Talk:Kosovo: Can You Imagine?

Intro

Added neutrality. There is no need for a history of Kosovo in the lead? We must remember the film is fictional, due to the sensetive issue of the Balkans wars, we cannot present the films plot as real events. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).

You have wrote information that is not true when it comes to this film. You wrote that the "film shows the lives of Serbs living in enclaves around Kosovo" - first of all, it's IN Kosovo, not AROUND Kosovo, and second of all, that's not all the film follows. Have you even seen this film? --Cinéma C 18:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So why were serb enclaves mentioned in the original lead? Again, a history of Kosovo according to your pov is not necessary in the lead. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).

Please revert it to the original version first. Then, let me know exactly which sentences bother you and we'll try to work our way around it. Show some good faith, I'm willing to discuss, even though you've shown absolutely no willingness to listen to what others have to say in the past. --Cinéma C 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No Cinema, doesn't work like that. I made the edit first in order to infuse neutrality into the article which was in a bad way. You assumed bad faith and reverted. It is now up to you to tell me exactly which sentences bother you and we will try to work our way around it. -- Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep proving my point.. you simply can't accept anything that isn't completely your way. There is nothing further to discuss then. Let me know when you're ready to play by the rules of Wikipedia. --Cinéma C 02:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Interestedinfairness - analyzing his edit

• Removal of the follow references:

1. "Kosovo, Can You Imagine?". Czech Free Press. 2009-02-07. Retrieved 2009-03-04.
2. "Η τραγική εικόνα του Κοσόβου στην οθόνη" (in Greek). Novopress Hellas. 2009-02-24. Retrieved 2009-03-04.

It was decided that these references would be added, as IMDB is not a credible source on its own. It can be seen as an additional reference - provided it is not alone. Adolphus79 pointed this out in his edit, with the summary,

IMDB is not a reliable source... can only be used as an EL...

Therefore, those references are essential in proving the director of the film and the existence of the film.

• Removal of a part of the lead,

Kosovo has been under UN administration since 1999 when NATO bombed Serbia for 78 days to halt a crackdown on ethnic Albanian separatism in its province of Kosovo. In the years following the war, thousands of Serbs were expelled from their homes, kidnapped and killed. A large number of their houses, cultural and religious sites were burned and destroyed.

And replacing it all with,

...about a Serbian population living in Kosovo after the Kosovo War. The director portrays their lives as harsh and without human rights.

It is evident that this user is willing to hide the mentioning of the KLA in this article, due to the atrocities that group has caused. Albanian separatism is also censored in this article, despite the fact that it was the Kosovo Liberation Army's mission to secede Kosovo from Serbia. (You may check the group's article, as well as others.) Censoring facts - indisputable truths, is not the best way to get a point across. It can make an article sound very vague, and favor one point of view - in this case, the perspective of Interestedinfairness. Before a very large edit like that is made, at least discuss it on the talk page first, to let others know what you are doing. It is quite unfair. Although it is not the first time this user has done something similar. He even violated the Arbitration Committee ruling on the Kosovo article. --Bolonium (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

pure Albanian state

You would expect that what amounts to claims of ethnic cleansing would be garnished with some sort of reference. Cut from the article:

that allegedly has a goal of creating a pure Albanian state of "Kosovo" ("Kosova" in Albanian)

now, the self-declared Republic of Kosovo officially self-identifies as a multi-ethnic state, with both Albanian and Serbian as national languages, and Turkish, Gorani, Romani, Bosnian as recognised regional languages. In the light of this, it would be interesting to examine who is supposed to be trying to build an "ethnically pure Albanian state", and who is making such claims. --dab (𒁳) 12:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of the town of Obilic? It had 6,000 Serbs in 1999, while only about 1,000 remained after NATO took over. In 2004, all of them were cleansed by Albanian irredentists, but the EU decided to bring 40 of them back, so they could call the town 'multiethnic'. Multiethnic with 99% Albanians and 1% Serbs. These are all facts covered in the film, I recommend you watch it first. --Cinéma C 18:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a few references which may reflect the claim of the sentence. I've removed "thousands" as no reliable source can be found to give such high numbers. Evlekis (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, your sources are inadequate. I've examined them all and given them long hard consideration. They appear to come from pro-Serb sources and not from the usual impartial news networks such as Reuters and Sky. And if a user demands a citation you need to provide one, just removing it and giving a load of old pony about how it is said somewhere else is baffling and unclear. A Balanced View (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

this is an article about a documentary, not about the Kosovo dispute. So pray keep the wider Kosovo questions out of this and present sources relevant to the film directly. These may be both positive and negative reviews, just keep it focussed on the film. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 12:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it is about the documentary. As Cinéma C said, the movie mentioned these words. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE, the user Evlekis have since been permanently banned for abuse of multiple accounts, note added by Pincrete (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are you lying that User:Cinéma C has been permanently banned? Vladimir (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Link to the BC Days Documentary Film Festival Award

