This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hi there, guys. I was reading this article, trying to find information on a certain track. As I was reading the article, I noticed something - this article needs help! The grammar and punctuation are somewhere between "off" and "totally, totally, totally wrong." If you want an example of what I'm talking about, take a look at my rewrite of the lead vs how it was half an hour ago. Now, I'm going to try to continue it, but I have -quite a few- other projects. Just as an example of the problems, "number one" is never written "number-one," though top ten may be written "top-ten." Putting two apostrophes together, like this is not an appropriate substitute for a quotation mark (that being "). When discussing music charts composed by a magazine, for example, the Billboard Top 10, there is no need to write Billboard Top 10. Just write Billboard Top 10! Silliness. As a final example, it's stupid to write "(song x) managed to reach position 4 on the (Whatever) top 10." Just write "(song x) reached position 4 on .."&etc.! Using the term "managed to" makes it sound like you are suggesting that it is for some reason surprising that the song reached that position. I assume that is totally NOT what the original poster meant, but that's what it sounds like, and it is easier to avoid that implicated violation of NPOV. So, those are my major qualms. I have been told that I am overly critical of poor spelling/grammar/punctuation. I think that makes me a benefit to Wikipedia, if we're trying to be as professional as possible I have rewritten the Lead, as I said, so that the casual reader will not spot poor English. If I have the opportunity to continue working on the article, I will, but, if not, I certainly hope that someone else can help. I will leave another comment if I get another chance to work on this. If not, as I said, I hope someone else can help. Paging all picky grammar fanatics! Cheers, 24.152.235.191 (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok A.jerie 13:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana jerie (talk • contribs)
The Wait is Ova is not a confirmed song, hence no source. Remove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.117.155 (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wait Is Ova is gonna be the second single of the album si it is a confirmed song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.225.47 (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
In Poland CD will be release on 20 November Official Universal Music Poland source: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.9.247 (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The current album cover was confirmed here: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1624888/20091027/rihanna.jhtml Amalthea 19:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I translated the source for "The Wait is Ova" being the second single and it states that it is due for a release in November of 2009 before the album is released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.57.101 (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
In the Glamour Interview Rihanna says that the album is like Lil Wayne meets Kings Of Leon, so I think that the Genres of the album can be R&B/Pop the elementals genres of rihanna, Hip Hop cause she says that is more urban, and for Kings Of Leon I think that can be Alternative Rock or just Alternative music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.24.192 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Now That I hear the album leak, I confirm that is kind of right the genres that I say before: R&B, Pop, Hip-Hop, Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.139.10 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
2/13 songs with a guitar intro dosen't make it a rock album. 81.106.148.147 (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I took Off the Hip Hop part because it`s stupid to say this album is Hip Hop. Mos Def`s Ecstatic is Hip Hop, Anything Flo-Rida does is Hip-Pop At Most but can be considered Rap so how is Rihanna`s music going to be considered Hip Hop? LarryTheGreat (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You two last are wrong, more songs have guitar than just 2, and she is raping on the album but is not like Grime or Rap-Pop or something like that, is Hip Hop, the R&B i agree R&B will be always the base of Rihanna's albums, and Rock I don't think about Rock-Rock is more like Alternative Rock...or if you don't think about Rock is like Alternative Music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.225.15 (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Dont forget the two dubstep songs on the album, produced by Chase and Status. 75.111.63.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC).
There should be some consensus reached among editors about the genres on the album. Editors are welcome to comment. Can refer to the dispute between Dan56 and Vitorvicentevalente at the noticeboard for background. Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree as well yes A.jerie 13:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The page needs to be re-created. For one it has a music video, also an artwork was released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelB722 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I swear this page is all like "Oh, she's had such a hard year, so this album is about all her trials and tribulations, and people need to understand that". All this page needs is some loser going "LEAVE RIHANNA ALONE!!! *SOB* *SOB*". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
PROFESSIONAL MUSIC MAGAZINES like SPIN & BILLBOARD should be kept at the review section in the infobox!! PLEASE STOP DELETING THEM!! (MariAna Mimi 10:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC))
Says who? Their reviews are subpar compared to the ones that r there now. Dan56 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It does not say anything about it being perferred. The Chicago Tribune's Greg Kot is a professional critic, as is USA TOday's Steve Jones. Their reviews of the album are more comprehensive than Billboard's and Spin's, whether negative or positive, or mixed. Dan56 (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Wait Your Turn has not been confirmed as the third single in the U.K. in 2010 or anywhere else. Okredgreen (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
It was originally going to be the second single but they chose to release hard instead. Since it already has a video released I assume it will be third but I can't find a source. 75.111.63.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC).
