Talk:Pamela Jones

I removed

I removed the following sentence because it doesn't seem to make sense "The contract was terminated by her after SCO tried to make an argument that it proves she believed Linux was at risk of being rightfully litigated over copyright or patents." --LeeHunter 17:20, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IP-wars

Incidentally, I guarantee that very few Groklaw regulars post on ip-wars, considering it is an anti Groklaw site.

I've only glanced briefly at ip-wars, but I don't see how it can be called an "anti-Groklaw propaganda site". I'm reverting this change pending more information. --Lee Hunter 20:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Journalist?

We all know that Pamela Jones /claims/ to be a journalist. However, does anyone have any reason to believe that she has any experience or training as a journalist? At the beginning of Groklaw, she was a paralegal. She left that to work for, essentially, an insurance company to do legal analysis. Is there anyone who can substaniate that she has ever worked as a journalist at any newspaper or other periodical that would qualify her of that title? Groklaw is merely a blog and certainly does not qualify as "legitimate press" in the traditional sense.

It seems to me that PJ _is_ a journalist due to the fact that she reports on events, rather than simply opines upon them. That's journalism in a nutshell. I think those that feel that one must be paid by a newspaper or meatworld media outlet to be a "journalist" is clinging to an outmoded paradigm. Docrailgun 13:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

merely a blog, not ... legitimate ... traditional sense. What a stooge. Do you actually have anything to say? Her prior training and job history is irrelevant. Jayson Blair has both training and experience as a journalist. Does that make him legitimate?.Funkyj 07:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stay civil, Funkyj. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 05:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If not suffering fools is being uncivil that I am guilty as accused. First point: Can the original commentor (unsigned?) please provide a quote from PJ where she claims that she has traditional journalism training (e.g. a degree in journalism)? I read Groklaw a lot and I've never seen such a claim. Second point: If someone who has been reporting on SCO vs IBM in a popular blog for several years calls themself a journalist I fail to see how that would be inaccurate considering that Groklaw's prediction of various court outcomes has been spectacularly accurate when compared with the likes of real journalists at Forbes et. al. (echoing Docrailgun's point...) Funkyj 20:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

DRAMA! Hissy fit... Good grief, Funky. Get a hold on yourself. Proxy User (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems the standards to which "journalists" are held have dropped considerably in recent years. I once had an article published on ITV's Teletext. According to those who apparently own this article that makes me a journalist too! Xcvzxcvzxcvxcvzxcv 21:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No but the Publications section of the article (monthly columns for magazines, etcetera) make her a journalist. Also, there's a difference between OWN and consensus. SirFozzie 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me see Pamela Jones has a monthly column at LinuxUser http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=14&Itemid=60 THAT makes her a consistent journalist. --Kebron 01:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jones is not a "journalist" unless we accept that legitimate journalists are highly biased. From http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/1114/128sidebara.html "Jones describes herself as a journalist, yet her blog is unabashedly pro-IBM" and of course it's plainly true.

SCO executives call Groklaw a "mouthpiece"for IBM, though IBM says it isn't involved with Jones in any way. Jones' blog published an IBM legal document two days before the court made it public, a sign that it likely was leaked by lawyers involved in the case.

Not the actions of a "journalist". I think “Open Source advocate” is a much more honest description of Jones. But journalist? Only if journalists have, by definition, an ax to grind. Be honest, people. Proxy User (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Most commercial journalists are biased, either through personal inclination, or because they are paid by a publisher that is pandering to a particular demographic. Jones is at least honest about her bias, which doet makes it easier to filter out the most childishly petty interpretations and representations of her targets (i.e most of them). Rogerborg (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I just took a ride in a time machine. It's really cute how people in 2006–2009 thought "journalist" implied "unbiased". 84.172.196.154 (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Complaints

"Following publication of the article, her supporters flooded the switchboard with complaints." This is a little confusing. Whose supporters (Maureen's or Pamela's)? Whose switchboard? What compaints?