I can not find a link stating the movie won the BC Days Documentary Film Festival Best Film Award apart from the link in Serbian which states "the author" notified us. Is this evidence enough? --Radicale (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You have the official web site of the event, as well as this link that does not say that "the author notified us". --Cinéma C 16:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no official web site of the event, the event itself is a self-reference in local news coverage on the award where the only source is the author's notice. The only existing reference to a thing called "BC Days" suggests it is actually "British Columbia Days of Serbian Culture", an event organized in 2009 by Serbian diaspora in Vancouver, with no cinematographic significance whatsoever.89.110.250.93 (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Significance/Nature

Did this film ever have a commercial public showing? The Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6271073539, which gives some indication of the nature and purpose of the film, suggests that it went straight to DVD. Opbeith (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The film was shown (and is still shown from time to time) on Russia Today, Russia's all-digital TV news channel. You may watch it here: http://rt.com/programs/documentary/kosovo-can-you-imagine-2010-02-21/ . --UrbanVillager (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think RT's official website is a bit more verifiable than some Facebook group. :P --UrbanVillager (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Russia Today, Russia's all-Vladimir Putin TV news channel.--201.81.237.228 (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sources

As user never addressed the talk page, i think that removal of sourced data is nothing more then IDONTLIKEIT. Therefore, restore. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oo, its me again! Well, none other talks here, while someone else reverts the article. Well, for me next time. http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0001605/ It is not up to us to decide what is what, but to follow sources. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you found that link. Unfortunately... it's a link to a user-contributed site which doesn't even mention the subject of this article. Let's get this straight: An unreliable source about a filmfest which doesn't mention the film'; is used to bolster the idea that the film was selected for the filmfest.

In reality, the filmfest seems to be little more than a promotional website run by Cvitičanin. Articles like this have had a lot of trouble with promotional fluff. bobrayner (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is completely irrelevant what do you or i think about this festival. Whatever it is, it is there, and we have sources for it. It would be the same that you delete something per IDONTLIKEIT, and find some excuse about festival relevance. I dont think it is only website, do you have any source that this fest does not exist, or not? --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there has been some confusion. If you want to add an award which is not mentioned by the IMDB link, I remove it on WP:V grounds, not IDONTLIKEIT. If sources doesn't say what you want them to say, don't add it. Don't [WP:AGF|blame me]] for being a meanie. bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This festival exist. We have a lot of sources about it. Here we have "The selection of 15 award-winning short films" as a title. WP:V is established by this. And this is "Official Selection", none mentioned award. Do you have actually any real reason for removal of this? --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Mysteriously, the awards given to Malagurski films have become much more prestigious again. The "Mexico International Film Festival 2009" handed out awards like candy, but when I edited the article to reflect that, WhiteWriter immediately reverted it, so the article wouldn't mention that there were actually 76 silver palms or that the film was in the student category. This is why articles in the Malagurski-verse have such persistent neutrality problems... bobrayner (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this is not an article about the festival in question. You may create an article about the website and write sourced material there. Remember, no original research. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This is, non-mysteriously, only poor attempt to vilify this film on wiki. Anyway, we have four categories here, so, in no way we should have 70+ winners, but only 14 in Students category. Next, Do you have any REAL reason to include that info in this article? Except the reason mentioned above? We never mention the number of other winners in articles about films. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with WhiteWriter, I think this is a bad faith edit. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It's relevant content about the award. I'm baffled by the notion that we're not permitted to give details about an award claimed by Malagurski. If you want to remove the award altogether, fine by me; but if you want to mention the award in the article, you will have to accept the possibility that neutral editors will read the source and draw a different conclusion. bobrayner (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bob, I'd suggest you stop with your POV pushing, you apparently have personal or ideological issues with Malagurski and almost all your edits to Malagurski-related articles have had an anti-Malagurski slant. Even your edit descriptions include phrases like "malagurski-spam" [1]. I think WhiteWriter made his point pretty clear when he said "We never mention the number of other winners in articles about films", and I agree that the addition you're trying to make is more of an attempt to "vilify" this film, rather than to add relevant information about the film. Again, if you'd like to write about the festival itself and list how many winners are each year, feel free to create an article about the festival. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"It's relevant content about the award." Exactly, this is my point. This is not article about the award, but about one movie which received this award. --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Issue with neutrality

I've tagged this article re: neutrality. There is no balance, I am sure there are reviews that are less glowing. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What actually is disputed here? You should state exectly... --WhiteWriter^speaks 02:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