Is anyone actually in control of any Rihanna-related articles?! Someone has changed the certifications around, and then people are writing that the next single is either Hard, Rude Boy, or Wait Your Turn but no-one actually knows what is it. i suggest someone just puts that it is unclear because on the 'Rihanna chronology' it says it is Rude Boy but then on the Rated R page, it says it's Wait Your Turn!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.248.157 (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Not really A.jerie 13:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The commercial performance section is overly positive. Rated R is not as great as Good Girl Gone Bad, yet you wouldn't know it by reading this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.179.249 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I've just removed the information that "Rude Boy" will released as third single February 8. The sources given were [4][5], but in my strong opinion those aren't reliable enough by far. We've been wrong with every single of this album before, in parts because we used dubious sources like this. Not sure what the issue is, if the production company keeps giving rethinking their decisions or if everyone just picks up rumors and reports them as facts, but I very strongly think that we at least need to wait for some respectable source to pick that up and report it. While this is possible and could of course be true, it's just as possible that this is merely the old rumor resurfacing.
Amalthea 11:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
We can remove the sources and say that citation is needed? 1111tomica (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
“ | There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. | ” |
— Jimbo Wales, Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information |
Well than we should remove the information saying that "Rude Boy" will be released as second single internationally and wait until 8 of February and see what will happen, or if we find a trusty source we are going to link it with the information. This is my opinion and I agree with Amaltea. 1111tomica (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
But its not fair...numerous articles on wikipedia use these sources for forthcoming UK singles....and how are they not reliable?........here is the third source i was talking about [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.88 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually on this [7] source I don't see rude boy scheduled for 8th of February :S 1111tomica (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
All Access and FMQB now also confirm it.....and they are 100% reliable sources......so...stop it...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.229.91 (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
6 words - FOUR SOURCES CONFIRM THE SAME THING .
Looks like you really know NOTHING about the music industry....and i have to teach you......ok baby girl, when a song is chosen as a single, the first thing the label usually does is sent it for radio airplay; make it "impact" radio...get it now..and one other thing All Access and FMQB are not blogs...and when was the last time you saw a song that is not a single "impact" radio?....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.88 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
But Wait Your Turn was NEVER EVER schedueld to "impact" radio.......let alone by highly reliable sites like All Access and FMQB....and wait your turn was only listed like for a minute in the Forthcoming UK Singles websites, and then changed to Rude Boy......and now all access and fmqb list rude boy as well....so....its obvious that rude boy is the next single 100%... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.85 (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Unsure as well A.jerie 13:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know what other countries make up the 1,013,000 copies sold worldwide? I have added up all of the countries fiven: Australia, Poland, United Kingdom and United States and they only equal 791,648. So where is the other 200,000 odd copies coming from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvrihanna24 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
RIAA has certified Rated R as a Platinum album.--HC 5555 (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes that is true. I wanted to add it but i didn't know how. For everyone doubting this search on the RIAA website for Rated R. It will have gold first then right under it it will be platinum which is the new certification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.74.230 (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Nobody has put what this weeks sales for the United Kingdom or United States were?? And why has someone deleted the sales part of Certifications? Now nobody knows how much the album is selling! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.248.157 (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Should the remixes section be moved to the promotion sec., b/c it is a promotional effort more than it is part of the album's track listing? Dan56 (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
1) There are no references or evidence towards the weekly sales of the album in the UK or the U.S. 2) On the BPI Website, it says the album is Platinum so the weekly sales must be wrong because it is only on 240,000 so far and Platinum is 300,000. 3) I'm going to delete it if that it okay.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.248.157 (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Alright, this article says it has sold 1.3 million copies worldwide, and I believe it. But E! news erroneously reported the sales figures as 4 million copies worldwide. Where did they get their figures from? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This is an ongoing topic, but I'll mention it here in case anybody wonders about my edits.
I have reverted some changes recently to the Chart positions table for the UK. The article previously showed a peak position of 16 for the UK Albums Chart, and a peak of 4 for the UK R&B Albums Chart.
The source cited for UK Albums Chart is http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/albums/ (no accessdate or other info), which currently shows Rated R at 31. The source cited for UK R&B Albums Chart is http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/rnbalbums/ (no accessdate or other info), which currently shows Rated R at 7.
