Talk:Jim Hawkins (radio presenter)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Celebrity/Notability Threshold

At what point does a person fall beneath the notability threshold, or if one has been above it, thus proven by two appeals for deletion being overturned, does one never fall beneath it? My point being that observing the news about BBC Local Radio, the prospects of Beacon taking over at Radio Shropshire, if this happens, and Hawkins clear attempts with his endeavours outside radio eg. the constant pushing on his twitter account of his portrait photography services, the recent adoption of his LinkedIn page instead of his previous BBC Shropshire biog page as his website link and diversification into motivational speaker and meeting chairperson, Hawkin is clearly making his exit strategy so he can jump before being pushed, or in case of the push coming sooner than expected. Is there a point when all the fighting about whether to keep or delete, whether facts are correct or incorrect become insignificant because the subject himself leaves the public stage? Simmason (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Spectacularly ignorant, even for a Wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.105.252 (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I'm noticing a pattern. If I dare to be critical of Wales's Folly (as I did three days ago, just for chuckles) someone who can't remember their real name posts something stupid on here. Well, that's hugely satisfying. Chill out, people. Have some beer. Or kittens. Not real ones, obviously, because that would be too much to cope with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.105.252 (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

To answer Simmason's question, once notable ==> always notable. In JH's case, notability was established by becoming a presenter on BBC Radio 4 and winning the Sony Silver Award in 2002. JH does not get to control whether or not there is an article on him, the wider Wikipedia community decides this. Mjroots (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your sensible answer to a sensible question Mjroots. There is no room on Wikipedia for ignorant and anonymous slanging as above from isp 86.164.105.252. Especially as my head isnt smaller than my neck despite listening to many quality radio stations including TalkSport. My query was a valid one especially in the light of tweets by @jimallthetime like todays: ref:

I enjoy my jobs ... all of them! :-) Could I work for you? http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jim-hawkins/19/335/34a

• ref. for tweet: http://twitter.com/#!/jimallthetime/status/93306354697125888Simmason (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, bless. 'The wider Wikipedia community'. A bunch of people who write an encyclopaedia that you can't rely on. Yeah, that's the sort of people you want to trust with decision-making, isn't it? (And yes, Simmason, your comment was - OK, if 'ignorant' is too harsh a word, then 'dazzlingly misinformed to a quite remarkable degree'.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.76.51 (talk • contribs)

Unclear why my comment was 'dazzingling misinformed to a quite remarkable degree' as it wasn't a comment but a question based on the evidence as presented. The Wikipedia community is known for its working together to provide the best possible resource. It is this working together that will result in an encyclopaedia that can be relied upon. Perhaps if people joined in and helped instead of bandying about insults we could achieve this aim quicker. Simmason (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

But the fundamental idea of Wales's Folly means it can *never* be relied upon. It can never be regarded as reliable. Why would anyone want to join in with something so fundamentally witless? Maybe you can explain ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.105.211 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm at a loss that you can attempt to argue this. How can anything on the internet be fully relied upon? How can 'facts' in history books be relied upon? History books and therefore printed encyclopedia are well known for bias and selection of 'facts'. The beauty of Wikipedia is that you have a dedicated legion of editors and researchers who want to put together the best possible sourced information on subjects available. People spending day in day out sourcing information and if it's not sourced then it doesn't stay. Everything on your Wikipedia page has been sourced. Now undoubtably you may have provided interviewers and employers with inaccurate information in the first place but everything here has been checked and people are trying to make this the best resource possible. At least we're not the types to warrant petty wars on trying to make the internet and knowledge a better place like your frequently deleted tirades and bullying against people who enjoy and respect Wikipedia for what it is eg.

@jimallthetime: "There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia ... that couldn't be fixed by lacing all single-serving frozen pizzas with Ritalin"

@jimallthetime to @BarkingBirdy @MarDixon @Wood5y "It's your responsibility to make sure what you publish is correct. I'm telling you it isn't. So delete it! Oh we're deep into 'that's not how Wikipedia works' territory! Where'd the other guy go, btw"

@jimallthetime to @BarkingBirdy @MarDixon @Wood5y "Like I said, Wikipedians are fundamentalists. Can't understand any other way of doing things"

@jimallthetime to @BarkingBirdy @MarDixon @Wood5y @MikeEllis "And these facts are none of your damn business"

I have pages and pages of screen caps of these tirades, including picking of disability activists who dare to question BBC policy. I'm assuming the subject was made to remove them by his employer as they look very bad indeed for the BBC but whether this is the case, everything carries on existing on the internet, even when you delete weeks and weeks of tweets from Twitter.Simmason (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the fundamental weakness of Wikipedia is that it cannot be relied upon. You *know* it's true, so stop trying to defend the indefensible. And if you're not the type to pursue petty wars, can you have a word with Mabbutt about his obsession with my birthday? Also, 'people spending day in day out sourcing information' ... why?

I think you'll find that's not bullying, that's fair comment. Nor did I 'pick of' (whatever that means) anyone, I called someone on something they claimed that wasn't true. Incidentally, I've not deleted any of the stuff you quote - although I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you've saved the tweets; if it's because you enjoy my writing style, then I accept the compliment (lots of people did find the pizzas/Ritalin gag quite amusing) - let alone 'weeks and weeks of tweets'.

