Talk:Craig Thomson (politician)

Credit card allegations

Note that as of 22 May 2013, Thomson now faces 172 charges. I have updated this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.161 (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I have trimmed the credit card story for weight and added a simple sentence about it, there is a thread for discussion at the BLPN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Craig_Thomson_.28politician.29 thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The credit card trial is not going the prosecution's way. They appear to be telling even bigger lies than Thomson. Alleged offences were committed in NSW, but the Vic DPP is perusing charges in a Vic court. The DPP is claiming Diners and Comm Bank have been defrauded, but the magistrate has noted they are not complainants. The card bore Thompson's name, not the HSU, and this may well be the reason why the NSW DPP has not bothered this case. Business and particularly govt. cards bear the name of the organization when they are not for personal use, and vendors understand this. The Vic DPP will certainly loose on all charges. The Aus media will prove themselves, yet again, to be worthless rubbish for not reporting the obvious.220.244.91.198 (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please restrict yourself to discussing how this article could be improved. Accusing someone of lying without providing a reliable source stating the same thing is a WP:BLP violation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a criminal case ongoing. It will be concluded soon enough and we may then report that in the article. Speculating on motives and tactics, guilt or innocence at the moment is quite improper in discussion here.

On that note, perhaps it is time to quote the BLP procedures we have established for court cases. And why are we reviving what appears to be a discussion thread begun in 2010??? --Pete (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Any suggestions for structure?

I'm wondering if anyone has any suggestions for the structure of the article. Right now, most of the article about this subject (and most of the public interest, for the moment) relates to the allegations of impropriety around the credit cards etc. As of today, this topic is a current event. It's possible that if more and more detail keeps being added, the "Allegations of Impropriety" section will just become sprawling and unreadable, and just a stream of facts.

Does anyone have any suggestions about how the section or story can be broken down into manageable "nuggets"? I would suggest that one logical "chunk" of the story could be the period beginning with the Sydney Morning Herald beginning to publish the stories about Thomson (which would obviously include a summary of the allegations as the SMH made them) and ending with the termination (one way or another...) of Thomson's defamation lawsuit against the SMH.

Any thoughts?

Luzzy fogic (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, my suggestion is editors cease publishing unsubstantiated allegations in Wikipedia!!! Is Wikipedia meant to be an educational online encyclopaedia, or a Days of Our Lives soap opera!? YOU Luzzy fogic - you're edits are biased against Thomson. I came here for more information, and instead have been entirely distracted with the trashy material online. The degradation of the standard in Wikipedia, specifically concerning information about People is, untrustworthy now. I give up. You people have ruined this resource :( Gymboot (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Allegations around Thomson's first wife

I'm a little surprised by Bilby's deletion of the - admittedly brief but at least sourced - information about Thomson's first wife, Christa. The suggestion that Thomson used his position as a member of parliament to lobby for her personal interest is a legitimate topic for Wikipedia if it is sourced and public interest. The fact that it's "not connected to the credit card scandal" or "overemphasised" (when mentioned once?) doesn't seem terribly convincing. Luzzy fogic (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the massive amount of information on his scandals, to be honest this seems like a rather minor affair. However, the wording I removed was "His first wife, Christa, was mentioned in relation to the credit card allegations, and accusations that he used his parliamentary email address to "lobby" for a job on her behalf." There were three problems I had with it. The first was that was under "Personal life" - if there is an issue with lobbying it would be better placed in the "Allegations of impropriety" section - having it in personal life feels a bit like shoehorning, as that's not really the issue there. The second was the "mentioned in relation to the credit card allegations", when the alleged lobbying had nothing to do with the credit card allegations. It was raised, but not in relation to them - the most you could say was that it was raised at around the same time as the credit card issues were being debated. Finally, the lobbying consisted, it seems, of sending his wife's resume to the organisation by email. Beyond that there is no allegations that he did anything else, and nothing came of it - it seems like a really minor issue, so giving it prominence in the personal life section seemed particularly odd. Especially given that it seems not to have had any legs, or at least the media didn't seem to cover it after that one time it was raised. - Bilby (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote it and I don't mind you deleted it—I agree, in hindsight it seems like another reporting of a non-issue that didn't go any further (particularly the "lobbying" claim, which was quite a stretch anyway). --Canley (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, Bilby and Canley. When you put it like that, I can see your point. On one hand, I think if the issue has any substance to it, then it's of legitimate public interest and belongs in the article. But on the other hand, if the issue had substance, then there should be more than just a passing reference from a single source under an odd heading. Perhaps the right approach is indeed to delete it for the interim, and if anyone (e.g. me, if I'm that interested!) goes away to do more research and finds more relevant sources, they're free to come back and add something with more substance. Cheers. Luzzy fogic (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think Canley was right to add it - it just didn't become more important, but it wasn't a mistake to put it in, as it looked like it might be an issue at the time. If that changes and it becomes an issue, then I've no hassles with it being put back, either. - Bilby (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wife no longer pregnant

