Talk:Kevin Nalty

Notability concerns

The article needs more sources. He's well-known within YouTube, especially among fellow video bloggers, but you would have a hard time making that case. Here are some sources you can try to incorporate. You will need to find more, though, as I don't think these will be enough: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116061846176390116.html?mod=googlewsj http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/29/sitroom.02.html http://www.adweek.com/aw/search/article_display.jsp?schema=&vnu_content_id=1003316046&WebLogicSession=RUFWkjDeFeKxw7SMxz70SBzyFsZEXt3xeNfzgTdTpCcjbODMrgdU%7C591496716662496553/168887091/6/7005/7005/7002/7002/7005/-1 Ichormosquito 07:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Except in extreme circumstances, please don't delete material from talk pages. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I'm trying to help you. Ichormosquito 07:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Notability to get an idea of what kind of sources you will need. Ichormosquito 08:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Web 2.0

Hello, here is something I wrote earlier for a wiki article called web page of nalts. It was speedily deleted. I do not know how to make text have links and blue letters and such. I hope, however, that someone can use this to make this article better... thanks! (The major point being that the users forced an executive decision to be reconsidered... Web 2.0 at its finest!)

Nalts demonstrated the power of Web 2.0 when, after being passed over by YouTube’s Partnership Placement program in May 2007, he posted a video called NAPPY on June 1, 2007, where he asked his fans to send a message to YouTube executives asking that he be re-considered. As of June 15, the video received 34,439 views, 6514 comments, 11 honors, and 648 video responses, making it the 7th most responded to video of all time. NAPPY stands for Nalts Advocates for Partnership Placement on YouTube.

In his videos, nalts does not refer to his wife, children, or others that he knows, by their names. Instead they are called WifeofNalts, ChildofNalts, BrotherofNalts, etc. After the NAPPY video, hundreds wanted to be something –ofnalts. Many YouTubers created accounts just for the event, and on June 12, 2007, YouTuber sukatra posted a video titled, “147OfNalts Usernames…And Counting.”

As of June 6, 2007, The NAPPY campaign was a success and nalts became a YouTube Partner, allowing him to earn revenue from advertisements placed next to videos.

Ajani57 08:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the site for the FOX interview: http://one.revver.com/watch/115323/3331 Ajani57 08:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi- this is the CBS interview... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt28m51g2WY

Does the FOX interview above count a source? I'm also thinking that maybe the page on youtube showing him as a partner could count as a source. Ajani57 08:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation tags

I've just restored the citation tags on this article. As the tags have been deleted twice [1][2], without edit summary or discussion, I can't speak to why they were removed in the first place. If sources cannot be found, the claims should be removed. Victoriagirl 23:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry about those, I was preparing to edit those with citations. Sorry, I was having troubles.CoolKid1993 03:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Record 407 videos"

Does anyone actually KNOW the record? My guess is it's higher than 407 frankly.74.69.234.9 03:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Even at 700 I doubt this is a record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalts (talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Gaining notoriety

Didn't he gain it through the Video Genius video, not the farting machine one?JLAF 03:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, "Farting in Public" recieved 3 million views while "Viral Video Genius" recieved only 730,000 views. Either way, the article could be written to include both, if need be.CoolKid1993 21:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Notoriety is like infamy. People who do bad things gain it. I think it is better to say Nalty has gained notice or gained attention. Prominence might be too strong a word, but notoriety is just wrong.

Webby, sources

I think his nomination for a Webby is worth noting. Links to the news media segments might be worth adding, too, if they can be found. And that picture needs to abide by Wikipedia:Image use policy or the image patrol will keep deleting it. Ichormosquito 09:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Howdy- here's the blog on the webby honorree... http://nalts.wordpress.com/2007/04/26/nalts-does-webby-awards-chicken-prank/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.41.127 (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"first gained notoriety by a video in which a teenager, named Spencer, uses a fart machine to fart in public places"

I disagree. The Viral Video Genius video was featured and he gained a lot of subscribers from it. --StormCommander 20:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• And yet "Farting in Public" got 2,270,000 more views than "Viral Video Genius." They're both notable.CoolKid1993 18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The word "first" would imply first.... --StormCommander 16:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Politics & YouTube In Review

I know you think I am spamming, it is true, he is a blogger on my blog. You're just deleting it because you do not believe that he is. And even if I may or may have not mentioned it, but yes, he is an employee of WorldWide Publications & Media, my company, where he is my public relations director.