And at least you know who I am. Apparently, 'Simmason' doesn't exist. There's openness and transparency for you.

I think what this shows is that - ahem - 'Wikipedians' are fundamentalists who can't understand any other way of doing things.

Oh, one last thing: as the quotes you've posted above are genuinely from me, how come they've not appeared in my Wikipedia entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.129.186 (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am genuinely amused that you dare to say I don't exist but don't have the decency to sign your discussion items on this page with your name. Who am I then typing this right now? A unicorn? An elf? Some other mythical creature? Of course I exist. I'm not sure you actually understand the concept of existence. I am also not a fundamentalist but a libertarian, not that that is any of your business but I'm not so uptight that it's a secret neither. The quotes I posted above are important information for future decisions that Wikipedia make on your page but they're not necessary information for anyone researching you and wanting to know facts about your background so are not on your Wikipedia entry.Simmason (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

For the third time: my guess would be 'an elf'. Who cares what decisions Wikipedia makes? And: you probably want to change 'neither' to 'either' in that par., to avoid looking like a simpleton (for too much longer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.121.7 (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

New website

Hawkins has now go his own website http://www.jimhawkins.co.uk which probably should be linked to rather than his Twitter page.

Whether the website provides any further facts that can be used for his entry or to verify facts we already have is less clear. The homepage has a list of 'facts' people don't know about him e.g.:

Whether all these people are meant to mean something to the average Joe on the street I'm unclear. I've tried seeing if any of these claims can be backed up bearing in the debacle with him telling his audience his birthdate but then denying it here but I cannot find any hard evidence.

The same goes for information on the testimonial pages about him. As he hasnt provided any names of the alleged happy customers I'm not clear if it provides any justifiable facts we can add.Simmason (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I've added links in the relevant places. You're right, there's nothing of any use to us in the stuff you cite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

If you are the copyright holder, go to Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation; otherwise, go to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems and report the instance in question. Unfortunately if you refuse to sign in properly 86.135.121.7 we have no idea if you are the copyright holder if there is an issue. Simmason (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Why the hell should I sign in to Wales's Folly?! Just because you people have nothing else to do with your life, doesn't mean I haven't. Oh, wait, I know - all together now: "that's not how Wikipedia works" ......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.63.211 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's make this simple

This is unnecessary and going nowhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have two questions, the first one relating to the discussion above and the second just of my own curiosity, since I don't believe it has been answered yet. The first needs only a yes or no, the second a more lengthy explanation. Jim, please answer these: 1. Is Shropshire the county you live in? 2. Why do you not want your birth date to be known here, when it is publically available anyways? Please answer. SilverserenC 20:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC) By policy, he has a right not to have his birth date in his article. And you now demand that he explain that choice to you? --JN466 20:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Where do you see me demanding? I am asking him to. He can decide not to reply if he wants, that's up to him, but it's hard to consider his request when there isn't an explanation for it. SilverserenC 20:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC) [personal attack removed] Focus on how to edit this article properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Which would mean including biographical information with reliable sources? I thought we've been doing that the entire time. SilverserenC 20:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC) This is getting into territory that could set off legal action. Assuming that 109.150.136.82 is Jim Hawkins (and it would help if this was stated, otherwise some people will doubt it), he is under no obligation to answer questions of this kind.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC) And I never said he was. But it would clear up a lot of the confusion. Though it seems, from what i'm reading elsewhere, he has yet to answer any questions in regards to this or to explain why any of this information is causing him stress. SilverserenC 20:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC) I think you'll find sunshine that he is under no obligation to answer impertinent questions from teenager. Who do you think you are anyway Torquemada, Perry Mason, Columbo, or teh Pink Panther? John lilburne (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Pretty sure teenager means in your teens, but whatever. I don't think it's impertinent at all to ask why he wants something removed. His refusal to answer this basic question is rather baffling. SilverserenC 20:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC) The questions have been asked, and Mr. Hawkins is free to answer them or ignore them as he wishes. Since they've already been posed, I don't see much point in arguing about the propriety of asking them in the first place since both sides seem to be using this as an excuse to beat their respective drums. Perhaps everyone would be better served by shelving this discussion unless an answer is provided. Gamaliel (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC) I realize that tempers are getting heated here, but that's all the more reason to keep a civil tongue, to prevent this from getting even more hysterical than it already is. No more of those sorts of comments, please. Gamaliel (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Fine -- but not a single comment in this section has anything to do with how the article will be edited -- so can I ask that it be hatted and editors put on notice than similar off-topic discussions will be summarily dealt with in the same way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Personally, I think it is right and proper that tempers are getting heated. This page is an extremely malodorous environment. --JN466 21:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add they following:

Since the December 2011 issue, on whose front cover he was pictured,<ref name="SLife2011-12a">{{cite journal|date=2011-12|journal=Shropshire Life|publisher=Archant|page=Cover|issn=1469-3941|url=http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?referral=other&pnum=&refresh=dW1590rN0cH8&EID=b92b3bc8-4f7f-42ed-919a-cfa0beb881ce&skip=}}</ref> he has written a monthly column for ''Shropshire Life'' magazine.<ref name="SLife2011-12b">{{cite journal|last=Hawkins|first=Jim|date=2011-12|title=On The Record|journal=Shropshire Life|publisher=Archant|page=23|issn=1469-3941|url=http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?referral=other&pnum=&refresh=dW1590rN0cH8&EID=b92b3bc8-4f7f-42ed-919a-cfa0beb881ce&skip=}}</ref>

(Nowiki'd for easy of copy-&-pasting). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought you were asked to back off from editing thgis article, Why are you still editing this article is beyond me completely. Youreallycan 22:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That matter is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard‎#Proposed_topic_ban_of_Pigsonthewing. Please comment on this matter over there. Gamaliel (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Why isn't this being done? It seems like a very straightforward addition that has nothing to do with the above section issues. Silverseren^C 23:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

County of residence

My addition of the name of the county in which Hawkins resides has just been reverted by another editor as "stalkerish". This despite it being cited, to an article written by Hawkins himself, in a magazine exclusively about that county, in which he writes a regular column. It should be restored. I can see no part of BLP which says that a subject's self-publicised county of residence should not be include in an article about them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What I can see is why you need to be banned from this article once and for all; this continual obsession with adding this man's date of birth or current residence or whatever detail about his life you dig up next week is bringing this project into serious disrepute. Just please, back off and find something non-Hawkins to edit. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You're the editor who reverted me. Please either explain why the content you removed is not suitable for the article, or restore it; and in either case leave off the inappropriate ad hominem remarks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I see it as a matter of invasion of privacy, and that where a radio personality currently live is of no biographical significance whatsoever. As I once said in another BLP-related discussion, "decide if the information would be of benefit to a reader of an encyclopedia rather than a slurper of TMZ-style gossip". Tarc (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, he writes about living there in an article written by himself, in a magazine exclusively about that county, in which he writes a regular column. The article is online and the magazine is available in newsagents there and elsewhere. His radio show likewise is based on his close association with the county in question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It would only be an invasion of privacy if the subject hadn't made the information publicly available himself, and practically made a career out of living in Shropshire. If there's any banning from this article required (and I don't think there is) then it should be Tarc who's banned. Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What the subject chooses to talk about does not mean that it is suitable for inclusion here. I'll ask again, of what value is residency information to this article? I cannot even rise to the "no, you're banned!" bait; I'm immune to your bluster, given my own propensity for same. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As you have now descended to ad hominem attacks I'll leave you to figure that out for yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I consider the answer to be "no relevance whatsoever", then we can consider this matter resolved. Thank you for your input. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This matter remains unresolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Side discussion

Can I point out that the whole damn thing is an invasion of privacy?~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.136.82 (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

An invasion of privacy is, by definition, the release of private information. This information, however, is not private, but is stated by the subject in the very show he hosts. Silverseren^C 19:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, what is the matter with you people? I've just sent this email to whoever 'Wifione' is -

Who are these so-called 'editors'? Why should the people who've been stalking, bullying and harassing me - and have been doing so again today! - have any say in what happens to the article?

Hooray for policies. Does common human decency come into this anywhere? Or am I going to get the same response I've had for five years, the borderline-fundamentalist 'that's not how Wikipedia works'?

My capacity to work has been affected by the psychological strain this is putting on me. You people are making me ill, and compromising my ability to work. Tell me how you feel about that.

And: would you have reached the same conclusion about the article had you had to put your real name to it? What possible 'sensitive issues' can Wikipedia have?

j — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.136.82 (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"My capacity to work has been affected by the psychological strain this is putting on me. You people are making me ill, and compromising my ability to work. Tell me how you feel about that." Couldn't care less? In what sense is it "psychological strain" to include information that you yourself have made public on many occasions?

"And: would you have reached the same conclusion about the article had you had to put your real name to it?" Absolutely. What's your real name BTW? Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

'Couldn't care less'? How foolish of me to expect anything else from you. Don't worry, sonny, when you grow up you might understand it. And, indeed, find a more useful way of spending your time. Hope springs eternal ...

Are you saying that the county publically stated in your radio show, Shropshire, is not the county you live in? Silverseren^C 20:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be the only plausible explanation for this outburst. Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

To someone with your powers of empathy and understanding, I'm sure that's true.

That, sadly, didn't answer my question. Do you live in Shropshire like your radio show says? Silverseren^C 20:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Give it a break now, this is making Wikipedia look amateurish and stupid. Please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

How so? It's public information on the county where he lives and hosts his radio show. It's not like we're putting his address. This is public information that is standard for biographical articles. Silverseren^C 20:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Erm ... that's because it *is* amateurish and stupid! You don't need my help with that.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.136.82 (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well if it is any consolation, there are those here that agree with you. This article survived an attempt to delete because of very amateurish, stupid arguments. The "anyone can edit" encyclopedia has a flaw that allows it to be overrun by a mob at times. Tarc (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