Today he said he's had two daughters while the invesrtigations have been going on. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Extra detail needed

Under "political consequences", days and months are mentioned but often the year is missing. These should be added. PiCo (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What is needed is an extensive rewrite across several articles. Our HSU article, I noticed recently, makes no mention of this, and yet most Australians would only know about the union through continued exposure on newspaper front pages. The role of Julia Gillard in his "suspension" should be made clear, and my paragraph about the 7 May report by FWA barely covers the thing.

What is most significant about the affair, in my personal opinion, is not Craig Thomson's personal actions, but rather the culture of spending union fees for personal benefit, and on this point we see others with their snouts in the trough. The ALP has a long and proud history of standing up for the little people, and yet here is the Prime Minister supporting Thomson long and hard, not to mention a former ALP national secretary allegedly digging deeply into union funds as well.

Sleazy though the allegations are, Thomson's alleged spending of a few thousand dollars on prostitutes is a dribble in the bucket. The same report describes half a million dollars of union funds spent on escorts, as well as huge sums on dining, travel and entertainment. We're going to have to look closely at the larger picture here. Or rather not here, precisely. We really need a master article, appropriately named, to cover all aspects of the HSU Scandal. I urge all editors with an interest to read as much of the FWA report as they can manage. It looks to be pretty thorough and precisely demolishes the lies and misdirection. A link was added to the article yesterday under "External links".

We also need to be careful about BLP issues here and elsewhere. Thomson is undoubtedly under a lot of stress right now, we know he reads Wikipedia, and I urge all editors to keep their contributions, both in articles and discussion, on track and rigorously sourced. Whatever we think of the guy personally, he has a wife and family who also deserve consideration and compassion. --Pete (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The political reality is that the parliament is finely balanced, and any PM would do the same, especially when it is over alleged actions that were years ago and before the member in question was in parliament. It's the same political reality that is seeing Abbott wimp out of a no confidence motion because it will be lost rather than what some would allege as the right thing to do. Thomson will soon be heard in the courts for a civil, not a criminal lawsuit, so I don't believe guilty or not guilty even comes in to it. But, Mary Jo Fisher was kept as a Liberal Senator and voted while her criminal case was in the courts last year. What is unfortunate is how so many implicitly speak as if he were already found to have committed said actions by a court of law... "Sleazy though the allegations are"... nice. There's no issue with adding factual material on this issue, but try not to be something you claim to be against please. It benefits nobody. Timeshift (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the AEC has a good case against Thomson for not declaring the expenditure on his 2007 campaign. Regardless of what the courts may or may not eventually decide, the fact is that this is a scandal now and has been for some time and it's going to be for a long while to come. It's encyclopaedic, and we need to cover it in enough detail that readers understand what's going on. I've started an article at Craig Thomson affair which is probably the best place for future discussion, and we can summarise that article here, as is standard wikipractice. --Pete (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Craig Thomson affair is a suitable name as it involves more than just Thomson and shouldnt duplicate a larger article on the issue, it also makes it appear as though Thomson is guilty by pre-emtively creating an article on it. If he's found not guilty but others in the HSU guilty, imagine what that would make wikipedia look like? The article name in that form will be removed, and I don't even need to do it... you watch :) Timeshift (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not welded to that name, and in fact I suggested a different one above. After looking at the List of Australian political scandals and bearing in mind that it is Craig Thomson's doings that are seizing the public imagination, it seems that Thomson, rather than the HSU, will be the name associated with the scandal. In the event that Thomson is exonerated, we could perhaps rename the article. --Pete (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Further to my comments above, I refer to the FWA report, Chapter 21, points 51 to 55. Craig Thomson acknowledged that his credit cards were used to procure prostitutes, that this was not expenditure which could be authorised and he named Mr Jackson as the person who used them. Mr Jackson repaid $15 000 to the HSU, but it was nothing to do with credit cards or prostitutes. Thomson was in a position to know who had used his cards, and if not Jackson, then whom? The evidence of phone calls and drivers licences and hotel stays leads Terry Nassios (the author of the report) to the conclusion than it was Thomson who procured the prostitutes and then lied about it. I have read the supporting sections of the report and I can find no errors in fact or logic that might lead to any other conclusion. Thomson had ample time and opportunity to explain the situation and went to a great deal of trouble and expense to engage lawyers to attack FWA rather than provide any alternative explanation. While it is not my position, nor that of Nassios, to act as judge or jury, I think the assessment of a reasonable person in examining the report is that Thomson must bring forward new evidence - evidence he has apparently sat upon for years - to overcome the substantial weight of existing evidence against him. Maybe he is saving it for the courts, but why would anybody do that if they could clear their name simply and easily before it got to that stage? Or this stage. Or any preceding stage.

