Talk:Greasemonkey

Active browsing

What's "Active Browsing"? I'm heavily involved with the Greasemonkey community and I've never heard of it.

The term, at least in this meaning, dates from 2001 - http://platypus.mozdev.org/ -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Begging and pandering are also not business models. Relying on ad impressions is a defective business model. If one has desirable content explicitly charge for viewing -- whatever the market will support. Kubatonmax, a Protest Warrior 01:40, 2006 Jan 30 (PST)

Forrester

What use is the Forrester link? It doesn't contain any more information. Markus Schmaus 02:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It a source for the preceeding paragraph. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Grease Monkey International, Inc

I was just wondering why there was no article to this company.
Just thought it might help Wikipedia to include an article on that company.
Does anyone know why it isn't on here? Thanks!

-- MaraNeo127^talk 17:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't meet WP:NOTE criteria. DFH 12:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethical issues?

Which if any of the points in section 3 are ethical issues? (and why?) DFH 14:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first one--is it ethical to disrupt revenue due to ads? Ads keep many things running.

Ads don't have my unlimited permission to be displayed on my computer. It would only be unethical for me to disrupt ad revenue generated by what would otherwise be displayed on someone else's computer. Please sign your edits in future. DFH 12:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I really fail to see why any of the items in the "issues" section should be there at all. The first example of an issue is roughly equivalent to changing the channel when a television commercial comes on, which is hardly unethical. Advertisers have no right to the attention of the viewer, and the program does not change the content at the source. If the real issue is that it can game AdSense, then we should put that. As for the second example, that any public website like del.icio.us would be upset over increased traffic would fly in the face of the fact they spend so much time trying to spread word about their service and increase viewers. On the third example, if any web programmer cannot figure out how to turn off greasemonkey in order to test a web page, he should find a new job. That said, if the real issue is the greasemonkey creates bugs when viewing web pages, then we should say that.Bantab 15:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Ethical Issues needs to be either removed or cited. Wikipedia is not for people to write essays on why they think stuff sucks. I vote to remove it. STRONG REMOVE even. 121.221.217.149 (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Technical, operational, and ethical issues arising from user scripting

This is basically just a "Criticism" section, where people lump laundry lists of criticisms that are not related to each other in any way. Can we integrate the list more properly into the article itself? — Omegatron 02:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I Agree:

Possible disruption to revenue of some Websites. Some Firefox users already block Web advertisements with Adblock Plus, but Greasemonkey may be used to change ads from one company to those of their competitor, to artificially inflate Web advertising scores, or to fool the statistics programs run by paid browsing companies.

I do not see how this is feasible. Greasemonkey is a user-installed add-on to a free, third party web browser. I do not understand how a company could install scripts on people's machines to switch specific ads around. I am anaware of any box systems being shipped with Firefox installed with the Greasemonkey addon included. Hedfones (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The proliferation of scripts acting on many pages, and the difficulty of distinguishing whether problems in a page are caused by actual Web-programming bugs or by local Greasemonkey scripts, may make troubleshooting defects more difficult.

If you are referring to the user troubleshooting problems then all they have to do is simply turn off Greasemonkey. If you are referring to the developer then it should say so. Hedfones (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Script errors resulting from lack of coordination between Greasemonkey developers and the original Website developers.

I agree there will probably be conflicts but I do not know how the developers of Greasemonkey and various website developers would work together. Hedfones (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Greasemonkey only works on HTML-based pages, and does not work on Java, Flash, Flex, and Silverlight content within Web pages. An exception is where you attribute an embedded flash with the swliveconnect=true attribute, enabling you to modify variables in the Flash file.

This is a technical limitation, not a criticism. Hedfones (talk)

Rich Internet Applications are more difficult for a Greasemonkey script developer to control than static Web pages. This is because the more logic that a page performs, the more complexities there are to consider for the Greasemonkey script writer to develop a script that will not interfere with the original application's function, and because of the high likelihood of further content being loaded (via XMLHttpRequest) after the main page load has completed.

This is also a technical limitation, not a criticism. Hedfones (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The original site developers can release a new version of the site that causes the Greasemonkey script designed for that site to stop working. Therefore, a Greasemonkey script written for a specific site without developer coordination cannot be considered a long-term solution.

I would like to add that I've heard of some websites altering their code so that scripts become disfunctional. Hedfones (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no official way for user scripts to update themselves; some developers added such functionality to their userscripts but most of them remain static, and eventually break.