... and mobbed by idiots most of the time. Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I see 3RR violations here. Want to quit this unkempt behaviour before I report it? --Pete (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, report away. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if 109.150.136.82 said "I am Jim Hawkins", the next thing would be some users asking "How do we know it is really you?" For this reason I would advise Jim Hawkins (if he is reading this) to WP:DENY and deal with the Foundation directly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 00:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

jh at work here ... I spent two hours exchanging emails with Jimmy Wales last Friday afternoon. Does that count as 'dealing with the Foundation'? Who the hell are 'the Foundation'?! You can see exactly how far it got me  :-/

Here's another idea. Why doesn't Jimbo Wales call into Hawkins' radio show and ask if it's really him making these postings? And what in Hawkins' article is inaccurate? And in what way could an article that simply summarises the information on his employer's web sites and a few local newspapers and magazines be considered stressful? Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I could attempt to explain it to you, but at your obviously tender age you lack the common humanity of experience of the world to be able to understand it. I wouldn't like to overtax your capabilities.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.121 (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jim (yes, I'm quite convinced that the IP editing here is Jim Hawkins...) Yes, talking to Jimbo certainly counts as 'dealing with the Foundation'. The fact that you're not getting anywhere is because you want to deal with the perceived inaccuracies in the article by having the whole thing deleted. Sufficient people here think you're sufficiently notable, so that isn't going to happen. However both Jimbo and I have offered to address any inaccuracies if you'll tell us what they are and my offer still stands. You can contact me via my talk page or our FaceBook conversation if you prefer. I'm aware that you've declined this offer before; I make it here for completeness so it can be seen by the rest of the WP community but if ever you want to take it up, please do.

On the discussion here: I apologise on behalf of some of my fellow WP editors who have been on occasions downright rude to you/about you. I don't think insulting people is ever a good way to move forward towards an agreement. I would say the same to you about a couple of your posts above: if you want attention and editing activity to move away from this article, stop agitating about it and on it. If WP is as silly, infantile and pointless as you assert, why bother with it! The Streisand effect is coming into play here, and whether it is you, or Pigsonthewing, or others stirring the pot here the end result is only more heat and less light. On the other hand, if you and others positively want to carry this on there's little the rest of us can do to stop you. I'd just advise against it and would ask everyone to leave this article and talk page alone, as the short and factual article it is about a minor local radio celebrity with some decent award nominations to his name. Western civilisation will not end if it stays, goes, grows or shrinks. However your reputation Jim, and that of WP, continues to suffer because of the sometimes spiteful and always unnecessary bickering to which both sides contribute in equal measure. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Content of article

Section header changed without attribution here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

My view at the recent deletion discussion was that the article should be deleted. Since it was kept, I'm going to try and summarise here my views on some of the problems with this article, and propose a draft to address some of these issues.

• (1) Structure - given the available sources (not many) the structure of the article is wrong. There is not really enough material to justify splitting the article into sections. When sources don't comprehensively cover someone's career, but only allows bits and pieces to be put together, it is best not to have a section called 'career'. Likewise for 'personal life' and 'awards'. Similarly, there is not enough to support a proper infobox. The article would be better structured as a stub/start-length article of 2-3 paragraphs, and left in that state until more extensive sources become available.
• (2) Trivia and stretching - some of the items currently in this article are trivial. The bit about him appearing on the front cover of Shropshire Life magazine is trivia (and for the record, the picture appears as part of the strapline across the bottom of the cover, it is not the full front cover photograph, which is something else). No serious biography of anyone would include what magazines they appeared on the front cover of (unless it was TIME magazine or something like that). Other aspects of the article that are just gathering trivia together include the examples of notable people interviewed, and the bit about running a coconut shy.
• (3) Quality of sourcing - the 'Livid Film Productions' and www.kps.org.uk sources do not, in my view, meet the standards of reliable sourcing required for biographies of living people. Also, the 'Episodes coming up' source is a dynamic link and can't be used to verify what it was originally citing. I replaced the dynamic listing with more up-to-date links from the BBC. The 'Livid Film Productions' and www.kps.org.uk material that I was unable to use alternative (more reliable sources) for, I removed entirely.
• (4) Use of primary sources - the year of birth is cited twice, in both cases to an online blog or diary entry written by the subject of the article. This citation of a blog/diary entry should not be an acceptable standard of sourcing for any Wikipedia article. If primary sources have to be used, the official website should be used rather than ephemeral and outdated diary entries. If the official website doesn't give the birth year (or any other personal information), then there is no reason to highlight mentions of it elsewhere, or indeed go looking for this information elsewhere.
• (5) Paraphrasing concerns - some of the text too closely paraphrases or copies the sources, and needs rewriting to avoid this (which I've now done below).

Taking all the above into consideration, I've edited a new draft version for consideration, which is posted below. Carcharoth (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite

Jim Hawkins is a local radio presenter, personality, and event host, known since 2003 for his shows at BBC Radio Shropshire.

Hawkins was born in Essex and brought up there and in Warwickshire, England. His broadcasting career began on a student radio station at Warwick University. Hawkins has worked for several commercial, independent, and BBC local radio stations across the United Kingdom, including roles as a producer and manager. These include BBC Radio 4, BBC GLR and the Capital Radio Group. He has also worked as Senior Broadcast Journalist at BBC Radio Northampton. In 2002, at Century FM, Hawkins and his co-presenter Gary Philipson received the Silver Award in the 'Interactive' category at the Sony Radio Academy Awards, for their drive-time programme "The Baldy Brothers".