My assessment is that this affair or scandal is going to be tied to Craig Thomson specifically far more than it is to the HSU generally. Looking at the front pages of the national newspapers, their editors all share this view by using headlines about Thomson in reporting on the FWA report on the HSU. --Pete (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed a "petition" inserted as an external link:

• Petition

This sort of thing has no place here in this encyclopaedic article and is a detraction every bit as much as some of the recent: vandalism. The facts should speak for themselves, but if opinions are added from reliable sources, they should conform to WP:NPOV. I would expect undisputed facts and widely-held views to be the stuff of our article, rather than calls for Thomson to resign and a link to a page where you may add your signature! --Pete (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Word of the day: transparent. Timeshift (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I've changed the link to "redacted" above. I have no problem with losing the link, but I'd appreciate the courtesy of a polite request! --Pete (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviation removal/expansion

This article is a problem for people not familiar with abbreviations relating to politics. Example: The first line ends with MP. Military Police? Nope. Continuous use of abbreviations throughout the article such as HSU. The page is meant to be encyclopaedic, not simplified like a newspaper article. ALP near the end of the article. I assume this means Australian Labour Party? Both ALP and MP could have links attached to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.39.222.154 (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As long as the abbreviation is explained or clarified once, preferably at the first mention, I don't see there's a problem with using abbreviations, acronyms or initialisms. I have expanded the MP reference, and ensured that HSU and ALP were spelt out early on, but they were spelt out in full numerous times. --Canley (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Craig thompson affair

• - Craig Thomson (politician)#Use of credit cards

The use of credit cards section in excessively large for a summary of an article - as such I suggest we cut it - to about a half or even a bit less - such a section is supposed to be a summary and as for the last month we have an article all about it - Craig Thomson affair - coverage here is currently excessive. - Youreallycan 14:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to see the section under discussion tightened and tidied up a little, but also see the article Craig Thomson affair deleted. The latter is being used almost exclusively for political purposes by some editors here who can't seem to help themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there would be consensus to delete that article - I support its deletion but unless you think there will be a consensus in support its better not to nominate it and to focus on protecting this article. If you disagree please nominate it at WP:AFD at least I will support it - If you want help to nominate it for deletion discussion I can help you to do that - Youreallycan 20:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right. There are too many here using Wikipedia as one of their many approaches to bringing down the government. It needs outside attention. HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please focus on summarizing the section on the issue here to remove undue coverage in this biography - Youreallycan 21:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this diff, may I suggest that the source given be looked at? The connection is made in the first paragraph, and that is because there was a connection. There are any number of good sources for this and perhaps we need to reword the para to make it clear. --Pete (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Attribution and opinions need to be clear - please suggest an addition for discussion here - thanks Youreallycan 19:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Following Opposition calls for him to do so, due to the allegations against him, on 23 August 2011 Thomson resigned as chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics.

