Talk:Coral Smith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay/Lesbian[edit]

Please produce one source, that is not tabloid, gossip, rumor or inuendo where Ms. Smith says she is lesbian. I have read that she is reported to have said she is "exploring" but I have yet to read that she said she is gay. I believe it is premature and a bit of a stretch however, if someone can produce the proof I will accept such. Thank you.

You can't argue that she's is at least bisexual. DonMEGĂ|60645 14:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to argue, we have to provide a reference from a reliable source especially when involving the non-mainstream sexuality of a living person. Benjiboi 23:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coral and Ab[edit]

Coral and Abram had relationships on the show they kissed and considered them to be boyfriend and girlfriend, the evidence is in interview with Coral and with MTV video tapes of the season you can see it obvious, MTV.com is a more vaild source then realityreel.com since it is a MTV show and realityreel has many not vaild claims and hoax interviews, read the MTV interview and watch the videos, if you do not want to then do not even mention it--Migospia☆ 20:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have any sources for anything you have just said and the 1 of the sources you provided was a wikipedia article, and the 2nd source you provided says it was a beautiful friendship. I don't know why you keep changing the edit. Not only that but the first thing you said when you came with that wikipedia edit was 'what the hell' even though you were wrong. Do you need me to point out to you where on your source it says it's a beautiful friendship. NOT only that but you are in violation of a wikipedia policy as you reverted all the way back to an edit that came before 15 or 16 new edits.EverybodyHatesChris 03:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 03:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source: http://www.mtv.com/onair/rwrr_challenge/battle_sexes2/interviews/?episodeID=79602&id=1492730 Just one quote:

I wouldn't expect Abram to invest his time or pursue a woman like myself
Plus did you watch the show they kissed and said they loved each other, I even have it on tape. And the reunion as well like I said in my edits. Thank you and happy editing. Also side note: Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.--Migospia †♥ 03:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EverybodyHatesChris: NOT only that but you are in violation of a wikipedia policy as you reverted all the way back to an edit that came before 15 or 16 new edits
They were spam, I did not violate anything please re-read Wikipedia's policy

Because two people kiss doesn't mean they are in a gf / bf relationship. I've kissed my friends and told them I love them. That doesn't make it a bf / gf relationship. There was no spam. You violated wikipedia policy and I contacted wikipedia and told them about you violating policies, using a source that doesn't mean anything, etc. 67.53.130.69 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read everything I wrote, take it in, and then respond, and for testing please use the sandbox.--Migospia †♥ 05:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war[edit]

Would User:EverybodyHatesChris and User:Migospia please have a look at WP:3RR. This behaviour is unacceptable. As regards the two different viewpoints regarding the (non) relationship between Coral Smith and some guy, I note that both are backed by a reference; therefore it would be permissable to quote both and have something along the lines of "according to (ref) there was no relationship, just friendship, whereas (ref) says there was but they are now just friends". This way both viewpoints are included, and the article (IMO) improved. Lastly, please assume good faith and work together in agreeing a form of words. Repeated reverting is a waste of time, and that is why it is not permitted. LessHeard vanU 10:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me I am well aware of WP:3RR, that is why I tried to get other view points in this matter, but if there is a case where there are two sources, shouldn't you go with the most reliable especially since the other one has proven to be a very invalid source, and the one that is more valid is from the actual official show?--Migospia †♥ 10:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the reference EHC prefers has an interview with Coral Smith, which supports his contention. Your reference is (from what you say above) from the show above? Both the individual and the show both have their reasons for saying what they did, and they seem to contradict each other. This is exactly the situation when both should be included. I do not believe that either summounts the other, but since the notability of Ms Smith revolves around the show I think that the show reference (they did have some relationship) should go first, which is then rebutted by the Coral Smith interview. I feel that is the appropriate styling. LessHeard vanU 11:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! I don't agree with that at all. I see this sentence in there, so tell me how this is a gf / bf relationship.

I feel like he was able to open up to me. And when Abram and I opened up to each other, it was a beautiful, beautiful friendship that I've never experienced before, ever.

