Talk:Rex Weyler

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


Article Needs Attention[edit]

I have added the "Needs Attention" parm to the bio template to invite other editors to have a look at this article. Assuming it is not an autobiography, I am concerned about whether this meets the Biographies of living persons policy. Many of items referred to as references are not cited to back up the assertion of some fact, but rather as a list of publications written by the subject. Most of the details of the subjects life are offered without any source. I thought of going though and adding a {{fact}} tag where facts are stated without source, but that would have involved dozens of tags. It leaves the reader to wonder where all of this information came from. Is the source the subject himself? That would be original research which is not appropriate here. I think citing the names and dates of birth of the subject's children is a breach of privacy that adds nothing of value to the article. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information. Overall, the article reads like a public relations piece done to promote the subject. There is just too much information here about someone who, though perhaps notable, is not Ghandi or Mandela. The article should be pared down considerably. Each fact should be examined not on the basis of what the subject or a fan of his would like the world to know, but rather from the point of view of our readers. What would they want to know about this fellow? There is just too much spin here. --KenWalker | Talk 02:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that most of the references cited point to the same article, an article that doesn't seem to be a useful source. Of those that are left, there are several dead links. I will tend to removing them in a few days, but it might be better if those who have added them put them into shape, which probably means removing most of them. --KenWalker | Talk 07:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments KenWalker. I will do my best to clean-up this article. I do have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that there is "too much spin here" or that there is too much information in general. What is clearly lacking (due to my lack of experience with writing these articles) is citation for the facts. It will certainly streamline the artilce once I work my way through that as I am sure that some information may have to be removed if it does not have reliable independant sources. The approach I took to this information was what would someone want or need to know if they had to write a report or paper about Rex Weyler, an American / Canadian author, journalist and ecologist. I will continue to work on adding citations for sources and removing information that can't be properly sourced. Although it is not autobiographical, Rex Weyler has approved the content in this article for accuracy. Thank you for taking the time to point out the issues with this article.

BlissfulGirl (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All dead links have been updated or removed. BlissfulGirl (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of September 4th the article has undergone substantial clean-up following the Wikipedia:Manual of Style as well as removing any information subject to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information. In addition, information that could not be properly sourced was removed and references added in the Notes section to information that could be sourced in accordance with Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources. Article is being re-submitted for assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canada/Assessment#Quality_assessments and Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment. BlissfulGirl (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

image copyright concern[edit]

See note at discussion page for infobox image at Image talk:Rex Weyler2.jpg --KenWalker | Talk 04:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permission forms for both images in question have been submitted to OTRS. BlissfulGirl (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system; it is available here for users with an OTRS account. To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account. Ticket link: https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1880046 BlissfulGirl (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system; it is available here for users with an OTRS account. To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account. Ticket link: https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=1880044 BlissfulGirl (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessment[edit]

