Talk:Rich Constable

This BLP page is being routinely vandelized by user Djflem: Constant negative POV

User:DJflem is obsessed with making edits that are defamatory and non neutral in violation of Wikipedia policy.

Constable is a BLP is of low importance. His only relevance is he a member of Chris Christie's cabinet.

Djflem spends his days negatively editing Christie's articles as well as most of his aides (look at his history).

Regarding Constable he has added paragraph after paragraph of negative POV, negative peacock, negative language.

Djflem adds issues that at most should be two sentences (ie the lengthy discussion of the HGI firing, the inexplicable addition of paragraphs on the Council of Affordable Housing), into several explanatory paaragraphs, all with an eye towards defamation.

He does this daily. He is obsessed with negative POV of Christie, and now aides of low importance like Constable.

Please block DJflem.

Ibot6789 (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)ibot6789Ibot6789 (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of referenced material

User:Jasonspivack has removed material and it references, delinked pages, changed subject headings without rationale or with unexplained claims. Constable' position as Director of CDA and a member of Christie's cabinet are what make him notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. His actions, performance, satements, court cases, investigations and press coverage related to that role warrant inclusion in an article about him Djflem (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Superstorm Sandy

Constable's role as DCA commissioner is described within the Superstorm Sandy section. Superstorm Sandy warrants it's own section and is of true importance as it relates to New Jersey's most recent national disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonspivack (talk • contribs) 11:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally the term Superstorm Sandy isn't used. It's known as Hurricane Sandy. Have created subsection within Commissioner of Department of Community Affairs section.Djflem (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Lost documents

Further, it stated that the documents used to calculate the new guidelines had been lost by the McGreevy Administration in 2004. The Fair Share Housing Center then offered a $1,000 reward for the lost documents. A spokesman for the New Jersey Attorney General's Office, said "there is no missing data" and that the numbers used to calculate the obligations have been public record for a decade. That the electronic files no longer exist 10 years later is neither exceptional nor problematic, as the numbers that COAH relied upon in the proposed Third Round Rules are amply supported in the agency's earlier methodologies," Loriquet said. "COAH and DCA have provided voluminous electronic data to Fair Share and other requesters regarding the methodology, data, and calculations used in the proposed Third Round Rules."

In the newly added material states "the documents used to calculate the new guidelines had been lost by the McGreevy Administration in 2004" How logically can documents lost in 2004 have been used to write guidelines produced in 2013?Djflem (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Constable claim of pending litigation

As provided in the below reference: In April 2014, Constable said the decision was mutual. but would not discuss details citing possible litigation over payments. Delli, Angela (April 7, 2014). "NJ paid fired Sandy contractor $36M". Business Week. Retrieved 2014-07-20. Because the severance is being negotiated, and could wind up in litigation, Constable declined to discuss details of the contract termination. But he did say the decision to end the agreement was mutual and followed months of attempts at corrective action. Here is another source which address the legal conflict:

• O'Neill, Erin (February 24, 2014). "NJ official heading Sandy recovery defends hiring firm, again blames feds for delays". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved 2014-07-27.

Fort lee lane closures aka Bridgegate

2607:fb90:2404:9c56:e0d2:2eef:422e:ec5 writes in his edit summary: The reference to the Fort Lee matter comes out of no where and is not explained. Focus on Zimmer's claims. Delete irrelevant details.) yet then proceeds to write:

On January 18, 2014, Mayor of Hoboken Dawn Zimmer appearing on a weekend MSNBC television program, 10 days after the bridge-gate scandal erupted,

Speaking about stuff "that comes out of nowhere" with no explanation and inserting irrelevant details. It's clear the mention of Bridge-gate has no context in the first senticne of the paragraph (as itdoes when mention the report.) The date is given what is weekend necessary? Djflem (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

To Edtors User:Jasonspivack and other single article IP user(s)

Please do not remove referenced material that neutrally presented and review Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:Undue so that we can proceed to edit this article according to Wikipedia:BLP. Please use this talk page to discuss your changes.Djflem (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

UNDUE

Wikipedia:UNDUE requires giving a balanced view of both sides of an issue. As with HGI and Hoboken Sandy aid, both parties POV must be represented in a neutral and even-handed way that counter balance each other. Wikipedia:PEACOCK language and derisory insinuation must be avoided.Djflem (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Djflem has negative POV of BLP

Djflem only edits this page with negative POV. Every rewrite is focused on negative stories. Djflem's focus is defamation not neutrality, balance or fairness.