I have a right to have my information about Nalty as my employee and you really shouldn't have any right to delete it.

Here is the proof and read under "Assistant Editors" at http://politicsandyoutubeinreview.wordpress.com/about-the-pyir-blog-contributors/Djjackal0509 03:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, we keep deleting it because it isn't notable.CoolKid1993 10:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• What the %$#@ does that mean? What the %$@# do you mean by notable?Djjackal0509 16:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• No, I think I know what it is.....you don't think he should be associated with any blog other than his own. Goddamit, he gives me more advice about viral videos than he gave you guys! I think the article is very essential to Nalty.Djjackal0509 16:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• When your blog gets 20,000 views a day, then you can add it to this article. Not everything that Nalts works on, including a blog written by a teenager, should be included in this article. I suggest you create an article titled "Politics and YouTube in Review" before you add it to an article that is more notable.
• For one, Nalty's blog doesn't even get 20,000 page views a day (maybe 7,500) and maybe it is not hard for him to get that many, but considering when he posts on my blog, the traffic increases. It will be pretty &^#%#%* hard to get that many people to view the blog. I have done everything from promotion on YouTube to the blog, from online radio to actually being in a radio station getting an interview about the blog and promoting it, but never seems to work. And next time, check your statistics before making an exaggerated comment about his site traffic.Djjackal0509 00:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Nalts' main viewership is not gathered from his blog, in fact, you'd practically have to watch one of Kevin's videos to even know about his blog. This article is not about his blog, thus is why it is hardly mentioned in the article, it's about his YouTube Channel which gets thousands of views that accumulate to more than you would think. A blog that regularly gets less than 5 comments per entry is not notable, in my opinion. Also, please refrain from swearing. It is not necessary. CoolKid1993 02:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• One more question: How can it be possible for my inclusion of information of Nalts' page be inevitible and can remain untouched? I know you can't see the statistics and everything, but he is the only writer that has more page views (not including my article on a school mascot issue) on his posts than anyone else on my staff. I will really need your help on this one, so that my information can eventually be on this page. Any help will be appreciated.Djjackal0509 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• When your blog gets a very substantial amount of regular visitors, no matter who the blog writer is, and Nalty takes part in a major play of the blog, then you can enter it onto this article.CoolKid1993 00:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Can we get past the part where you insist we believe that Kevin Nalty is one of your employees? Dude, you basically set up a link to his blog. No paycheck. No W2's. No health insurance. It is a link. You deliver newspapers now, but you have potential, a lot of it, and you too could be big one day. Don't muck it up with this juvenile reactionary stuff. Remember, EVERYTHING you post on the internet is there forever and ever and ever. Even if you delete it, it is still there. Forever. This lie you are telling is going to haunt you one day, but if you quit, as in NOW, you can cite youthful indiscretion. Maybe. Let's get back to making this a top notch article! Ajani57 07:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Nalts here. Ages ago I agreed to write for this blog, but haven't had time to read it much less write for it. While I don't mind them mentioning me (given that I did contribute a couple times years ago) I hate to see this create a wikipedia entry for me that's in dispute. Relative to other stuff I've done, I think it's fair to call this "Politics and YouTube in Review" unimportant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.165.207 (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I agreed that I fucked up on this ordeal and I didn't want things to end up like it did. He would consider himself a minor participant in the blog, which I agree isn't newsworthy. I fucked things up for everybody and Kevin is probably pissed off at me. But like I will be posting on my blog, he is welcome to post at any time. Jake Leonard (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Info and Wikipedia Has RULES

Someone has been deleting entire sections from this page. I thought that went against the spirit of wikipedia. Also, is it normal for wikipedia pages to turn into potty talk?

