Talk:99ers

This article should NOT have the NPOV Tag

The NPOV tag is misused here. If this article and the quotes are accurate, which they are, the NPOV tag should not be used to throw an article into doubt because someone doesn't like the unflattering light it shines on their party of choice. An unbiased editor needs to take this article over to prevent those who scrub Wikipedia for partisan reasons from using WP for their own agenda. Oakbranch (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That the quotes are accurate is not the only factor in determining if an article is neutral or not. If I wanted I could write one of the least neutral entries on this entire site made up of nothing but "accurate quotes". This entry notes that "economists" have stated that unemployment benefits shouldn't be paid for because that would defeat the purpose. That may be true, but there are also "economists" who completely disagree with such statements. It seems certain politicians like to claim "economists support position [x]", in a fashion meant to strongly imply that all "ecomomists" are in agreement with such a statement. The sources you decide to include and omit determine how neutral an article is at least as much as the "accuracy" of the quotes. One glance at the laughable "Media Coverage" section of this entry shows exactly how "neutral" this entry is, or more accurately, isn't. Not ONE SINGLE MENTION of news stories highlighting studies documenting the negative effects of long-term unemployment benefits is included in the "Media Coverage" Section. Instead we are regaled with ridiculous stories about how Ed Schultz, with a handy link to the video provided, has "lashed out" at Congress (as if "lashing out" from that little-watched lunatic is something novel) and how Rachel Maddow has replayed negative quotes from Republican politicians(yeah, this entry is completely neutral). Another blatant example can be found in the "Controversy" section. We are told that certain individuals have referred to the 99ers as lazy drug users, whereas some in favor of extended benefits have claimed those opposed to said benefits want people to die. 86% of the direct quotes provided are from those opposed to the extension of benefits; one, ONE, is provided from the other side. The quote from Rand Paul detailing how some people may need to settle for a lower paying job in order to find work isn't even remotely controversial, it's common sense, yet it is included, for transparently obvious reasons. Furthermore, it seems pretty obvious that the quote from Alan Grayson was included not because he is absolutely insane(he is), rather it is included to highlight his claims that Republicans are starving children. Neutrality at its finest!!!!! Moreover, any assertion that more chicken-little style quotes about mass-starvation and Republicans killing people couldn't be found would be asinine. If you consider that neutral, you sure have an odd way of defining that term. Also, the vast majority of the "Controversy" section not devoted to direct quotes from various politicians and media sources is devoted to comments made by Mark Zandi, an economist who has advised the Obama administration, and the liberal Economic Policy Institute and their claims that almost 2 years of unemployment benefits are necessary. Only one paragraph is devoted to studies detailing the deleterious effects of long-term unemployment benefits, as opposed to the numerous paragraphs sprinkled throughout the entire entry devoted to pro-extension studies. There are also attempts to include more subtle bias, such as comparing tax cuts to unemployment benefits. Such is an apples and oranges comparison. Allowing tax payers to keep their own money is completely different than a government program that actually spends taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, comparing the funding of past unemployment benefits is not comparable as Congress has never given people benefits for two years before. Also, one could find numerous applicable instances when both parties have contradicted themselves concerning what does and doesn't need to be "paid for", yet only Republicans are mentioned in this regard. The "Hiring" Section is completely pointless and it seems the only reason for its inclusion was to throw in nonsense implying corporations are greedy and evil. We are also told that, according to MSNBC, jobs can feel like a "mirage". So we needed an entirely new section for three sentences of information that have already appeared in other portions of the entry? The section contains a link to a study from a liberal think tank, the Economic Policy Institute, again, that was contained in a different section literally one paragraph prior. Again, that is not neutrality. The "Discrimination" section cites a study, again from the liberal Economics Policy Institute, detailing how the majority of long-term unemployed lost their jobs through no fault of their own. How exactly is that evidence of discrimination? And speaking of the Economics Policy Institute, pro-extension studies that it alone has published are mentioned more frequently than all the anti-extension studies from any other group or person combined. When you compare the numbers for all the pro- and anti-economists and think tanks (excluding quotes from media personalites and politicians)the numbers aren't even close. Again, claims this entry is neutral are simply not believable and border on the willfully ridiculous. The "Organizing" section reads more like an advertisement, with links to 99er organizations embedded directly in the "Organizing" section of the entry(this is not common practice), more than it does an encyclopedia, and again we are treated to a quote from the buffoonish Ed Schultz. Once more, assertions this entry is neutral are absolutely laughable. Whoever wrote this entry clearly made a calculated decision to include certain information that would make one particular party look more flattering at the expense of another. That is not neutrality, regardless of how accurate the quotes are.