I couldn't support that - It alleges all sorts of opinions without attribution - this sort of content is bettor hosted at the main article where it can be explained better - here is only a summary of the main points/issue. This is fine in the main related section, "Thomson resigned as chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics in (whenever).[1] - but opinionated allegations of why he did without attribution are a big no no imo Youreallycan 19:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The reality is that he resigned from his committee chair because of the allegations - and was forced out of the ALP for the same reason - but the way politics is discussed makes it hard to find a source that isn't opinion. These things tend to be sugar-coated, and when a representative resigns, citing "family reasons", it generally means that his wife has found out about his affair with a staffer and has gone off to live with her mother. Or something. I understand the point you are making, however. I think the information needs to be in the article, as it marks a stage in the subject's political career, but finding a source for the reason could be tricky, and in any case it can be made more apparent in the CTA article. Incidentally, I am grateful for your contributions here. The thing's a bit of a minefield, and it is a big help having someone helping to mark out the safe lane, as it were. --Pete (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool - thanks - I am just looking for the middle ground and appreciate you assistance also - Youreallycan 20:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring (I do wish you would make up your mind who you really are.), while the oppositions calls for him to resign no doubt had an impact, we cannot know whether it was the only nor even the major reason for him doing so. (There was probably a lot of internal Labor Party action too.) Your wording, while not directly saying so, implies that they were. Leave out the mention of the opposition's predictable behaviour, and just state what actually happened that's historically significant. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Story about this and related articles in the Fairfax media today

Union scandal leaks into a trial by Wikipedia Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears Skyring/Pete is the "father of a poorly paid HSU member". I hope he remembers WP:COI :) Timeshift (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

He disclosed that on-Wiki a while ago. I've dropped Pete a note about this in case he hadn't seen the story, especially as the journalist doesn't seem to have actually contacted him for comment judging what's in the article. This is a good reminder that disputes in high profile articles can be reported by the media, with individual editors being identified. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I hope he's been pulled up on that when he's gone against things. I wouldn't know, I tend not to get involved in articles of this nature due to the futility of it. Timeshift (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. It's futile. I note, however, that WP:COI says "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested." While Pete/Skyring may have disclosed his obvious COI some time ago, this is the first I've heard about it. He recently did tell the world "My intention is to tell the story, for the benefit of readers who come seeking information..." Yeah right. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There's far more about that editor which the SMH did not say. Still, I gather McClymont picked up the gossip about Wikipedia from Ball during a social gathering. One21dot216dot (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't noted a conflict of interest by a dad commenting on such material .. can anyone explain to me how there is one? Maybe they can cite Ian Temby? Because it was in the article I'd surmise it was because Pete had declared it. Now for those anonymous types who have a strong interest in this article .. care to declare your interests? I stopped editing the article when I discovered a real one. DDB (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What a weird post. What is Tembe? Of course a father writing about something/somebody that's had what he perceives as a negative impact on a child of his has a conflict of interest. Can you explain how he doesn't? My interest in these articles (which I DID stop editing because Wikipedia has no effective way of dealing with frantic editors like Skyring/Pete) was always to maintain Wikipedia standards and keep blatant parochial politics and commentary out of them. One can be interested in quality without having a POV interest. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ian Temby as head of the ICAC, appointed by Nick Greiner denounced Greiner as being 'technically corrupt' which had no meaning in law and was dismissed on appeal .. but which destroyed Greiner's career as Premier of NSW. A conflict of interest may involve a father daughter relationship in nepotism terms. However this instance is quite removed and only a partial lobbyist would make the claim if they knew what they were writing. DDB (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on Temby. It's always good to learn about this stuff. (I'm not from NSW.) I don't understand the rest of your post. HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, my statement about my so-called "interests" appears here; unlike some others, I have no COI. And FYI HiLo48, it appears the comment you were responding to was altered after you replied to it. Hmmm. One21dot216dot (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was, wasn't it. Makes my post look a bit silly. I'll put it down to a lack of understanding plus incompetence rather than vindictiveness. (I'm feeling nice today.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Got to say one good thing about that Fairfax article. It seems to have silenced those Wikipedia editors it suggested may have conflicts of interest. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Why haven't the same people jumped on this?

