Talk:Worth School

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Reasoning for assessment: This article desperately needs references per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources --Jh12 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from May/June 2006 reset

These two anonymous and 'supportive' comments, the first on the discussion page, were above the contents box; I have reset them under it, with a section heading.

Acabashi (talk):

This article seems very biased - much of it is in the first person and sounds like it comes from the prospectus for the school. Sentences like:

"No doubt Butler will go from strength to strength with Brian at the helm!" Have no basis in fact. Most of this article should probably be deleted.

it seems to me that this article is acting as a brochure for the school, and therefore is biased and should not be allowed. I quote ‘we pride ourselves in 'getting it right'’ so like the point before me this should be deleted.

As an ex pupil of the school, I wholeheartedely agree with the above comments.

The article here bears very little relationship whatsoever to my, and my contemporaries' experiences of the school and monastery, where I spent about five years.There is an entire other perspective of this school, which is not represented here. The article's veracity and objectivity is questionable. Also, there is no mention ( besides the external links ) about the various scandals -- price fixing rackets etc -- that have been highlighted in the international press.

Recent changes re new head

I've just removed some edits that just aren't appropriate on Wikipedia. When reinserting, try to write something that will not be out of date in six months - the adverb currently might have a date in brackets. The family life of the new headmaster and the delight of the governors is human interest stuff that belongs in a local newspaper.--Lo2u 16:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re-edit

The side panel contained out of date information, which I have removed. The section on "gappies" gave undue prominence to a feature this school shares with many others, who do not appear to need to advertise the fact - e.g. no mention is made of the fact that the school employs "teachers"! The section about Woldingham school is out of date. The paragraph on OFT should perhaps be a separate article - there were 49 other school involved, so it is difficult to see why the investigation featured uniquely on this page. Lanspergius 19:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

minor change

removed inaccurate information from the side panel.

removed news item

The wikipedia is not the place for news anouncements about changes in a school's admissions policy. The change in the school's policy needs to be incorporated into the body of the article as a description of what is the case. Lanspergius 12:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Famous Pupils"

I've changed this to "alumni". "Famous" is a highly subjective term, and I assume that the individuals whose names might be entered here are not in fact "pupils" but "former pupils" Lanspergius 13:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think no-one would expect that the term "Famous Pupils" describes over-precocious current pupils, but you have a point over "Famous". A heading "Alumni" could invite any former pupil to add his name. I have changed the heading to "Notable Alumni" for reasons made further down this page.

Acabashi (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Down sides

I have added information about price fixing and salmonella in an attempt to make the site less of an advert and more factual. Not being at the school when this happened the information is limited feel free to add whatever you like —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiggstar69 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Removed the above

Attempting to maintain a neutral tone by removing the material referred to above. Lanspergius 21:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This site is being decribed as a brochure

iv'e made some more subtle changes intending to make it less like an advert for the school and more factual. I love worth school and wikipedia and I want a reliable sourse of information.

R. Wiggins —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiggstar69 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OFT

I have reinstated a paragraph on this event, since another user has made reference to it. Lanspergius 23:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A thought out conclusion

I like the resent change to this page and now it holds a fair amount of reliable information, although I do think that the one thing that it is still lacking is the connection to girls schools. Other users obviously dislike this section (due to its constant deletion) and I can understand why, although, the school does have obvious and strong connections to these schools and although it doesn't have to be put across how I have done it I would like it to be there.

--Wiggstar69 17:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni

The "Tony Tyler" who has a wikipedia page is not the T.T. in the list of alumni. Please don't link to that page! Thanx. Lanspergius 16:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motto "Do it with thy might"

The motto "do it with thy might" is the motto of the Cowdray family, who owned the Paddockhurst property before it became Worth Priory & school. It is not the motto of Worth School. Worth School does not have a motto.

Harry Enfield

Harry Enfield does not regard himself as an "alumnus" of Worth, and would not wish to be lsited here.