Personal info

It was claimed that O'Gara posted her personal info, but it has never been substantiated that the PJ O'Gara wrote about was this PJ, so I'd advice changing that to supposed or alleged personal information.

Hope the current version fixes both this and the previous comment. // OlofE 13:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Weird sentence in Critics

Maybe it's just me, but I find the sentence that opens the paragraph about Maureen O'Gara awkward. In particular, the interjection "..., a name later changed, ..." Can someone clean that up or explain to me what that's trying to say? I would be tempted just to remove it as I'm not sure what it's trying to communicate.

Links to COPY of article that was removed

Instead of doing an edit war, I ask "Should a link to a COPY of an attack article that was published on the internet remain?"

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=148847&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&tid=188&mode=nested&cid=12476453

This article was a discusting attack on Pamela Jones and completely innacurate. But the article WAS published and removed and now only copies of said article remain. Should we keep the link or make a copy of a copy ourselves or just remove it? --Kebron 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to link to it - it's a personal attack, even though it's relevant to the controversy. Autarch 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/1114/128sidebara_print.html
  • In Pamela Jones on Sun Jul 16 21:30:11 2006, HTTP Error:
  • In Pamela Jones on Mon Jul 17 17:43:51 2006, HTTP Error:
  • In Pamela Jones on Thu Jul 27 01:24:20 2006, HTTP Error:

---

maru (talk) contribs 05:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.grokline.net/
  • In Pamela Jones on Sun Jul 16 21:30:13 2006, Socket Error: (-3, 'Temporary failure in name resolution')
  • In Pamela Jones on Mon Jul 17 17:44:32 2006, Socket Error: (-3, 'Temporary failure in name resolution')
  • In Pamela Jones on Thu Jul 27 01:24:32 2006, Socket Error: (-3, 'Temporary failure in name resolution')

---

maru (talk) contribs 05:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is she real?

SCO have recently made a comment stating that they believe Pamela Jones to be a fictional character created by IBM or their lawyers.

At first I thought this was ridiculous but having had a look around the internet (mainly Groklaw and google) I find it surprising that I cannot find a single piece of information confirming her real-world existence. Although she is quite a famous person, everything about he could conceivably have been hoaxed.

I am not for one minute making this as a claim, but merely stating it as a possiblity I have not personally been able to eliminate. Does anyone know of a photograph, address, off-line interview / meeting or anything else which could confirm her real-world existance? Canderra 05:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes she is real. There was an article all about her and her JW ways and apparently she is addicted to caffeine.

But my point is that although there is a lot of articles written about her and people who have "communicated" with her (almost universally via email), I cannot find any definitive resource proving her real world existence or even an independent party confirming that they've met her in person. Canderra 20:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not looked very far. Right here on Wikipedia, there is the issue raised that Jones worked for Open Source Risk Management on a research project from February of 2004 until November of 2004. They confirmed that she left OSRM. So they in fact confirm she existed that she is a real person.

This is the link to a news article where OSRM announces her being hired.

This is the official Press Release from OSRM

--Kebron 15:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at OSRM's Iternet presence, there is no evidence that it is any more than a web site, that any people or company actually exist beyond what looks to be a VERY minimal web site. Proxy User (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is She Back?

It appears she may be back, starting on or around March 11, 2007. This seems to support it. Yes? No? Maybe? --Silverhand^Talk 17:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

She is back, in a limited capacity. she is not going as gung ho as she was. :) SirFozzie 17:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I've just read this heading as "Is She Black?" :DDD Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, what is this, a Fan Page? Good grief! Typical Wikipedia sketchyness... Proxy User (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"health issues" not appropriate IMO