Rand Paul's "controversial" comment. Enough said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.107.129 (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Untitled old thread

99er My 15 minutes of fame..Dont think you feel my pain..54 out of work I paid for all my life.I never asked my country for a free ride....I want the money I paid in back.What did thay do with my money???? Anyone need a chevy truck ?? I made my payments for 99 weeks...I thought I would have a job...Remember When I bought a new truck for work...Who cares...mikeputchsr@yahoo.com

@Mike: Your story (and others I've heard like it) is why I've been editing this page with new information when I find it. Wish I could do more. There are online sites where 99ers support each other and post links to services and job boards. Here is a link for an online virtual rally I just found. It was put up by a an online page for 99ers. See the organizing section for more. Good luck, Oakbranch (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Oakbranch, you are exactly the person who should be acting as an arbiter as to what constitutes NPOV for this entry and what doesn't. Your participation in the editing process for this entry makes a mockery of the entire notion of NPOV and has brought the entire discussion of bias in regards to this entry to the level of parody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go to the comments section for the Mitt Romney entry and provide links to his campaign website, tell others about online Romney rallies and provide links to various social network sites for Romney supporters. Moreover, I am going to talk to fellow Romney supporters and when I am done, I am going to update his page with any new "information" that I find, as long as it is one-sided in its portrayal of the greatness of Mitt Romney and the horribleness of Barack Obama. And if someone tries to make necessary changes to the Romney entry in order to balance any obvious pro-Romney slant, I am going to be the one to decide whether or not those changes are acceptable, even though my biases are obvious to anyone with an IQ above 16. And for good measure, I am going to add a few quotes from Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck to the Romney page, detailing how awesome he is and how horrible the Democrats in Congress are. And when enough people call me out for my obvious biases, I am going to disingenuously call for a "nonpartisan editor" for the Romney entry(of course, I will naturally be the one determining what is and isn't nonpartisan)all while arrogantly continuing to serve as the ultimate arbiter of the NPOV status of the Romney entry. Given Oakbranch's continued participation in the editing process, farce and contempt are the only appropriate responses at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article contains many blanket statements that show a bias of opinion. Many of the indented subsections have no clear citation.

The entire article needs to be cleaned up for verifiability.

Pctotty (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Pctotty: The article is validly sourced and cited and is verified to wiki standard. Your claim is specious. Note that this page has been vandalized several times by anonymous users. Since your only contribution to date on Wikipedia has been to try to throw this article into dispute, your tag has been removed. If you want it to be reposted, please provide proof, on this discussion page, to your claim that there is bias by showing below, link by link, which links or entries are not true, as each portion of the article is cited correctly. Until then, note that use of the POV tag without a valid reason is abuse of the tag. Thank you. Oakbranch (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of what constitutes bias and what doesn't is, frankly, absurd. The mere fact that I can verify(as that is supposed to be the hallmark of wikipedia)that a person being quoted actually stated said what is being attributed is not even remotely a guarantee that an entry isn't biased. As for the "accuracy" of certain claims, the hyperbolic, conspiratorial nonsense from Ed Schultz alone would disqualify it in that regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

While I appreciate the plight of those without a job, this article is extremely biased against republicans. It is strongly presented from only one point of view to the point of having WP taking a position on the topic. There are also large sections of direct cut and paste sections which appear to be copyright violations. Both the Pro and Con sections read Republicans bad, Democrats good and just. Arzel (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

:

Arzel: The article is validly sourced and cited and is verified to wiki standard. Your claim is specious. Note that this page has been vandalized several times by anonymous users and many others who've come to the page and have attacked the unemployed as lazy, bums, deadbeats, you name it... If you truly appreciated the plight of the unemployed, you wouldn't be playing games with the article. Since your editing history shows a preference toward Republicans -- to put it mildly -- I'll allow the possibility that you're misperceiving the article based on your own ideology. Whether that is the case or not, please provide proof, on this discussion page, to your claim that there is bias by showing below, link by link, which links or entries are not true, which are in copyright violation, as each portion of the article is cited correctly and uses the fair use or less amount. Until then, note that use of the POV tag without a valid reason is abuse of the tag and that makes it vandalism. Thank you. Oakbranch (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Read up on Copy-Paste. Almost the entire article is in violation of copyright violations. Arzel (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

