Jump to content

Talk:Deaths in July 2015

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 23:31, 15 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "List" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Death}}, {{WikiProject Years}}, {{WikiProject History}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mokhtar Belmokhtar and other disputed deaths.

Do we ever note that a death is "alleged" and/or "disputed"? Or something of the sort. Because Belmokhtar is only maybe dead. Wouldn't be his first time.

This happened a month or so ago, too, but that name escapes me. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez

Why is his name repeatedly being removed? I thought we have a red-link policy of 30 days? His notability is no less "suspect" than other red links on the page. For example, Michael J. Burns, Neil Lawrence, Ben Cook, John Hinds, etc., etc., etc. Why is Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez any different? Please advise. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor (Sunnydoo) states in his/her edit summary: "not notable in life, only notable for death". This is an invalid reason. There are a myriad of people on Wikipedia who were not notable in life, only notable for death. And they are typically murderers. And they typically do get an article (in due time). Examples: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho, Charles Whitman, Mohamed Atta. Shall I continue? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well then why was the murderer from the Emirati, Alaa Bader Abdullah, who was executed on Monday removed repeatedly this week despite having an article- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ibolya_Ryan? Same reasoning. Ask WWGB. I am just making it the same way. Personally I am on the fence for this one. I understand both sides...one side not wanting to make a Martyr out of the guy and the other side saying that it was a major event. However, the policy needs to be delineated somewhere be it in the help section or in the FAQ section.
Also you need to learn how to edit. You removed an additional entry by reverting it and didnt replace it. You have been around long enough to know better than that.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised by that Emirati disappearance, too. She's not one-event, she had a murder, a trial and an execution. More than many redlinks can claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, shooters like Aaron Alexis, Jiverly Wong and Ivan Lopez do not get articles. Being a murderer, mass or individual, guarantees neither notability nor an article. WWGB (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? And why are you talking about "guarantees"? That is the whole idea/point of red links. It has the potential for an article. Maybe an article will be written, maybe not. We give it 30 days. At the very "worst", this guy is "on the fence". There is probably a 50/50 chance of his getting an article. Nonetheless, his chances are certainly greater than some of those mentioned above (Michael J. Burns, Neil Lawrence, Ben Cook, John Hinds, etc.). By a preponderance, this guy will have an article. But it doesn't even matter what his "chances" are. This is the entire point of the 30-day red-link policy. So, what am I missing exactly? How is this guy different than Michael J. Burns, Neil Lawrence, Ben Cook, John Hinds, etc.? Who are those people? No one has ever heard of them. And we all realistically know that those guys have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting notable, famous and infamous mixed up. A person can be notable even though no one has ever heard of them (like all of the guys at Bell Labs and DuPont that invented things that changed everyones life just for instance). A person can be famous and not notable like reality stars. A person can be infamous and not notable such as this case or any other outlaw. How about all of the other mass shootings we have in the US or even World. Do we need to add them in too if say they shoot 7 people in a murder-suicide even though its their own family? Why does it make it any different in this case? Do you really think this guy is notable...or is it the event that is notable?Sunnydoo (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every question that you have asked is completely irrelevant. This guy has the potential for an article. There is no doubting that. I didn't say that he will, definitely, guaranteed have an article. I said that he clearly has the potential for one. And I gave evidence of others who were similarly situated. That is the whole point of the 30-day red-link policy. And, again, what exactly justifies those others (Michael J. Burns, Neil Lawrence, Ben Cook, John Hinds, etc.) of having a red-link? This policy needs to be consistent and uniform. We all know that Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez has a far greater chance of having an article than do Michael J. Burns, Neil Lawrence, Ben Cook, John Hinds, etc. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Michael Burns will have an article in the next couple of days since that was a government position in Alaska and we have several ongoing projects documenting those folks. Neil Lawrence was behind a campaign to get a major Australian government official elected in addition to numerous campaigns for Qantas and a few other things that saw significant sales increases. He was also part of 2 of the largest Ad agencies in Australia, but the Aussies dont document things like they do in the States, so I dont know his chances. Ben Cooks was a baseball writer from the old Southern League that was a pioneer among reporters for his reporting of AA/AAA baseball. I didnt add any of those 3 but I can definitely see a contribution that each one made that was notable. I do agree with you however that it should be consistent. That is my big objection too. Why one murderer has a shot and another one doesnt.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You stated: "Why one murderer has a shot and another one doesn't." To that, I would reply that they all have a shot. At least a shot for a 30-day red-link. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Romero (actress) dead or not??