These sources clearly fail to support the respective claims of 16 and 4 as peak positions. The sites appear to offer no option to access chart histories. The number 4 could be completely made up (although I have other ideas about that below); I therefore feel obliged to disallow (i.e., revert) any edits that change the previous numbers.
Now, I want to be reasonable. I'm assuming good faith and actually believe that the numbers 16 and 4 are coming from somewhere. The question is really just, from where?
I've blanked the value 16 rather than knock it down to the cited 31, because I think it may well have actually been at 16 once, and we just don't have a reliable source. I've also opted to leave the row for UK Albums Chart in the table, hoping that somebody will happen along with a different source. I have changed 4 back to 7 because that's what we can prove.
Now, whoever thinks that 4 is the right number for the R&B chart can bring in a citation explaining why they believe that. We change out the refs, update the number, and I stop yelling at my screen. Same thing with the number 16 for UK Albums: Say why you think it's 16, and we're done. It's that easy. Or that hard. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
So now User:CalvinNelson4 has quietly (silently, one might say) replaced the ref we previously had for the UK Albums Chart, http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/albums/, with a new one, http://www.chartstats.com/albuminfo.php?id=14562, showing a historical table and, yes, a peak value for Rated R of 16 on 05/12/2009 (its debut). Yay! Unfortunately, this source not only fails to indicate any authority (it's titled simply "Chart Stats" and reveals nothing about its author or sources), it also fails to indicate which chart it purports to track. The only hint that it might be some UK chart is the format of the dates, which appear to me to be the British style.
So for the time being I can stop reverting additions of 16 where the BBC source gave us only 31 lately. I only wish it hadn't been so much work to get to this point, besides the fact that our sources are still pretty flimsy.
And it's disappointing to me that so many editors of this article are so afraid to actually communicate, either on a Talk page or using even a minimum of grunts and handsigns in the edit summary. All folks do is edit silently and revert silently. Where's the sense of community? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
"Stop removing "hip hop" and "rock", Rihanna herself described album in this way", last time I checked it doesn't matter what a music artist labels them self, saying something like that is like saying "Britney Spears describes her album as heavy metal herself so it must be the genre". Would it be okay for me to reword this? I know it's just a hidden message to warn editors but it's bothering me haha.--Babyjazspanail (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused about what to believe is the real worldwide sales of the album. On this source which is under 'Commercial Performance' New Universal era promises scrutiny for L.A. Reid, it says that the album has sold 2.5 million copies but on this source, when all of the totals are added for each week since its release, it adds up to just over 1.7 million [9] Someone help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.248.157 (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, here's a source where the album first made its appearance : [10] and then theres a link at the bottom which says next week and it goes all through the weeks to today's week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.248.157 (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
At the start bit it should have a new sentence stating that 'Rude Boy' has been at #1 for 3 weeks running because it makes it seem like russian roulette was as successful as rude boy which it definately was not. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I really think something should be said about Rude Boy because it is a really big hit! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, "Photographs" is not the next single. Rihanna posted a picture on Twitter today of her with Travis Barker on the set of the "Rockstar 101" music video. http://twitpic.com/1f6ct6 And the fact that she performed it on American Idol just adds to the fact. --Sdoo493 (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Just an FYI everyone, since I can't edit it myself, director Melina Matsoukas directed the video for Rock Star 101, not Anthony. Melina confirmed it via her Twitter today. So someone with access please edit, thank you~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.158.211 (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hip-hop is a genre on the album, But rock really isn't (Rockstar 101 is'nt really rock) and I'm not sure about dubstep. --Louis Taylor (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Stupid in Love has been receiving airplay in Canada. :S I've heard it trice on the radio now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrollingdown (talk • contribs) 01:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The release schedule which claims Photographs will be released on May 24th is untrue. There has been absolutely no word from Def Jam or Rihanna herself that Photographs will be released as a single yet. The source originates from Radio 1 who often have incorrect release schedules; their release scheduled claimed that Wait Your Turn would be released February 8th. Te Amo is receiving radio airplay on stations such as Galaxy FM and is climbing the UK iTunes store as a result. A source from a record label claimed that Te Amo is the new single in France, and that Te Amo will most likely follow in the UK. It seems like Te Amo will be released in Europe and Rockstar 101 in the US. Nothing is confirmed for Photographs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.134.37 (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Should there be a note that on the "bonus track" version of Rated R on iTunes doesn't include "Russian Roulette"? http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/rated-r-bonus-track-version/id340358470 --Sdoo493 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
check it out.. rated r now have sold 3 million copies worlwide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.167.28.169 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I've heard Cold Case Love three times on z100 so .... is it a single? User:RebornRocks 9:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
((editsemiprotected))
The new release date is June 1, 2010.Source. In the infobox, remove May 21 and put June 1, 2010.
