Wikipedia

Talk:Fight for This Love

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
Good articleFight for This Love has been listed as one of the Music 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
June 25, 2010Good article nomineeListed
July 20, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

X Factor performance

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is this actually important whether she performed it live or with a vocal backing track for the chori or pre-recorded it or whatever it was she did? I don't think it is. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's important when there is a citation stating one thing, and then uncited comments are made that contradict it. The new reference is fine. Thedarxide (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not talking about the reference, I'm saying do we even need to say it was performed live contrary to reports that it wasn't? The important thing is that she performed it, not that reports said she pre-recorded the performance. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oh I think it IS relevant to state that she did not sing live, in this day and age a live performance has become a thing of the past, and for a show whose premise is to find a talent who can sing and has to sing live, for a judge on the show to come out and do a performance it is to be taken for granted that she's supposed to sing it live, to show her pupils what they should aspire to, and singing on a backing track is NOT what the show is about.

Also, whoever wrote that the Maxi Single is on cd should check their facts, the quotation from amazon is only relevant for the downloads, the cd is only a two-tracker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.205.114 (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

BRIT 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

she sang the chorus live but mimed the verses and so fucking what ! everyone mimes now and again just ask beyonce or shakira or florence or britney! they go un notced so why suld people pick on cheryl for having nerves and she had plans to sing it all live just as it happens a day before the award ceremony her love rat husband was caught cheating AGAIN and i think we all need to show her consideration

I've removed this criticsm section from the article for a number of reasons. Firstly Yahoo! answers and The SUn forum are not reliable sources for anything. The Daily Mail source only said Cheryl APPEARED to be miming in a caption and there was no criticism of her miming. Furthermore this metro article: http://www.metro.co.uk/metrolife/music/813618-brit-awards-2010-jonathan-ross-in-top-5-worst-moments also states that JLS were miming, making the start of the section, 'while everyone else sung live' incorrect. Finally an ITV cameraman has posted that there was a transmission error, so she may not have been miming - http://twitter.com/cameramanjimitv/status/9242079024

Spyka (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago58 comments4 people in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fight for This Love/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Checking to Wikipedia:Good article criteria

1 a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;

The prose is okay but could be improved, some redundant wording: first entirely solo => first solo
The spelling is America English and British English, colour, favorable. Be consistence one way or the other. There are some mistakes, uncredited => unaccredited, lipsync => lip-sync, protege => protégé, certifed=> certified

1 (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

The lead does not comply with WP:LEAD, please ensure that the lead is a summary of the main body of the article. There are items in the lead not in the main text, i.e "Topmodel by Heidi Klum". References in the lead do not seem required in this lead and can therefore all be moved to the main body.
Disambiguous links. X Factor in the lead, Balmain in music video, DR. in ref 35, UOL in ref 82.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

There is bits unsourced, Last sentence in Background and composition. Most of the Music video section. Live performances, sentence in the middle starting "She wore black leggings".
Infobox: it appears Recorded,Genre,Length,Label,Writer(s),Producer are unsourced or conflicting with main body text.
Reference 1 thesun.co.uk is an unreliable source, as is twitter ref 8 & 15, if this has recently changed please point to the discussion. Reference 33 googlenews is dead. Ref 47 - msn is also dead.
Some bits missing. Germany Catalogue# for single. UK release date is incorrect, it was 18 October as one reference says, maybe split into two lines?

:Infobox says B-side is "Didn't I" but does not indicate this is UK only.Striked, it wasn't UK only.

3. Broad in its coverage:

Generally good, there is not much coverage of the X-factor performance prior to the day of it's release, it maybe good to recheck that. The harem style trousers would be worth a comment as that was repeated in later live shows, also Simon Cowells comment after the performance. Consider a sentence explaining that promoting the single and her relationship with ashley cole was as the same time.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Seems good on that front. Remove only from 'In Belgium it only managed top-twenty'

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Yes, stable. Low activity.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images

A third image would be desirable, maybe from the live performance. The two existing images are not free.
Had a look on commons and Flickr but nothing suitable available.

