar Frankel Professor of Law Boston University (page 9), INTERNATIONAL MONEY LAUNDERING: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW AND GENERAL THEORY OF CORRUPTION by CALVIN LEE PACLEB, B.S, maricopa.gov: Identifying Financial Exploitation & Protecting Assets, Serviço de Informações de Segurança (SIS), The Telegraph - Calcutta, Resources for the Teaching of Social Psychology (CROW), The Register: Nigerian email fraud gang nabbed, The Federation of International Trade Associations, Orange County FL Commission on Aging - Fraud Prevention Resource Guide, bankersonline.com Dana Turner, FOX 7News: Secret Circle, FOX News: How to Sidestep Scams, New England Institute of Technology Library, The Jackson Sun: Jackson police warn of Jamaican lottery scam, St. Petersburg Times: Duped by faith?, Criminal Justice Institute library, Rediff.com Business: A guide to e-mail banking scam, Canadian Police College, Crime Victims Institute links - Identity Theft, The Guardian (UK): Beware email scam with a deadly sting, The South African Reserve Bank - Public Awareness Initiatives, South African Institute of International Affairs - War and Organised Crime - Links to related websites, Okanagan Regional Library - Web Links - Consumer Help, Ontario Provincial Police - Advanced Fee Letter Fraud, Constitutional Rights Foundation - Criminal Justice in America, 4th Edition Links, Home Office (UK) Distraction Burglary Task Force - Related links, Telegraph.co.uk - Briton kidnapped by Nigerian gang in cash fraud, South Bend Tribune - Alleged scam 'goes coast to coast', Pacific Coast National Bank - Fraud Prevention, CTV Television Network | 419 Fraud: A Canadian twist on an old scam</ref> --WeatherFug (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's nice. Do not add any more of these references to the page; I think the point has been made. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I don't intend to add any more of these. Regards --WeatherFug (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits

Obviously not vandalism. All of the edits were constructive and properly refocused information. Is Henderson not a self-published author? Is it not wrong to say the website has "useful information" when none of the citations use that language? Is it wrong to say that Charlie Crist denies the allegations since he's still living and that better adheres to WP:BLP (and is specifically contained in the cited sources)? Is the man not better described as a Webmaster rather than a creator of his little website? Wikipedia defines Webmaster as "the person responsible for designing, developing, marketing, or maintaining a website." Isn't it wrong to characterize the dismissed investigation into the talent agency as and "affair" when none of the cited sources refer to it that way? Just because you don't like it doesn't make it vandalism.Munchkin77 (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong is that you appear to have a personal interest in the article, and you have ignored the concensus of other editors. Munchkin78 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the editor, it's about the article.The language in the article was written by one other editor, not a consensus. Address the issues at hand. Are any of the edits wrong? Do they mis-characterize the information like the previous edits do?Munchkin77 (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEASEL, I suggest you read it. And then WP:COI. Munchkin78 (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, characterizing a long list of websites that simply post a link back to his and then saying they do so for its "useful information" falls under the definition of WP:WEASEL.Munchkin77 (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Uh, why do you both have very similar usernames. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Munchin78 signed up after my first edit. As you can see, he's more interested in me than improving the article.Munchkin77 (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for Deletion

I have allowed other editors time to improve the article, and tried to improve it myself, but I’m afraid this article just doesn’t pass muster.

The article is based on three claims of notability, but they all fail the established rubric.

1) That Henderson is an author. Both of his books are self published therefore they do not meet notability guidelines. The fact that a recognized publisher did not pick up the books for publication indicates

2) That his website is used by government sources and in news reports. Being interviewed for a news story does qualify as notable or every witness to an accident would have a Wikipedia article. And the government sources he lists are nothing more than a long list of sites that list his site as one of many links. That is not endorsement by the agency, but rather evidence the government sites’ webmasters found his site in a search.