I think it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to document PJ's current health related time off. There is no evidence that this is notable, and the least, this section should be removed until the WP:DUST settles. Gronky 14:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it more, I think this section should be removed. Any objections? Gronky 17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It's not given undue weight, it serves as a counterpoint to the "SCO attempting to depose PJ" part of it, and it's from her own words in a Groklaw post. SirFozzie 18:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think the section should remain, but perhaps it should be retitled. Her health issues are not the central focus, rather it is that her break from running the site was used as part of speculation by her critics. Sorry, I don't have an alternative section title to offer. --MediaMangler 19:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I Changed it to "Temporary Groklaw Abscence" and changed things around. Tell me what you think. SirFozzie 20:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's fine the way it is now, and still think it should be in there. Thanks guys SirFozzie 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked Wikipedia policy on Biographies of living persons and it says that "Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life." and "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability." There is no way anyone could argue that here recent break describes why she is notable. It doesn't. It describes her life.

It also says that "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm".". I don't think this is borderline, I think it's clearly inappropriate, but if anyone argues it is border line, it still violates policy because it risks harm. PJ's requests for privacy and her digust at her personal life being examined is well-known.

There are more tests in the WP:BLP that this section fails, and that document is policy (not a guideline). So this section violates policy and simply cannot stay. Gronky 22:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you with regards to WP:BLP. It is not controversial, it is based in fact, and it's in her own words. I will not rush into an edit war with you regarding, this, but I think I will be asking others to see if I'm off base here. SirFozzie 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Being non-controversial, being based in fact, and coming from her own words are not the criteria set out in WP:BLP. I've given further reason in reply to the below comment. Gronky 07:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've edited it a bit, because the speculation was never substantiated, and it should be noted that it looks more like a hollow threat (FUD) from SCO than fact. I have from PJ personally that they're free to serve her a subponae any time, but that so far it ismply didn't happen. The Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols comment really sets things right. I think this section is benign and uninteresting, and should be deleted, but didn't take that step. Frodo42 13:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Reconsidering the above criteria, and the fact that the section adds nothing worth knowing, I now took the full step of deleting it. There are many much more worthwhile things to write about Groklaw and PJ than this detail from her private life. 14:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

An outside view: the section does not violate WP:BLP

I have restored the blanked section for the following reasons:

• It is properly sourced.
• It is based on Pamela Jones's public self-disclosure.

WP:BLP applies to unverifiable information or to information that might reasonably infringe on a person's expectation of privacy. Clearly no such concerns can exist where the subject has discussed the matter freely and publicly, where the citation is accurate and appropriate, and where the Wikipedia article links directly to that person's own unedited words. Durova^Charge! 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Public disclosure does not automatically imply that you would not object to someone cataloging all such disclosure or selectively cataloging all information about your personal life that could be extracted from among masses of such public statements. In this situation, the person diclosed a minimum of information, which might imply that they would rather make no disclosure but felt required to make some disclosure (might = borderline = delete it). It is also notable that person told their community. It wasn't like making an announcement at a press conference (which is a communication to outside communities).

Similarly, another test on BLP that this fails is "Is it notable[...]? If not, leave it out." A website maintainer taking some time off is not notable, and a person having brief health issues is not notable, and a person taking time off from their work is not notable, and a person taking time off and citing health issues is not notable, therefore it should be left out (at best you could argue that it is borderline, but in BLP cases, borderline means delete).

For example, I have had many discussions over the years on public mailing lists, but if someone started gathering all past statements that hint at my personal life, and/or if someone started following me around each mailing list I'm on and collecting up to date data on my personal life, I would feel that is an invasion of my privacy. PJ is well-known to be adverse to privacy invasion, so this article risks harm and is thus a clear violation of WP:BLP. Gronky 07:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're letting your open-source bias affect you here, Gronky. This is not a mailing list post, this is a post to all the members of Groklaw. It was covered in several articles, reliable sources like The Inquirer and Forbes. I admire what Pamela has done (I am a proud member of Groklaw). It is notable, it is properly sourced, and there's no reason not to mention it in an encyclopedic article. I do understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree with you. SirFozzie 07:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Inquirer and Forbes may (or may not, if there is evidence they did not, that would be relevent to our discussion) have offended her by republishing this personal information. That doesn't justify Wikipedia doing the same. We're aiming at higher standards. You keep mentioning that there are reliable sources but I have to keep replying that that is not relevent, that is not how this section violates BLP. It violates BLP by being non-notable event in the life of a private person and/or risking harming, and as I keep saying, BLP says that in borderline cases the content is to be deleted. Gronky 07:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Except it's nowhere NEAR borderline. The Relevance is clear. Would you like to take this to WP:RfC or WP:3O? SirFozzie 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've raised it on WP:3O, please check that my summary is complete and fair. Gronky 08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)To clarify the matter, I do not believe this treads anywhere near BLP. The undue weight clause of WP:NPOV is a separate issue. It's helpful to treat each policy question individually. I doubt this presents an NPOV problem, but due to my own lack of expertise in the subject I will not venture a definitive opinion. The information is probably fine. Durova^Charge! 22:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought:

