Talk:Roy Williams (basketball coach)

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

Roy Williams did not retire from coaching at North Carolina in 1969. I believe it was 2021.. Would you please check your information on those dates??

Thank you.

Untitled[edit]

Someone should mention his various coach of the year awards. Remember 18:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "controversy" over Roy Williams leaving Kansas was really not controversial. Given the scope of College Basketball media coverage, this was a very small event in College Basketball History, and likewise a small event in the history of Roy Williams. He has been covered by the media countless times, and this was one of the many times, but it was not an event that should be the biggest section of his biography. Giving a small event like this the largest section in his biography is inappropriate and likely malicious. Until this paragraph can be edited down to reflect the scope of its importance (very little), the paragraph will be removed.

That's a good point. KU fans were upset (rightly so) but it was a small ripple in the sporting world at large. I'll take a look at the section, if that hasn't been done already. Dubc0724 16:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was covered more extensively than any other coach who has left one program for another in recent years. This was due much in part to Mr. Williams own actions during this time, which included cursing on national television, and having long, drawn out, and public crying sessions.

I thought this was a page on a person and inclusive of biographical points in career. As one changes in career focus and age, these types of incidents tend to evolve and I was simply recording the event. Didn't create a "paragraph" and just entered a one line fact with a reference to an article. I think someone is just censoring this for his PR campaign. I guess he is lucky to have that service. 96.236.197.191 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Edited and revised the Lead to this page: Roy Allen Williams (born August 1, 1950) is a college basketball coach, who is currently the head coach of the men's basketball team at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.[1] He first started his college coaching career at University of North Carolina as an assistant coach for Dean Smith in 1978. In 1988, Williams became the head coach of the men's basketball team at University of Kansas, where he took them to fourteen consecutive NCAA tournaments, collecting an 80% win percentage, and winning nine conference titles over his fifteen year span at Kansas. In 2003, Williams left Kansas to go back home to be the head coach at North Carolina replacing Matt Doherty. While Williams has been at North Carolina he has won six ACC conference titles, two ACC Coach of the Year awards in 2006 and 2011.He is second all-time for most wins at Kansas behind Phog Allen and at North Carolina behind mentor Dean Smith. Additionally, he is eighth all-time in the NCAA for winning percentage.[2] Williams has over 700 career wins and is the fastest to reach this milestone to date.[3] Williams has taken his teams to seven Final Fours in his careers at Kansas and North Carolina and is one of only two coaches (along with Rick Pitino) in NCAA history to have led two different programs to at least three Final Fours each. [4] On April 4, 2005, Williams shed his title as "the most successful coach to never have won an NCAA ring"[5] as his Tarheels defeated the University of Illinois in the 2005 NCAA championship game. In 2007, Williams was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame.[6] He would again lead the Tar Heels to another National Championship victory on April 6, 2009 against the Michigan State Spartans in the 2009 NCAA championship game.

References

  1. ^ Carolina, North. "The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill". www.unc.edu. UNC.
  2. ^ records, NCAA. "Coaching Records" (PDF). ncaa.org. NCAA.
  3. ^ Dodd, Dennis. "Vintage Roy Williams in win No. 700". CBSSports.com.
  4. ^ ""Game Notes Vs. Villanova"" (PDF). Tarheelblue.com.
  5. ^ Jack, Carey. "UNC, Williams grasp title". USA Today.
  6. ^ "Roy Williams Elected to Basketball Hall of Fame". WRAL.com.

