Jump to content

Talk:Nathan Rees

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

Image

[edit]

I know it's stating the obvious, but if anyone has an image of the NSW Premier to be, it would be greatly appreciated. It was quite a feat gaining free images of every current Premier in Australia. Timeshift (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is my command... I am afraid that in the small size it seems a bit dark but that's cos it was taken under the COLA at the school he was visiting for the prize giving. (I was there because my daughter was getting one) Albatross2147 (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick! However, is there a reason why the image contains no metadata? Timeshift (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I did a quick and dirty edit of an enormous original TIFF file and in the conversion I suppose the metadata was lost. Image metadata is not a prerequisite for inclusion of an image in Wp is it? Albatross2147 (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as i'm aware. I just feel that metadata gives a free image license more legitimacy. After reading what you've said, and reviewing your image contributions, I have no doubt however that the image is genuinely free. :) Timeshift (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Photoshop and a few other photo editing programs you can lose metadata (some RAW files converted can lose the meta easily then .jpg). Bidgee (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Premier

[edit]

I think this and Iemma's articles are going to be busy over the coming days...hopefully not much vandalism either! --Mikecraig (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girraween Athletics Club

[edit]

User:Wilbur56 has been inserting, "During 2001 / 2002, Rees was a member of Girraween Athletics Club and specialised in middle distance events. User:Bidgee has been reverting it.[1], based on lack of source. Both editors breached WP:3RR in this. However, let's hope that this is water under the bridge. In a post to his Talk page, Wilbur56 wrote

Thank you for your patience

Hello, I have tried to add information to the Biography of Nathan Rees but you said it was deleted as it was not cited. The information I woud like to add is: [...]

I am President of Girraween Athletics Club Inc. and our club records verify the additions I have made.