Since 2003, Hawkins has hosted a morning weekday interactive phone-in show on BBC Radio Shropshire called "Jim Hawkins in the Morning". On Saturday nights he hosts the music show "Saturday Night with Jim Hawkins", also broadcast by BBC Hereford and Worcester, and BBC Radio Stoke. In 2006, Hawkins was one of five shortlisted in the 'Speech broadcaster of the year' category at the Sony Radio Academy Awards for his output at BBC Radio Shropshire. His use of social media site Twitter in his weekday morning programmes was described in a 2009 article in The Shropshire Star.

In 2010, Hawkins was among those mentioned in coverage of a locally produced film called Tramlines, where Hawkins played himself. In 2011, in addition to his radio work, he began writing for the monthly Shropshire Life magazine, with his first column appearing in the December 2011 issue. Other work outside his radio shows includes portrait photography, work as a voiceover artist, and hosting local events such as flower shows, classical concerts, the switch-on of the Christmas lights at Ironbridge, and public meetings.

==References==

==External links==

• Jim Hawkins Ltd (official website and blog) and Hawkins on X
• Jim Hawkins in the Morning and Saturday Night with Jim Hawkins (BBC Radio Shropshire Programmes)
• Jim Hawkins's diary, between 2007 and 2009 (BBC Shropshire)

{{Persondata <!-- Metadata: see [[Wikipedia:Persondata]]. --> | NAME =Hawkins, Jim | ALTERNATIVE NAMES = | SHORT DESCRIPTION = local radio presenter | DATE OF BIRTH = <!-- please do not add specific date or month due to request by subject --> | PLACE OF BIRTH = Essex, UK | DATE OF DEATH = | PLACE OF DEATH = }} {{DEFAULTSORT:Hawkins, Jim}} [[Category:Living people]] [[Category:British radio presenters]] [[Category:People from Warwickshire]] [[Category:People from Essex]] [[Category:Sony Radio Academy Award winners]]

Changes

1. Removed infobox (oversimplistic presentation; not needed for what is a short article)
2. Removed birth year (was only cited to blog and diary entries; not given on official website)
3. Removed Mercia Sound sentence, as unable to verify the kps.org.uk website information in reliable sources
4. Removed the News Stand sentence and date, as similarly unable to verify in reliable sources
5. Added more details of other radio stations and roles using primary source (Jim Hawkins Ltd - subject's official website)
6. Removed grab-bag listing of other careers as lacking necessary detail and being of undue weight
7. Removed extraneous details (timing of morning show, mention of Facebook, front cover of magazine)
8. Removed "highly commended at the BT sponsored Regional News and Current Affairs Awards" - unable to find a reliable source for these. These awards appear to now be called the EDF Regional Media Awards, but the earlier history (when sponsored by BT) does not appear to be easily available.
9. Tidied external links (merging official website and Twitter link on one line and mentioning that his website includes a blog section; updating with current BBC links to his two radio shows; giving dates for the 'diary' link to make clear it is historical and no longer maintained; removing H&W link used as a source).
10. Removed the categories: "BBC people" (actually, that one should be added back in), the birth year category, and the BBC Radio 4 presenters (should the categories only be the current roles, or all roles?). Probably more discussion of the categories is needed.
11. Added up front that he is also a 'personality' and 'event host'.
12. For the Sony Awards, added mention of co-presenter Gary Philipson for the 2002 award, and made clearer (for the 2006 short-listing) that the award is a category.
13. Made clearer that the morning show is an interactive talk/chat show, while the Saturday night one is a music show.
14. Add sentence and reference for the Tramlines film (though it is not clear whether this was ever released).
15. Rejig the Twitter and Shropshire Life magazine sentences.
16. Add sentences on his portrait photography and voiceover and event hosting work.
17. Remove section headers and merge into a continuous (short) narrative to avoid stretching effects.
18. Filled in Persondata fields where possible and added comments to remind editors not to add date of birth due to subject request.

Possibly not everyone will agree with all those changes, but I hope that the proposed draft above would be a good starting point to make a fresh start with this article and move on from the acrimonious arguments surrounding the deletion discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of suggested rewrite

Adding a section here for discussion of the above draft. I'll start out by summarising the changes between the current version and the draft I've proposed, such as listing sources removed and sources added, and the re-jigging of the prose. Carcharoth (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There is wide consensus, after extensive debate, that the birth year is correct and adequately sourced. It's also well publicised by the subject, including, this week, on his public Facebook profile. There is no need to remove the infobox, nor other sourced information. This whole proposal smacks of creeping deletion by the back door. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A rare event, I agree with Andy on this. Now is not the best time to propose major changes to the article, and removing a well sourced year of birth looks like second guessing the wishes of the subject of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think you could possibly read the two versions side-by-side and assess them on their merits? I disagree that sourcing to a blog entry and a diary entry is "well sourced", but there are more changes than just the birth year. Singling that change out indicates to me that that some people are not capable of trying to edit the article as a whole, and are focused on minutiae. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins is not Dorian Gray, unless he has a portrait in the attic that he has not told us about. It is standard practice for biographies to give some idea of how old a person is.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