The changes made to this article over the last month improve it considerably. Various links that were problems before have been fixed and image copyright issues have been resolved. It is now clearly beyond a stub or start class article. It does appear to meet the 6 B-Class_criteria however before I would rate it that high, I am still concerned that the tone and content of the article come across as an promotional piece for Weyler's writings and his point of view rather than presenting the sort of neutral tone an encyclopedia article ought to have. There is nothing saying that a bio article can't be largely written by one editor whose edits are largely confined to a single article but when that happens, it raises a concern about whether the article has a neutral point of view. Are there other less laudatory sources about this person that would balance out the article? Afterall, he has a history of involvement in contentious issues. Something that makes it look less like a public relations release provided by the subject of the article would help. Those concerns may be difficult to address, but there is also a more specific concern that could readily be tuned up. It is not unusual for an article about a writer to list his works. But the collection of links to Selected Readings, interesting though they may be, disregard WP:SOAP and WP:NOTLINK. I have removed the needs assessment tag from WP BIO and assessed it as a C in the various projects. By the way, I have removed the WP:USA project tag. I don't see how this is an article regarding the United States, even though the subject was born there. --KenWalker | Talk 08:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your assessment. I'm not sure I understand your concerns about NPOV. When looking randomly at the histories of articles on Wikipedia the majority of articles have one particular editor that does the majority of edits (with the exception of highly contentious topics), and this would include articles that you have contributed. There is nothing self-serving or promotional in providing a list of the books by this author, it is simply a list of facts. I actually did try to find some credible sources of criticism for Weyler's works (his books and his journalism) or points of view, but blogs and comments posted on blogs are not allowed as sources here. There were no overtly critical articles to be found of his work (although some of the links I provided do include in their reviews of his work some critisms). If you can find any please add them as I agree, it is important to be well-rounded. I also reviewed dozens of BLP's with a GA rating (of similar subjects - authors/journalists) and they all included the same basic type of information included on this article - it appears to be a fairly standard layout for BLP's and in particular for authors/journalists (NOTE: I am NOT asserting that this article is GA class - it clearly is not yet). I have to admit after reading the request on your talk page that spurred your interest in this article, I am actually concerned about your NPOV in assessing this article as you did not do so out of interest or knowledge of this subject but rather at the request of a friend who stated they wanted it looked at because they did not like an article the author had written on another external website and felt they had to recuse themselves from editing. Also, I believe that the WP:USA project tag was added because Weyler is active in some existing American legal issues surrounding AIM (American Indian Movement) and was a Vietnam war resistor and draft-dodger, etc. I didn't add that tag but I also won't undo your edit of it as it has no bearing on the facts of this article, I'll leave that to another editor if they so choose. BlissfulGirl (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am that "friend" who recused himself from editing this - as I have done also with other articles (notably the Green Party of BC, of which I was one of the original core group in 1983) - because of my criticisms of Weyler's publication of false history on The Tyee. Ken is neutral and within the BC Wikipedian community is one of the more equananimous editors , very conscientious and less prone to politicizing than yours truly, especially when dealing with "grandstanding" pages like this one and various others (of all ilks, eco-politicians, corporate pages and templates, and politicians of both left and right (see Erik Bornmann and its talkpage and associated AFD proceedings for a good example, and the edit history at Bear Mountain (resort and its talkpage for another). To be quite frank, I didn't have the stomach to weeed through this article's original fatuous tone and fluffery. My main interest in these matters is truth and preventing Wikipedia from becoming a propaganda-pit and/or self-promotion for any individual/group or their chosen causes. Ken has done a good job here, including pointing out that not including sites/resources that aren't so idolizing of/promotional toward Weyler, or only his own bios/publications remains a POV issue; Wikipedia should be about completeness, as that is the only way to NPOV; WP:BLP limits any genuinely harmful information but it also provides for the point that WP bios are NOT to be used s resumes. Other article/toipc-areas where Iv'e "gone at" the absence of other points of view include Oregon boundary dispute, Alaska boundary dispute, and many many others. You can accuse Ken of being POV simply for knowing me, I suppose, but it doesn't change the validity of his criticisms, either those you've satisfied or those which are as yet