I've always deleted his name from appearing on the list, although if you look up the meaning 'alumni' does it really matter whether you enjoyed your time, graduated, or want to be affluated with it? The fact is he went to the school, this means his Alumni.--Wiggstar69 22:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

I have made some minor edits particularly in the first section to make it less biased.

ALUMNI -- I have added info to the Alumni lists : Michael Questier is also a respected author, having published numerous books/research papers on obscure areas of Catholic history. It is fairly unusual, specialist work, and makes him stand out as an academic, a term which is somewhat anonymous and unspecific anyway. I also added the band Nick Wesolowski played for. The previous appelation "musician" is anonymous,vastly over general and insufficient, and you would only find out more if you did a google search. Wesolowksi's band most certainly were/are highly regarded and successful, and are regularly cited in retrosepctive studies of the late 70's period. Please don't mess around with my changes, unless you have valid reason to do so;reasons beyond snobbery as to who YOU consider worthwhile as some kind of representative of "what Worth School should be known for." Personally, I think some Alumni on the list are not particuarly significant or praiseworthy -- but I certainly wouldn't edit them out since to do so would be biased and relying on my own subjective reaction. Signed, Rutherford lad ( Worth School, 1977 -- 1982 )Added François Schiettecatte, who is highly respected as a leading computer/tech innovator. A google search will support my addition to Worth's alumni listing ( Signed, RUTHERFORD LAD ex Worth, 77 -- 82 )User:Rutherfordlad

THE MONOCHROME SET and the ALUMNI LISTINGS

Please, would whoever keeps deleting the presence of NICK WESOLOWSKI as a worthy Alumni -- stop! Whether you personally are into music or not is irrelevant. His band contributed a lot to Post Punk music in UK, so stop being ignorant and selective. And yes, I was at Worth in the 70's, in Rutherford under Bernard Moss. Stop deleting Weslowski and his contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.138.57.171 (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Wesolowski / Michael Questier / François Schiettecatte

The contributions above, both by User:Rutherfordlad, require comment.

Nick Wesolowski's only claim to fame appears to be as a drummer of a band, and I dispute his notability. Indeed, User:Rutherfordlad states Wesolowski's lack of notability in his first contribition on 31 August 2008, where he writes: Wesolowksi is not "famous" in his own right -- but his band most certainly were; this "attribution" was speedily removed minutes later, perhaps through an understanding of the inference that could be drawn. Rutherfordlad's plea to others who he believes might feel they are representatives for "what Worth School should be known for," is telling, in that such a statement gives an impression he is contributing on that basis. Indeed, the comments made by Rutherfordlad indicate probable Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Mentions of a Nick Wesolowski on the web show possible candidates as: one of the drummers for The Monochrome Set, being employed as a consultant, being a 'LinkedIn' student or project manager, having a myspace page, a facebook page, an AOL music page (empty), and other uncertain references. You Tube performances of The Monochrome Set do not seem to list Wesolowski, although he could well be featured; for Wikipedia, You Tube can be a dubious source. There appear no substantial and independent references to this particular man that I can identify. These search results might not even refer to the same person, and if this particular Nick Wesolowski has all these "acheivements", they do not add up to being notable.

Notability is not about being associated at one time with someone, or something, that is notable. Would a colleague or friend of a notable person, or notable group of people, be considered notable on the basis of that association, even if such association is mentioned within a Wikipedia article? No. Removal of Wesolowski would not be through 'snobbery', this implied by Rutherfordlad, but through the fact that Rutherfordlad has not indicated valid, verified and independent evidence of notability: Wikipedia:Notability. Wesolowski should be removed from the presently termed 'Notable Alumni'. See comments further down the page about Worth School notability.

François Schiettecatte, is a computer programmer[1] who co-founded a web company, writes in blogs, and has his own web blog. He is mentioned in the Wikipedia article Wide area information server, but, as with Wesolowski, this is not, in itself, notable enough. Ex-Wikipedia Schiettecatte evidence on the Web is self-added or added by his company or promotional web sites. He may be of some importance, but, with little independent verifiable evidence available, not important enough for 'notable' status, I would suggest. Again, see comments further down the page about notability.