Regards --Wilbur56 (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to this editor there regarding our need for reliable source and also regarding WP:COI, which might apply, and I suggested that the editor look for newspaper articles from the time that might confirm the claim; those could be used as sources (even if not available on-line). The club records are primary sources and generally could not be used. --Abd (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geez it breached WP:BIO and WP:V (and I even looked for sourced before removing it). Stop using this as a witch hunt and stop stalking. Bidgee (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So even though Bidgee was acting in the best interests of ensuring entires accurate and sourced, he's the bad guy. Check. Minkythecat (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with below) I don't notice any mention of "bad guy" in what I posted above. Minky, your comment seems to have been taken as literal by Bidgee, who retired over the alleged harassment; maybe he will change his mind. He's also claimed that his response here, later deleted by him, wasn't about your comment, but it doesn't make any other sense, since "bad guy" hadn't been mentioned before. Bidgee doesn't seem to understand WP:3RR, and the edit wasn't "vandalism" as he called it. It was proper to remove it, as I noted elsewhere and did not contradict above, but not necessarily proper to edit war over it, since it wasn't defamatory in any way. How about helping with this situation instead of fanning the flames? By the way, weren't you blocked for 3RR violation defending an article from improper edits? Bidgee hit 5RR and easily could have been blocked on sight. If I wanted to harass him, don't you think I'd have jumped over to WP:3RR?--Abd (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get your facts right I reverted under the grounds of being unsourced and ever called it "vandalism" until the 4th or 5th time they added it since I used TW to template so see WP:BLP. Bidgee (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice cheap shot, Dennis. I'd reply but quite frankly you really need to work on your dispute resolution skills. Minkythecat (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thanks, Minky, that's exactly what I'm doing. For starters, I actually reply to posts to my Talk page, unlike some haunting this page. There are two kinds of disputes: content disputes and behavioral disputes. There is no content dispute here, in fact, not among knowledgeable editors. There is only an intervention with regard to Don't Bite the Newcomers. Instead of simply rejecting a good faith contribution, apparently based on personal knowledge, why not try to actually help the new editor? --Abd (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is it really that relevant that he was a good runner and bike rider? i know not much is known about him but i just cannot see how the fact that he rode 80km to work each day is really information that needs to be shared. Plumes (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People like to know this kind of stuff, and if it is notable and verifiable -- and that might be arranged for the information in question -- we really couldn't properly exclude it, my opinion. However, it's up to editorial consensus. I've advised the editor from the Club that he should consider himself COI and simply provide us with evidence here, leaving it up to editors without a conflict to decide whether or not to put it in the article.--Abd (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Ree's sporting prowess: If he liked to go for a swim and ride a bike, it would be trivial. But the sporting nature of Nathan Rees is on the rather extraordinary side. Triathlons, riding 80km to work and back each day, 1000km per week. It gives an insight into his personality.--Lester 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the editor went ahead and inserted the material, now with sources. I'm going to abstain from judging it for the moment. I'll assist if it looks like there are problems. --Abd (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be removed since the source isn't reliable (WP:BLP) (just a link to the home page of the club so it also failes WP:V) the editor has a COI and has made claims they can't back-up and Nothing found on Google (other then someone who has copied the Wiki article and posted it on a forum with the misinformation). Bidgee (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was another source asserted, the Annual Report of the club. Bidgee, referring to this as "misinformation," unless you have evidence you have not revealed, and claiming that the editor "has made claims they can't back up," is uncivil. I can agree with you that we have not seen evidence sufficient to allow inclusion. Right now, though, we have a reference that you removed to the Annual Report, which is apparently a legal document. However, the reference was mangled and mixed up with a reference to the Club web site. I'm requesting further information from the editor and, as I noted above, I've advised him not to insert this material, but to bring it here, because of the potential COI. Allow me to remind you of WP:AGF. We are obligated, in the absence of contradiction, to assume that the information is being provided in good faith. This editor has claimed to be the President of the club in question and to have personal knowledge of the issue. This is what AGF means to me: we assume he is real, we assume that the facts are true, but we don't put them in unless WP:V can be satisfied. It may be sufficient that he provides us with scans of the Annual Report, assuming that other details can be verified (such as that the club exists, that it files Annual Reports by law.) And there are other avenues to verifying facts. Simply calling this "vandalism" was over the top, Bidgee. You should apologize. You have requested I not post to your Talk page, so this is here, or it will be elsewhere. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get your facts right and I find it funny that you tell me to AGF when you're not AGF and then say "Do not insult the editor or the editor's contribution, absent evidence." Take a look at your own actions before questioning mine. If the document is on the site how come I didn't find it? "has made claims they can't back up" isn't uncivil since nothing has been found other then a so called document (and I'm sure the media would have picked up on what Nathan has been involved in during his life). I didn't treat the edits as "vandalism" until the 4th and 5th edits. I was willing to help the editor (Who should have seen a Yellow bar for a new message) which I did with a custom message then the rest was template messages. I suggest that you look at how you're treating me before you question how I treat other editors here. Abd take your insults else were. Bidgee (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. Club annual reports, I'm assuming are purely internal documents. Unless Australia has some rule all athletics clubs must register all members officially - the question, Dennis, is that enough, assuming it can be produced? Nothing external to the club has been found -ghits, nothing. Nothing can thus be independently verified. Google search of +"Girraween Athletics Club" +Rees yields absolutely nothing regarding this person - only as has been stated, a copy of the wiki article! The question thus becomes, can it be proven the subject was a member? Can't find any independent links proving it whatsoever. Ok, let's try another tact and find results of athletics events - again, nothing. Looking at the website [2] indicates it's a SOCIAL club. On their own website, can't find any results, looking at the athletics.com.au site, refers to "West Metropolitan Competition". Ok, let's do a google search on that one... zero hits for the subject or results. So, given there's zero independent coverage, precisely how notable is the Club? There's no doubt it exists, but nobody has shown it to be anything other than a social club taking part in incredibly obscure events with zero media coverage. By that token, if he occasionally played poker at home with a few friends and a friend wanted to write that in the article, should it go in? A resounding NO. There are two alternatives; the club president wants free advertising by making a false claim, or the claim is so utterly non-notable as to be unencyclopaedic.
So, Dennis, does an annual report mailed to you, if it gets mailed, top the lack of information identified above? Indeed, if the guy provides a report listing Nathan Rees' name, how exactly can you prove it's the same person as the subject of this article? It's hardly an uncommon name after all. Minkythecat (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who the hell is Dennis? Can we stick to usernames, please, rather than having what looks like some sort of insiders' club. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis is a name I never use, actually, but it shows that Minkythecat has looked at my user page. I know that the problem of difficult-to-verify sources was considered early on with Wikipedia, with discussion of faxes and scans being sent, but I'm not fixed on one detail or approach. How do we know anything about a source we can't read off the net in a few minutes? We Assume Good Faith. And, if we discover it, we throw the book at an editor who has lied about sources. The editor claims to know Rees personally, that he'll be meeting with him soon, wanted to know if a letter from Rees would help, all that. I see that Bidgee is now trying to assist the editor (something he originally offered), which is commendable; and what, pray tell, Minky, are you doing? One step at a time. There may be, for example, a newspaper article. But to answer the question directly, yes, an Annual Report from a public organization, combined with testimony on personal knowledge that it was indeed the Premier of NSW, from an official of the organization, would, to me, suffice to allow this harmless bit of information to be included. Whether it's enough to survive is a matter for editorial consensus. (But I wasn't asking for the report to be mailed, and I'd really try to find an editor in the area to check it out. I was just looking for scans of the relevant passages, to see if it was even worth pursuing.) --Abd (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I assume that we are being told accurately the facts of the case, and that the problem is one of finding usable source. Part of finding usable source may involve verifying some of the facts, such as the nature of the club, etc. In other words, a proper operating assumption here is that the editor was acting in good faith, that he has personal knowledge of the facts, that there may be some documentation, that other documentation might be obtainable, etc. None of this allows us, at this point, to put the information in the article in the presence of controversy. Speculating on what might be wrong with evidence is backwards. Let's see if any evidence can be found, first. --Abd (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the editor has claimed that the Club must file Annual Reports with a regulatory agency, and that this would be the report in question. So the comment about internal reports is not the case, assuming good faith. --Abd (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Investigating the Club