Instead of resorting to cursing (cartoon or real) why don't you ask the editors what you should do? I'm the one who started the whole Nalts stub, and if you see my video (wiki page of nalts) you'll know it was deleted (the entire Nalts article), a couple of times. But, instead of getting angry, I asked questions and I learned. I studied other articles, I read their FAQ's, and I gained a healthy respect for this phenomenon called wikipedia. There are a LOT of rules, as their should be! Please don't cause the whole Nalts stub to get deleted again. Quit cussing, learn the rules, and then come back to post. thank you so much!!! 72.200.86.197 06:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• That was my bad......both threads I had deleted were related to contributions I added to the Nalty "Nalts" page and the involvement he had on my blog. There was a new thread about it, so there was really no further use for those threads to still be active. It is kinda hard to get that done when some people think I have tons of notability issues in which my contributions are considered non-essential to the stub. I apologize if my deletions of those two threads related to my stuff offends you, it was just that one was more active than those two, so I decided to delete them.Djjackal0509 01:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ichormosquito wrote above, "Except in extreme circumstances, please don't delete material from talk pages. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I'm trying to help you." In the Talk page guidelines, if you read them, you will find a section on deleting your own words. If you are going to delete an entire section, you are supposed to leave a note saying so. Also, you deleted my words, my section. Not cool. Ajani57 01:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, I apologize. I guess there would have been better options than deleting the thread when there was more discussion on one than yours and another person's.Djjackal0509 21:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

More Webby info and Thanks

Here is the address for exact page with his Webby nod: http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current_honorees.php?media_id=97&category_id=109

Possible sentence for the stub:

Nalts was an Official Honoree in the 11th Annual Webby Awards (2007) for his video Blackberry Crackberry (http://one.revver.com/watch/27670)

Also, on July 11th, nalts posted a thank you to you guys for his page here: http://nalts.wordpress.com/

Ajani57 22:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

SLOGANS are you kdding me

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kevin_Nalty#Slogans ? is this a bad joke on nalts' part. fails to meet wikification Apelike (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi- Nalts here. This wasn't created by me. -K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.165.207 (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why in the world Nalts would be considered a Wikipedia entry, really,I like the videos, he is funny, he is smart, he does do his homework, but it seems more like self-aggrandizement then anything else here. My wikipedia entry was written by my editor that I have had for years, and they slaughtered me, basically saying I was lieing about my published works, if you look up the ISBN number on the books I have illustrated, you would know the truth. I have yet to find out who took liberties on slandering me and my reputation on here, but I will find out. However, point mute, Wikipedia, is simply an online encylopedia of notable works and notable people, if you are a writer, poet, artist, scientist, nobel peace prize winner, etc I can see you being in here. I do not think video makers are notable, I am sorry, If you are going to do that, then lets just put in everyone, then it cheapens the whole thing. We have to uphold quality if we want to avoid a total meltdown of ethics, integrity, brilliance in any profession and a strong commitment to making sure the next generation does not get dummer then the years before. We are facing waterdowned, empty minded, repeated and boring media day in and day out on tv and on videos, it is a generation of empty-minded, selfgratifying, rude and impatient people who want to be famous at the drop of a hat. We are devolving, repeating old slapstick, repeating base humour and expecting instant gratification for these shenanigans. I never said nalts was not funny, he is, but he is not notable. He is charming and funny, he garners an audience because he is likeable, you want to come to his house, see his kids, meet his wife, you feel like you are close to him, because he shares his life with you, but he is not a hero, not a extraordinary person, not a force. Charlie Chaplin was notable, W.C. Fields was notable, George Carlin was notable, let us reserve this honor to those who broke boundries, established change, created distinction in a world where things were stagnant, broke rules, fought the satus quo and changed things. These men were mavericks not marketing executives who bought a camera. I can understand Nalts need for distinction, he lives in a dead end world with a dead end job, he wants to be famous, everyone wants to be famous in the truely focked up U.S. well, then do something extraordinary, win a nobel peace prize or maybe become the leader for the green earth movement or better yet, stop focusing on yourself and do something truely unselfish. I see so many people on Utube trying to put themselves on wikipedia that it astounds me. Some of these people have not even read a book and they believe they are noteworthy. sheez.

In the long run, this place: wikipeidia, is ok, but it is not recognized as viable or even realistic. If you have faith in this you might as well have faith in any self-published book out there. Time is the real answer to who is famous and who is not, just takes time to weed out the bad seeds and see what history has to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirevs (talk • contribs) 05:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Family

Nalty also regularly involves his family in his YouTube videos. Since they're already highly visible on YouTube, I don't think a brief mention of this fact would cause any privacy issues. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Please, leave the pictures I added and upload on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jischinger (talk • contribs) 08:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have full permission from the author to upload and display them on Kevin Nalty Wiki Page

Decide

It's been a while since I did any editing on the wiki, so I don't know if I understand or even agree with the addition of bots and administrators. I'd like to read what Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger have to say about all this. REQUEST #1: post a link if you have one.