See my response in the copyright section below. Oakbranch (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

See also section

Per WP:SEEALSO, I have removed these since it looks like most are already linked. Maybe add a few, if they have not been linked, and are likey to be added to the article in the future. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of all the links makes the article an orphan. That's inappropriate for an article already being attacked by those biased against the subject matter. I've put them back. Let's leave them and leave it up to an administrator who can look at your and others' editing history and make sure there is not another reason for your edits Oakbranch (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Discuss the edits not the editor. Please read up on WP:AGF. The see also section is very large, could you explain what all of those people have to do with the subject? I can understand some of them, but many of them don't seem to have anything to do with the article content. Arzel (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur w/Arzel that it might help the see also section to restore those that relate to the content. I would suggest that the best way to do that here would be to have a short sentence or sentence stub flagging the relevance. While not always necessary, given that it has raised some eyebrows, it would seem to be helpful in this instance. Oak -- I note that you are a relatively new user. Please do not feel "bitten" by the reactions here; we all look forward to your contributions.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem, Epeefleche, is that the article has been repeatedly vandalized by anonymous users who put in crazy things demonizing the long-term unemployed (lazy, bums, worse...). The quotes in the article are all linked and cited and are in context and from reputable news sources. They were said. These users trying to remove them have lost credibility with me because they presented their argument as the article supposedly demonizing Republicans. What the article does quote, in context, are what several Republicans have said as their reason for blocking additional unemployment extensions in the Senate, House and those who egged on that position on radio and television. That obstruction is what has created the economic class known as 99ers. If anyone complaining doesn't like what those Republicans said and did, perhaps they should take it up with the people who said and did it.

I don't feel bitten. I feel disgusted that Wikipedia is being scrubbed by partisans who support the demonization of millions of people who did nothing wrong other than to lose their jobs because of lousy economic conditions. That's why you're seeing the harsh reaction from me. I believe a nonpartisan administrator needs to take this over. The article has been a magnet for anonymous vandals and the people putting tags are giving them cover whether they mean to or not. Oakbranch (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, please see WP:SEEALSO. If an aticle is already linked above the see also section, it doesn't need to be readded. If it hasn't been mentioned, please explain here its relevance and then let others decide if it belongs in that section. Also, I don't really have any "opinion" about this article or its subject matter. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is no need to explain its relevance on the talk page. You can add your see also's to the article, and provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, but as the phrase "generally" suggests that is not a hard-and-fast rule, and is subject to commonsense. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright tag

Just to be clear, is there any part of the article that is alleged to be a copyright violation/cut-and-paste besides the parts that are presented as quotes? Thanks, ClovisPt (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't check the whole article, but all of the large sections presented as quotes are simply cut and paste. Arzel (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Clovispt, they're all within fair use. This article has been vandalized repeatedly (check the history) by mostly anonymous users who put in insults toward the unemployed (calling them bums, lazy, you name it). It's crazy. Now we have users using tags to throw the article into dispute while complaining that Republicans are not being treated fairly... The quotes are things that were said and were newsworthy enough to be quoted in reputable news outlets. If those who are partisan toward Republicans don't like what Republicans are saying, perhaps they can contact those Republicans and tell them to stop saying those things. Alternatively, maybe they could come up with a quote that doesn't demonize the long-term unemployed and put it in -- if they can find one...

Note that we have another user, User:Threeafterthree, who keeps deleting an entire section of the article (three times now: the "see also" section), no matter how many times he's been asked not to do so. This is vandalism and, if you look on the history of his talk page (history because he deletes inconvenient warnings), you'll see he's been warned about inappropriate deletions before.