A new editor added "Cardio Pulmonary Arrest" as a cause and 19 July date of death, all un-sourced, to this Filipino actresses' BLP, here. I can't find any news about it, on a very quick look, so I have reverted. Any input?? I have also queried this at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. 220 of Borg 12:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep a look out- havent seen anything yet.Sunnydoo (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double trouble.

There's a two-part deletion here of my two-part addition here.

Which of these four edit summaries (if any) make sense, given these two sources?

(Note also that pairs and quartets generally suck.) InedibleHulk (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Criminal is an A-list picture, and the guy Rocco voiced in "only three episodes" runs the cartoon-within-a-cartoon that has its own real world article (which has a well-sourced paragraph about Rocco's role). These are significant works, even putting aside views on threes (like how Rocco was only in a third of the Godfather trilogy.) InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I added The George Carlin Show, only because he was in 27 episodes and the other editor's "only in 3 episodes" won't suffice for deleting it. I believe that his 3 should be The Godfather, The Famous Teddy Z and The Simpsons. The Facts of Life was a recurring guest role. Rocco was never part of the regular cast. Also, I don't understand why it should matter if a film hasn't yet been released. The editor has been pulling the same thing with the George Coe, Theodore Bikel and Van Alexander entries. BurienBomber (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Facts of Life also won't be on TV for the foreseeable future, while The Simpsons isn't slowing down. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does the show's schedules have to do with anything? There is no just reason to use the airtimes of shows, especially when they are no longer making new episodes. It's not like Rocco is going to feature in any new episodes of Simpsons, so that is just a bunch of nothing. Rusted AutoParts 00:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General audiences generally sees things that air more often than things that don't. The Simpsons is more globally significant than The Facts of Life. It's a fact of life. Wikipedia writes for general audiences, as do the news outlets we mirror. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A show compared to another show has no baring on the notability it has on a specific individual. Does Goodfellas or Taxi Driver lose it's impact on Scorsese's career because he directed the pilot of the popular Boardwalk Empire? Rusted AutoParts 00:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me at what "having notability on" someone is. I'm just saying we should pick the most notable three works. Every bit of work impacts the career somewhat, and nothing takes away from the other things. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you saying The Simpsons being more popular than Facts of Life (which i don't dispute), means his 3 appearances on The Simpsons are more notable than his 11 on Facts of Life. That's not how it works. The role has to be notable specifically to the person in question. Let me use another example: John Cleese (Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, A Fish Called Wanda). Many people can argue he was also best known for his four appearances on the popular sitcom 3rd Rock from the Sun. Saying tat is saying one of the other is not notable in regards to him, simply because 3rd Rock is more popular than, say A Fish Called Wanda. Rusted AutoParts 01:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hear you now. And yeah, that's what I'm saying. His role on The Simpsons touched more people, and he's noted in the Itchy and Scratchy article as saying he enjoyed the role. Big for him, big for us. As you recall, it originally wasn't that one vs any other, just nothing. If you think The Facts of Life role was important, we can have that one, too. And replace The George Carlin Show, which is seemingly only there to appease you. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add George Carlin. But we should take into account the fact he appeared in 27 episodes on that show. Rusted AutoParts 01:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant. Burien figured you'd like it more because 27. But there's something to be said for repetition, and I've never seen a rerun of that show. I doubt I'm the only one. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