Please review his "rewrite for clarity" which was written to bolster Zimmer's unproven and uncharged allegation of extortion.

The section on HGI is misplaced in this BLP. If he feels so strongly, he should write a separate article.

Same for the lengthy COAH discussion which tangentially deals with Constable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1506:76ED:2159:80B4:EA3D:F423 (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that makes Constable notable for inclusion in Wkipedia is the fact that he is head of CDA. That section is about his actions and statements in that role which are presented in a way in which both sides of the story of presented w/o undue stress on one or the other. Anyone is permitted to have the perception that another editor's edit are negative are allowed to their opinion, but that's all it is, a opinion, which is in itself a POV. Making accusation of that editor is uncivil, discouraged, and whining. Telling editors which articles to write is nonsense. The removal of referenced material to slant an article to a particular POV is manipulative and not allowed when they support the facts presented. Highly suggest the above editor reviews his accusations to see they might apply to him/herself. In the meantime they should not remove FACTS supported by references.Djflem (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

What is not neutral about this paragraph?

On January 18, 2014, Mayor of Hoboken Dawn Zimmer went on Up with Steve Kornacki and claimed that Constable and Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno had on separate occasions in May 2013 pressured her to support a development project proposed by the Rockefeller Group in Hoboken's northwest quadrant in exchange for Sandy aid. The following day members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey met with Zimmer and other Hoboken officials and initiated an investigation, which is ongoing. On January 20th, appearing on CNN, Zimmer also claimed that Marc Ferzan, Director of the Governor's Office of Recovery and Rebuilding, had also pressured her to support more development in exchange for Sandy aid Constable, Guadagno and Ferzan refute Zimmer's claims. A DCA spokeswoman characterized Zimmer's claim as "categorically false." Constable said, “Mayor Zimmer’s allegations are patently false and absurd on their face. I welcome a full and thorough law enforcement review of her libelous claims.”A CNN investigative report called Zimmer's "allegations full of contradictions." An investigative report commissioned by the Christie administration and prepared by the law firm Gibson Dunn confirmed that Constable did discuss the project and Sandy aid with Zimmer at the time and place she said. It claimed that Mayor Zimmer’s allegations were, "in material respects, demonstrably false."and 'whether intentional or not, it appears that Mayor Zimmer's subjective perception of events she has described do not reflect objective reality." Zimmer called the report "sadly predictable" and a "one-sided whitewash." The New York Times also called the report a whitewash.

It states the sequence of events & gives balanced examples of reactions to them.Djflem (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not neutral because you fail to point out that the only reason the US Attorneys Office was publicly "investigating" Zimmer's claims, is because she made them on national television. If I accused you of extortion on national television, the US Attorneys Office would investigate.

However, such claims are never made on television. They are the subject of secret grand jury investigations. But it's prominence in this article hypes up this unproven allegation into something it is not.

If Constable is arrested and charged then your highlight makes more sense. Otherwise, it's meant to leave the impression that he must have done something criminal if the US Attorneys Office is investigating.

Last, they asked to speak to Zimmer, not the other way around. Arguably, they could be investigating her, not the 3 Christie aides she accused. Hard to tell since the US Attorneys office has NEVER commented on what it's investigating.

Again, most public servants who are extorted go to law enforcement immediately, not cable news programs 10 months later.

Ibot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibot6789 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Your rationale is full of one-sided assumptions,unproven claims and opinion. How do you know the reason the USAttorney investigating. Have they told you? As you said yourself, Hard to tell since the US Attorneys office has NEVER commented on what it's investigating. The article SIMPLY says they investigating. Your impressions or interpretations are not what is at issue here nor are your opinions about who goes to where.Djflem (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

Djflem is engaged in defamation and disruptive activities. WP: Please block.

Djflem is focused on negatively editing Gov. Chris Christie and those who work for him (like Constable). Hyping up a 7 month old unproven (and unchanged) extortion allegation is a clear clear violation of Wikipedia's libel policy.

Djflem also has paragraphs on subjects that Constable is not responsible for. He is a cabinet member, not Governor.