Michael Questier, Historian of Early Modern History. I believe there is no doubt that Questier should be considered notable. He deserves a Wikipedia article in his own right.

Please Note: Iam not, and have never been, associated with Worth School, or with others who have been associated with the School. I have, to my knowledge, never met anyone from the school. I have edited and discussed the article with disinterest, and with an aim to make it conform to Wikipedia standards.

Acabashi (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Worth Crest Stained Glass.jpg

Image:Worth Crest Stained Glass.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Alumni

I have changed ‘Alumni’ to ‘Notable Alumni’, (both terms not strictly correct: see Contention below,) as anyone who studies and passes might be considered an alumnus/na; there is an obvious problem if anyone's name can be added. Generally, Notable Alumni are those who have achieved 'national notability' most often beyond the confines of education, either before, during, or after association. Even if a person works as a professional in some capacity beyond the School this doesn’t automatically entitle that person to be considered as ‘notable’ unless achievements beyond normal, personal, school, or employment activities can be independently demonstrated, verified, and linked-to, such as with significant published articles about or by the person concerned. Proofs of notability are not personal or promotional web sites and pages, blogs, forums, or Wikipedia pages where the subject has a passing mention. Indeed, a notable person should have such verifiable achievement that would warrant a Wikipedia article in his own right.

Further, the addition of names within a ‘Notable’ list that demonstrate no such verifiable notability could be seen as self-serving, impinging on Wikipedia’s guidelines concerning a neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and bringing the whole article into disrepute. Where someone is ennobled, or has gained significant national honours, (letters,) notability might be assumed even if there are no obvious links to this notability. Please refer to Wikipedia’s guide to Wikipedia:Notability.

A previous heading ‘Famous Pupils’ was changed, (to 'Alumni',) through reasoning that that wording is subjective. This of course can be true. However fame, or notability (a better word), will not be subjective if links proving that notability can be made.

I have rationalised the list under this section to show a common style that is more egalitarian, as there should be no appearance of ranking in Wikipedia lists. There is no need to elaborate on entries however important be the 'alumnus'; this is especially true when the 'alumnus' links to his own Wikipedia article. Where an 'alumnus' has no Wiki article, an extended description beside his name could imply lack of notability; suspicion of 'trying too hard to prove a point'. Less is always more. Therefore, as far as possible, I've Wikified by adding bracketed single/double words as qualification. I have added a red link to invite an article for Michael Questier, who, through googling, appears notable. The already 'redded' Peter Jonas certainly should have his own article: any takers on these two?

(Update: 28 Aug 2010. I have created a stub for Michael Questier - anybody want to expand it?).
(Update: 10 Sep 2010. I have created an article for Peter Jonas (director)).

Others on the list without assigned Wikipedia articles are suspiciously un-notable in Wikipedia terms. One (Robert Carroll) seems to be defined largely by his own web site and appears to have added his own name, see COI. Three (Michael Ellis, François Schiettecatte and Tony Tyler) are defined by their professional and employment duties and have no added gongs. One (Nick Wesolowski) is a one-time member of a band; how many millions of those are there?. 'Alumni', yes... Notable? See further discussion above, under Minor edits.

A notable 'alumnus' with a Wikipedia article, Owen Lean, is defined by one newspaper article and a link to an 'official' web site. Although I find it surprising that the Owen article hasn't been tagged for deletion and he considered non-notable here, recently he appears to have achieved higher profile, although whether or not there is verifiable evidence for this development is another matter. Anyone care to improve his article?

(Update: 16 Oct 2010. Three more scans for the same event added, and two scans for further two events added, although the text remains paltry).

