Jump to content

Talk:Sharon Newman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSharon Newman has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 5, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
March 18, 2013Good article nomineeListed
August 4, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Newman or Abbott?

[edit]

If the "Common name" thing is such a big deal, why is this article entitled "Sharon Abbott" and not "Sharon Newman" when "Sharon Newman" is her common name, a name she carried for nearly 11 years until she suddenly married Jack Abbott! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.110 (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Sharon has been referred to as "Sharon Newman" for years, but as soon as she married Jack Abbott it was a different story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustAugust (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whenever Sharon and Jack split, Sharon will be reverted back to Sharon Newman! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.133.58.107 (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sharon Abbott as the title. If she ever divorces Jack, we will cross that bridge when we come to it. Kogsquinge (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Alright, I know what is going to happen here, the issue of "Sharon Abbott" vs "Sharon Newman" vs "Sharon Collins"!! Before you ALL get into this crap let me state that wikipedia goes by a common name standard, thus solving the problem. Sharon is known as "Sharon Newman" (search google or log onto CBS.com) if and when she divorces Jack, it will NOT be (Sharon Abbott) or (Sharon Collins) a name she rarely uses!! Also more proof exist in the simple fact, Sharon went by "Sharon Newman" for over 10 years on the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.85.219 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon and Jack are now divorced so can the mane be reverted back to Sharon Newman?Sparrowhawk7 (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE! Newman or Abbott??

[edit]

I thank I agree with the unsigned, she's been "Sharon Newman" way longer than shes been (Sharon Abbott) or (Sharon Collins). I vote Sharon Newman or at least Sharon Collins Newman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustAugust (talk • contribs) 09:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comman Name

[edit]

Sharon's page should have as it Newman and not Abbott because she had been knowing for the longest as this show than as Newman.--M42380 (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sharon's page never should have been moved away from Sharon Newman.Rocksey (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Abbott → Sharon Newman — Sharon Newman is the character's common name. — Rocksey (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Husband ..Adam Wilson or Victor Newman, Jr.???

[edit]

His legal name is "Victor Newman, Jr." according to the reverend on the December 28th episode when they married. Her name is Sharon Newman seeing as how she's not "Sharon Wilson" so shouldn't it be listed she's married to Victor Newman, Jr. not Adam Wilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.131.250 (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I changed the article back to Sharon Newman from Sharon Wilson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustAugust (talk • contribs) 04:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victor & Sharon?

[edit]