Kansas Violations Section[edit]

This section seems to be getting a bit long, especially in proportion to the entire article. I tried to trim out the long block quote to save some space, as it's redundant information. That trim was quickly reverted on the grounds that a block quote was used above it. Ignoring the apples/oranges comparisons of the two quotes, I'd assume that the reader can read the sources without having to be spoon-fed? What say ye fellow editors? Dubc0724 16:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am less for cutting down content as I am for adding more content to make that section seem smaller. I agree that both the Kansas violations and the move from Kansas were not huge events that should dominate the page, but the fact that they dominate the page probably has more to do with the lack of any other content. I won't object to you cutting down these sections, but I think time would be better spent beefing up other aspects of Williams' past. Remember 16:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good way to look at it, and probably a better way to handle it. Thanks, Dubc0724 18:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a Duke fan, even I have to say that that section is WAY too long. A block quote is definitely not necessary and should be summarized concisely. In the large scheme of Roy Williams' life, that incident is just a blip and deserves one paragraph MAX, in my opinion. -Bluedog423Talk 04:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck shortening it - been there, tried that... Dubc0724 13:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why should KU's probation be mentioned when it was imposed in late 2006, and has nothing to do with the Williams violation? The paragraph referencing Gene Marsh said there should be no penalties. Ebtunc2006 23:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiiliams admitted breaking the rules; gifts of any sort are not allowed. The NCAA is notorious for using past violations in its determinations. You also violated Wikipedia: 3RR with your edits and a report has been filed. Duke53 | Talk 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not aware of this 3 edit rule. I will not do that again. Cite where it says that he is a direct result of the violations. This belongs on a Kansas basketball page, not a Roy Williams page. How about we attempt to have this mediated? Ebtunc2006 00:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should reference the 3RR article where it mentions: Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). Your reference to KU's violations in regards to Coach Williams are considered "controversial material." I haven't broken any rules. Good day, dukie Ebtunc2006 00:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you broke the rule; funny how you went from being unaware of the rule to being an expert on it so quickly. Nothing controversial about the item you repeatedly deleted. Clear case of a 3RR violation. Duke53 | Talk 01:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the 3RR article after you turned me in for it. Funny how you turn me in on it when you are apparently familiar with the exceptions to the 3RR policy. Clear case of misuse of 3RR. You appear to be an instigator here on Wikipedia. I will revert as much as I please considering this is controversial information, as you insist on listing a probation that has nothing to do with Coach Williams, and is already sourced in the article. Ebtunc2006 03:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


So, how shall we approach this in a civil manner? The compliance department and outside boosters are the reason for the violation. There is a detailed section on Coach Williams' violation, which he admitted to. Gene Marsh did not penalize Coach Williams or the Kansas basketball program for the gifts given to graduating players who had exhausted their elegibility. I am in no way suggesting removing the information about Coach Williams' admitting to a violation, but associating him with Kansas' probation makes no sense, because he was not responsible for it. This appears to simply be an attack by a Duke fan to discredit Coach Williams by associating the Kansas probation w/ Coach Williams. The Kansas probation would be more fitting on the Jayhawk basketball wiki.Ebtunc2006 05:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted to version prior to dispute. I would appreciate other parties weighing in on this discussion. Ebtunc2006 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found and sourced an article relating directly to the violation in question. This is more appropriate than a blanket statement about KU's probation. KU's probation deals with - as stated in the sourced article - men's football and women's basketball. Ebtunc2006 17:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebtunc's latest edit, with the source he provided, seems to settle up this edit war. Sanctions were imposed, but not against men's basketball. Unless there is further info, let's leave it at that. -- Pastordavid 18:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What in the Wide World of Sports is a "moderate season?" ("When Williams came to North Carolina, the Tar Heels were coming off of a moderate season"). I suppose it could be indifferent or mediocre or moderately successful (or moderately disastrous for that matter) but moderate? --Countryroads (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Williams' was partly responsible for KU's major infractions in men's basketball. How is it not part of his biography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TT46 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How specifically was he responsible? Off2riorob (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the NCAA press release: "INDIANAPOLIS-The University of Kansas has been penalized by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions for major violations in the sports of men's basketball and football and lack of institutional control. These violations include a booster providing more than $5,000 in benefits to two basketball players and their families; the majority of the benefits were provided to one student-athlete before and after he enrolled at the university. Two other boosters provided graduation gifts to outgoing basketball players with the knowledge of athletics department personnel." Williams admitted that he knew of the gifts.
Furthermore, Williams' infractions don't belong in the "Leaving Kansas for North Carolina." The infractions have nothing to do with that section. As you can see by the title of this discussion section, there was a "Kansas Violations" section not long ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TT46 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Williams and fan ejection[edit]