This article needs to be under the watch of a nonpartisan and fair administrator. Could it be improved? I'm sure. But the long-term unemployed are getting demonized and Wikipedia should not help that along by disingenuous use of tags or redactions. Oakbranch (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This question was raised at the copyright problems talk page. I've tagged the article for over-extensive use of non-free content. Wikipedia does not rely solely on fair use, as our content is generated to be reused liberally in many different environments, including commercially. Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline notes that extensive quotations are forbidden and sets out some of the circumstances under which non-free content may be used. Non-free content must be used transformatively and sparingly under our policies. Where free content (such as a properly written paraphrase can serve), it should not be used. Many of these quotes should be replaced with proper paraphrasing and, where necessary, brief excerpts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with paraphrasing on a politically attacked page by anonymous partisan hackers scrubbing WP of things with which they don't agree, is that it will then be attacked as opinion. The quotes were put in to be unequivocal about the things that were said. And, if you read what was said, you'll understand why paraphrasing would create an uproar. If you want to tackle paraphrasing and get yourself on the anonymous vandals' enemies list, go right ahead. I'm exhausted by the attacks on this article and ask that those who are looking at it in a purely editorial way step back and think about the consequences of that approach when the subject itself is under partisan attack by those trying to deny WP the ability to tell the truth. I stand by the idea that a non-partisan administrator who understands the impact of the politics as well as editing needs to get involved. Oakbranch (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am a nonpartisan administrator who understands the impact of our copyright policies. Content such as "In an unusual display in the normally sleepy chamber..." and "she said with a smile that conveyed no humour or happiness, only the deep stress that is common to many 99ers" seems purely decorative and serves no fair use purpose. It would be better if contributors who are familiar with this subject truncate it, but if necessary I am willing to help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, those quotes were from the Guardian and Politico. It doesn't matter. The article has been scrubbed to look like no one is demonizing the unemployed when that demonization is what influenced the politics to cut off of unemployment extensions -- thereby creating the economic class called 99ers. Re: scrubbing, please look at the changes by mark , who wrote below that it was BLP, which it wasn't. If you look at his profile, you'll find number of articles he's created that are partisan and may be BLP. His changes should be undone and then someone who is nonpartisan should make the necessary changes. Oakbranch (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I brought the issue forward and would work on it, however I don't believe Oakbranch would view my edits to be neutral considering I also believe there to be NPOV issues. It would be better if someone besides me looked at CR issues, which I think should be tackled before my POV issues. Arzel (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I think you'd do that, Arzel. I do think there are those who are have been manipulating WP by use of the WP standards and are making a mockery of it in some cases. You may not have seen the attacks early on with the things said by anonymous users about the unemployed. I did and left an impression on me. Now a user (see below) has used the WP standards you guys tried to apply to scrub the article of anything he didn't agree with. There's a lot of partisan scrubbing going on around WP and that's a shame. A nonpartisan editor needs to take those articles over. Oakbranch (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing more hilarious than reading repeated quotes from someone claiming that those oh-so courageous 99ers are being demonized and Republicans are evil for doing so, acting as if he is a suitable arbiter as to what is neutral and what isn't. And people that regularly post here actually wonder why so many scoff at those who use Wikipedia as a source? Moreover, cutting and pasting entire sections from one source does not constitute "fair use" and claims that it does are as laughable as they are inaccurate.