Other comments. Hungarian Airplay Chart date, Succeeded by, this information is incomplete

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is it for today, will recheck after the dead/unreliable referenced have been updated. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Resolved comments (part 1) from SunCreator (talk)
;Response

Thanks for taking the review on. I've made a start. Can you please let me know what you think? Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Happy at the improvements made to the article, here are some more things to consider:

A credits and personnel section is advisable/normal. Song writers could go in the writing and composition.
I didn't mention before, thesun.co.uk is used also as ref #47
singlechart template may want looking at. It says 'Cheryl Cole - {{{song}}}' rather then 'Cheryl Cole - Fight for This Love'

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Checking out Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_53#The_Sun seems to indicate The Sun may be considered a reliable source. However, hopefully a better source can be found for all the information. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply


Hello, thanks for the feedback. I've been ahead and done some more work today including your recommendations above. I was thinking of uploading a sound snippet. would you approve? What do you think so far? Also is there anyway this image from the guardian could be used in the music video section instead? also is there anyway to put a performance image in too? Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, go ahead. I agree with your suggestions. The performance was more significant than the video due to the X-factor audience figures referenced already. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
What about the questions regarding the image from the guardian newspaper? can i upload it in place of the other? and is it possible to obtain and upload an image from a performance? (where might be a good source?) Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
What aspect of the guardian picture is preferrable to the current one?(Fine I see it connects with 'focus on fashion and dance' in the text.) There is no free images for the performance, so take your pick within the non-free license [1] or [2] perhaps? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Actually i've just watched the video again and realised that the current image is satisfactory. Imma upload a performance one now... regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Resolved comments (part 2) from SunCreator (talk)
;Some more
  Done link for DR could not be found so removed.
  • Two links to youtube video, but they are not the same.
Not sure what you mean by this.
  Done
  • The uploaded performance image is not low resolution, it's the same as the original.
  Done Uploaded a lower resolution one which is also smaller.

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

i think that's what you meant right? Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
The youtube video, one is in the infobox and the other in the External link. Firstly I question if two are required. But if you check they link to different places.
WP:OVERLINKING is still an issue, I gave iTunes as an example, there are many other multiple links in the reference section. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
  Done those issues are now resolved. (im pretty sure i've nabbed all (if not all then 99% of them) the overlinking within the references section). Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
References 48(okay, first occurance),50,51,52,53,54,55 require attention. Is it necessary to link every country Sweden, Norway, Spain, etc., I doubt it, see Wikipedia:Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ah right i see now. Sorry i didn't realise. its because REFLINKS was used in the article and this is the outcome... its links everything :( ... i'll get onto it now. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dare i say the referencing has now been resolved? Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not while it has twitter. Removing thesun.co.uk would be a useful objective as well. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Done removed both. (sun ref wasnt required and removed info source from twitter). regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply


  Done, All of the above has been resolved plus i've added additional information about the credits for the b-side and i've made several other minor corrections. practically re-written the compostion/writing section as i didnt realise editors had grossly misquoted the text. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Resolved comments (part 3) from SunCreator (talk)
::Well done, I thought it might of been a little overwhelming, but kudos to you. One link I checked, the Germany one, how [http://translate.google.com/#de
Resolved comments from Candyo32 (talk · contribs)
:::I just stopped by and thought it was noteworthy to add that the references in the article need to be placed after the period. Candyo32 (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
sorry i'm not sure what you mean by after the 'period'. could you explain please (or even better, give an example)? Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oops, sorry for not explaining. Like now a sentence goes: The song is a midtempo[5] R&B-styled pop[6] song with a synthy production[5] and dance[7] influences, written in the key of E minor with a time signature in common time and a tempo of 123 beats per minute.


Correct: The song is midtempo, R&B-styled pop song with a synthy production, and dance influences, written in the key of E minor with a time signature in common time and a tempo of 123 beats per minute.[5][6][7] I've always been told this in several GA reviews, so I assume it is somewhere in WP:MOS.