Some editors want to add information about an incident that occurred during a game against Presbyterian where a Presbyterian fan, Brian King, shouted during a free throw to Deon Thompson "Hey, Deon, don't miss it!" Roy Williams responded by saying something, (which we don't know what but he says it was something of the effect of ('Go get that guy and see what his problems are.') Security guards then came and talked to the man who heckled Deon Thompon. According to official reports, Director Steve Kirschner said security officers told him that the fan (1) appeared intoxicated, (2) wasn't in his ticketed seat and (3) had been asked to move earlier. UNC department of public safety spokesman Randy Young said Monday that King initially ignored officers and was uncooperative. "It was in the officers' opinion that he had been drinking," Young said. "At which point they made the decision that it would be better for himself and others that he was escorted from the building." Young said King was not arrested, nor were charges pressed or trespass orders issued. The fan has now objected to the characterization that he was intoxicated but has actually said that he has no hard feeling against Roy Williams. So how exactly does this belong on the encyclopedia article about Roy Williams. It is a minor incident and does not really have anything to do with Williams. If anything it has more to do with a conflict between the security at the Dean Dome and the heckler. Remember (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Fangate still an open wound; North Carolina still picking at the scab Claim, not coach, irks evicted fan

Typical Bio's always contain sections of Criticism... I am actually amazed that another editor consistently removes a new section to a bio. I wonder if there is a conflict of interest? There are over 17 different citations and various articles on this incident. I surely don't see why this incident is not worthy of being published and listed on this Bio. There are certainly a lot of other facts and trivia posted and listed. If someone were to read about this "notable" person, they can learn a lot of various facts, accomplishments, and data on this Bio. In the spirit of Wikipedia, we are supposed to have a tone of good faith that what other people add is true and in good faith. This incident really did occur and there are numerous citations by Williams that he regrets this happening along with other articles of the complete story. Perhaps we should list all of the citations. To continually undo this edit seems like censorship of this bio for purposes that are not in good faith. Wikipedia guidelines are very clear on Bio's, the nature of them, and typical sections and content. Pepperweed (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I initially made the entry under trivia, but after doing some research on Bio's I added the Criticism section... perhaps there is more out there... I would have just preferred to have this listed under the Trivia section. Pepperweed (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, most editors agree that there should not be a criticism or trivia section added to biographies (see Wikipedia:Criticism and Wikipedia:Trivia sections). Second, if you can find a reliable source that says Roy Williams was actually responsible for getting the fan kicked out and not the security personal, then I could see an argument how the information could be included. But all the sources clearly state that security made the call to kick the fan out for the reasons stated above. Therefore, stating that Williams kicked out the fan is completely incorrect and misleading. Third, just because an incident occurred and newspapers reported an incident does not mean that it should be added to a person's biography. This is clearly a trivial incident that is only tangentially related to Williams and therefore, I believe should not be added to this article. I am happy to continue to discuss this issue, but to be honest, I am not sure that you really understand how wikipedia works or are sincere in making it work given your ignorance of its policies and the fact that you only have six edits to your name. Remember (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I am new to WikiPedia but have been using since it's inception and just recently thought it would be good to see how contributions could be made. It is very clear to me that you are trying to protect this persons reputation and giving a bias to this entry. It makes me wonder about how all this works... I'll state it again, I have no interest in trashing this man's reputation. This was simply a random attempt to start making contributions... I'm not sure what happens next... I keep restoring an edit and you keep deleting it... Maybe you can help me understand how disputes work on Wikipedia... I'm happy to stand by my entry. It was you that deleted it under the trivia section and just now in the discussion you point out that this is trivia... I still think you have a conflict of interest in your editing for this and encourage others to participate. Perhaps there aren't that many, but I am patient and will wait... I will also continue to do some research on the topic because I do recall seeing some further evidence of this fact. I do not think you are being objective and just allowing the entry to be in the Trivia section. Furthermore, anyone doing a google on this notable person will find plenty of data on this incident. You also have violated the talk page guidelines by attacking a new user sincerely pointing something out as my first exercise. Pepperweed (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to help provide advice on how to edit wikipedia since you do not have much experience, and I am happy that you decided to contribute to wikipedia. But there are several problems with the text that you keep editing. First it is false on its face. Roy William did not eject anyone (as your text suggests). At