3) That he has been sued as a result of his books. Being sued does not establish notability or every neighbor who has been sued for a fallen tree would have a Wikipedia article.Munchkin77 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Stop reverting back to old versions. The one that Twri picked is from nearly ten months ago! There have been a lot of changes to the page since then, and going back to that one is just throwing them all out. For one, the Legal harassment and other nuisances section in the long version is totally too heavy and is off topic - not to mention a total violation of WP:BLP. At least three editors are in agreement about not using this old version, so as far as I can tell, going to the old version is going against the consensus. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ten months ago the activity on this page stopped, then suddenly recently "lots of clanges", actually, deletions, started. There is no WP:BLP: the information is public and not off-topic: it is directly related to the main activity of the person, not some trivia. Twri (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Munchkin77 has a personal interest here. I suggest that their editor account be blocked. Also the material removed here related to a large scale deletion on the Lou Pearlman article that is related to this one. I do not believe this to be a coincidence. Perhaps if Munchkin77 is blocked then editors can come to a meaningful agreement without constant disruption. Munchkin78 (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Twri, this is BLP. Les Henderson is a living person, and therefore this article must follow that criteria. If you don't like that, then we take the issue elsewhere. Your edits are heavily WP:POV as they add a great deal of weight to criticizing him - more than is on the current version of the article, actually. By reverting, you're violating the WP:NPOV section of the BLP policy. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HelloAnnyong, please explain which exactly parts of the article are doing harm to Les Senderson. - 7-bubёn >t 17:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I am struggling a little to understand why you think the material you deleted is negative POV (so is Sembunny apparently, who has just reverted you). The section on Henderson's web site merely describes what the website does. The section entitled Legal harassment and other nuisances lists legal actions taken against Henderson by his opponents. This is hardly negative to Henderson, rather it is a reflection on the scammers he is challenging. The only thing POV about it is the title; which is biased ot Henderson if anything - and also seems to have been changed as I type. SpinningSpark 17:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main gripe is that it's too heavy. There's a few sentences about him and his website, and then six paragraphs about his legal battles. Seems a little POV to me. Then we have a handful of pretty heavy statements that are entirely unsourced. Do you really expect to find a reliable source for "a flood of anonymous writings appeared on Internet message boards, blogs, press releases and mock sites, containing unsourced offensive allegations about Henderson, similar to the ones on Pearlman and El-Difrawi's sites and worse"? That's my issue with it, but I know I'm not the only one. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I personally deleted the "flood of anonymous" and some other fancy stuff. You don't seem to read what you are reverting.~~ As for legal battles, it is a logical consequence of his activity, not just random traffic tickets. There are quite a few articles about persons with legal battles and other wrangling. Twri (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, this was my intention to delete the "flood of anonymous" phrase when I was deleting some other paragraphs. Anyway, I see someone tagged it for citation, and it is quite possible it will be gone in 5 days if stays unreferenced, per wikipedia rules. Twri (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:Coatrack? The legal harrassment and legal nuissances is more than half the article, and simply calling it "nuissances" is highly POV. Most of that section is unsourced or contains original research. This is why it was removed before, and why it shouldn't be included now. Therefore the only thing Henderson has done of note is self publish two books. That's not notable. The only event that was covered about him in the press was the "publication" of this book. Notability guidelines specifically states that a person is not notable for one event. This page is set up solely to give credence to his books and help their sales. That's not what Wikipedia is about.Munchkin77 (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's an interesting question. This article definitely could be seen as a WP:COATRACK for complaining about Henderson. Twri/others, what do you have to say to that? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the restoration of that section again forgets the facts previously discussed, mainly:References 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, violates WP:V References 6, 13, 15 are broken. References 12, 18, 19 are WP:synthesis Munchkin77 (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Munchkin77 again we come to WP:COI. I believe that you have a personal interest here. Also WP:SOCK seems to apply to other articles. I assert that all the evidence points to a conflict of interest and you should leave this discussion to editors who have NPOV. Munchkin78 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

easily be found

Dear user TWRI. To avoid direct-linking to examples, the phrase is considered sufficient, see [1]. --WeatherFug (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2.0

Plus, User:Munchkin77 blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Startstop123, using multiple accounts for illegitimate reasons. Hint for our Orlando friends: username ApplicantTree is still available, hurry! And so are ThreeStarsMedia, Career-Network and PowerApplications. Good luck with your next attempt! Btw, the link in the box up there leads to the first deletion discussion in 2007, this is the correct one. --WeatherFug (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what is the point of this? Are you encouraging vandalism? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what is the point of this? It's indicating our dispute is solved, and tags may be removed imho. Are you encouraging vandalism? Um, is this a serious question? --WeatherFug (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a serious question. I don't get why you're stating that these other usernames are available. Some type of joke? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some type of joke? Yup, and I think all readers, except perhaps a few people with a total lack of humor, will grasp that. Are you going to remove those tags, or shall I? --WeatherFug (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Sorry, but after the two Munchkin accounts on here (both permblocked, btw) I don't really have much of a sense of humor when it comes to this article. You can remove the tags, I guess. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Ha. Happy further editing and bye bye. --WeatherFug (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Les Henderson. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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} 23:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Les Henderson. 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) 10:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]