All material from the biography cited as "BBC Hereford & Worcester feature. BBC. 2006-09-12" has been excised. Why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've listed the changes below above. Can you please not misrepresent them by claiming that 'all' material from a particular source has been excised. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it has to be included. Trivia, for example, is routinely excised even if verifiable. Also, if including something unbalances the article (undue weight) it is within editorial discretion to remove it. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Which information from that source has not been removed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That the BBC Hereford & Worcester feature has also been removed from the EL section is not noted in the Changes section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you. I've now noted that above. The confusion may be because I retained that source, but retitled it. See: "Jim Hawkins". Weekend Presenters. I usually take the titles for sources from the actual text, not the URL or browser title. Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The removed "BT Regional News and Current Affairs awards" factoid is cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I failed to find a reliable source for that. Do you have one? Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the one in the current article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No cogent justification for removing the Mercia Sound/KPS info is given Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The onus is on you to say what makes kps.org.uk and 'Livid Film Productions' reliable sources. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You're removing them, after a number of editors have deemed them acceptable; the onus is on you to say why. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The year Hawkins joined the BBC has been removed; as has his work for (national) BBC Radio 4. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, I didn't do this hurriedly in a slapdash fashion. I opened all the sources, assessed them in terms of reliability and other factors (tone, independence from subject, year of publication), went looking for additional sources, and carefully selected only the sources that held up to scrutiny, and then redrafted the article on the basis of those sources. Where information has been removed, it is because I was unable to verify it with a reliable source. Editing articles, especially BLPs, is as much about deciding what not to include as it is about what to include. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be indiscriminate collections of everything you can find about the topic, regardless of how reliable the sources may or may not be. I'm not prepared to include information about Hawkins' early history from websites of uncertain reliability that may be wrong, especially when the subject's own website fails to mention this early history (Hawkins' website fails to say what year he joined the BBC, fails to mention the name of the programme at BBC Radio 4, and fails to mention Mercia Sound). Carcharoth (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it has the appearance of a slapdash rewrite, failing to take into account prior discussions and the fact that other editors - of vastly differing opinions on related matters - have also reviewed the sources and found them adequate. Our articles, BLPs or not, are not simply rewrites of the subject's promotional websites. nonetheless, you may wish to check the subject;'s own, public (sign-in required) LinkedIn profile, where much of the information you have removed is confirmed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What a pleasure it is to see an article that is not choppy and stilted. Without checking every reference, it looks good, including naming the missing "Baldy Brother". Deleting minor references is consistent with minor notability. --Pete (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

New face chiming in (I've promised elsewhere to watchlist this article against chaos and craziness)...I quite like the proposed rewrite as well as the style of the references. This would be a respectful, cogent article. Mr. Hawkins really would be presented as more notable than ever, actually. Fylbecatulous talk 14:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to address all - or any - of the issues I raise, above? Would you care to explain how the current article is not respectful? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll not be baited; not on this talk page. It's time for the barking to stop and for all puppies to go to sleep. Fylbecatulous talk 15:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, rewriting the article is like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. JH (for it is he) does not want the article, respectful or otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That is true - however - any improvement is still beneficial and I support Carcharoth's rewrite as a clear improvement - more professional in appearance and reading. Youreallycan 15:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to address all - or any - of the issues I raise, above? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that as a refusal to address the issues I raise above, then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• I am in favour of Carcharoth's rewrite. It's a vast improvement. --JN466 17:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• The structure is wrong; the whole article is a biography, so the "Biography" heading is redundant. Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed. If I'd retained headers, I'd have dropped/renamed that one. The current article is not the rewrite (which is visible further up the page), because the current article is full-protected until the end of the DRV because some editors (I'd best not name them now) were edit-warring. That is why the article can't be edited at the moment, and changes have to be proposed here. Funny that. Though the cynic in me suggests that even if the article had not been protected, major changes would have been reverted. About headers, I'm not totally opposed to them, but once you start to run out of things to write about, it is better to avoid stubby sections that give the misleading impression they need expanding, when they don't. Carcharoth (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• 1) Infoboxes are supposed to be conglomerations of important data so the reader doesn't have to search through the article for basic information. I see no reason to remove it.

2) His birth year is listed here by Jim on the BBC website.

3) He's also listed as having worked there on the official Mercia Sound website. This is further stated here.

4) Can't verify News Stand either, so fine.

5) Fine.

6) I would think other careers would be important in an article about a person, especially if the time was taken for them to be listed on BBC.

7) Fine.

8) Can't find stuff from BT either.

9) Fine.

10) I think all those categories are necessary.

11) Fine.

12) Did he not win second place?

13) Fine.

14) Here's BBC news coverage of the film. Still appears to be in post production though, but they did just finish filming in late 2011.

15) Fine.

16) Fine.

17) Fine.

18) Fine.

I think that's everything. Silverseren^C 18:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Responding by number:

(1) Not totally opposed to an infobox, but they really don't work well on short articles, and it is perfectly acceptable for an article to not have one.