Seriously Burien, this is what you're sounding like. You want some sort of explanation or something?
  • Bikel - featured as a main character in My Fair Lady, not only one of the most famous plays of all time, but also one of the most famous movies. Excuse me for figuring people might recognize him from that.
  • Coe - Nominated for an Oscar 45 years ago for a short film no one's discussed since, nor has had any other significant impact on his career since.
What about my guys' stuff? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, saw below. At least half nevermind. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, why in the world does it matter how long ago the Oscar nomination was? And how the hell do you know that if has not impacted his career?
The fact is that the original credits listed for Rocco, Coe and Bikel were all perfectly fine. In each case, you come along and decide that you alone know better and start making your biased changes. This has been going on here for years. You will edit war with the other editor until they give up, and if they don't you just wait a few weeks/days and go back and make your changes (like you did with Anne Meara). Let's look at Alex Rocco. The original entry had Godfather, Teddy Z and Facts of Life listed. You removed Teddy Z. Then another editor added The Simpsons. You removed that. Three Times. The original credits for Coe were Kramer vs. Kramer, The Dove and the play Company. The editor explained why these were included. First you change in and remove Company for Archer. Then when you saw you got away with that you decided to also remove The Dove, using the flimsy excuse that it was outdated and nobody (meaning you) remembered it. By mu count you have changed the Coe entry 6 times now.
This is not your own personal site where you get to decree what every entertainment credit should be. Perhaps you should stick to you own Wikipedia death list you seem to have created: User:Rusted AutoParts/Deaths in 2015?
I wonder if that page violates any plagiarism rules? BurienBomber (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if I should become more concerned about this unhealthy obsession you have. You have this perception I change things because I want it a certain way. That's a crock of shit and you are being a brat. It seems to me you're doing the exact same thing you claim i'm doing simply because I altered an entry. A vast majority of Coe's obituaries refer to him as an original SNL castmember instead of "Star and director of The Dove". Him being a key cast member of Archer is why I added that. For Rocco, considering Teddy Z lasting one season, I figured the Emmy win was more notable. Put some glasses on, you'll see "Emmy Winner (1990)" at the end of his entry.
Get a life. Seriously. And no, For all you know I could be using that userspace to see the deaths ection in a different way. Allegating legal is just....sad. Rusted AutoParts 00:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I just asked a question. I did not accuse anything. And in regard to your comment "I made need to start seeking legal inquiries", please please do. I still have archived screen shots of when you vandalized my user page three times back in 2009, along with the half-assed excuse from you that it you suffered from obsessive-compulsion disorder (OCD). Your history will show who the real stalker is. And while you are seeking that legal counsel, please be advised that tomorrow you will be reported edit warring regarding Rocco and Cook. BurienBomber (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought of you since we reclashed in 2014. And my half assed claim of having OCD (which I do have) was an excuse made by a much less experienced editor from five years ago. Does reporting me benefit anything other than extend an issue we are discussing at this present moment? You want a mature discussion, let's have one. Reach a compromise and at least discuss at a less confrontational tone (on both sides, not just you). Agreed? Rusted AutoParts 01:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in replying. How about trying this: If an entry already has 3 credits listed and someone feels one or more should be substituted, they take it to this talk page and make their case. Just a sentence or two is necessary. Anyone who disagrees with the change would have a set amount of time (24 or 48 hours?). If no one objects after the time period ends, the change is made. If someone disagrees, then we go with the consensus. Could we do this as a trial? If it becomes to cumbersome or starts taking over the talk page then we can end the trial. BurienBomber (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an idea, but I was thinking, since it's more or less just me and you that seem are a bit more invested in this issue than some, rather than fill up this talk page with posts, we take it to one another's talks and discuss it. I'll also make an effort to illustrate more in my edit summaries as to why i'm swapping out or placing titles in. Rusted AutoParts 09:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't believe it is just the two of us, which is why I am proposing that the issues be solved here. In the last week, there have also been issues with Sunnydoo over Alexander and Coe and with InedibleHulk over Rocco and Cook. At least try it here at first and if it looks like no one else cares then it can be moved later. Also, while more explanation to a change is always better, I feel it is best to check in here first. After all, the first person to add the credit that you are removing did not get a chance to explain why they put it there in the first place. Propose a change and if no objections after a certain time period, then make it. (And if there aren't yet three, then yes go ahead and add right away. When I list a person, I often only add the ones I am sure about and leave the rest of the credits for someone else to add). BurienBomber (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can get behind that. Rusted AutoParts 10:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Expanded Coe news coverage. If you hit CTRL+F, and type in SNL, Archer and The Dove, here are the number of times each are referenced:
Saturday Night Live/SNL (combined results): 34.
Archer: 20.
The Dove:2. Rusted AutoParts 01:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez entry