All it contains is a description of the documentary and some glowing reviews. The background is skewed because it provides a very limited and one-sided version of the recent history of Kosovo, and includes nothing at all about what preceded the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. There is no criticism of the film mentioned at all, it makes no mention of the fact that the Silver Palm was one of 14 awards in its category and was actually the "Student" Silver Palm and it uses a citation by Malagurski about his own film from the film's own website. That's just for starters. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality problems like that are common with WP:FRINGE topics; since it's hard to find people outside the belief-system who have taken a topic seriously enough to write an independent, substantial critique. bobrayner (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are welcomed to find people and comments in the end. If you present'em here we will be able to talk about it, agree, and fix this article. Please, do so. I added "Student film" category, so we already solved one thing. I am waiting for your proposition here on talk. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the RTV quote which said nothing about the film. This article is not a coatrack for views about Kosovo, it is about the movie. If RTV said that the film was X, Y and Z, that would be fine, but the quote used did not do that. I have also noted that both Taylor and Bissett appear in the film. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, you haven't even seen the film. Scott Taylor doesn't appear in the film. Fail. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As you didnt fixed anything else, i will remove tag tomorrow. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not so much a neutrality issue as much as balance. The article could do with one or two negative reviews to even out the positive then I think the tag can go. Zetatrans (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually WW, there are still two quotes from people that appeared in the doco. I believe they are unreliable as they are too close to the subject to be independent. If they were removed I believe the only problem would be balance, particularly in the background section which presents the history of Serbs in Kosovo as if it started when the first NATO bombs were dropped. Some explanation of what preceded the NATO bombing would provide proper context. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, you haven't even seen the film. Scott Taylor doesn't appear in the film. Fail. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not a "fail" and I have not seen it, I wasn't aware it was available in English. He was listed in the infobox as appearing in the film and I merely noted it in the text as is appropriate for anything in the info box. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You weren't aware it was available in English? The original language of the film is English. Please, stop commenting on topics you know nothing about. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's an obscure student film which promotes a narrow fringe view of a complex and long-running issue. It is supported by orgs like Serbianna. What else is there to know? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If you believe this topic is obscure, I sense a political agenda at hand. The film was aired on television, including on RT, it had significant media coverage, this is not an article about Kosovo, it's an article about the film and its content. Your opinion on the topic that it covers, the TV channels on which the film was aired or the media that covered it is irrelevant, they fulfill all Wikipedia guidelines. Considering the fact that you're refusing to watch a film whose article you'd like to edit, I'd like to advise you to inform yourself about a topic before you comment on it. However, if you've come here with an anti-Serb or anti-Yugoslav stance, that I see you're propagating with your edits, I'd like to advise you to better familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the type of thing you expect on Russia Today network. The article neads a runup to the events which the film covers, the Racak massacre, the massacre at Meja, the cancelation of Albanian autonomy by Milosevic regime and the occupation by the Serb armed forces and the forced expulsions. A reminder at the end will also neutralize the article. Keithstanton (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If this was an article about historical events, yeah, it would need some historical background. But it's an article about a film. Therefore, it must describe what the film talks about, plus referenced criticism regarding the content of the film, if there is any. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Youtube link in External Links

The Youtube link contains no information (that I could find) that the content was posted by the copyright holder (which is Malagurski) or with his permission. It therefore appears to be a copyvio and I have deleted it until evidence that Malagurski posted it there or that is was done with his permission. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Where were you looking? The video was posted by Boris Malagurski's YouTube channel. He also posted it on his website. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Youtube address for "his" channel is http://www.youtube.com/user/SerbianYouthLeague/about. Actually, it appears on face value to be the Youtube channel of the Serbian Youth League, not that of Malagurski. I see nothing there to indicate he posted it or that it was posted with his permission. Mind pointing that out for me? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it is OBVIOUS that Boris Malagufski channel is Boris Malagurski. Stop with WP:SKYISBLUE violation, please... --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

How is that a SkyisBlue violation? The URL SAYS it is from the SerbianYouthLeague, it does NOT say it is Boris Malagurski. Unless they are one and the same, of course. You have not answered my query about where his copyright authority is. If it is restored, I will be reporting it to copyvio. There is a perfectly good video link on Malagurski's website, use that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and Michael Moore's YouTube channel's URL says "mmflint", but it's not the YouTube channel of some person named Mmflint. Please stop wasting our time by trolling and stop making bad faith edits to the article. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

See you at copyvio, old son. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You really have a lot of free time on your hands. You should watch the film instead. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Alleged bad faith and inaccurate edits