It's clear to me Natls is notable and I think there should be some decision, for the sake of avoiding needless drama, made post haste; tho I'm not saying I even accept or agree with this process.

The argument to delete this page is ridiculous. Someone in good faith and intent made an entry and along comes a few bullies that say it doesn't meet what we think is notable; and who decided on the wiki, The Free Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit, what notable is?

Further, the person who decided to challenge this page doesn't even provide a list of requirements. Logic dictates that if you are going to set rules and standards for deletion then a least provide a list of standards for keeping or entry, not some abstract idea of what one or a few people think those are. Again, I revert back to the creators of Wikipedia for any reference on the word "notable." REQUEST #2: post a link if you have one.

That said, it seems to me that logic again dictates, had someone, who actually cared about pages on the Wiki, came forth or noted, please provide more information and made a few efforts to contact people though the person in dispute, this wouldn't even have been an issue. If you are going to set up a process of arbitrary rules on the Wiki then you must also set up a clear process and remedy to address those rules, otherwise you end up with nothing more than the whims of a hierarchical dictatorship.

All I see coming out of this process so far, is some people flexing what they think is power and futile ground for a wiki drama.

Thank you for your time.

Kevin Nalty article and picture

From what I can tell the Kevin h Nalty page is no longer up for deletion debate?

Also

I do not understand why I am not allowed to change the picture to one that actually looks like Mr. Nalty.

What does this mean when Blubberboy92 states "(Not compromising on image used in Infobox.)" What is there to compromise, does the person who posts the last picture own this wiki web page now?

The picture I put up in the info box is a far better representation of Kevin Nalty, it actually looks like him, with permission to use it.

The other picture Blubberboy keeps inserting was taken without permission. Must an official complaint be filed against the person who is pandering this image to wikipedia? REQUEST: Please Direct me to the Official Complaint Process.

I'm quite amazed at the amount of hate some people have been displaying here on the Wiki. The fact that this person is going out of his way to remove a very nice image of the subject speaks volumes. This user obviously doesn't know or perhaps he doesn't like Mr. Nalty or he is just playing for some kind of Wikipedia power grab.

Please instruct further. Thank you again for your time.

CUBE BREAK article

Links show in the article that the info is accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jischinger (talk • contribs) 21:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Needs major improvement

This article needs a lot of improvement.

• 1 - YouTube videos can not be used a a ref you need other sources, so i have removed the video links and replaced them with {{Fact}}.
• 2 - If reference can not be found of notability of statement can not be found it will be removed by WP:RS.
• 3 - This page is more like an article done by a fan and needs to be rewritten in a different view.

Cheers Kyle1278 04:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

1. You Tube can be used as a reference - it's part of the work. You may not like what you see but it is documented reference.

Reference 1. an act or instance of referring. 2. a mention; allusion. 3. something for which a name or designation stands; denotation. 4. a direction in a book or writing to some other book, passage, etc.

2. It is not like and advertisement and there are plenty of facts. FACT "something that actually exists; reality; truth"

3. Fanatic a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics. T his article is hardly written by a fanatic if anything it has a positive bent - you got something critical add it.

Please remove your objection and call for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.197.212 (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:MOS and Wikipedia:RS a video from YouTube does nothing to help establish notability. Fact with out sources can be removed because there is no way to tell if they are the truth. This article is written like an advertisment and i will not remove the tags i do not think this article should be deleted either it just needed to be rewritten in a WP:neutral point of view. Cheers Kyle1278 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You're asking people to prove a negative. If you believe this entry sounds like an ad it's your job to provide where you believe it does so. In regards to You Tube, it is the largest video sharing site in the world, it is bigger than Wikipedia. Kevin Nalty has over 100,000 subscribers on You Tube, over 500 videos with millions of views, I believe that established some notability on both his part and You Tubes part. Further, both MOS and RS are guideline, nothing is written in stone, they are both in dispute and in disagreement. The final word is use common sense, quite a subjective line of rasoning and put there in my opinion as a reminded to pick your battles. Again if your sensibilities are offended by this wiki entry, highlight them, I'm sure some one will come along and be happy to consider your suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.197.212 (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

With what you said about Youtube it dose not matter how many views or subscribers he has that dose not establish notability. I agree that Nalts has enough notability to have a page it just needs to be rewritten in a neutral point of view that is not my job i just tagged the page and gave some information about what needs to be done. Cheers Kyle1278 22:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

... I'm curious, by what authority allows you to tag a page?