Re: Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez. I notice that in his entry on this page, he is listed as "suspected" killer. However, on the Wikipedia page for 2015 Chattanooga shootings, there is no use of the qualifier "suspected" (or "alleged"). (At that page, he is affirmatively listed – not only once, but twice – as "the gunman".) Why do we need the qualifier on this page, if we don't on the other? Or vice versa? (If we do need it here, why do we not need it there?) Regardless of there being two different articles, it is all one Wikipedia. And, as such, should be consistent. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd initially changed "suspected murderer" to plain "killer", but compromised with SunnyDoo to get what we got. I don't think we need the qualifier. Only living people get the right to a fair trial, and there's not much doubt about whether they killed the right killer. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The word "suspected" is still there. What was the compromise? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lost the "murderer" bit. Wasn't exactly a great compromise, just the sort that results from not wanting to edit war. Like how "blunt force trauma from horse kick" begat "horse kick" begat "blunt force trauma" begat "blunt force head and neck trauma". If I wasn't such a pacifist, I'd have followed that with "blunt horse head and neck trauma". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "perpetrator of the 2015 Chattanooga shootings". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Cook - Criminal

Yeah, there's no way Criminal was an important part of Douglas Cook's career considering it's not in fucking theatres yet. There's not even a trailer, or a poster, or anything. User:BurienBomber seems to think that this is not the case. It's fucking adorable, considering he keeps trying to "school" me on this particular subject. No way did he think he wa being contributive here. He was just trying to annoy. Rusted AutoParts 23:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the talk page before erupting into a vulgar temper tantrum you would see this is already being discussed in an entry above titled "double trouble". BurienBomber (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can have your sob fest all you want, it doesn't change what qualifies as notable. Criminal may have an all-star cast, but again, it has not even been released. And your own argument contradicts yourself. 3 episodes of one show compared to 27 of another clearly shows hes done more for that one. What's the problem, aside from not liking the fact that I edit Wikipedia? Rusted AutoParts 00:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's not known for his distribution, he's known for screenwriting. Since the script's been written, shot and is notable enough for Wikipedia, he's done his work. And assuming he's blue-linked, he'll be here long after his film comes out. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, we'll wait until the film is released to determine that. A film no one has seen cannot be used to demonstrate one's notability. Rusted AutoParts 00:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it can. If the producers didn't like the script, they wouldn't have spent millions making the movie. Since they did, it was a notable achievement, and his death notice notes it with as much weight as the other two. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It notes it as his upcoming posthumous project, not as a significant part of his career. Would we put Southpaw in for James Horner because he died before it premiered? Rusted AutoParts 00:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Horner had a bigger three. Southpaw looks good, but it doesn't beat out any of those, for popularity. Criminal is definitely better than nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know there's also Holy Matrimony on his resume too, right? And it's been out for 21 years? You're acting as if Criminal was the only other film Cook did aside from The Rock and Double Jeopardy. Rusted AutoParts 00:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard of it. Looks like shit, from the poster. Is this going to come down to this vs that? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This movie has 24% audience approval and all four critics who bothered called it "rotten". No wonder the death notice overlooked it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't championing for it to be included, just pointing out he had another film already out on his resume. Rusted AutoParts 00:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was also Payoff (film), just to be complete. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Criminal is mentioned along with The Rock and Double Jeopardy in his Obits, which is all the more reason it should be there. Matrimony is not. Hopefully all this arguing will at least spur someone to create an article for this guy. BurienBomber (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, he seems to meet basic notability requirements. But presently we don't know what impact Criminal is going to have. It's crystalballing to assume he's best known for it. Rusted AutoParts 01:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No ball needed. Variety also knows those three best. Tv3.ie (whatever that is), ascribes some notability to the script with a comment about feminine strength from the future Wonder Woman. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or no, she's talking about that role. My bad. Still, Ryan Reynolds was "looking like he meant business on a motorcycle." That's...something. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've readded the film. I know this isn't technically settled, but it pretty much is. Three sources giving those as his three, and none for nothing. So it's better than nothing. Rocco's third is still debatable, not touching that one. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It happened at night. He had a tumor in the lungs."