In what way were my edits either in bad faith or inaccurate, UrbanVillager? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It is self-evident that internally displaced people in Kosovo are in Kosovo. This indicates you are blind-reverting. I suggest you revert your removal of the clearly grammatically correct changes I made regarding the description. What could you possible have against them? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo Serbs are not all living in enclaves, only some of them are. You removed "some of them". You also removed how the film follows the stories of those Serbs. You clearly have no knowledge on the topic, or the film itself. The fact that you have no knowledge on the topic is even alright in this case, as this is not an article about Kosovo or Kosovo Serbs, but the film. However, the fact that you yourself admit that you haven't seen the film, but are attacking it, shows that you have bad faith, which is evident from your edits and your comments on the talk page. Please adhere to Wikipedia guidelines, no POV pushing, please. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not a response. I said that the internally displaced people were obviously in Kosovo. In what way would internally displaced people in Kosovo not be in Kosovo, exactly? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The word "internally displaced" refers to Serbia, not just Kosovo. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Then it should be made clear in the text, not just blind reverted to your preferred text. I made some changes to the grammar but you reverted them all. You appear to have no regard for improving the article or bringing it closer to the expectations of WP policy and guidelines, merely to retain it in the state that suits you. Looks like a classic case of WP:OWN to me. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspected WP:LINKVIO re: YouTube

Hello all, this article has been locked for three days following my AN/EW report here. I believe that for the YouTube link to be used in this article, there must be explicit information that the content was posted on YouTube by the copyright holder (which I assume is Malagurski) or with their permission, otherwise this is a copyright violation, which is treated very seriously by WP. There are two parts to this issue. Firstly, establishing the copyright holder, and secondly, establishing that the copyright holder has given their permission for the video to be uploaded to YouTube. A third issue is why the video link on the film website could not be used instead, given the questions about the YouTube link, but that is an additional issue that can be looked into after the first two are sorted out. I have no issue with a legitimate link to the film being included in the article, just with the copyright status of the YouTube link IAW WP:LINKVIO. As I have stated above, the YouTube link to the supposed Malagurski YouTube channel includes the words "Serbian Youth League", and this, and the lack of copyright permission information on the Youtube channel are the reasons for my concern that this is a LINKVIO. Any help anyone could provide to clear this matter up (in both respects) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

There was a similar problem several months ago with apparently copyright-infringing photos posted on other Malagurski-related articles. The photographs were deleted from Commons, but later restored after someone (possibly User:UrbanVillager) contacted OTRS, or got the copyright holders to contact OTRS, with evidence of permission. Whoever instigated those OTRS cases could probably do likewise for this link. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Psychonaut, the video was posted on Boris Malagurski's YouTube channel. Even if someone is falsely presenting himself or herself as Malagurski, on Boris Malagurski's official website (lets assume that at least this website is not run by some imposter), this same video is embedded. So what's the problem here? --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've explained the two issues above, copyright holder and permission for upload. Please address the points that need to be addressed to show the YouTube link is not a LINKVIO. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You've already made it clear that you've come here with an agenda. I was talking to Psychonaut. --UrbanVillager (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. As an admin who works copyright routinely, I was asked to weigh in here. What copyright policy actually says is, "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." The YouTube account states it is official, and the official website links to it directly (see "Malagurski's YouTube channel"). Given that, I see no reasonable suspicion of copyright violation here that would require us to exclude the video link on copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Very well, I withdraw. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Good. I have reinstated the link. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but are we not allowed to use Youtube videos for sources? On Serbian Wikipedia it was not allowed, not even if video is news clip of reliable source. Zetatrans (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I re-instated the previous observation, but WRONGLY said in the edit reason, 'see media & speeches', that refers to the filmaker's page not this one. Oops ! Pincrete (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Awards and screenings

Pincrete's edit regarding the Silver Palm award at the Mexico film festival has been previously discussed many times and there was never a consensus to mention any other films in an article about this film. I'm afraid this was an attempt to take advantage of a hasty topic ban that was imposed on my account, and quickly lifted by admins who are uninvolved in the content dispute, so this edit should be reverted as there is still no consensus regarding the matter.

Pincrete's edit also removed any mention of Bridgefest, which also goes against consensus, as reliable sources proved that the festival is relevant and that this film was shown there. --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, perhaps you could stop naming sections after other editors, and start naming them after content. Silver Palm text was made consistent with the text which has been on the BM page for some time. No other films are mentioned.

Having spent quite a lot of time on Wayback, it's probable that Bridgefest did take place for one year. There is little evidence however that it was meaningfully a festival, rather a few showings organised from Canada. Some of the sources are 'self-sourced'. Pincrete (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As a gesture, I have restored the wording on 'Silver Palm' which has been in place since mid-Aug 2014. Pincrete (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Alas! I think we do need to find a more peaceful future for articles in the Malagurski-verse, but removing relevant details - a drift back towards the earlier promotional version - might not be the best approach, I fear. bobrayner (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion as to whether it is NORMAL to name the EXACT number of award recipients, other than that the wording should not imply the sole recipient, besides that consideration I am happy to accept whatever wording IS normal. I have also renamed this section. Pincrete (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kosovo: Can You Imagine?. 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://www.mexicofilmfestival.com/Festival_2007/past_winners/2009_Silver_Palm_Winners.aspx

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)