WP:FN mentions nothing about placing notes after the period. I have personally always preferred put references directly next to the source of information that they relate to and it helps reduce the claims that x information is sourced in y reference.
It's WP:REFPUN "Material may be referenced mid-sentence or at the end of a sentence" but I not believe it applies in WP:GACR anyway. Useless the article has references in the lead; which for this article it does not. :) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

And in other things, ref #16 needs to be fixed, and I would check bad to make sure all sources are verifiable and some unsourced information (ex. the key and bpm, which I assume is available on musicnotes.com). I was also told once that Digital Spy shouldn't be used because they were accused of plagarism. Also the critical review section looks a bit messy, maybe you should paraphrase some of the reviews, and this is the first time i've seen the stars used in such a way on a music article. I would also suggest splitting the section into a whole "Critical reception" and "Chart performance" sections, if not at least change Critical reviews to "Critical reception". Not trying to take over the review, lol, but one last thing, I don't think the lead is sufficient with WP:LEAD. It should include writing, and composition information. Also, (this is the last thing haha) make sure numbers under one hundred are spelled out (ex. 13 --> thirteen) Candyo32 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

per MOS:NUM only numbers less than ten should be spelled out. Thanks for the other comments though, i will look into them. regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Replaced with active NME magazine link. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Attempted however according the nominator the image may not be saveable because they written description is well sourced and accurate enough to portray the outfit in words. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Resolved comments (part 4) from SunCreator (talk)
*Critical reception - Fully referenced Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Music video - It appears Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_41#songfacts is not a reliable source. Anyway the original text should be correctly attributed which is found on http://730.no. this seems like it. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Synopsis - The first two sentences here are not from the attached ref 41 (guardian) but from ref 42(mobo). The quote "The video - doesn't end. The end sentences of the section is given ref 41 when it uses both ref 41 and 42 for the information. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Reception - 'X Factor rejects, Kandy Rain' is somewhat a distortion of the original text. Mention of Cole's apparent vulnerability is not in the guardian article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Commercial performance -"the 213,000 copies that Girls Aloud's debut single Sound of the Underground sold in its first week" is not reference. Neither is the "sales of 292,000" on the following sentence. The single Brit award info requires citing to ref 49(Digital Spy). "entered the Irish Singles Chart at number 13, after just two days of the Moto Blanco remix being available digitally"- unsourced. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Track listing - the Catalogue no for this section comes from where?
Comments regarding new suggested changes.
  • Right at the moment i'm househunting so im quite busy as well as me having university exams so i won't be able to do these straight away. in fact not until Tuesday 8 June 2010 at the earliest though i will still be peaking on wikipedia every now and then to see if there's anything urgent. Feel free to keep me updated and A.S.A.P i will resolve (or attempt to) resolve the issues.
  • As for the catalogue numbers i sourced two from physical CDs that i have and the others from Iternational copies that friends have got. I recognise that in fact there could have been errors with that because the CD cases contain many different numbers. I cross referenced them with DISCOGs but someone on a different page said it wasn't that accurate. I will check a range of sources (Hung Median, HMV etc.) and find as many of the linkable catalogue numbers possible. Some of the international ones might be unsourceable in which case if there is a large number of questionable catalogue numbers i'll remove all from the release history and simply placed the sourced ones in the tracklisting where necessary.
  • I didn't realise how many errors existed. That's the problem when you nominate someone else's work for GA. This article didn't really have a main contributor and so the styling and referencing was all over the place. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
No problem, life comes first. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm on vacation now, if someone wishes to take this GA review on please do as I won't be available for several weeks. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I will gladly take over the article, please give me 30ish minutes to read the previous issues and i will start from there. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 01:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

All issues stated about seem to be resolved. Now its my turn :) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 02:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Resolved Issues (L-l-CLK-l-l)
*Link Number 7 should to link to Music Notes, please see 4 Minutes Also , dont italicize.   Done
  • Music Video Needs an image (if you dont know how ask me and ill do it)
  • Throughout the article the is the use of aCharts, needs removed and replaces to proper certifying bodies. Charts chart states the following, "Good and Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives as convenience links, and should use official sites and licensed archives where possible."   Done
  • There are alot of Manual of Style violations in your references. Example : Reference 65. You should only italicize News Papers, or printed media, The Guardian, Daily News, Thaindian etc...   Done

  Done

These are simple issues to be corrected, i will do a through reading once these are corrected. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 02:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Done. I think these issues have been resolved. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Not Yet, there are alot of MOs violations still, refs 90-104 should not be italicized. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 21:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
OK for some bizarre reason the template automatically puts the 'work' field in italics. By using the '' you can force it to unitalicize. I've done this. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I know, its a pain, it took me forever to figure out to to fix it when i first starting using wiki. Also read up, there is a new issue that needs corrected. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok i've read through and i've done. im just gonna double check all the sources. :) Regardd, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply


Alright, going through more thoroughly ive notced the following.