• "6. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source."

From Wikipedia:News articles:

• "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact."

I hope this helps. — Athænara ✉ 09:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not what we were looking for. But thank you for looking. The paragraphs in question detail a recent hiatus that the subject of the article took (which, combined with other things going on at the time) was covered in other sources, like The Inquirer and Forbes. Gronky believes that the subject's desire for privacy should be granted and the section removed from the article, while I believe the section, rigorously cited from publically available information (not only articles, but linking directly to HER OWN WORDS on the public site Groklaw mean the information is Notable and should be in the article. SirFozzie 09:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not what you were looking for. It is a matter of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I don't yet see Gronky's response, which is certainly pertinent as well. — Athænara ✉ 09:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, if you look at the discussion and the question, it's two different things entirely. But if Gronkly's happy with it, I can look for something else. (as you can see, we had one outside view already, and it was continued to be argued.) SirFozzie 09:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to back up my initial suggestion that "this section should be removed until the WP:DUST settles". Gronky 11:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right. — Æ. ✉ 13:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that the section at issue is about events over a month old, just how long does it take for the dust to settle? I don't see how this third opinion (actually, fifth opinion by my count) applies. Nothing in the section violates PJ's privacy at all, which I thought was the objection being raised and for which an outside opinion was being asked. --MediaMangler 13:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Look at the Daniel Brandt issue that is going on, If the information is A) Notable (and the fact that it was covered in Forbes, Inquirer, covers that well) and B) VERIFIABLE (again, the articles, PLUS HER OWN WORDS verify it), then it should be in. SirFozzie 20:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of Daniel Brandt, so I can't comment there, but what Wikipedia says about Daniel Brandt is irrelevent to what Wikipedia should say about PJ. Wikipedia has policies, articles follow the policies, not other articles. Gronky 21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it says that BLP doesn't apply just because someone wants privacy. If it's notable and verifiable, then it deserves to be in the article, despite the subject's desires. That is policy, in a nutshell. (Forgot to sign) SirFozzie 22:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone taking some sick leave from their work is not notable. Gronky 22:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone taking sick leave from their work under the circumstances and gets the coverage that this did is. SirFozzie 02:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with SirFozzie. Being a proponent of free software I didn't think I would have an interest in "turning over stones" regarding Ms. Jones' identity or hypothetical dealings with IBM but in my opinion the timing of her sick leave seems "interesting" — some could say a bit too convenient to be ignored. Clearly enough both critical and sympathetic voices have been uttered by the press (see The Register , Linux-Watch ) that one can say there's a legitimate interest in her situation so that it has also become a notable one. Additionally one should consider that issues dealt by Groklaw are political by nature (and not mere neutral interpretations of law) so that one can argue that there is a certain standard of transparency and accountability that should be expected from such a public persona as Pamela Jones. Basically she is an NGO activist/politician for the open-source/free-software community; one should then acknowledge that such a public role is by definition at odds with the the need for her privacy. Ms. Jones can't have the cake and eat it, too, I'm afraid. Wikipedia should also aspire to the higher standard of transparency and not use WP:BLP (or even WP:DUST) as pretext for self-censorship. —jibun_{≈πぱいαあるふぁνにゅーτたうαあるふぁ ρει≈} (keskustele!) 04:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(out-dent)The claims her critics have made concerning PJ's absence and the supposed attempts to serve a subpoena to her are clearly notable. Excluding those claims from the article would bias it heavily in PJ's favor. On the other hand, to include those claims without providing PJ's own explanation for the absence would be be even more heavily biased against her. I don't see how respect for privacy requires us to ignore an explanation which she freely offered, especially when ignoring that explanation would be contrary to her own interests. --MediaMangler 10:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The section is appropriate, and the speculation is well referenced. I've returned the section. Proxy User (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Could we add something to the effect that she was never served with the subpoenaThePilgrim (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Criticism section