Hi. I'm 2 episodes behind. Are Victor & Sharon married? I've only heard rumors. Can someone provide a a valid source? SoapJar21 Talk To Me 05:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to today's episode, Victor proposed. No marriage, yet. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sharon Newman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC) and — M.Mario (T/C) 20:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delays – I'll try to get to this by tonight—tomorrow the latest. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Hope you find the time to do it soon :) Arre 05:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Introduced by the late William J. Bell" -> In the infobox it says Bell just created him. Either add introducer to infobox, or change creator to introducer in the ibox, or finally, add Introduced and created to lead.
  • "Following a rocky relationship" -> Not a good term to use. Did a critic use this term "rocky"? If so, quote, if not, change.
  • "Noah" -> actor names (most prominent).
  • "Following a rocky relationship, they married and had a son, Noah. They also gained custody of Cassie (Camryn Grimes), whom she had given up for adoption years ago" -> Merge sentences, as well as doing fixes I have stated above.
  • "whom she had given up for adoption years ago" -> She -> Sharon
  • "The marriage faced countless hurdles" -> "Her marriage with Nick faced countless problems..."
  • "...including infidelities on both their parts. At one point, Sharon left town for months because of immense pressure". -> Merge sentences to -> "including infidelities on both their parts, which temporarily made Sharon leave town".
  • "It was during this point that Case was experiencing intense contract negotiations and her future on the soap was in question." -> "Her temporary departure was due Case experiencing contract negotiations, about her future on the soap".
  • "Following Cassie's death, Nick cheated on Sharon with Phyllis Summers (Michelle Stafford), resulting in a pregnancy. -> Following Cassie's death from a car crash, Nick cheated again; with Phyllis Summers (Michelle Stafford), resulting in a pregnancy".
  • "it was deemed the best love triangle by Soap Opera Digest" -> personification of publisher.
  • "A love triangle developed between Nick, Sharon and Phyllis, ultimatly leading to the couple's divorce. The love triangle was praised by critics; deemed the "best" love triangle by Soap Opera Digest. (As well as other fixes mentioned above) — M.Mario (T/C) 20:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done; fixed the lead. Arre 05:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few more for the lead:
  • No mention of CBS in Lead, American is not needed, change to CBS.
  • "The character was described as a "young girl from the poor side of town" at first, originating from Madison, Wisconsin" -> Move after the actresses who have played Sharon.
Done, but I left American just to clarify. Arre 19:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "succumbed to passion" -> something more formal.
  • Lead- Actress name for Faith.
  • "Faith was believed dead for months (by whom) after her birth; however Adam Newman (Michael Muhney) had stolen her and presented her to Ashley Abbott (Eileen Davidson), whom he had caused to lose a child, therefore giving her the thing that she had lost. Sharon then began a relationship with Adam (Wait, what, he stole her baby! And what has happened to her relationship with Nick, and did she divorce Jack?), which turned into marriage". -> Need to be more clear about details.
  • "Their relationship was described as "dark" and has changed the dynamic of the character". By whom? -> "Their relationship was described as "dark" by critics, who noticed that it had changed the characteristics of Sharon?
  • Relink Sherri Coleman to -> #Fugitivity and alter ego|Sherri Coleman.
  • "controversial relationship" -> who said this, and how?
  • "has been generally poorly received by the actors and public" -> a move which was disliked by Case.
  • "The character has tackled several emotionally challenging storylines including rape, kidnapping, infidelity and kleptomania (an obsessive stealing disorder)". -> change.
  • "Most notably, she won a Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in 1999, among five other Daytime Emmy nominations. She has won two Soap Opera Digest Awards." -> Merge
  • When quoting in the lead " blah blah blah", use the reference the quote came from. — M.Mario (T/C) 19:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. However, the source (SoapNet) that states the relationship was described as dark doesn't say who wrote this. Arre 06:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the review has been okay. The article seems very good, but does seem to need a good copy edit. Have you submitted this article for WP:PEER REVIEW? I dont mind doing it, but you must know that there may be a few points per day. — M.Mario (T/C) 19:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The review has been good, I'm happy someone has finally started it. You're points have been extremely helpful... You're right it does. I don't mind how long it takes. Arre 02:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink all occupations, apart from the Cassie one.
  • Right on to Casting:
  • Unlink William J. Bell, change to just Bell (already mentioned in Lead, WP:OVER LINKING
  • "Sharon was introduced and created by William J. Bell." -> Source? -> Credits for character's first appearance would be good.
  • Ditto with Potter and Mark.
Done, I only fixed the occupations and William J. Bell to Bell. I will leave the rest for Arre. Creativity97 03:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, (I've researched a lot) but I can't find a source for any of the actress' first appearance. Also, the March 28, 1994 date has been there for a while and I can't find a source for that either. But i didn't add that. Do you have other points for casting? Arre 03:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All ." change to ".
The quotes in Characterization either need to be cut or removed.
Try to find one word adjectives to describe Sharon, "moody", "mean", "happy", "ditzy", ... etc.
Should the storylines be first? It would make a bit more sense
"Sharon as her alter ego Sheri Coleman. Her appearance changed, and Case colored her hair brown" -> Changed "colored" to dyed?
Done caption for photo. I cut/shortened basically all the quotes and added other words in between them like, Case said "blah blah" but never "blah blah". But I didn't cut important quotes like Case saying Sharon's relationship with Victor was incest, and her explaining that even though she nearly killed someone she was still a romantic lead and heroin. About the storyline thing, I know it's done that way on Poppy but Sharon's s/l is sort of long and it makes more sense for ppl to read about her casting/development and then see the overview. Because they've basically just read parts of the storyline in the lead. But that's what I feel. I formatted the page like that once but it didn't flow right. Arre 11:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im guessing you have checked that all the sources are reliable? — M.Mario (T/C) 11:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im now going through checking all sources, etc.
  • Expand caption for image of Adam.
  • Unlink common words
Done. All of the sources are reliable. Some are dead, however. Arre

12:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Dead references -> can alternatives be found?
  • Actor names in Storylines section.
  • Please cut down this section
  • Nicholas Newman section:
    • "since her beginning" -> of what?
    • "eloping" -> link
    • Actor name for Matt Clark
    • This section needs a read through. Cut out uneccessary details,
    • Josh Morrow -> Morrow
    • Actor names for Cassie & Noah
    • Actor name for Diego
    • Phyllis Summers (Michelle Stafford) -> Link
    • Michelle Stafford -> Stafford
  • I havent checked the references at this moment.
    • "the Huffington Post" -> Should be italics and the -> The

— M.Mario (T/C) 13:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linked actors to that section. About that, in the storyline section, some if not most of the actors have already been linked throughout the article. It's 12 AM in Australia:) so I'll be going offline now. When I come back I'll fix the remaining and finish any more points you have, thankyou! Arre 13:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the dead links by adding links to archived pages. :) Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

I have some suggestion for improvement. The occupation is quite long. Looking at FA article Poppy Meadow you may notice that her job titles are simplified to the generic job title. I think this would benefit adopting this style. If Sharon has owned businesses then "business woman" would be a suitable replacement and in brackets the relevant years. It is just a matter of being concise.

I also noticed that there is the unfortunate case of a still born baby, now we do not normally include them. Essentially they are not characters, they are plot devices and without having a name to put to the object, well it comes off as a little clumsy and something you'd typically find on your average soap fan site.

Is gender really detrimental to the article though. I think it is fairly obvious that she is female. I find this field useful for androgynous characters.Rain the 1 00:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It's an issue with U.S. soap articles. Exactly. I always thought it was stupid that it said "Gender: Female" it's already clarified. I can remove student but as for the rest I'm not too sure. I will also rm the stillborn baby, you're right, it isn't a character. The thing is I wouldn't clarify her as a businesswoman. She co-owns Cassie's Challenge, a benefit for her daughter but other than that she owns nothing else. What if I change it to: Owner of Crimson Lights, Spokeswoman (2004-07), Restless Style co-founder (2008) and her jobs from 2012? Arre 05:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After having a look at Poppy's page, it's easier in situations like that. However it's a bit difficult for longer running characters, especially for 18+ years. Arre 05:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Poppy! :D Yes, the infobox was a bit long, but looks better now! — M.Mario (T/C) 18:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good writing them as you did with "Spokeswoman (2004–08)" - You could carry on with..
Jabot Cosmetics Intern (1995–96) - Intern (1995–96) or Student (1995–96)

Co-owner of Crimson Lights Coffeehouse (2001–05) - Coffeehouse owner (2001–05) or Coffeehouse co-owner (2001–05)