  • "with demo being sung by Merrit.[3]" I would add with the demo being sung by Merrit.
  • "A week and a half later on 18 October 2009 the song was released for digital download in the UK[12] and Cole took to" Run on, break up to say. [12]. Cole took took to"
  • "The video saying "The video starts off with" Huh? lol. I think you need where ive striked out.
  • Possibly the last issue is your chart performance. Number less than 100 should be written (ninety-nine) not typed (99). "In Europe the single reached number one in Denmark,[57] Hungary,[58] Norway[59]and the top ten in the Netherlands,[60] Sweden,[61] Switzerland,[2] Czec Republic,[62] Slovakia,[63] Austria,[64] Germany,[65] Russia,[66] Belgium (Wallonia)[67] and France[68] but charted in the top 20 in Belgium (Flanders)[69] and Spain" Waaay over detailed, Chart Performance should summarize the Chart section, thats why we have a chart section. Here are some examples of article ive written to see how to summarize properly, : Baby, Blah Blah Blah and Tik Tok. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 19:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
*Ok i'll work on these changes. But with regards to numbers less than 99 being written instead of typed MOS:NUM doesn't state a preference for that in particular. But if you are sure that is the standard of other similar articles i will follow suit. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ok done. Let me know if there's anything else... Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking this on User:L-l-CLK-l-l and well done to Lil-unique1 for getting this upto GA standard. A few minor things already mentioned:

  • Track listing for Ireland/UK is 3:46 for reference by Amazon but there are no track times on that Amazon reference.
  • The info box track length says 3:44 but it's 3:46.
  • Hungarian Airplay date is incomplete, it's not still number 1.
  • Catalogue numbers in release history are not available on references or in some cases a different ASIN is given. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

M Bison?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I seem to remember there was a little bit of coverage that one of her costumes was compared to M. Bison (specifically, the one she has on during the first pre-chorus)? Is this true, or am I imagining it? Sceptre (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

no its true. I've added two credible sources to the promotion section so that it can be mentioned. Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sampled from Bruce Hornsby - The Way It Is

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I am honestly surprised that this fact wasn't displayed. The song CLEARLY has the same tune. Usually Wikipedia's really good with these things. I wonder if it says that on the original CD's. The sample was also used in Tupac's song "Changes" AWDRacer (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

It most certainly is not true. I have the album booklet and nowhere does it mention sampling "The Way It Is". -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. What do you think? It's too similar to be a coincidence. AWDRacer (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

My Sweet Lord it definitely isn't. Wythy (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned references in Fight for This Love

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Fight for This Love's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "platinum":

  • From Street Fighter: "CAPCOM — Platinum Titles".
  • From 3 Words: "Certified Awards Search". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 23 December 2009.
  • From Sound of the Underground (song): "BPI > Certified Awards Search". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 2010-01-16.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Janet Jackson influence

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I've found a few additional sources which mention an influence from Janet Jackson in Cheryl's performance on The X-Factor, from Hello Magazine and The Daily Mail. There's also another article from Hello Magazine noting a "Janet Jackson-inspired routine" and an excerpt from the online Grazia website calling her outfit "second rate Janet Jackson." Although they don't mention "Rhythm Nation" itself, they do observe Janet to be an inspiration. Would these be suitable for the article? Regards, User5482 (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

User5482 you can use the GraziaDaily reference to add to the music video section and say that Cole's outfit was compared to a "second-rate Janet Jackson" outfit. That woud be fine. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Lil-unique1, in the promotion section can I also add "Media had favorably considered the performance inspired by and reminiscent of Janet Jackson" .. it uses Hello Magazine and Daily Mail as sources, the latter site used for another source within the article. Thanks for your help. User5482 (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
User5482 up you can use the daily mail source to add that the x factor peformance to be inspired by Janet Jackson. Saying "favourable considered doesn't make sense" → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 23:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an ongoing dispute about this song. Among other places, see: http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2011/03/23/cheryl_cole_song_invovled_in_copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.214.60 (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fight for This Love. 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, 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Fight for This Love. 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, 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) 19:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Fight for This Love. 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) 11:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Fight for This Love. 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) 05:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Fight for This Love. 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) 06:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fight for This Love. 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) 14:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fight_for_This_Love&oldid=1220692557"