The entire Critics section was removed on the grounds that "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." However, some of the information was actually sourced, and much of the rest could be. I do think the article needs some sort of criticism section to be put back. Superm401 - Talk 20:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. I've put it back. Basically, this artical has turned into a Fan Page, ignoring and deleting relevent material in favor of a glowing positive view that does not address alturnate views even when well documented by acceptable Wikipedia sources. Historical revision, one might say. Proxy User (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As of 18-May-2009, most of the criticism section is now uncited. You and I know it's accurate but it's not provably so. Seriously, if it can't be referenced, it should be elided. I'll give it a week, then I'll chop out all the uncited weasel words, and see if any Grokbots want to actually do 2 minutes of Googling to find the sources. Rogerborg (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Image

I added File:Replace this image female.svg to the beginning of the article because I felt a picture would add to the article but did not have one myself. I was reverted without explanation. Would the person who reverted me please explain what they disagree with? --NYKevin @121, i.e. 01:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no picture available of Pamela.. she's an intensely private person. (I' m not the person who reverted). SirFozzie (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think to explain fully.. I don't think she's ever been photographed.. There's not much chance that any picture (free or fair use) will be available to be added, so not really much reason to add the opportunity for a photo :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is Jones I think. That image is CC BY-NC 2.0, taken by Quinn Norton. Norton may be willing to change that to CC-BY or whatever, as Randall Munroe did for this image after being requested to do so. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, it's not her. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi Lock?

The person who is the subject of this article is reporting what is a very heated and drawn out litigation, and both sides may be tempted to swing the story either way. Could we have this partially locked to block vandalism (i.e. force registration?)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.233.77 (talk) 07:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

1) No. There is no heat reported by you or any other source you just reported and so you are lying about that. Please give a source; I challenge.

2) Sign your comments. Four tildes.

Aladdin Sane (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts. I don't think that this is a candidate for semi-protection. However, I think we have to handle this subject delicately and with full awareness of the BLP (Biography of Living People) issues here. I disagree with the original poster that this could "swing the story".. the litigation in question is all but done and dusted, and I think that PJ's role in that can be close to definitively written. We don't want to give too much credibility to the claims that "PJ is an employee of IBM", or what have you.. they were made during the case, but there was no evidence to back that up. We can say there was controversy, but I don't think Darl's quote needs to be in there. (Undue Weight and all that. SirFozzie (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the article again, it seems fairly well balanced. I guess I overreacted a bit. Cypher3c (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the strong wording of my reaction to your reaction. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference currently at #12 CBR Online blacklisted

I have tracked down the dead link currently at #12. I got a spam blacklist error when I tried to save the correction. I requested whitelisting at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Request_a_CBR_Online_URL_whitelisted. The corrected URL is:

• www.cbronline.com/news/sco_blames_groklaw_for_ip_licensing_disappointment

/me goes off to take meds and back on wikibreak. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pamela Jones. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216055920/http://www.linux.org/people/pj_groklaw.html to http://www.linux.org/people/pj_groklaw.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720102142/http://www.grokdoc.net/ to http://grokdoc.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024191134/http://www.grokline.net/ to http://www.grokline.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705163814/http://grokdoc.net/ to http://www.grokdoc.net/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)