Or I do know that Ken Barlow adopted a unique style of listing current role and previous ones after. Sharon could be her current role (previously student, spokeswoman, etc.) I am slightly confused though; I got the impression from the info box that she has been an active business woman. It says that she has owned two businesses or organisations - and co-founded a style company. Think of it like J-lo's info box - you say she is an actress, singer, fashion designer etc - but not an actress in several films, a singer of so many songs, a fashion designer of this clothing range and that clothing range etc. So just think of Sharon as the same - she is "this, this and this" but not "this working at this place, and that working at that place". You can see for yourself which of the two are long winded.
Maybe I have brought to many other topics into this. And hey, let’s not forget you have created what could be considered as the best article on a daytime soap character. But that is because you have actively listened and taken on-board advice previously from editors and improved the standard. So please take this as constructive, after all they are only small issues - it is when they are big when it is time to worry.21:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you both. I'll alter the occupations. Thanks for the advice. Arre 00:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and thankyou for saying that, it's very nice of you. Todd Manning is a good article other than him I don't know of many good articles within the scope of U.S. Soap operas so it would be really nice for Sharon to be next. I value anything you say Rain, you are the one that taught me basically how to do stuff on here anyway:) Arre 01:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
K, sorry for another message but I've adjusted the occupations in the info-box. Since 2009, Sharon has worked on-and-off with Newman enterprises for their cosmetics division after being offered a job in Jan. 2009 by Victor Newman. Plus, she started (co-develops) a consolidated line earlier this year and was CEO, so I wrote businesswoman for all of that. What do you think? Arre 01:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CEO is a separate job title/role (I think), so I'd include that separately. The rest sounds fine though.Rain the 1 01:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay. So should I just write CEO or CEO of Newman Enterprises? Arre 03:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just CEO.Rain the 1 03:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

An idea to create a subarticle about the character development is supported by three people but also opposed by three who have provided good points as to why the article should remain as one. The article isn't that long and there other longer soap opera character articles, none of which have needed a split. Arre 05:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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

A few editors have opinionated that the character development section of this article is rather lengthy and instead of condensing it, it should be moved to its own article titled Character development of Sharon Newman. I think it would be good but I still have a few concerns and want opinions about this. Arre 14:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sharon's development section is quite lengthy. I suppose moving it to its own separate page would be good. Creativity97 15:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support whatever you guys think is best here but just wanted to add that I don't think it has to be separate, Todd Manning is quite lengthy, although has more subsections I guess. I do think though, that when character development gets this in depth, it can be helpful to move storylines ahead of the section, so the reader gets the brief background before delving into each piece, rather than reading the full plot summary again after. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose: Character articles get lengthy, YES, but in my opinion dividing the article would just make things a bit too complicated. When one goes to a character's article, they expect to see all the information provided about that character, within the article. I think just giving the article the appropriate subsections would be fine; but separating the article into two, NO.--Nk3play2 my buzz 17:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the idea of a split. The section is way too long compared with the other sections and the topic is well defined. — ΛΧΣ21 17:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think it would be good I do agree with Kelly, Todd's article is a GA and is even longer than Sharon's. The storylines used to be infront of all of that but I moved it. It didn't flow right... idk... Arre 18:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose this change - keep it as one. It is the standard for the character development section to be longer than the others. The sections flow quite well and I am sure the general reader will not be confused. I think the length of the individual subsections within the character development section are acceptable.Rain the 1 23:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sharon Newman/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) and  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 13:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • fictional character → unlink per WP:OVERLINK
  • CBS → CBS Daytime
  • "the character made her onscreen debut during the episode that aired March 24, 1994." → "the character made her onscreen debut on March 24, 1994."
  • "Before Case, who plays Sharon today, permenantly took over the role, it was briefly portrayed by Monica Potter and Heidi Mark, both lasting for two months each." → "Before Case permanently took over the role, Sharon was briefly portrayed by Monica Potter and Heidi Mark, who each played the role for two months."
  • "The character was described as a "young girl from the poor side of town" at first." → "When first introduced, the character was described as a "young girl from the poor side of town"."
  • "The supercouple pairing of Nick and Sharon, dubbed as "Shick" by viewers, has garnered a large following." → This doesn't really flow within the same paragraph as the other information; it just feels out of place. We're really skipping. I think the fourth paragraph should be merged with the first and "The supercouple..." one should be its own.
  • I'll continue the lead review after this is complete...
I fixed all of this. About the supercouple thing, you are right. I moved that to the fourth paragraph which contains general reception information about the character. Because they are a popular couple and have a fan following, that is sort of reception info. Is that ok?Arre 03:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The characters of" → Not needed
  • "later gained custody" → "and they later gained custody"
  • "the baby who Sharon gave up for adoption years before" → A bit vague.
  • "both their parts" → "both sides"
  • "Following Cassie's death as a result of a car crash" → "Following Cassie's death in a car crash"
  • "Nick cheated again; with Phyllis Summers" → "Nick cheated on Sharon with Phyllis Summers"
  • "Faith was stolen at birth" → I believe this is what we called, kidnapped.
 fixed all of this Changed to, "the baby Sharon had as a teenager, who she gave up for adoption" to clarify.. Arre 04:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following year" → Which is what? We don't know what the previous year was.
 fixed Arre 04:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