I think this point needs to be included in the article as it is a real problem in a few cases but I do not know how to incorporate it. I suppose it is also a technical limitation. Hedfones (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest make a "Technical Limitations" category and an "Ethics/Moral-Issues/Complaints/Whatever" category since tampering with people's webpages isn't right. (or doesn't sit right with me anyways) Hedfones (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethical issues arising from user scripting have no business under a particular scripting engine and not another. If it is not already on Wiki, a new section on such ethical issues should be created and perhaps a link could be included from the greasemonkey page. JG Estiot (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, ethical issues have no place here. — ^FatalError 05:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, I'm really tempted to remove the entire section because it is entirely unsourced and full of original research. — ^FatalError 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Since no one seems to have any objections, I've removed the section. You can debate it here, but please don't revert my edit without discussing first. Thanks. — ^FatalError 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jfader greasemonkey bookburro.png

Image:Jfader greasemonkey bookburro.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Book burro a Greasemonkey script?

The image on this site depicts Bookburro, referring to it as a Greasemonkey script. I don't think that's correct. Bookburro is an extension independent of Greasemonkey. I have it installed and working, and I don't have Greasemonkey installed. The Bookburro site, [1] makes no mention of Greasemonkey. TJRC (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

http://bookburro.org/about.html

What is the connection with Greasemonkey?
Book Burro was created as a script for Greasemonkey, another extension, but has since grown to be an extension of its own

Arantius (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just curious, how did you find that link? I don't see anything pointing to it from the main page. TJRC (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

More neutral description ??

That is diffucult to underestand. Whom shall relocating of context to a more neutral placement help? Is this page on Greasemonkey describing Greasemonkey or not? If you like to reorder contents, prepare the new location first and prove with quality of contents of that new location that this new page is a qualified location for the contents from Greasemonkey, thus allowing better e.g. for comparison with similar concepts. Where are these locations, eH? 91.64.77.78 (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Greasemonkey vs. Monobook.js

The popular WP:POPUPS script does something conceptually similar to the putatively unethical Greasemonkey script "that retrieves data for every link on the page through XMLHttpRequests." Of course, that script is just for Wikipedia via Monobook.js. I don't feel confident to compare and contrast all the differences between these approaches technically, and so I would hesitate to compare directly between the ethical impact of running POPUPS against a nonprofit donation-supported server vs. running Greasemonkey against a range of commercial sites. Still, if you want to go there, this should be a comparison worth making on the way, simply to relate the content to something better known among Wikipedia users. Wnt (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Auto direct virus ...~___^ ???

greasemonkey download is web browser dependent

When I searched google for this add-on, it returns https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/748

However, when I opened the two different browser, it gives me the following

The browser that I use was firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748

The browser that I use was Flock https://addons.mozilla.org/zh-CN/firefox/addon/748

Where can I find the doc of this add-on

Both pages give me the link of http://www.greasespot.net/

for technical support and the link seems dead--58.38.44.177 (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

When was Greasemonkey first appearing in internet?

Moved from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2009 June 18 § Greasemonkey

• When was Greasemonkey first appearing in internet? I know version0.2.5 was released on 20050328[2], but that is not the first version. --Shyangs (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but I can't seem to find any info on earlier versions. It's possible they were never publicly released 8I.24.07.715 (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an external link(CNET News) in the Greasemonkey article. The publish time of the news is earlier than 20050328, so I think the earlier versions have been publicly released. --Shyangs (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Long List of Similar Software was removed

There was a useful list of alternatives to Greasemonkey growing on this page, including clones for other browsers. This block was removed in edit http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Greasemonkey&diff=prev&oldid=301777460

The original text was preserved offsite: http://wiki.greasespot.net/index.php?title=Cross-browser_userscripting

The new place on Wikipedia for such information is here: List of augmented browsing software

82.45.8.208 (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Greasekit (in relation to Safari)

re. missing Greasekit (in relation to Safari) section on Greasemonkey page: someone knowledgeable about this (I'm not, unfortunately) needs to re-add info on Safari in relation to Greasekit. Probably best under a new History section on Greasemonkey page. Perhaps a rewrite/cleanup may be better done at same time, as page rather messy and unfathomable for the casual not-as-informed users reading this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimthing (talk • contribs) 05:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we mention Greasemetal for Chrome? (Windows-only)

Apart from the built-in support, for Windows there's also Greasemetal that offers limited support. It doesn't seem to be actively developed though. --Avbentem (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No since Greasmetal is not Greasemonkey. Also Chrome offers native sopport for user scripts as of version 4. therefore i removed chrome from the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.35.229 (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• There's also a Chrome extension called TamperMonkey that can run Greasemonkey scripts. Jarble (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Chrome will soon have built-in support

See http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/11/google-chrome-converts-user-scripts.html

--Avbentem (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As indicated in this blog, the author of Greasemonkey is apparently making the UserScript support for Chrome, but has said that if your script doesn't work, "you will need to make it work for chrome as I do not plan to re-write it as exact as firefox anytime soon." Or a very similar thing was said. Philip from HRWiki, who wrote the Homestar All-In-One script will not be doing this, nor will a lot of people I'm sure. 24.240.67.71 (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Help, Please