Please block Djflem he is only engaged in vandalism, not fair reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibot6789 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Why don;t you get an account and read something about Wikipedia policy? You are making serious (if childish), claims, and requests yourself.00:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Vandalism, and Wikipedia:ACCUSE if you wish to keep making unfounded claims. Djflem (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article wizard is a good place to start with making articles, btw Djflem (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I've read the policy. It's pretty clear that when it comes to the BLP you cannot simply find negative newspaper report and highlight them on Wikipedia. This is a person of low importance. Does mention of him in the newspapers deserve to be placed on his page? And with allegation of crimes the policy is clear that there is a presumption of innocence. Last, if you think the HGI issue and the COAH issue is so important start a new article on eacch. Devoting so much time to it on the BLP is not appropriate.

208.54.87.141 (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Constable is a cabinet member of the executive branch of the current NJ government and head of the the agency responsible for the distribution of the billions of dollars of federal funding in Sandy relief and other funds. He was appointed to the position and receives a salary for doing so. HIs work is what him notable and any coverage of him in the media is the basis of the references upon which the citations of the article are based. Negative is your perception. The facts presented, with what Constable says about them (in the many quotes from him that I have provided) are cogent to the article. Or are you claiming that Constable can have the cabinet level position but none of the responsibility that comes with it? That the decision and choices he makes in his role in the government have nothing to do with him?Djflem (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Why does 208.54.87.141, single issue anonymous editor manipulate the article to justify his claims?

While claiming that one editor had made one subject more prominent than the other 208.54.87.141 (whose previous fine work this Fábio_Coentrão edit) shifts sections around, remove citations, and then claim that other editors are doing so. Are these manipulation to support unfounded accusations?Djflem (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

With regard to this, if you're worried:

Further, it stated that the documents used to calculate the new guidelines had been lost by the McGreevy Administration in 2004. The Fair Share Housing Center then offered a $1,000 reward for the lost documents. A spokesman for the New Jersey Attorney General's Office, said "there is no missing data" and that the numbers used to calculate the obligations have been public record for a decade. That the electronic files no longer exist 10 years later is neither exceptional nor problematic, as the numbers that COAH relied upon in the proposed Third Round Rules are amply supported in the agency's earlier methodologies," Loriquet said. "COAH and DCA have provided voluminous electronic data to Fair Share and other requesters regarding the methodology, data, and calculations used in the proposed Third Round Rules."

Please ask the editor who added why they did.Djflem (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Djflem: Please stop doing original research to defame me. Your additions are contentious. Your POV is constantly negative. There are libel laws in the US. Please desist.

Constabler2003 (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Beyond making claims about original research you need to back them up with facts, which you haven't done and will unlikely be able to do considering the amount of reliable sourcing. Otherwise it's just making baseless false accusations which besides being rude is not how consensus is reached Djflem (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Header=

Have added above to help clarify those to don;t seem to get what this talk page is about. Discussing the articleDjflem (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

:Jasonspivack and Ibot6789 Desist with personal attacks of other editors

User:Jasonspivack and Ibot6789 Desist immediately with personal attacks; refrain personal commentary, removing well=referenced neutrally presented material. You are abusing the the editing process by not engaging in a discussion based on the article's subject and references available about that subject devoid of your original research or personal opinion. STOP removing referenced material. It appears that there may a personal connection to Rich Constable and if so, and you are unable to edit objectively then you should recluse yourselves from doing so. Djflem (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Djflem makes daily negative and contentious edits. Please stop.

You appear to have an agenda to defame me.

Constabler2003 (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not the right forum for anyone claiming to be Rich Constable to lodge a complaint about what they consider negative (which is a subjective). Though it isn't generally frowned upon for the subject or those closely related to the subject of articles to become deeply involved in editing, given the conflict of interest, any UNTRUE and UNDOCUMENTED material should be immediately removed. There appears to be a concerted attempt by various editors to remove material that is neither untrue or undocumented, but if there is such this would be the forum to discuss it and back it up with citations.Djflem (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

What is untrue, undocumented, or unbalanced about this paragraph?