All that says it is was a very close friendship. You tell me LessHeard, how that supports her contention that the two of them had a gf/bf relationship. It doesn't. I was reverting because I had every right to revert and when I saw that she continued I tried to get help from administrators which I didn't get so I asked for more administrators who were unwilling to help. I've done nothing wrong in this issue at all. Her first edit summary was 'what the hell, something', when she completely switched my edit also. I understand the user is stressed out and has something going on with trying to moderate bad language, but I do not appreciate it. She made it nasty from the start. EverybodyHatesChris 18:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too would agree more with LessHeard vanU, both sources seem to contradict eachother - and both are certainly reliable. And please do assume the immortaly right philosophy, by saying something like, "I haven't done anything wrong! She's doing everything wrong -not me!" It's a pretty dangerous philosophy to assume, but more importantly I can think of cases where you have both done something wrong again. If you want an example of what you've done wrong - calling her version vandalism - which it is obviously not. Anyways - what's the problem of putting both sources, you could just do a line like (but better than), "Their relationship status was questionable, with some of her comments implying that it was purely friendshipEHC source, and others that implying it went further than that.MTV source." --danielfolsom 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Daniel, there is some dispute over what the relationship was and there are two good references with differing interpretations; so include both. If you can find a third source which confirms one or the other then fine, but do not remove the other good reference (and if the third source says yet another thing then include it also anyway). All good sources should be included, whether or not they support your own understanding of the situation. It is by that way that we produce good WP:NPOV articles.
As far as edit warring goes, and blocking, then both parties are generally treated equally. It doesn't matter who was "right" or "wrong" as regards the subject matter, it is that all parties continued to revert each other without attempting to find consensus. That is the violation of WP:3RR, and that is what an administrator will act upon. The best way of avoiding this scenario is to edit the article consensually and include all good sources. LessHeard vanU 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I was under the impression that WP:3RR states over 3 reverts in one day is the violation but if they appear to either be spam, vandalism or not accurate (not npov but lacking credible or no sources) to be okay, but since the user kept reverting I knew someone else had to get involved since, but next time in a case like this where there is a source that comes from a website no matter how inaccurate or manufactured that source is and when the talk page does not work I will contact an admin, preferably one you guys because you guys make the most sense and have not been rude to me. Thanks--Migospia †♥ 20:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) Just to let you know, I'm not an admin - LessHeard vanU might be - but I'm a long ways from becoming an admin :-D, that being said you don't have to contact an admin anyway - just contact any user you know because an admin doesn't have much more authority than regular users in disputes. B) Just FYI, there will rarely if ever be an admin that's unjustly rude to you - so don't worry about having to contact one. It's fairly difficult to become an admin - and one of the things they look at is how the admin can deal with others, so I'm just saying you don't even have to worry about that. --danielfolsom 21:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No! LessHeard, you have yet to give me an answer to my question. You need to answer me, LessHeard. Read this from her source and explain to me how this supports her contention. You haven't been able to explain that to me, LessHeard. It doesn't really matter what Daniel or anyone else thinks, LessHeard. You need to go by the facts. Here's the fact in this article:

I feel like he was able to open up to me. And when Abram and I opened up to each other, it was a beautiful, beautiful friendship that I've never experienced before, ever.

You tell me LessHeard, how that supports her contention that the two of them had a gf/bf relationship. I've already written this down once. This is twice I've had to write it down for you. That's not good. EverybodyHatesChris 02:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where the hell you get the idea that you can order someone to answer you and say crap like, "No! you need to answer me!" and "That's not good". That's complete crap.
Second of all - this interview itself can act as enough of a source alone to support LessHeard vanU and my suggestion - that we say it was a questionable relationship. She says in this that he pursued her and she was part of his life in the same line - which implies a relationship, but she also says that it was a beautiful friendship. And by the EverybodyHatesChris - you might be adding npov with your edits - your rephrasing everything for really no apparent reason except to make her look better. --danielfolsom 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok how about this - Migospia can you try to find another source that more directly states a relationship? That seems to be the only solution at this point.danielfolsom 04:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to find another source, Migospia. Daniel, I think I have to report you for using curse words and extreme incivility if that ever, ever happens again. I have every right to report you now and an administrator would ban you, Daniel. You don't speak to me that way, Daniel. For now, I'm putting the article back the way I had it until she finds a source that can support her contention. EverybodyHatesChris 04:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's kinda cute how you think you can't say cuss words - wait, I didn't even say a cuss word? What the hell? And no - if an administrator would ban anyone, it'd be you beacuse you've been charging her edits as vandalism when by the definition of vandalism on WP they're not, you've been attacking other editors like you did with LessHeard vanU, adding NPOV to articles, making just wrong allegations about an unreliable source and more! You're saying I'm incivil for saying that you don't have a right to be incivil to other editors. It's rediculous. And second, if you don't actually know Wikipedia policy, don't try and guess at it - I know a bunch of admins, I know what admins do, and I know WP policy, and so far I haven't done anything to be blocked. --danielfolsom 04:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you charged my edit as vandalism - also noteworthy on your track record.-danielfolsom 04:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'hell' is a cuss word and 'crap' is a dirty word and I don't tolerate it, Daniel. Daniel, you've cussed twice on this page. Twice! Daniel, I've already told you what I was going to do if you keep using extreme incivility with me. I don't care how many administrators you know Daniel, when you're being incivil, if they're not blocking you because they know you, I'll have to contact wikipedia and let them know about that. The discussion is over. Also, don't take out that information in the trivia section again, Daniel. It all has a source. Before reverting it again, you come here and you explain to me why you're making a change like that in the trivia section before you take it out. You also don't keep reverting any of that section at the top, Daniel, because it's not npov. Everything you said about it being npov was wrong, Daniel, so I'm switching it back EverybodyHatesChris 05:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See that's the thing - you don't have the right to not tolerate any word. Wikipedia is not censored - perhaps you should try reading the policy before you tell me not to say hell or crap - and I don't happen to consider hell a cuss word so I'll say that as often as I like. And I'm not being uncivil - you're the one who's calling everyone else's edits vandalism. And yeah, sorry about removing that comment from the trivia section, I meant to remove the controversial comment. And yes it was npov - because you just rephrased it to make it npov - technically it would've been fine like that before, but the fact that someone just rephrased it to be like that doesn't make any sense - unless it's npov. And stop giving orders. You have absolutely no right to do so. --danielfolsom 06:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Apparently new editors have no idea what they're doing - a quick google search provides the other source I mentioned.danielfolsom 06:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear up[edit]