most, all he did was inform security about a man that was heckling Deon Thompson. I have provided you with reliable sources to back up this claim. Second, your source, "True/slant", is not a reliable source and therefore cannot substantiate the claim that you want to add to the artice. As for where we go now, I have brought this to the attention of other editors so that we can avoid an edit war. Until a third party can resolve this issue, please do not add this incorrect information to the page unless you have further substantiation that qualifies as a reliable source. Remember (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am very happy to continue discussing this content section with you until it is resolved to our mutual agreement. I was encouraged by my brother in law, a history professor at UCI, to begin looking at several entries and begin editing... He is a senior editor, and happy to help out... Out of respect for you, I will not change the content while we discuss this. Obviously, you have continued to just change the content and undo an entry... This is not your personal page on content for this Biography... If it is, please take it somewhere else... If you are concerned with my specific wording then I will change the entry to articulate the correct incident. As you have said; he did instruct security to the individual and made several comments on why he did that... I find that incorrect and a lot of others do as well... There is truth in situation and if you simply would have just agreed to a simple trivia entry, you would not have created so much attention to this. I think you are censoring this bio and have a conflict of interest. I will work on my proposal for an entry and post it here for your consideration and will not undo your consistent undo's without any comment. I am also happy to bring many editors to the attention of this and solicit opinions.Pepperweed (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also see on your user talk page that you have quite a bit of history published about NCU, coaches, and other items that continue to make me think that you have a conflict of interest and that you are censoring. This is not your personal home page to present content and material as you see fit... Pepperweed (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that we both have violated the 3RR. Wikipedia pages develop by discussion, with users following editing policy and trying to work together to develop consensus, and by seeking dispute resolution and help if this isn't working. An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion. To report editors who are edit warring, please see the Edit warring noticeboard. Pepperweed (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think mention of the incident is appropriate. It's correct that Williams denies having the fan ejected, although he also admits to sending stadium officials to check on the fan. Without his action it doesn't happen. And it relates enough to him that he felt compelled to apologize, belatedly, for reacting to the fan.Winston-Salem JournalCharlotte Observer Also, a coach reacting directly to a fan is unusual enough that it drew criticism from alarge number of commentators. Some examples: News & Record Wilmington Star-NewsCharlotte ObserverFITSPhiladelphia Daily NewsDeadspinESPNThe Big Lead Lastly, Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons does not discourage their inclusion, although it points out they must be written carefully. I'm of the opinion that an appropriately worded criticism section should include this incident. Ncjon (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments on this matter and your approach to helping to resolve it... I too agree that it should be written carefully and will work on something this week and present it here in discussion for further consensus. Pepperweed (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I would say the incident, is of minor importance in his life not to warrant inclusion, as a controversy on a scale from one to ten its a one, it adds nothing of informative value. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with this assessment. It is not noteworthy of conclusion. Fletch81 (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments on this matter. I continue to find a mutual and consensus based decision on this bio. Pepperweed (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative for dicussion, perhaps the solution to this issue is to add the information to the 2009–10 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team page instead of this page. I would have no problem with an accurate description of the events that happened being described there. Remember (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this new suggestion and alternative. Pepperweed (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
imo,its not worthy of inclusion anywhere. Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with you. I am sincerely trying to carefully capture content that falls in line with Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. I will not be haste or careless in presenting something or perhaps I will just agree to this discussion on content change and leave the article as is. Pepperweed (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought I was going to take the holiday off and get back to this after the New Year but look what happened again... Here is a citation from the Greensboro-north carolina News and Record (which has excellent editorial management and policy. http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/12/23/article/graves_comes_off_bench_to_participate_in_uncaposs_victory Here, an anonymous fan behind press row yells out during last night's game during a free throw with Larry Drew not to "miss" - an obvious reference to the incident that occurred in early December when Williams reacted to the same type of behavior and pointed out the fan to security who ejected the fan. Later, authorities are cited saying that this is "Roy's place..." This time, the crowd burst out with nervous laughter waiting to see what Coach Roy Williams will do... I still think the incident is unusual for a coach to react that way and is being even more so validated by repeated jokes to him now in future games. I still think it is worth mentioning in the Bio carefully written. Pepperweed (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO its still worthless. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what would be your citation that this is worthless? Pepperweed (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm going to ask you the question again for discussion Pepperweed (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just not worth reporting, nothing happened.Is this your chosen subject? Have a look at the article and see if there is a comment there that is similar trivia. Off2riorob (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am in no conflict on this article but simply following it for an assignment for an editorial class. I do not think as an editor you are being reasonable to say that this is not reportable. In a sense you are rendering judgement on the fact that this is reportable. I have waited the appropriate time and have not engaged in changes but in dialog. As soon as I started that process. Everyone disengaged in dialog; including yourself, when asked for a reference or citation that such an event would not be reportable. This continues to be censorship. Please take a look at the other above comments from another editor that did think this was worth mentioning. I also do not see this anymore in the Biography of Living Persons discussion... This issue was never resolved except for some quick comments from you that this is not reportable. Pepperweed (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not censorship, it is not worth adding, we are encyclopedia not a tabloid. An editorial class? At school? Are you not interested in anything else apart from adding the fact that this coach asked someone to leave the building, please it is beyond my understanding. Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pepperweed, since you mentioned someone else thinks it is worth mentioning, I am someone else who thinks it is not worth mentioning. I think the suggestion of placing it on the season page is a fair compromise. That is a more specific article, and that is where the information belongs - again, if anywhere - since there are conflicting reports on who exactly was responsible for the ejection. To reiterate, not worthy of inclusion. Fletch81 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editors, it's ok to gang up on me with friends on this discussion. I too I guess could bring some other editors to this discussion but I will go it alone with you all for a little more and then bring in my team. Again, I ask what is your citation that this is not worthy of publication. I understand that there was a suggestion for a team post, but after thinking more about this... This is an issue with the coach, a personality of a living person and hence I am being careful about writing anything... I found in interesting the time gap that everyone did not respond to my comments and requests for citations on why this is not worth mentioning. It is a judgement opinion to decide what should be in the article. I'm glad that Wikipedia offers open dialog on the formation of content. If anyone is wasting time, it has been the ones that simply did not allow me to post a one liner in the Trivia section of this article. Take a look at the original history and the simple original post. Pepperweed (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Don't take it personally that not everyone agrees with your opinion. I don't know what you're implying about "friends ganging up" on you, because I've never interacted with any of the other editors on this article. I didn't remove the original bit in the trivia section, in fact I cleaned up a reference on that addition. However, after reading the opinions here, it is not worthy of inclusion, because not everyone agrees that this is an issue with the coach. Some think it is an issue with the security guards. I feel it is an issue with the ejected fan. Since there is no consensus here, it is my opinion no action should be taken at this time. Fletch81 (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking it personally... if you look into the history, it is in the log that "remember" was going to bring this to the attention of others... I haven't done that as of yet...

Wikipedia is arguing against itself… open access… Wikipedia writes itself… Let me write myself….

The Winners write the history…

The losers finally write their own history…. I’ve been left out…

Who will write the history of this Coach... Will it Never include any criticism? There are four opinions now. two that think it should be mentioned and two that think not... Who will write history? Disclosure: I am not a founder of Wikipedia, but a founder of an exited software company. I have no conflict of interest on this Biography. I just simply started to edit and this became my project. Pepperweed (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just again... I think I have been bold and others have been censoring... and they leave no comment... How sad...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold

96.236.197.191 (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this is me, I was not logged in... Pepperweed (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Roy Williams (coach). 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) 16:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Roy Williams (coach). 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) 00:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roy_Williams_(basketball_coach)&oldid=1210970850"