Under Constable's direction, the CDA engaged Hammerman & Gainer Inc. to administer the federally funded, $600 million Rehabilitation, Reconstruction, Elevation and Mitigation (RREM) program, which gives grants of up to private homeowners to repair and rebuild homes damaged by Sandy. Constable said that the HGI bid was $127 million less than the only other received. Constable said the biggest factor in deciding award the HGI was price, which was one-third that of Tetra Tech, the other bidder, “It would have been irresponsible for the state to take the higher bidder.” The $68 million contract was originally meant to run from 2013 to 2016, but December 2013 was revised to end in January 2014 in a mutual agreement that was not made public until then. The program had been beset by problems, including lost paperwork and unfounded application rejections, leading to complaints from applicants and lawmakers. The CDA cited the company's "performance problems" after several months of "correction action" by the agency. HGI's bills totaled $51 million. It was paid $36 million. and $21 million in arbitration. The New Orleans-based company said "the state changed rules for the program frequently, causing confusion among storm victims, and didn't complete programs rules until five months after applications began being received and two months after the application deadline." The agency subsequently entered into an agreement with ICF International. At a New Jersey Assembly Budget Committee hearing in April 2014 Constable said "the good news is that we’re at a place now where the concerns that were wildly publicized don’t exist anymore, We’re no longer losing applications. We’re, as quickly as we can given the federal requirements, moving folks from intake to into grant signing.”

Talk page is not a forum for personal complaints. Material must be devoid of original research and backed up by primary and or secondary sources

Anonympus editors (those without an Wikipedia User;page) editors continue to make complaints above material in the article but without presenting encyclopaedia rationale. The material in the article is based on media coverage and government publications statements made by Constable and/or about Constable, with conflicting points of view/opinions given equal weight. There is nothing in the article that is not well-documented or libellous.Djflem (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

2607:FB90:2E0E:AF07:8C8C:82FC:B944:924F removal of Zimmer response material with no edit summary

The above has removed the following:

In response, Zimmer said “Randy Mastro could have written his report the day he was hired and saved the taxpayers the million dollars in fees he billed in generating this one-sided whitewash of serious misconduct by the Christie Administration.”Hutchins, Ryan (March 27, 2014). "Christie scandal: Hoboken mayor's claims 'demonstrably false,' internal report says". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved 2014-09-15.

Since the article covers quotes from both Constable, a CDA spokesperson, and the Mastro report, why would a quote from Zimmer in response be in appropriate? Please view Wikipedia:UNDUE please specially states that both sides of a opinion must be given due proportionate weight. Removal or reversion without engaging in an discussion is considered contentious and edit-warring.Djflem (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

2607:FB90:2E0E:AF07:8C8C:82FC:B944:924F please read Wikipedia:Consensus; this describes the process. Using different URLS to avoid the discussion is Wikipedia:Gaming the system. You are edit-warring.Djflem (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Single edit IP User:Constabler2003 removal of material regarding Zimmer response to Mastro report

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Constabler2003&action=edit&redlink=1, a single edit IP, has removed the following without an explanation. While there is mention of a the report and a CNN report, it is appropriate as to how Zimmer and the press responded. This is a discussion relating to:

• Zimmer and The New York Times called it a "whitewash"Editorial (March 27, 2014). "A Whitewash for Gov. Christie". The New York Times. Retrieved 2014-07-20.

2607:FB90:319:7693:6134:2E5B:193:88C7' White washing of article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:319:7693:6134:2E5B:193:88C7 remove the following w/o explanation, which is in itself a whitewash:

Zimmer and the New York Times called Gibson Dunn's report a "whitewash"

References

2607:FB90:2400:3A92:B4FB:E098:F0E9:AE7E] request for discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:2400:3A92:B4FB:E098:F0E9:AE7E has requested discussion as to the material regarding the DA of NJ investigation, but has not posted on this page to any above requests or started a new discussion. Djflem (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"I don’t think he is an ideologue, so it makes it a lot easier.”

"I don’t think he is an ideologue, so it makes it a lot easier.” is direct quote from Constable. Why the removal?

References

2607:fb90:2e06:a29a:0:47:69cc:f901 contentious editing

2607:fb90:2e06:a29a:0:47:69cc:f901 has add words to a quote by Constable that Constable never used :fiscally and has decided to SCREAM the word never in a another of his/her creative unreferenced edits. Why?Djflem (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

why not note that law enforcement has yet to find Zimmer's claims credible?

Djflem improperly edits this BLP article to bolster unfounded claims by Mayor Zimmer against Christie aides. This is vandalism and defamation. The Record is clear. Zimmer's allegations have never been substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellwell123 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it is Wikipedia:No original research. The matter is under investigation, period. Plain and simple. A reliable source to back up others the statement trying to be inserted needed per Wikipedia policy and then, and only then can it can be added. Otherwise it's promoting a POV. Djflem (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Better phrasing about the credibility of Zimmer's claims?

After reviewing documents and interviewing Zimmer and others in the Hoboken administration in January 2014 the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey determined there was sufficient reason to pursue an investigation.