(2) If the birth year has to go in, I can't very well oppose it, but I do disagree with the ferreting around to find bits of information to make articles 'complete'. If a piece of information is not widely published, sometimes there is a reason to go find it, at other times there isn't. I used to do the same thing as some are doing here - seeing something missing and wanting to search around and fill in that missing piece of the jigsaw. But for BLPs there really is no desperate need to do that, and good reasons not to (let the information come to you rather than the other way round). If someone is truly notable, the birth year will surface naturally in time as reliable sources start requesting the information and publishing it, and there should be no real need to hunt for it. My rule of thumb now is: if such information is not volunteered in the obvious places (i.e. not offhand mentions), then there is no need to go hunting for such information.

(3) That's not an official site. It is another fan site. The information is undoubtedly true, but a bit of patience will yield a better source eventually.

(6) My concern here is the tone of the source. Admittedly none of the sources here are really encyclopedic, but that one is even less so. The point is that if someone, one day, wrote and published a proper biography, all these sources would then be binned in favour of that source. That is what I mean when I say biographical sources accumulate in stages and levels, and this should be reflected in the articles that emerge from those sources.

(10) Categories can be sorted when the article can be edited again.

(12) Yes, silver award is second place - should that be made explicit? (14) That is the same source as I used.

Finally, it's not clear yet what version should be used when protection expires. I don't want to discuss this endlessly for the next 5 days or so. I really hope someone else has time to help take things forward. I've done about as much as I can here, though I'll try and keep tabs on this. Also, I do hope that once things have been sorted, the article is left in peace for a long time. This is precisely the sort of article where constant updating will stir things up again. Carcharoth (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As we are discussing a rewrite: It appears Mr. Hawkins was also nominated for the 2006, Sony Academy Speech-Broadcaster of the Year Award. [1] This is very useful detail in a broadcaster's biography, as are also, mention of his "big" interviews ("gets," as they say, elsewhere in the business): from Prime Minister Gordon Brown, to Gene Simmons of Kiss. Also, his prior employment experiences are apparently helpful in giving context to his "view of the world," which he is said to provide on his morning program, as would the fact that he is a published photographer and an ardent music and LP collector (the later also directly relevant to the subject of an evening program, he has done). Irrelevant trivia this is not; it answers the questions, which are the purpose of any biography: who is this man, what has he done? Just present it all as straight (verified) fact, in a readable format. The rationale for losing the infobox is very weak, as is losing his year of birth/age. The later is almost inexplicable. What locality he lives in is implicit, so perhaps we can go without that, but nationality is generally useful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The shortlisting/nomination for 2006 Sony Academy Awards 'Speech Broadcaster of the Year' is already in the current article and hence is also in the proposed rewrite. It is frustrating when people make basic errors like this that shows they haven't read the article and draft and sources closely. I sort of agree on the 'big names' thing, but where do you draw the line and who do you include? Different sources name different people. It's not strictly encyclopedic treatment, but more a grab-list of names to catch people's attention. If we could link to archived versions of the actual interviews, that would be more encyclopedic. Some of his other interests could also be included, but again, where do you draw the line. Do you try and include everything, or only some of it, and how do you make an informed choice? The year of birth will almost certainly get included in any draft, but on principle I wanted the initial draft to not include it and people to actually provide reasons for including it.

Now to get back to the other points, the sources are invariably of the form 'presenter profile'. That begs the question, is the Wikipedia article just going to be a regurgitation of the facts contained in such 'presenter profiles', or will we aim to make it something else. i.e. Aim to make it a succinct, dispassionate, clipped, dry presentation and summary of facts, or will it become a bouncy 'meet our presenters' aggregation of disparate sources? If you try and include everything, it will start to resemble the sources being indiscriminately sucked dry of information. Where is the balance struck? Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not say it wasn't in the current article or the rewrite. I mentioned it as demonstration of a fact that gives context to other facts. He is apparently accomplished at what he has done. As for which of his activities to mention, we can choose whichever, informed by what is mentioned most and most informative (this guy has interviewed the PM "and" the reality star guy with the long tongue, who sold many records, wearing a ton of face paint (yes, that Simmons stuff is irrelevant detail but not the interview info)). The tone is readable information, which answers the questions. No, we need no exclamation points or overly breezy stuff but well written and comprehensive (reasonably and reliably sourced - not some unavailable "perfect" source).Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand the point about how infoboxes "don't work well on short articles", but people seem to strongly prefer them. I see very little real benefit to excluding an infobox, and there's already resistance to excluding it, so why not just include one from jump and completely avoid that as an issue?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Or the issue could be discussed instead of dismissed with "I see very little real benefit to excluding an infobox". You could start with enumerating which bits of the infobox you would fill in and what benefit it would bring. My view is that having an infobox encourages unnecessary expansion of the article, sometimes by the addition of unnecessary section headers to make the infobox 'fit' alongside the article. This in turn leads to stretching and padding, and people putting in extra bits of information to justify sections and make them look less stubby. This sort of effort is, in my view, better spent elsewhere. This is the sort of short article that should be written in an afternoon, and then everyone moves on to other stuff. I've been working on articles and drafts on early- and mid-20th century British surgeons, and the difference is palpable. Lots of sources and possibilities on those articles. Here, less so. Editors should have a feel for when to stop on an article and move on. I reached that point long ago. My submission is above. If it gets accepted, fine. If not, that's also fine. But it does say something about the variation in how articles get written. Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Your reasons for not wanting an infobox are hypothetical FUD and supported by no evidence. Common consensus is clearly against such reasoning, across most of Wikipedia. Using an infobox makes metadata about the subject downloadable from the browser, or to partner sites which use it, such as Google Yahoo and DBpedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible (or should be) to include metadata in an article without tying it to the use of an infobox. Metadata in the form of the persondata template is accessible without that template being displayed in the article. Ditto for several other forms of metadata. So the argument 'need metadata => need infobox' is spurious. The arguments against infoboxes are well-documented elsewhere, and this is getting off-topic, so let's take this somewhere else (maybe Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes?). Carcharoth (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"It is perfectly possible (or should be) to include metadata in an article without tying it to the use of an infobox" - feel free, then, to build tools to do so, get community consensus for them to be deployed, persuade our devs and external partners to make use of them, then come back and let us know when you've done so. Persondata is unique to Wikipedia, unlike the metadata emitted by our infoboxes, and so is not understood by non-Wikipedia tools. It also offers only a limited subset of the metadata available from infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