[edit]

girraweenathleticsclub.com seems to be mirrored at clubsonline.com. 13 recent issues of the Club newsletter, Girraween Athlete, are linked from the site, the latest issue, July 2008, is at [3].

  • Club is "celebrating" its "30th year."
  • July 2008 Girraween Athlete, issued monthly, is the 50th issue.
    • Club membership stands at 68.
    • The claim above that this is a "social club" would be misleading. It's an "athletics club," but they say, on the home page, "We are a very social club and encourage our members to have fun, enjoy their athletics and represent the club with a friendly and sporting attitude."
    • The newsletter is mostly race results.
    • Contact information is given for Club officers. President is Steve Williams.
  • Latest News, on the home page, has, New South Wales Premier Nathan Rees ... Girraween Athletics Club Member- 2001/2002, with a link to the "full article," which has this text:
    • Girraween Athletics Club congratulates Premier Nathan Rees on his election as the Premier of NSW. As a former member of our club (2001 / 2002), he was a most capable middle distance runner as well as being very competitive in the steeple chase. As Member for Toongabbie, Nathan Rees has displayed continued interest in Girraween Athletics Club as well as a strong commitment to all sport. Please visit the following link for further information regarding Premier Rees: [and then there is a link to this article].

Cool Running Australia (Message board) has a post: Newly sworn in NSW premier Nathan Rees, 40, is a runner- formerly a fast one at that! He ran times close to 31.00 for 10km and was one of the top juniors in NSW in the 1980s. Nathan was a member of Parrmatta AC and was a regular at the popular West Metropolitan road and cross country series for a few years.

  • Girraween participates in NSW Cross Country Championships (see newsletter).
Comment

There are results pages for events in various locations, but I've been unable to find "Nathan Rees" on any of them, so far. Perhaps our friend from the Girraween Athletics Club has some event information. Newspapers sometimes publish the faster runners in these events. Not all events listed on, for example, the Results pages for Athletics New South Wales (with which Girraween AC is affiliated) have live results pages. But they might have been published somewhere.