  • So here are some more sources I found:
http://www.mtv.com/onair/rwrr_challenge/battle_sexes2/interviews/?episodeID=79602&id=1492730
http://www.tv.com/coral-smith/person/89368/biography.html
http://www.tvgasm.com/archives/rwrr_challenge/000344.php
http://www.realitynewsonline.com/cgi-bin/ae.pl?mode=1&article=article4904.art&page=1
http://www.worldofb.com/etc/rwrr4.htm
http://www.fansofrealitytv.com/forums/other-reality-shows/58639-rw-rr-challenge-inferno-3-a-8.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/sioncampus/05/04/mtv.evan/
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/8409/coralaevg1.jpg

Also you can watch the show or buy the DVD Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Battle of the Sexes 2, it is documented within the first 4 challenges, or you can go to MTV.com for official transcripts and more pictures. Peace--Migospia †♥ 06:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah dont' even worry about finding more sources - it's undisputable now. --danielfolsom 16:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So even after all these sources and a picture and videos it has to be stated in the article, when most of the sources he uses is reaityreel.com for 3/4 although that is not a reliable source, what happens in other articles when two sources dispute, or 7 to one dispute?--Migospia †♥ 06:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that realityreel is a reliable source - but dont' just make the allegation - do you have any evidence to back it up?danielfolsom 06:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't, but still what happen in other articles of two links, also the official mtv seems a legit source?--Migospia†♥ 08:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in cases like this - with everything being reliable - there's a chance both are right. Keep in mind that according to his source the relationship was fake and set up by mtv, so the other sources could be unknowingly reporting fake information. That being said there's also a chance that Smith made it up, or there's a chance that the source made it up, so the best thing to do is to have all sources.--danielfolsom 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes I understand that but although tv can manipulate and fake a lot of things most of the time the words and actions of the contestant are true, and if you watch the videos you would see them kissing and saying they love each other and crying when Ab had to go, even the picture represents them as a couple. Also realityreel from past readings have been known to fake interviews--Migospia†♥ 21:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha - uhh, actors can be very good at acting - and saying that the actions/words are true is an opinion - someone might think that they were totally fake. In a case like this you just have to add both. --danielfolsom 00:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actors might be good at acting, but Coral isn't an actor, Daniel. Coral is a reality TV show personality EverybodyHatesChris 03:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so now you're arguing for the relationship? Why the sudden change? Anyways - the fact that she's in a reality tv show sadly doesn't really make a difference. They stage things in those all the time. In fact - the source you provided even said that they staged the relationship.--danielfolsom 03:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, when did I ever say I was arguing for the relationship? I think you're putting words in my mouth. I just said Coral wasn't an actor. It's incorrect to call a reality TV personality an actor, Daniel. EverybodyHatesChris 04:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, my point was you were making points for the relationship by trying to rebuke the actor claim, Chris - just to let you know. And also, Chris, the other part of my statement still stands - that reality tv still needs actors, reality tv wouldn't be watchable if the producers didn't add some drama in there. And onne more thing Chris, by saying that she faked the relationship - she admitted she was acting, so thus she is an actress.--danielfolsom 04:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! I found your last comment humorous. :) I'm saying everyone's name way too much. Anyway, Coral never said that she faked the relationship. She says that they made it look that way to get better ratings. EverybodyHatesChris 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see what your saying now - sorry I must've misread the source :~S. I thought she said MTV wanted her to do ... but hey, sorry for the mix up. Anyways I still agree with you in that we should say that there's a chance that there wasn't a relationship. --danielfolsom 05:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Np! Thanx! I apologize for any trouble I've given you. I don't usually look over what I have written and your calling me by my name got me to do that. Now that I have, Yikes, I come across like a prick on this page and some of the other pages too. Nothing like seeing your behavior to teach you a good lesson. I honestly thought I was being polite and a little tough, but I wasn't at all. I really look like a jerk and I have the person's name down like 9 times. lol! I hope you can forgive me. EverybodyHatesChris 05:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up[edit]