...we are discussing it! I have to admit that I'm a bit concerned with the "take it or leave it" attitude. If that's the way things are going to be with this, then my position is "leave it". I tend to prefer the offered draft, but it's not perfect.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about a subject generally agreed to be of marginal notability. Nothing has changed since the article was commenced as a stub some years back and to be perfectly frank, Jim Hawkins has received far more attention than any similar subject warrants. Why are editors wrangling over the tiniest of details and the moo test of points here? Wouldn't this effort be better expended on some of the thousands of articles that are stubs and deserve attention. Honestly, this article is longer than that of many heads of state! --Pete (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's easy to answer: because Hawkins himself has made this article a "cause celebre". Sorry, I understand where you're coming from on this whole thing, but... this is the kind of thing that can happen when people politicize things.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's like saying World War Two was caused by those pesky Jews. Jim Hawkins had no problems with the original article, which merely accumulated a bunch of easily-found facts. I know - I wrote it. It's only when the article - and its talk page - began being used to attack him personally that he felt moved to complain. BLP has been possibly the project's biggest problem so far and we've yet to get it right. Your response merely redirects valid criticism. Heads of state, let alone provincial radio presenters - do not dictate Wikipedia policy. The huge discussion here and elsewhere is because there is a fundamental problem in our approach to real people. --Pete (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. And FWIW, I still support Carcharoth's rewrite, including dropping the infobox. (I can live with a birth year being included.) JN466 18:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Godwin. 18:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"We're talking about a subject generally agreed to be of marginal notability" - no, were talking about a subject who meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, but Jim Hawkins is a member of both sets. He is not, for example, a head of state, or a best-selling author or a Formula One champion. He's well, someone much like all of us here, I suppose, except people in the real world listen to him. --Pete (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Which just proves the point that he's chosen a life as a public figure. Anyway, Wikipedia is very much a part of "the real world" at this point. That is, after all, why yourself and Hawkins are interested in this article at all, isn't it? Anyway, Carcharoth's version is fine, with or without the infobox. The current version is fine too. It doesn't much matter anyway, as the article will look quite different 6 months or a year from now, regardless. Aside from Pete and Andy (and probably a couple other people who aren't participating in these discussions), most of the participants here are unlikely to pay any attention to this article over any length of time.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Whether or not you believe the source to be reliable enought to use, it is vital that the info re JH working for BBC Radio 4 and his silver Sony Award remains in the article. These are the two things that push him firmly over the notability threshold. I'm the editor who did the last major rewrite of this article. The sources seem to have satisfied Jimbo Wales, judging by his comments at the DRV. Mjroots (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actions taken to comply with WP:DOB

In line with OTRS request 2009090910048758 and the policy described at Privacy of personal information and using primary sources, after archiving I have removed the history of this talk page. I have removed from view discussions including or speculating about Jim Hawkins' full birth date from the talk page archives. Please do not replace or reproduce this material on this page or elsewhere, this will be treated as a failure to comply with the policy of Biographies of living persons. Any references to Jim Hawkins' birth date on the English Wikipedia must be limited to the year only.

If anyone feels these actions were in error, or that further actions are required to comply with policy, please raise for discussion on Administrators' noticeboard or email in confidence to the Volunteer Response Team rather than this talk page. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the history after discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive233#Actions_taken_on_the_article. While the associated AFD is running there is more benefit in having the history available to make a proper determination of the associated issues with this page for compliance with WP:DOB. Once AFD is closed, an independent administrator should consider removing this page's history for the same reasons above. --Fæ (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). 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/20090717013113/http://www.shropshirestar.com/2009/07/11/radio-star-bringing-county-together/ to http://www.shropshirestar.com/2009/07/11/radio-star-bringing-county-together/

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) 14:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)