Above the question of the notability of the Girraween AC was raised. That's not the point; it's clearly a small club. This is a biography of Nathan Rees, and that he is apparently a fast runner would be of interest if it can be sourced. Nothing so far, but that's for me, sitting here in Massachusetts, U.S.A. A search of physical Club records might come up with some clues as to where to look in newspapers, and, again, those papers may not be on-line. For starters, we'll have to depend on our friend at the Club. If he can't find anything, we probably can't either, though I suppose there are other leads through Parrmatta AC. --Abd (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And using few words to avoid WP:TL;DR issues, notability of the club is an issue, otherwise you're opening the door to any form of minutae to be entered anywhere. Investigation has produced only a self-sourced claim of membership for 1 freaking whole season (2001/2) and a message board posting. Well, message board postings aren't exactly great WP:RS are they, or Paris Hilton would have been pregnant with many people's children... without any form of independent, external verification, it's got no place in something purporting to be an encyclopedia. Nothing, nada, nein, non. The fact is, the original poster has been asked for independent evidence several times and has referred to annual reports, private correspondance ( which, if true, isn't acceptable as would fail any form of licensing ). As it stands, unless substantive independent evidence can miraculously appear, it stays out. Minkythecat (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see that, as to what matters, the article, and for today, Minkythecat agrees completely with me. As to tl;dr, reading my comments is not obligatory. They are made for those who find them useful, and they contain detail that is necessary for that purpose, and which may save such other editors some time. In such comments, I refer, sometimes, to blogs and such, as I did above, because I have often found them useful in improving searches for RS, and have saved at least one article based on that. At least one other editor is actually trying to help, Bidgee. Take a hint, Minky, it's more fun than sitting in a corner making pissy remarks, and reverting from your Talk anyone who dares to comment on them. --Abd (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA please Dennis. So, you've found a blog. May lead to further search points, sure - ask yourself this. If it's so difficult to find anything that covers notability and reliable sourcing concerns, is that information relevant as by nature it's incredibly obscure. Even so... "Nathan Rees" may not be as common as John Smith but isn't a rare name either. Is there anything that links the subject of this article definitely to this club? Can the identity of any "Nathan Rees" linked to the club be verified independently? Assuming you can... is it anything other than cruft? Has Rees ever publicly commented upon it? An athlete article, at that level would be instantly CSD'd into oblivion for failing notability. Is the reader truly enriched by learning he was a member of an athletics club at an incredibly minor level for season 2001/2002? Does that indicate or impact upon his political life, which is his notability? As for my talk, your comments get deleted for the simple reason I've zero interest in being part of your agenda. Minkythecat (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is something that links the premier definitively with the Club: the testimony of an officer of the club, who claims to personally know the man. Further, the facts are believable, there is utterly no reason to suspect bad faith here. The only problem is that we don't have what Wikipedia considers reliable source. A newspaper reporter would consider what we have sufficient source for a mention in an article, it could be admitted in court as evidence, and I'll be surprised if RS we can use does not eventually appear. Until we have such source, we can only look for it and ask for it. I'd personally be satisfied, possibly, with facts from the club annual report, perhaps. We can cite such a document, under some conditions, and it depends on what is actually in that report.
That the "athlete" article would be deleted is irrelevant here. Most bios contain facts that wouldn't, on their own, be notable. Rees is very notable, and within that context, his athletic history becomes notable, possibly, and I'm sure most editors will agree. Note that there is already mention of his athletic history in the article, it merely isn't complete. "Cruft" this is not. I'm not a fan, and I'm interested, it will make for a better article. RS has already compared his political career with his athletic history, it's cited in the article.
Lastly, Minky deletes not only my comments, but most comments that are critical. His Talk page is the most uninviting I've ever seen, comparing comments there to kitty "droppings." My agenda is the improvement of the project, in a deep and long-lasting way, and if Minky isn't interested in that, well, it's his privilege, but that says a lot, doesn't it? His intervention here and with User:Bidgee, see Talk for that user, has not been constructive. Bidgee is a prolific editor who, in my view, needed a little nudging, and he seems to have responded quite well, for which he is welcome to the credit. Sure, Minky encouraged Bidgee to return, but he was joined in that by the banned User:Fredrick day, and by me. The difference? Minky and Fredrick day used the incident as an occasion to throw mud at me, and, as far as I can tell, this may have been the only point to the involvement of both. Minky had not edited this article before I arrived, and had never before posted to Bidgee's Talk, nor had Bidgee posted to Minky Talk. --Abd (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(colloquially "garbo")

[edit]

I think this should be moved out of the article to a note on his maiden speech link. --Surturz (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know what a garbage collector is, even if we are not supplied with a colloquial translation.--Lester 14:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"We" may know, collectively, but "garbo" wouldn't mean that to me as an American, never saw it before and did not recognize it when I saw it in this header. However, it's fine to take "garbo" out, it's not necessary, if "garbage collector" is there, even if the speech used "garbo."--Abd (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez youse blokes must have some sorta cultural cringe chip on yer shoulders if youse want to delete the real name his job went by. His mates at the time would have considered him to be a real raw prawn (or worse) if when they asked him what his was up to he had said "Maaate, I am a garbage collector". Where I come from a "garbage collector" is what your missus is 'cos she accumulates so much useless stuff there isn't room in the shed to have a quiet smoko. I put the colloquialism in to explicate the term for your averich seppo who might in fact see it (the word 'garbo" written down somewhere like a story in the paper and wonder (totally erroneously of course) if Reesey had, in fact, at some time whilst mixing with long haired uni students, been a flamin' shirtlifter doing impersonations of female fillum stars that he read about on a Fantales wrapper. Albatross2147 (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bogans, on MY Wikipedia? It's more likely than you think, mate! Fair dinkun, strewth, let's chuck a few shrimp on the barbie and crack upon a coupla tinnies of VB cos we're true blue, dinky die aussies!

