Talk:Senior Skull Honor Society/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on The Senior Skull Honor Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070324004038/http://media.www.mainecampus.com:80/media/storage/paper322/news/2007/03/01/News/Senior.Skulls.Out.To.Recruit.New.Blood-2752008.shtml to http://media.www.mainecampus.com/media/storage/paper322/news/2007/03/01/News/Senior.Skulls.Out.To.Recruit.New.Blood-2752008.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080513213552/http://www.mainealumni.com/Skulls/History.html to http://www.mainealumni.com/Skulls/History.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and hoaxes
Hello, Per this sockpuppet report, and this checkuser request, User:Societyfinalclubs, an editor who has made significant edits to this page, has been confirmed as an abusive sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer. The Checkuser (see bottom of WP:RFCU link) indicates this person has a long history of adding hoax material to articles; unfortunately, they also seem to have a history of adding legitimate information as well, so their changes can't just be blindly-reverted. I do not have enough knowledge of this particular subject to be helpful, but I suggest those of you who do, and regularly maintain this page, go back and review User:Societyfinalclubs's additions, remove anything they've added that can't be sourced and verified, and add citations for anything that can be sourced but is currently unreferenced, to remove any suspicion of the legitimacy of the article.

They appear to be somewhat prolific, so if a new account shows up lobbying for re-insertion of any material you folks end up deleting as unsourced, I'd suggest being a bit wary, and insisting even more strongly than perhaps we usually do on verifiable, reliable sources for everything they try to add. They tend to cite "rare" sources that they have in their possession, so I guess emphasis on "verifiable".

I'm not checking each article I tag with this information, so if you've already noticed this misbehavior and dealt with it, feel free to mark this section resolved or something. --barneca (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)