• Magyar, Mark J. (February 5, 2014). "ANALYSIS: U.S. ATTORNEY'S TRAIL SHOWS HOBOKEN CHARGES MORE SERIOUS". NJ Spotlight. Retrieved 2014-10-29.
• Gonzalez, Sarah (January 23, 2014). "FBI Investigates Allegations Against Christie Aides, Report Says". WNYC. Retrieved 2014-10-29.
• Benen, Steve (January 23, 2014). "Christie admin scandal draws FBI scrutiny". MSNBC. Retrieved 2014-10-29.

per Dec 9 by Tellwell: reverted to eliminate perception that Zimmer's allegation has ever been substantiated per edit summary. The article states that the allegations are under investigation, that all. Doesn't draw any conclusions, just states facts which are referenced, that all. Djflem (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ibot6789

User:Ibot6789's contributions stretch any semblance Wikipedia:Good Faith.and at this point can be described as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. S/he has not come to the talk page with any of the reasons or rationale for them, has left insufficiently clear/completely inadequate edit summaries, and is consistently removing ref'd material, changing the lead, and adding Wikipedia:Original Research. Why?Djflem (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Tellwell123

User:Tellwell123 contributions stretch any semblance Wikipedia:Good Faith.and at this point can be described as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. S/he has not come to the talk page with any of the reasons or rationale for them, has left insufficiently clear/completely inadequate edit summaries, and is consistently removing ref'd material, changing the lead, and adding Wikipedia:Original Research. Why?Djflem (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Original Reserach

User:Ibot6789 and User:Tellwell123 continue to add Wikipedia:Original Research to the article despite numerous requests on this talk page to provide a reference for the claim they are making as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability Djflem (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest/close to subject

It appears that two anonymous users (User:Ibot6789 and User:Tellwell123), which may one user who is close to the subject is attempting to manipulate the article and Wikipedia:Gaming the system.Djflem (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Constant Negative POV, vandalism, defamation and edit warring!

USER: DJFLEM SPENDS HIS DAYS DOING ORIGINAL RESEARCH ON THIS BLP. When Djflem doesn't get his edits he complains and wines. He added a section on COAH that mentions Constable once (in the 1st sentence ) The rest of the section is original research by DJFLEM. HE ADDS QUOTES SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WERE UTTERED BY CONSTABLE REGARDLESS OF THEIR IMPORTANCE TO THE ARTICLE. HE IS ONLY INTERESTED IN VANDALISM AND EDIT WARRING, NOT CONSENSUS BUILDING AND BETTERING THE ARTICLE. PLEASE PAGE PROTECT FROM DJFLEM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellwell123 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Djflem (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned up a few issues

I cleaned up a few obvious problems on the article: misspellings, resume-like descriptions of his career achievements, words to avoid, and a copyright violation. In the future, please do not copy-paste entire paragraphs from sources directly into Wikipedia; you must use your own words to summarize the text. If you are too busy to do so, then add it as an external link, and someone else will do it. Even long quotations can run into copyright issues when they are unreasonably verbose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Gibson Dunn report and Quinnipiac survey

The Gibson Dunn report is more than mentioned, but quioted in this BLP about Richard Constable. That 56% of New Jersey voters in an April 2014 survey by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute found report in which Constable participated, and purports to exonerate him, is of interest and relevant to the article. If the report is about Bridgegate, as one editor says in his/her edits surveys, then why is it in this article? Because it also is about the Zimmer allegations and Constable's recollections of meetings with her, that why.Djflem (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"New Jersey Bridgegate Probes: Whitewash V. Witch Hunt, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Gov. Christie's Approval Is Down, Bully-Meter Is Up" (Press release). Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. April 9, 2014. Retrieved 2014-12-06.

QUOTE: "Of the 96 percent of New Jersey voters who know something about Bridgegate, September's traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge, 56 percent say the investigation commissioned by the governor and clearing Christie of involvement was a "whitewash," while 36 percent say it was a "legitimate investigation."

QUOTE: "Of the 96 percent of New Jersey voters who know something about Bridgegate, September's traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge, 56 percent say the investigation commissioned by the governor and clearing Christie of involvement was a "whitewash," while 36 percent say it was a "legitimate investigation."

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rich Constable. 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/20130724093849/http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/aboutlwd/aboutdc/aboutdc.html to http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/aboutlwd/aboutdc/aboutdc.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)