Is this good enough to say a lung tumor killed Vasili Pichul? Definitely loosely implied, but sometimes people with tumors in their lungs die for other reasons. Some tumors aren't even dangerous, just annoying. I wouldn't jump to conclusions, but if everyone else wants to, that's cool with me. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is tough with Russian and Chinese News Agencies finding out info. They dont like giving it out and it may or may not be reliable. But it is what we have. So lets cover this again. Regardless if it was the Primary cause or the Secondary cause, lung tumors (which is probably code for lung cancer) will be on the Death Certificate. So that is a plus since we are providing more information on the death. I would love to be able to say hey it was pneumonia, hey it was emphysema, hey it was lung cancer, but we probably arent going to get there because of the cultural difference and the language translation. All we are trying to do is give more information with an established cause of death. It may be the primary, it may be the secondary CoD, but it is on the Death Certificate and it is providing more info about the death. No one is jumping to a conclusion. But if a 50 something is in the hospital already for lung tumors, he died almost assuredly from either pulmonary or circulatory causes in which case those lung tumors are going to be on the DC. And the thing is we have a credible source saying that this is what happened. Sunnydoo (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the part where he was in hospital for this tumor (or maybe tumors, if the translation's off). All the sources tell me is a director he worked with on a 1989 film said he had it/them. I have no evidence this way, but that quote suggested suicide to me. If this is true, the tumor wouldn't be on the death certificate.
Anyway, I appreciate the explanation, and like I said, it's cool with me if it's generally cool with the rest of you. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And if nobody else pipes in, it's cool with me if it's cool with SunnyDoo. But what might be even cooler is "apparent lung tumor". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My gripe of the evening is no less than 3 editors wiped off CoDs today. I get some being generic etc etc. But in each of the 3 cases, a simple Google search that took all of about 30 seconds in each case provided a news article that had an established CoD. If Editors are going to blank out sections they dont like on the CoDs, at least have the courtesy for those that do the time to research to try and find either a better cause or a better article explaining the death. I understand it is always not going to happen, but one of my biggest complaints here is that we have a bunch of people who just want to edit and very few that want to do any of the research.Sunnydoo (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been getting better at replacing "cardiac arrest" with "heart attack". I tried for Munsif Dad, but all I could find was another Munsif Dad in Hyndburn who days earlier promoted the installation of public defibrilators to prevent sudden cardiac arrests. I thought it was ironic for a second, but nope. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If your clone is alive, are you dead?

Because that's what's up with Tamarillo/Tomarillo. This page has seen a lot of horse discussion over the years, but I don't think this has come up yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Deaths in July 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deaths in July 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 12:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Deaths in July 2015. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 04:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deaths_in_July_2015&oldid=1207877227"