If there is a desire to add names of those who studied at the school to a list, a separate article for this could be created where ex-students can be added, and which can be linked-to from the main article. This of course might not suit those who seek self-aggrandizement: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Notables who don't want to be notables:

There has been discussion over the inclusion of Harry Enfield under a 'Famous Pupils', 'Alumni' or 'Notable Alumni' list. Observations have been made that Enfield did not like Worth School therefore wouldn't want to be added, and that he was only a pupil for a short time. Whether Enfield liked the school or not is, in Wikipedia terms, irrelevant, and if removal was made on these grounds it would be a blatant case of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Enfield doesn't own the Worth School article; Enfield doesn't even own the article under his own name. Therefore removing him on these grounds is a non-starter. Length of stay at the school is a moot point however. If he was a pupil for, lets say, two weeks and took no or few lessons, then there is a case to be made for removal. If he was registered for, attended, and studied for at least a term, then a removal decision becomes tricky. Perhaps someone can provide verifiable evidence of his length of stay; until such information is available, and a discussion has taken place, I propose that he remains on a 'Notable' list.

Update: please refer to Alumni guidelines. Acabashi (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contention

Here is the rub. What does 'Alumni' mean in terms of Worth School? Strictly, it should mean those who have graduated with a degree, something that the School doesn't offer. However, the definition of 'Alumni' seems to be stretched nowadays, even on Wikipedia, therefore I didn't want to remove it unilaterally. 'Famous pupils' was closer to the mark, but the word 'famous' was rightly objected too; it is too hyperbolic and restrictive. As 'famous' and 'alumni' are problematic, I suggest that the section header should be Notable Worthians.

You can see that I haven't removed anyone from the notable list, even though I was sorely tempted. I would like a discussion between serious identifiable editors, (i.e. those with operating User and Discussion Pages, not just an IP address,) to decide on a Notable's section heading, and who, if any, might be removed.

Please Note: Iam not, and have never been, associated with Worth School, or with others who have been associated with the School. I have, to my knowledge, never met anyone from the school. I have edited and discussed the article with disinterest, and with an aim to make it conform to Wikipedia standards.

Acabashi (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Staff

I have removed a part mini biography on Andrew Bertie from this list section. Where Individuals at institutions are covered in their own substantial biographies in Wikipedia, any additional pertinent facts should be added within those biographies to avoid duplication and confusion. All that is needed in a list is Name/Position/Dates; the link suffices. It would be useful if someone can supply the dates to Andrew Bertie's tenure.

Acabashi (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits - 28 August 2010

I have removed the clean-up template but added another requesting more information to be added in the body text, not in more lists please. As there has been no adverse feed-back over the last month on changing the "Notables" section header, in fact no feed-back at all, I have changed it to Notable Worthians, and put the recipients of this honour into a neutral double-column alphabetic list.

"History of Worth" section: I’ve restructured the section for a more direct read, without changing any of the sense or drift, while adding a little more about foundation. There is added a more appropriate link for Lord Cowdray. There was an implication, I’m sure not meant, that 'Worth campus', was in existence before the school was founded, which it couldn’t have been: “...founded a priory and a prep school for boys aged 7 to 13 on the Worth campus”".

Removed: "In 1957, Worth Priory became an independent monastery, before becoming Worth Abbey in 1965". Although the school is inextricably linked to the priory/monastery/abbey, this transition is found in the Worth Abbey article, and unless it can be shown to have an effect on the school, it’s a floating comment and is best left out.

The third paragraph on legal problems and the OFT was too long, certainly in proportion to the size of article as standing presently. Some wording was copied and pasted directly from the reference source – this repartition is unnecessary, and is not encyclopaedic. If a link provides all the information, then only a neutral précis is needed. Over-egging can look like not Wikipedia:NPOV. Removed the word "leading": it is subjective and without verification.

"Houses" and "Voluntary community service" sections: The text at the bottom of the "Houses" section moved to better place within the Houses list. As the section header is "Houses" there is no need to repeat this above the list… people can count that there are eight. Shortened the depth of this section by splitting list into two columns. There is little significance in listing colour of ties, and have removed this information - see guidelines: Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines.