I have cleared out the quotes, there is no justification for such extensive quotes in an article mark (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I have also removed a few massive BLP violations, youtube videos can`t be used as sources, especially for BLP information, one of them was so obviously cut near the start it shocks me that these were used as sources mark (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Mark, are you also shocked there was gambling in Casablanca? I would suggest that your "Gore Effect" project would fall more under BLP, which makes your argument suspect at best and hypocritical for sure. It's clear to me there is a concerted effort on Wikipedia by right-wing partisans to scrub anything with which they don't agree, which is damaging to the wiki concept of truth. You should undo your changes and let a non-partisan editor edit the article. And your articles should be reviewed. Oakbranch (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am a non partisan editor here, i am shocked that you would use user edited youtube videos as references on BLP`s. Be grateful i did not seek sanctions against you. All WP articles fall under BLP, you would do well to remember this. All articles i have created get reviewed all the time as they get edited by other people all the time. I recommended you read the following policy's, wp:blp wp:rs wp:npa mark (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The following articles you proudly list as having created or co-created are nonpartisan? Welcome to Obamaland: I Have Seen Your Future and It Doesn't Work, Andrew Montford, The Gore Effect, Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future, Libertarianism without inequality, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence... Your "award" about climategate was for making sure the retractions were printed? Care to link to where you made sure all the false accusations were redacted? Or did you just make sure that "both sides" of the "story" was here? Or, perhaps, we should ask why you were blocked for copyviolations? If you're an official editor, prove it. If you're not, don't try to intimidate other Wikipedians by making false claims. Either way, go enjoy yourself. You won. I've given up on this article. Oakbranch (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If you see something in any of those articles which you deem "Partisan" WP:SOFIXIT. What false claims have i made? mark (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean all the articles you've created? Welcome to Obamaland: I Have Seen Your Future and It Doesn't Work, Andrew Montford, The Gore Effect, Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future, Libertarianism without inequality, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence... Every one of those articles, by your definition, should have an NPOV tag and a BLP tag. It's fine for you to act like Capt. Renault in Casablanca -- I'm shocked there's gambling going on... as you collect your winnings, but it's not honest of you. Take off the NPOV tag here and we can talk. Otherwise, you're only fair on the one side of the issue about which you care and partisan with tags on the one with which you don't agree. The shame is that what you are undermining unemployed who did not get fired for cause and who need a valid reference for what is happening to them. 99ers, by definition, were laid off due to no fault of their own. It's not what right-wing radio or some Republicans say when they scapegoat them, but it's the truth. Fact: They wouldn't have gotten UI benefits in the first place if they'd been fired for cause. By scrubbing the truth about the scapegoating or trying to paint the article as in doubt with an NPOV tag, you're furthering an agenda that is biased against the poor. Whether you mean to do that or not, the only NPOV going on is what you have done to this article and what has not been done to your articles -- whether they deserve it or not. Oakbranch (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The articles i created have nothing to do with this one. I have been out of work plenty of times in my life and have struggled a lot over the course of three rescissions within my lifetime. If you think the POV tag does not belong then remove it, it was not me who put it there mark (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It is almost surreal reading the comments from Oakbranch. The notion that there is a plague of right-wingers scrubbing unflattering material on Wikipedia, when anyone who pays even the slightest attention to Wikipedia knows the problem comes from the other side of the spectrum, is an absolute farce. Moreover, one only need read his various comments regarding how terrible the awful, horrible Republicans are for demonizing those courageous individuals who haven't worked for two years to realize how meritless his accusations are. Furthermore, the notion that he gets to be the arbiter, as he seems to assumed that mantle for himself, as to what is NPOV in this entry is simply mind-boggling. This entry probably(actually, there is no probably about it) does need a nonpartisan editor, and Oakbranch certainly doesn't fit that bill, nor does the individual who wrote this wholly crappy, insanely biased entry in the first place. If you can't read that entry and pick up on the huge disparities in regards to the quotes presented, the studies cited and the sources used, you are absolutely blind to any bias that favors your side of the political spectrum and you have no business editing a politically-oriented entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This article needs a "History" section.

This article has not been updated since October 2010. A short section of the history of recent unemployment extensions, with references to the particular laws, both those that have been passed and those that have not been passed, will make this a clearer and more objective article.

I hope to work on this section over the next few days.

MiddleMolly (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 99ers. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100722/ap_on_bi_ge/us_unemployment_benefits
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151118023313/berniesanders.com/issues/creating-decent-paying-jobs/ to https://berniesanders.com/issues/creating-decent-paying-jobs/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 99ers. 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/20100817165752/http://www.aolnews.com/article/2010-unemployment-extension-faq-tier-5-99ers-explained-and-de/19555874 to http://www.aolnews.com/article/2010-unemployment-extension-faq-tier-5-99ers-explained-and-de/19555874
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100812093504/http://www.labor.ny.gov/ui/claimantinfo/extendedbenefits.shtm to http://www.labor.ny.gov/ui/claimantinfo/ExtendedBenefits.shtm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819062613/http://stabenow.senate.gov/press/2010/080410Americanswanttoworkact.htm to http://stabenow.senate.gov/press/2010/080410Americanswanttoworkact.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007050130/http://berkley.house.gov/2010/08/new-berkley-bill-extends-unemployment-help-to-nevadans-who-have-exhausted-benefits.shtml to http://berkley.house.gov/2010/08/new-berkley-bill-extends-unemployment-help-to-nevadans-who-have-exhausted-benefits.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529181119/http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/05/24/unemployment-benefits-make-people-lazy-not-so/ to http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/05/24/unemployment-benefits-make-people-lazy-not-so
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100728082557/http://washingtonindependent.com/86700/as-long-term-unemployment-deepens-99ers-look-for-answers to http://washingtonindependent.com/86700/as-long-term-unemployment-deepens-99ers-look-for-answers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100814004659/http://laborbuzz.labor.ny.gov/?p=2576 to http://laborbuzz.labor.ny.gov/?p=2576

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) 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)