What Greasemonkey scripts can be used on Wikipedia? Where can I find them? Allen (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I also would like to know how to install them. Allen (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Tools/Greasemonkey_user_scripts, and links at the bottom of that page to userscripts.org. Dcxf (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I already looked at the page and website. However, I don't know how to install them. Allen (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

http://userscripts.org/about/installing Dcxf (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now, how do I run the scripts? Allen (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Info about each script is usually on the script's page. If you need more info it's best to ask in the userscripts.org forums ("Discussions") or contact the script author. Dcxf (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Split

I think that this page should be split, giving Userscript its own page (instead of having it redirect to this page). "Userscript" is/can/should be the generic term, instead of "Greasemonkey Script". Such script functionality is now broader than Greasemonkey, http://userscripts.org/ is the largest repository of scripts, and the term is even used on this site on List of augmented browsing software. I'm tagging this article with Split to see if there is a consensus. Gpk-urmc (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling to think of what the dedicated Userscript article could say. "A userscript is a piece of Javascript that alters a webpage being viewed. Everything else depends on the implementation." Look at WP:US. These "userscripts" have nothing to do with browser extensions, do not end with "user.js", do not have "include / exclude" information etc. Connor Behan (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with splitting. Userscripts have relatively little to do specifically with Greasemonkey at this point; Greasemonkey was just the first browser add-on to make them possible and introduce the standards, which are now implemented across all the other addons for other browsers (implementations are largely the same across all of these). As for Wikipedia's "user scripts", those are a separate entity that happened to take on the same name. "Userscripts" as a term for the technology described on this page is quite verifiable. Dab notices can take care of any confusion between this and WP:US. equazcion → 21:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I support this proposition. User scripts are supported on various other platforms now. Chromium and Opera support user scripts natively, and there are various user script platform add-ons for older versions of Internet Explorer (IE6–IE8). As Equazcion wrote, a disambiguating hatnote can be added to Wikipedia:User scripts, which are distinct from Greasemonkey-like user scripts. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with splitting. While Greasemonkey was the original userscript manager and it's API has become a kind of de facto standard for userscript support, userscripts don't all rely on the Greasemonkey API, and there are many other extensions to enable their use. It's time to be able to talk about the technology separately from the extension. JRI (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with splitting. Greasemonkey today is simply one implementation of a more general technology. JEG (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

COI edit request

I couldn't find a template specifically for requesting edits to pages where one might have a COI. This page could use the following:

• Userscripts.org was the go-to place for finding userscripts. It's largely fallen into disrepair and is no longer accessible via the default port. It can still be accessed currently using userscripts.org:8080. A short blurb about this might be appropriate for the History section. Here's a ref for it, and others can be found easily:
  • http://www.ghacks.net/2014/05/09/userscripts-org-good-alternatives/

• Three splinter sites have since cropped up attempting to fill the gap. I run one of these. I suggest posting the following link in the external links section, which is the Greasemonkey Wiki's list of alternate script sites. I would do this myself but the page lists my site and I don't want this to be seen as a self-serving edit.
  • http://wiki.greasespot.net/User_Script_Hosting

• The current refs to userscripts.org should be changed to the :8080 version.

Thanks to whoever wants to deal with this :) equazcion → 01:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I just added the wiki listing. As for the 8080 port, userscripts.org has gone down and back up several times now. I'm not crazy about editing the links yet because I think that edit will just have to be reverted soon. Connor Behan (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I agree switching URLs back and forth between whatever happens to currently be working is probably not healthy. equazcion → 21:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm closing this COI edit request, because the § Userscripts.org and § External links sections currently contain all the content that was requested. The former mentions the old 8080 option and uses the ghacks.net ref, the latter contains the greasespot.net link (added by User:Connor Behan in May 2014; see above). As access via port 8080 has (also) been down for months, I have removed the external links to userscripts.org. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Chrome inbuilt userscript support is no longer functional

As of Tuesday, May 27, 2014, Google is blocking extensions for chrome that are not hosted on the chrome web store. http://chrome.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/protecting-chrome-users-from-malicious.html

Chrome's internal userscript support treats userscripts as extensions. Consequently, userscripts cannot be used natively with chrome because they aren't hosted on the chrome web store. Limited scripting support is available with the Tampermonkey extension but compatibility is an issue with many scripts.