I'm sorry, but there is no need to have this reference in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Kiddie fiddler"

[edit]

An IP vandal has been tossing the usual into the article, but one insertion, quite properly removed by Bidgee,[4] made me wonder. I found [5]. RS. No, I'm sure he didn't "invent" the term, as the IP claimed. Not really damaging to Rees, possibly would violate WP:UNDUE, but possibly notable, at least this should be noted here in Talk. What do you think? --Abd (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he didn't invent the term. The IP just wanted the phrase in the article, if not to create a libellous situation at least to intimate it. if you want to get a VERY carefully, NPOV constructed section about the controversy of him *using* that comment and the context, then great. The page will no boudt end up semi-protected as it'll be a magnet for abuse. Minkythecat (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that we need more substance about his career before what is truly a detail would be appropriate, if even then, that's why I mentioned WP:UNDUE. The IP's motive was clear from the nature of the insertion, Minky's right.--Abd (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed here also. You could construct a couple of paragraphs giving context to the remark with respect to Rees' views of the actions of his then-Department in relation to indigenous child abuse, the unintentional irony of the subsequent arrest of Orkopoulos and whether the use of colloquialisms in Australian English can appear to undermine the seriousness of an issue. But as is pointed out above, you'd be giving undue weight to what was a single line. Without this supporting material the phrase cannot be read in context and should not be included in the article. Euryalus (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of a beat up IMHO. His knowledge of Orkopoulos' activities (or lack thereof) is definitely notable, but his use of the phrase 'kiddie fiddler' doesn't really prove anything. --Surturz (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orkopoulos news story shouldn't be used as a source

[edit]

Well if this was Orkopoulos article then it would be in that article but this is a article about Nathan Rees and the only reason given for this "The announcement of the dam project came less than a week after the arrest of Mr Orkopoulos.[1]" was for "news story establishes time reference"[6]. I feel that it doesn't belong in the article since the source fails to state anything about a dam and Nathan Rees which is in breach of the key policy WP:BLP and also is irrelevant to the article. Bidgee (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Teen sex on the taxpayers". Sydney Morning Herald. 8 November 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Wed in a "secret ceremony"?

[edit]

I think this sort of language is just media BS designed to put a negative gloss on Rees. "Secret ceremony" suggests some sort of arcane, occult, funny business with strange rituals and sacrifices. What's "secret" about an event attended by family and some close friends, including the 2 witnesses required by law to be there? To whom was it a secret? To anyone not invited, it's simply a private matter, as all weddings are. Surely it's better to say that it was a ceremony the details of which were not publicised prior to the event, or words to that effect. Or maybe not even that. If I were Premier of NSW, and I were getting married, I sure as hell would want to keep the details close to my chest to stop the media turning up and ruining it. "Media not getting an invitation" does not equal "it was a secret ceremony". -- JackofOz (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Longer the premier

[edit]

On 3 December 2009, Rees resigned and was replaced by Christina Keneally, the Minister for Planning, who became the first female Premier in NSW history.

She hasn't been sworn in yet, so have I jumped the gun here? NEW Article neede on Christina Keneally, as there does not seem to be one. Spelling of name correct? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Keneally............. Timeshift (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Timeshift9, I was wondering why googling Christina wasn't working as I expected, though some sources had BOTH spellings! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But yes, you have jumped the gun. He has resigned as Labor leader. He is still the Premier because the Governor has not yet even been formally advised he no longer leads his party, let alone sworn in his successor. When he resigns his commission as Premier, probably tomorrow (4 December), he will then cease to be Premier, and not a moment before. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Happy Kristina!

[edit]

Nathan is NOT a happy little Vegemite! Brought down by malign and disloyal group: Rees NATHAN REES in smh.com.au
December 3, 2009 - 11:23AM (NOTE TIME, this is BEFORE he resigned ≈5 hours)--220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Nathan Rees. 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 20:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nathan Rees. 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 03:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nathan_Rees&oldid=1204385048"