Oh, of course. Timeshift (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, truth and reality can be a problem when the bigots are trying to attack someone. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I've made a minor amendment to this article so people do not get the wrong impression about Thomson. Additionally, i've removed a trivial section which was about plagiarising on wikipedia that had no lasting commentary or significance. I also removed a sentence later in the article that was outdated and added nothing, and was incorrectly linked to CT affair rather than HSU affair. Timeshift (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

While not wanting to breach WP:BLP, Craig Thomson may not always be a reliable source on himself. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but without evidence to the contrary...? Timeshift (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not evidence, but police aren't revealing the five people of interest, so i've modified it to say that Thomson says he isn't one of the five. Timeshift (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's fair enough (and entirely in keeping with the requirements of WP:BLP) Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There's movement at the Michael Williamson (Australian unionist) station by Skyring - perhaps he has moved on? Timeshift (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism allegation

Looking for consensus on this allegation. Is this consistent with wikipedia WP:BLP? I note the cites refer to a journalist who has not released his assessment of what content was plagiarized. I suspect this issue may contain libelous material that is yet to be proven one way or another. CamV8 (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing trial

The BLP policy on crime is here. The relevant wording is: A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement do not amount to a conviction. Until Thomson's trial is complete, we should not speculate or gossip here. --Pete (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Further to above, although he's been found guilty,[1] the sentence has not been handed down, and a conviction has not been recorded. --Pete (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You make some really good points here, especially about the recording of a conviction. I think it will be hard to maintain consistency between now and when the sentence is handed down; so I've tried to temper things a little by removing some pejorative language (e.g. fraudster); yet still showing that he's been guilty and that the Court is yet to determine if a conviction is to be recorded and, if so, what that conviction should be, together with any penalty. (my bold throughout) Rangasyd (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime" - Craig "I've done nothibg wrong" Thomson is a well known public character in the Australian psyche. Though "convicted fraudster" is probably pushing it a bit in the opening sentence, perhaps it should be in the second sentence after the introduction of his previous "achievements"RandomUsername765 (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Does not matter if the conviction is "recorded" on his file, he has still been convicted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr-jrv (talk • contribs) 01:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a matter of a reliable source rather than any personal interpretation of the law. If the Sydney Morning herald says he's been convicted, then he's been convicted. --Pete (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

See http://www.smh.com.au/comment/craig-thomson-scandal-still-has-plenty-of-bite-20140219-330pw.html

Now let's stop this silliness and put the fact he is a convicted fraudster in the first para. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr-jrv (talk • contribs) 01:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Let us be clear

Thomson's notability does not stem form the fact that he is a criminal, a thief, a fraud. Nor that he was a union official and a federal politician. There are many of those whose notoriety rarely extends beyond the local paper.

The reason he was before the public eye in the national media is because the Gillard government depended on his vote. That made his declarations of innocence, his claims that he was set up, his misleading speech in Parliament so much more of interest to the public. Every day that Gillard declared that she had full confidence in Thomson, every fresh revelation, every scandalous detail undermined her credibility. That made possible Rudd's return, but it also guaranteed Abbott's election.

The article needs to reflect this immense public interest as per the media coverage over the past three years. --Pete (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that any federal MP in this situation would have received a huge degree of coverage, though you are right that Thomson got more than normal due the situation it placed the government in. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Craig Thomson (politician). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091028013042/http://Brendan.O%7CWA%7CConnor.MP@aph.gov.au/Library/parl/42/mpsbyage.htm to http://aph.gov.au/Library/parl/42/mpsbyage.htm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)