unresolved; making somethPig War ing NPOV is a long process; but one thing for sure that keeps something POV is that all citations are from the one piont of view, it's that simple. If Weyler's writing weren't demonstrably POV and false I would have passed over this and not referred tthe article on to Ken, and could have just let it get deleted for being a resume - which is what would have happened, ultimately), by some admin who recognized it for the piece of full that it was before ken weghed in at my request. Be thankful for tender mercies as well as un-tender ones. Even User:KootenayVolcano thanked me for my emendations and concernes at the Sinixt article, recognizing them as being founded in the interests of truth (and despite an emailed threat that I should stay away from Sinixt-related material; violence or the threat of it is often the endgame of what happens when righteousness needs to defend untruth - because it's the only recourser, i.e. silencing the truth so that falsity can prevail and make a "new truth"). The other reason I recused myself is because of WP;Good faith and WP:Be welcoming which I did not feel I could use here, given my experience with Weyleer's writigns and its supporters, I also could not ignore this article given that it was exactly the kind ofthing that Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be.....so don't take it out on Ken for trying to serve as moderator for the interests of Wikikipedia; he's not executing my desires on teh article, but applying WP guidelines far more even-handedly than I would ahve ever been able to......even if I didn't have reason to dislike Weyler and what he stands for in journalism (which I'll refrain from defining further).Skookum1 (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USA is for nationwide issues/topics of a general nature; {{NorthAmNative}} may be more suitable and other writers on native issues as well as missionaries and ethnographers and linguistics pages/bios have it; the other US WPs to consider are any state-specific ones if there are specific staes re the AIM issues.....WP:USA would have eventually been removed by one of that SP's members, I'm sure....Skookum1 (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Skookum1 your reaction to a pretty civilized conversation between KenWalker and I is a bit overboard. I've taken his suggestions, followed the guidelines, researched other similar articles from the GA class all in an effort to improve this article and now you appear to be attacking me because I dared reply to his concerns of my POV with my own questions?!? I'm not sure I understand your problem here. I think it was a valid question raised as he had raised a vaild question about whether or not I had NPOV. I don't agree with all of Weyler's work and never claimed to. But this being an encyclopedia I still think it should be included in the same fashion as other people with a similar background. As I mentioned previously, if credible sources of criticism are found I would definately include them, as should anyone else who edits this article, but I can't simply add criticism from blogs or comments on articles that he has written as sources. On some of the links I did provide, there are definately negative comments on his work - but again they are in the comments section of some of the sources so I can't point them out directly. From all I've read here about credible sources, they just wouldn't stand up to that and I'd be back where I started when KenWalker first brought the problems to my attention. I agree that you did the right thing by asking some else to look at the article rather than dive in yourself. I also agreed with much of the issues KenWalker pointed out to me. I disagree with his assessment that the article is lacking NPOV. My questions are not a personal attack on KenWalker (or even you for that matter). I'm sorry if you don't like my question, but it seemed valid given your statements in your request to him - had you not made any personal claims about the issues you had with the subject I would likely never have even asked the question about POV. I also, respectfully disagree with the ascertion that this article is "grandstanding" or being used as a "resume" - the BLP's of GA class artciles of authors/journalists that I've reviewed all include this type of information. I'm not sure how anyone could write a bio about someone who writes without pointing out their writings. I would think the same would hold true for painters, musicians, etc. There is no snarkiness intended with this comment - but even print encyclopedias include lists of authors work and the publications journalists worked for (of course, they just never included bios of living people, but wiki has already settled the BLP argument as a community). If you do not want to edit this article because of you can't be objective I totally agree and respect that, but by all means feel absolutely free to send me suggestions directly. I'm being very sincere - if you have links to criticisms of Weyler's work or links that refute anything in this article please send them to me directly. I will more than happily incoporate them or to remove any information that can be proven to be false. I've seen a "Criticisms" section on other BLP's but they all had very detailed sources. I would assume that this article could have that too. BlissfulGirl (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[undent]MY responses are famoulsly long-winded and pointed, but all in the course of laying out my own biases as confessionals; Iand I was respnoding to this line and its meaning:

am actually concerned about your NPOV in assessing this article as you did not do so out of interest or knowledge of this subject but rather at the request of a friend who stated they wanted it looked at because they did not like an article the author had written on another external website and felt they had to recuse themselves from editing.

In which you are questioning Ken's POV, simply b ecause I'd asked him to be NPOV about the article, as I admitted I couldn't be. And you are misrepreesenting the nature of my reuquest, which had to do with my not wanting to touch the article precisely bercasuse of my POV on Weyler, and also because the article b efore you revised it was definitely a soapbox and a piece of promotional fluffery, which you admit to consulting with Weyler on "ho whether he approved it or not; see WP:OWN. As for criticisms of his writign, that he's not notable enough for anyone to botyher critiquing what are obviously flased arguments/facts (like his nonsense about the fur companies offering bounties for native genitals and engagagin in the smallpox-blankets trade, both outrageous lies); he's not taken seriously by other jounralists (otehr than those who think or propagandize in teh same area as him) so that there are no published criticism of him is easily explainable for lack of real notability. This doesn't mean his ideas and writings should be presetned with a wholly uncritical eye.....WP:AUTO applies here also, even though you are not him, but consultign with him. If this were a civilized conversation you would not have misrepresented what I said or what my motives are, and you also would not have "read into" Ken's motives a POV simply because I alerte4d him to the article; it was because of my confidence in his abilites and neutrality that I ref'd it over; I could have just as easiliy gone to higher levels or taken my own weewhacker to the overblown content and self-serving tone....sorry, but I call it like it is, and I don't like having either my own motives, or someone ele's, misrepresented.Skookum1 (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't much to add to this discussion but I would like to point out that it is the article that is required to have a neutral point of view, not me, or you or Skookum1. None of us are really neutral, we all have our own points of view. Although I don't agree with the conclusions you draw from the exchange that I have left publicly available on my talk page, even were your conclusions correct, they have no bearing on the issue I have raised about the article. You are right that there are other articles that have similar format and content. That doesn't mean they are the standard to follow. From what I have read in the sources you offer and the writings of Mr Weyler, he has been an activist involved in controversial issues for years. An article about such a person should not read like something his book publishers would use in promotional materials. All that said, the point I was making was a narrow reservation about what I have said is otherwise a B article. I stand by the concern I have raised, but our discussion here has become disproportionate. The article is a commendable effort, especially for a new editor, about an individual who meets the established test of notability. If my comments have given you the impression that I think your effort has not been worthwhile or successful, I have not been clear. That is not my opinion. I hope that this discussion does not discourage you from trying your hand at other articles, there is no shortage of them that can use improvement. --KenWalker | Talk 07:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Skookum1, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree with eachothers POV. I don't see any other option. I've tried reaching out to you in an effort to understand or address your concerns in order to improve this article, but you're still on the attack. Weyler's books have been reviewed by every major newspaper in Canada (I actually went to the library to look at back-issues for all the major dailies and the two national papers - 3 of his books have been reviewed in all of them) but they had no overtly critical reviews. The criticisms were mostly about length. I just did not find anything critical about his actual position. I think having criticisms would improve this article. I'll keep looking, but you're making me feel like you're shooting the messenger when I tell you that the critiques and reviews I've found just haven't been that critical. Frankly, I'd be happier to find negative ones in order to give this balance. I saw your comments on the Tyee article - I agree with you. I couldn't find anything myself online to support it (third-party) but I'm always happy to hit the library but I'm not clear about what I'd bee looking for (history of HBC? history of that region? history of those people? all the above?). If I knew where to look for the info you mentioned in your Tyee comments that counter Weyler's article I think I could put together a NPOV criticism of at least his position on that particular issue. BlissfulGirl (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KenWalker, thank you very much for your response. I agree with you, none of use are totally neutral. I went to your talk page to see where this all started and it raised questions for me - nothing more or less. If my questions/repsonses were interpretted by you as accusations or questions of your credibility, I apologize. My intention was to understand your concerns by raising and hopefully getting answers to my own (sadly being a newbie I sometimes need things explained more clearly than maybe a more experienced editor would need). You have been a great help in guiding me towards improving things in as neutral a way as possible (bearing in mind that I agree, none of us can be 100% neutral). If you've got time, I'd like your opinion about pursuing the criticism section. Do you think it is worth it in the grand scheme of things to pursue that...or should I just back off trying to improve things any further for awhile and see if any other editors will step in with well-sourced info? Thanks again for your help thus far...and no, this won't discourage me from continuing to edit in general, but frankly it may stop me from continuing to edit this page. It takes all kinds to make the world go around...and it takes all kinds to make a collaborative encyclopedia but I don't see my first foray into article contribution as much of a success and I'm certainly not a fan of the conflict it's generated. Thanks again for your help! :-) BlissfulGirl (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Rex Weyler. 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) 11:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Rex Weyler. 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) 02:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Rex Weyler. 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) 00:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Rex Weyler. 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) 18:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Rex Weyler. 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) 23:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Rex Weyler. 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) 16:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rex Weyler. 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) 20:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rex Weyler. 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) 13:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rex Weyler. 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) 00:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rex_Weyler&oldid=1200524624"