[edit]
  • I see several sentences starting with "Case,...". try to add variety.
 fixed added more variety. The word Case is only present twice now Arre 00:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Character development

[edit]
Characterization
  • I see a semicolon right before "who was confined to a wheelchair as a result". Shouldn't be a comma?
  • We have a little problem. I see that you mix in-world storytelling about the history of Sharon with reviews from the real world. I'd recommend to separate this into different paragraphs to avoid confusion.
  • Same as the section above. I see many sentences starting with "Case,...". Try to scan the article and check that.
 fixed if it's worth noting, most of those sentences starting with "Case, " was added by the previous GA reviewer of this article who thought it would be a good way to condense the text. Fixed these issues. Moved backstory info into storyline section. Arre 00:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relationship with Nicholas Newman
  • The text said they married in 1996. The caption says "Nick and Sharon at their second wedding, February 1996." They married twice in a year?
  • "because Summer was ill and Phyllis needed Nick." If Summers and Phyllis is the same person, why state their name twice?
  • Who is Faith? Who is Ashley?
 fixed their first marriage in 1995 was invalid, but it doesn't really need to be noted here anyway. Summer is Phyllis and Nick's baby daughter. I clarified who Summer, Faith and Ashley are. Arre 00:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest renaming to Relationship with Nick Newman, since he is referred to as Nick throughout the article and not Nicolas.
 Done Arre 04:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron Kirsten storyline
  • The paragraph is a bit on the long time; should be split up.
  • Not sure on the title, as there is a separate section called "Storylines".
 fixed renamed to "ordeal" because it was a very horrific experience. Arre 04:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cassie's death
  • "Grimes said she didn't think Cassie would died" → ?
oops typo.  fixed Arre 04:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other romances
  • Issues with going from past and present here. "Sharon lost her" and "She develops". I think that this should be checked for throughout the article, as I also see it in other places.
Fixed. Can you hold off on adding any more until I fix the tense issues for the whole article? Arre 04:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relationship with Adam Newman
  • "stole Sharon's newborn baby" → Again.
  • "whom he caused to have a miscarriage and an hysterical pregnancy" → Vague and not very well written.
 Fixed. Arre 05:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines

[edit]
  • Got some problems with consistency in the writing. What I mean by this is: "She lived with her mother", "In 1994, 18-year old Sharon arrives". I'm not sure which it should be written in, past or present, but it can only be done one way.
The first paragraph is back-story information. I just split it, I didn't see a point in splitting it initially but backstory info should be in past tense. Arre 04:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]
  • No issues here.

Comments

[edit]
  • Status told me he will be willing to help me this week as possible. Since I am having some issues IRL, this review would take longer than needed. I apologize. — ΛΧΣ21 17:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, I understand. Thanks for beginning it. I just hope it can be done before April. Hope everything going on with you is okay. Arre 00:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hahc, who as you know is (currently) retired, took a second look at the article after my review, and according to the both of us, the article meets the GA guidelines. So in result, we are promoting the article to GA status! Congratulations Arre! You've done a great job!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou so much! I've been working on this for an extremely long time and this means a lot. Thanks for taking the time out to review it. Much love! Arre 04:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Sharon Newman. 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) 05:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Sharon Newman. 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) 23:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Sharon Newman. 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) 09:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharon_Newman&oldid=1210338539"