Let me also be clear on one thing, if being notable was a requirement for the wiki more than 50% would be gone since notability requires a prominent, distinguished, or important person all of which are very subjective. However, the wiki is full of popular people, which Nalts clearly is. Look, you're asking people to edit a page to meet your standards yet, you fail to point out what those standards are and won't take the time to highlight what you personally think does or does not belong.

If you're an active wiki whatever, then be at least clear on the expectations you are setting for others as the expectation you set on yourself.

One last point, the wiki is forever evolving, as will this page when people find the time, your efforts disputing this issue are really what I question here. Again I request you remove these notices because you failed to note any infraction and offered any personal, yet coherent suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.197.212 (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

First, anyone can tag a page for article issues; second, notability for Wikipedia purposes is explained here and here - please read them so you understand what is being discussed, and while you are at it read WP:RS too; third so what if other stuff exists? – ukexpat (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2009(UTC)

Wiki Bully

people know you are constantly nit picking this wiki entry because you have a some weird personal bone to pick with Nalts - it's petty tyranny and these actions have besmirched your reputation again on the wiki. I leave this here for others who have faced similar bullying on this site and wishes to confront it.

What you say is not true we are just following Wikipedia's rules and WP:MOS there is not Wiki Bully as you put it we are just following what needs to be done there is no one focusing on YouTubers every page on Wikipedia has to follow the style i stated above more so when it comes to bio's. Kyle1278 14:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor inconsistency with information

I've noticed the main article states Mr. Nalty was born in New Orleans, yet the sidebar claims it is Juneau, Alaska. Could whoever knows where he was actually born rectify this by changing the incorrect information to match the correct one? -Logan 14:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephiroth2009 (talk • contribs)

I noticed that Mr. Nalty changed all the references in the article referring to Alaska. He must have missed the info in the sidebar. I will change the sidebar to match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.154 (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kevin Nalty/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I have great admiration for Kevin Nalty as a video youtuber, he is funny and talented. I am confused though why he would be listed in Wikipedia, which I felt was reserved for living or dead artists, writers, playrites, actors, musicians or anyone with notable achievements that involve publication of works. It took me twenty years to get published by long years of hard work. I do not understand how someone who makes videos on a home camera can be listed as famous on here. Really, Why don't we just put everyone on Wikipedia as famous. **** .... Since when is one of the most popular types of entertainment, video, not considered a published work? More people watch videos than read. Since when did time become a factor to fame? [Joe The Plumber] has a wiki page, what were his accomplishments? I'm sure I could list plenty more example. Who decides who is famous and who is not? I think the term notable, is what some on the wiki have stated; though I am certain anyone could argue what notable is and isn't. And I'm not sure the term notable was intended by the authors of Wikipedia. The important part is Wikipedia's motto, "Anyone can edit" So, why shouldn't everyone be famous, aren't all men created equal? Or are some more equal than others? What harm is there to have a wiki page for anyone who wants one? You are not being forced to view these pages unless you request to view it by name. Are you losing sleep over excess Wiki pages? Do you feel less than a person because someone you think is undeserving has one? I suppose if you wanted you could start you own encyclopedia and segregate those you find deserving and those you don't. As far as I'm concerned Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia of Everything, and why not?

Last edited at 23:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 21:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kevin Nalty. 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/20070928080709/http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current_honorees.php?media_id=97&category_id=109 to http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current_honorees.php?media_id=97&category_id=109
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203132154/http://www.newsguide.us/technology/multimedia/Kevin-Nalty-Appointed-Chief-Strategy-Officer-HITVIEWS/ to http://www.newsguide.us/technology/multimedia/Kevin-Nalty-Appointed-Chief-Strategy-Officer-HITVIEWS/

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) 10:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)