"Worth School runs a wide range of Community Service". "Wide range" was too vague. I have added all community service activities that are current into the list, but stated as "has run". If there has to be a list it should be inclusive rather than selective. However, I am not sure that this article should hold this section… it’s a tad promotional and, in a very short article, looks too much like padding.

I think both sections are superfluous, don’t add to the article significantly, and will tend to excite only the interest of Worth students. The article text is of paltry length, even before an edit for style, and these sections unbalance it with the less than substantial. Even if the article had more flesh they should probably be removed, and replaced if really necessary, with a paragraph about houses, ties (uniform?) and community services set in one short section of body text. For validation of this view, look at Wikipedia UK independent school articles, and particularly Worth competitors in Sussex. None appear to list this kind of thing that here seems intended to bolster an article that has very little to say; these sections point out this article’s paucity very effectively. Sadly, perhaps, there might be very little else to say about the school. Can someone add more history to the thing?

As there has been no feedback over the last month about the notability problem, despite messages to editors of this page requesting them to comment, I propose to remove the listings for François Schiettecatte, Michael Ellis, Nick Wesolowski, Tony Tyler, Robert Carroll, and possibly Owen Lean, at the end of September. If other editors feel this is wrong, could they please add opinion here in the light of arguments above.

Acabashi (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Acabashi, for the work undertaken on this article. There are many adjustments you have made with which I wholly concur; but I have hesitated to make them because I have personal knowledge of the school and did not wish to be too closely involved. My own contribution has been to remove the more excessively gross inaccuracies or straightforward libels which occasionally appear! I think the weakness of the article stems from much of it having been created by students in the school, whose knowledge of what might usefully appear in this kind of publication is very limited; or by those who have axes to grind about (for example) the so called fee-fixing issue. With regard to Sir Peter Jonas, you are quite correct that an article should exist, and I once created one, which was deleted for being too heavily dependent on existing sources - no doubt my bad judgement. Another attempt would be welcome. There are pieces of history that could still usefully be added - the difficulty as I see it is locating published sources to back up the claims - there being very few such documents in existence.

Lanspergius (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the feedback Lanspergius. I will phone or email the school to ask whether it holds any non-web publications or papers that can fat-out the history - this kind of thing has worked for me in the past. I am going to leave the article alone until the middle of October, when, if there has been no further commenting, I'll consider those 'notables' without Wiki articles, and possibly Owen Lean, for removal; if you feel any of these are Worthy Worthians - that's a good name for the section :) - please let me know and I'll leave them in. The problem with not taking the bull by the horns is that an article can wallow in its own mess for months or years. If I have time over the next month I will formulate an article for Peter Jonas; I find that if an article is created with a stub template it is looked-upon more kindly by other editors. I am surprised that your article on the eminent Jonas was deleted when the one for Owen Lean has never been considered for such treatment.

Acabashi (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits - 09 December 2010 - removal of 'notables'

Please read the discussion and reasoning above before challenging delections. It has been 4 months since the probable contentious additions into 'Notables' of François Schiettecatte, Michael Ellis, Nick Wesolowski, Tony Tyler, and Robert Carroll were challenged, with reasoning and requests for comments from other editors of this page. As there has been no adverse feedback on deletion, or reasoning why these should be considered notable, I have removed them from the list. Even at this very late stage, if any editor wishes to challenge the deletions, please add sound reasoning here after considering comments above, and copy these to my talk page. Please note: notable people will be of at least known and credited national importance, will be defined other than by themselves or those known to them (Wikipedia:COI), will have such standing to warrant a Wiki article in their own right, and will be defined by acheivements usually beyond their day job with references to reliable third-party sources. Delections have been made from a position of neutrality; I have no association with the school or with anybody mentioned in the article; any further additions from editors should be made on that basis: Wikipedia:NPOV.

Acabashi (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Worth School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Worth School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160827201232/http://www.worthschool.org.uk/Worthian-wins-UK-Rugby-Coach-of-the-Year-Award to http://www.worthschool.org.uk/Worthian-wins-UK-Rugby-Coach-of-the-Year-Award

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) 08:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Worth School. 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) 01:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]