Softonic (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Partly done: because per WP:ALBUMS and WP:SONGS release date = the first day you can BUY a single. However i will add the source to the singles section but NOT the infobox.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
someone needs to make a page for Rockstar 101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezzmon (talk • contribs) 01:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a mistake in the tracklist of Rated R: Remixed. The Rude Boy's remix is "Chew Fu Vitamin S Fix" instead of "Chew Fu Bumbaclot Fix" - http://www.amazon.com/Rated-R-Remixed-Rihanna/dp/B003HE2BKS/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1274617068&sr=8-13 (proof in the picture showing the tracklist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by G0LD!3 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The album has NOT been released in the UK the link provided is just an import, the UK release is currently unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsimpson1992 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
how come isnt there a ROCKSTAR 101 single page yet? ITS BEEN CONFIRMED AS A SINGLE, BEING RELEASED JUNE 1st 2010, AND HAS A MUSIC VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.253.33 (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Official page of Rockstar 101 has been under our work. It's title is Rockstar 101.
Okay...there WAS a Rockstar 101 page, but someone took it down. Is there a reason WHY it was taken down?! Put it back up! There's no reason why it shouldn't exist. It was released as a single, it recieves radio airplay, and there's a music video. So put the page BACK UP! --Sdoo493 (talk) 5:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I strongly think that a 'Rated R: Remixed' page should be made as the album has now charted on the Greek Albums Chart at number four. Also, it has charted on the Canadian Hot 100 at number 84 and the US Billboard 200 at number 153. Lady GaGa's The Remix album has a page on Wikipedia so I think this album deserves one too. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Rated R: Remixed is #6 On Billboard Dance And Club Albums --74.46.27.224 (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Rihanna's official fansite announced that Universal Music told them that there are in plans of making a Re-Release of Rated R. Also, many producers are speaking out about A LP/EP type thing (probably the Re-Release that UMG is talking about), Should we mention that sience Rihanna Daily & Universal Music Group are reliable sources? --74.46.27.224 (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Please can you prvide those sources here so we can look at them first? (note that a fansite is not an official, credible or reliable source). Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
http://rihannaforums.com/viewthread.php?tid=23942 http://rihannaforums.com/viewthread.php?tid=23938 this is the forums thats part of Rihanna's official fansite --74.44.84.12 (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Only the first one is "Rodrigo". But the second one is a list of producers that spoke out about a re-release/new album--74.46.24.86 (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
source: http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/product/detail/3864480
--210.163.19.26 (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Who put those 3 songs as singles, when def jam or rihanna haven't said anything at all - User:Rebornrocks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.125 (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that this page should be listed for a peer review and then for a GA review. The personnel section needs expansion as it was also updated on Allmusic.com. Please post your thoughts regarding this issue. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 22:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Still don't know why the release of the album has been put on November 20, 2009, as it had a worldwide release date on November 23, 2009, as explained in the french version of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.62.11 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The album is No. 59 in Germany source. --79.216.174.128 (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Rated R is on the Billboard charts right now...can we add a 2011 chart?--mikomango (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Platinum in France source--79.216.218.159 (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The references, used in prior text defined as:
<ref>((singlechart|UKrandb|1|artist=Rihanna|song=Russian Roulette|date=December 12, 2009|accessdate=March 27, 2013))</ref><ref>((singlechart|UK|2|artist=Rihanna|song=Russian Roulette|date=December 12, 2009|accessdate=March 27, 2013))</ref>
show incorrect results:
83. ^ |UK R&B (Official Charts Company) |align="center"|1
84. ^ |UK Singles (Official Charts Company) |align="center"|2
Cite error: <ref> tag with name "sc_UKrandb_Rihanna" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page).
Cite error: <ref> tag with name "sc_UK_Rihanna" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page).
What's wrong? Thx --Frze (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
<ref>
tags, which does not work. Please read the ((Singlechart)) documentation or use another method to include these references. -- Gadget850 talk 15:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)@Tomica: to be quite honest, I don't see any major issues with the article. I don't think it would have any problem becoming a GA. Not that I'm necessary, but I volunteer to review the article once it's nominated. Prism △ 23:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rated R (Rihanna album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rated R (Rihanna album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)