I did some major cleanup to the article. The most important thing I did was change it so that it was not on a first name basis. The second most important would be making all the citations the same - Migospia and Chris this especially goes to you because you guys changed the ref format by just putting in links - per Wikipedia's MOS - try to keep the same formating throughout. And then I just changed up some wording.--danielfolsom05:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell could you guys let the page get this bad - seriously I've not even been gone for a week and when I come back I have to do this [1]? I know many of you have this page watched and maybe it's just because you like coral smith, but you let major pov crap in and it's absolutely insane. I almost think we should just revert to the editor that created the sections - that'd be about 75 edits because from what I've seen his or her version is the last good one.--danielfolsom 14:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

African-American?[edit]

I'm not familiar with this person but I'm guessing they are African-American, are they? If so it would make sense to incorporate that before launching into why she was offending at disparaging remarks against African-Americans.Benjiboi 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. :-) Nightscream 00:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical edit[edit]

Nightscream, you've reverted this edit [2] and have given the edit summary reason of given how people speak. Basing this on your own subjective opinion as to how people speak strikes me as a poor reason for reverting this material as people speak incorrectly all the time. Based on the definition of the word, "WAS" implies that this no longer is the case. "IS" implies that this still is the case. Coral Smith's last Challenge IS the Gauntlet 3 because that IS still the case. The reasoning should not be based on your subjective opinion of how a lot of people speak, but on what is grammatically correct. 65.31.103.28 (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How people speak, and how one sees that such statements are properly made, is not an "opinion". It's an observation. Neither the definition of the word "was" nor its use imply that the status of her most recent appearance changed. It merely refers to something that took place some time ago. Nightscream (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see so much interest in Reality TV! Perhaps we can put our minds together and come up with a compromise? I believe the sentence in dispute is "Her most recent Challenge appearance is/was (on) Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Gauntlet III, which aired in early 2008". The word "appearance" is in the prior sentence, so we could mix it up a bit and use say "participated"? Something like, "She last participated in a Challenge in early 2008 when she competed in "The Gauntlet III". Just throwing an idea out there to try to keep the discussion moving forward. Thanks and let me know what you think! Plastikspork (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her most recent challenge was Gauntlet III. I don't think there should be a dispute here. The tense is currently correct. Neutralis (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure of whom you're agreeing with, but this is a resolved issue and I'd prefer we kept it that way. Nightscream and I are long past this and I'm glad Platikspork stepped in. :) Cheers and Happy Holidays! 65.31.103.28 (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nomination[edit]

I'm nominating this article for deletion. How notable is this person? I mean, she's mainly only appeared on The Real World and its spin-off The Challenge TV series. Numerous others who don't have wikipedia articles of their own have done the same so what exactly makes this person worthy of her own article? She hasn't been seen at all in any media platform from what I've seen and hasn't even appeared on the show in question in 5 years? I'm sorry but appearing on The Real World does not make you a star. 173.0.254.226 (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is conferred when the subject is covered in sufficient secondary sources, and this includes publications or media works in which the subject has appeared or been profiled. Sources cited in the article in which she is covered include The New York Times, The Huffington Post and Outlook magazine. She has also appeared in number of other reality shows, such as FOX's Battle of the Network Reality Stars, and FOX's Camp Reality, and has appeared in numerous other TV shows, been profiled in publications such as in Time Out New York, GQ, Fitness and King magazines, modeled for a girlie calendar, and made radio appearances, all of which are indicated in the Filmography section, and which is not the case for the typical Real World alumnus.
However, if you still feel she does not satisfy the site's notability requirements for people, you should complete your deletion request, because at present, it is not complete, as you did not create the entry for the article on the Articles for Deletion page. If you look at the banner you created at the top of the article, the part that says "this article's entry" is in red rather than blue, because you haven't yet created that page. Make sure you create that page, and explain how the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for people. Otherwise, the tag will be removed. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...And make sure you log in when you complete that process, as anonymous IP editors cannot actually create pages. I've removed the redlinked AFD notice; when you're ready, post a request here or at WT:AFD, or just follow the steps in the template. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Coral Smith. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 06:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coral Smith. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coral Smith. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coral Smith. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coral_Smith&oldid=1198792997"