Cfuse (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Userscripts can still be installed in Chrome by downloading and dragging to the extension page. [3] Dcxf (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

While that was true until recently, they seem to have removed that functionality.[4] 50.46.243.135 (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

So Chrome binaries are permanently crippled on Windows now? Further proof that if you want good software, you have to build it yourself. Connor Behan (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

In fairness of userscript.org's defunct admin

Let it be said that Jesse Andrews made a call for new voluntary admin of userscript.org already in 2010, citing work overload [HackerNews Aug 2010] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.220.0.141 (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge Scriptish

This stub on a fork of Greasemonkey can just be a section here. Someone Prod'ed it, but it looked encyclopedically relevant to me, while probably failing WP:GNG as a stand-alone article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I prod'd it because of lack of GNG. I have no issue with it being mentioned here, but not sure how relevant it is as GM has moved on by far, while Scriptish is unmaintained. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm in favour or merging the Scriptish article into the Greasemonkey article for the reasons mentioned by Jerod Lycett. --ChristopheS (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Does Sleipnir allow userscripts to run on Internet Explorer?

Does Sleipnir allow userscripts to run on Internet Explorer? The articles says that it does. But Sleipnir doesn't seem an extension to IE. It seems to be an (otherwise) entirely separate browser, that uses the same layout engine as IE. And the source says nothing about it enabling userscrips on IE itself (the source says nothing about IE at all).

I've removed the mention of Sleipnir from the article, but only because of WP:NOW. If it turns out that Sleipnir does allows userscripts to run on IE, feel free to re-add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Tampermonkey removed from the "Equivalents for other browsers" section

Why was Tampermonkey removed from the "Equivalents for other browsers" section? I know the article is about Greasemonkey, but the point of that section is to describe Greasemonkey-equivalents for other browsers. Why remove Tampermonkey, but leave Kango and Adguard?

Considering that Tampermonkey works on almost all desktop browsers (except IE), and that it's probably the most popular userscript extension there is, I think it's worth listing. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It's been ten days, and there's been no response here, so I'm resorting Tampermonkey to the section. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

An IP editor removed removed Tampermonkey again. The IP address is different, but I presume this is the same editor who removed Tampermonkey the first time?

Anyway: It wasn't just Tampermonkey that was removed this time, Adguard and iMacros were removed too. I guess that kind of addresses my point about removing Tampermonkey, but not removing the others. But the whole point of the section is to list Greasemonkey-equivalents for other browsers. So why remove them at all? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed those snippets because:

1. They are irrelevant. They do not add to a reader's understanding of the subject, but draw attention away from it. Is the article about Greasemonkey or several FF addons? Is it about browsers?
2. They are advertisements. In fact that whole section serves as ad-space in a subtle way.

Adding summaries of other products does not make this article any more encyclopedic than it already is. Please see WP:TPA, or read AdblockPlus, StumbleUpon and NoScript for examples. Pengolin (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

By my understanding: This article is about both Greasemonkey specifically, and userscripts in general. A few sections above, it was proposed that the article be split into two different articles. Consensus was to split the article, and I agree: Greasemonkey and userscripts really should be two separate articles. But nobody's actuality split the article yet. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

So, I think we pretty much agree on point #1. That section doesn't really belong in this article, it should be part of a new userscript article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Adguard redirection?

Adguard is an Adblocker. Yes, maybe it can execute Greasemonkey scripts, but this is not the purpose of Adguard. Should this redirection not better go to this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_blocking#External_programs --Lastwebpage (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The redirect is to the Equivalents for other browsers section. When the redirect was created, the section listed Adguard. Another editor removed Adguard, along with a number of other usercript programs. I disagreed with removing Adguard and the other programs, and started the discussion above this one. But that discussion seems to have come to a standstill. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

But it's been over a month since Pengolin (the other editor) posted in that discussion, and he only made the one post. At this point, I think I can revert the removal of Adguard and the other programs. I'll do that, and put a link to Ad_blocking#External_programs in the Adguard listing.

And anyway, Pengolin 's right. That stuff about other usercript programs doesn't belong in the Greasemonkey article, we really ought to split a userscript article off from this one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, it does not make sense to link AdGuard to this page especially since most users will not immediately understand the connection. Venator 02:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZfJames (talk • contribs)

Maintenance and rating of JavaScript articles

Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...

Collaboration...

If you are interested in collaborating on JavaScript articles or would like to see where you could help, stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript and feel free to add your name to the participants list. Both editors and programmers are welcome.

Where to list JavaScript articles

We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list.

User scripts

The WikiProject is also taking on the organization of the Wikipedia community's user script support pages. If you are interested in helping to organize information on the user scripts (or are curious about what we are up to), let us know!

If you have need for a user script that does not yet exist, or you have a cool idea for a user script or gadget, you can post it at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. And if you are a JavaScript programmer, that's a great place to find tasks if you are bored.

How to report JavaScript articles in need of attention

If you come across a JavaScript article desperately in need of editor attention, and it's beyond your ability to handle, you can add it to our list of JavaScript-related articles that need attention.

Rating JavaScript articles

At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article. Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greasemonkey. 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/20080602060326/http://addons.songbirdnest.com/addon/79 to http://addons.songbirdnest.com/addon/79

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) 21:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)