Jump to content

Talk:Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:38, 11 November 2019 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Consensus

For the certain editors itching to "knife" and template this article in absolute defiance of the community please be aware that the following pages, all in the same style of this article, have been kept:

Something to remember. The community wants these articles. AusLondonder (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Sitush: sorry, but WP:OSE really doesn't apply here, since all the above articles (and some) were nominated as candidates for deletion because of this very article (I'd say in a WP:POINTY way), which was, in turn, nominated for deletion and snow kept, like those (some of them also as "snow keeps"). They were all nominated in a batch, partly to explicitly challenge the "concept" of such articles: the challenge failed. It's not "other" stuff like WP:OSE would imply, it's precisely the stuff being challenged. LjL (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
No. AusLondonder is yet again trying to insist that AfD determines content rather than existence, hence their reference to "knife". They are wrong and they have been told this time and time again on this very talk page. AfD determines whether an article (effectively, a title/subject) should exist, not what the damn thing says. I am very close to citing AusLondonder per WP:CIR - enough is enough. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Your aggression is on show again, User:Sitush. You called me a "twat" for reverting an edit, that, when discussed consensus was in my favour. You told me to fuck off repeatedly. Feel free to "cite me". I will cite my 150+ page creations as evidence of my competence. These AFD's were specifically about the matter at hand here. They were brought up for that reason. You are wrong. AusLondonder (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You have read the section immediately below this one, haven't you? It isn't just me that is wrong on policy, at least in your eyes. You'll learn. - Sitush (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiquote

The list of quotes in this article should be moved to November 2015 Paris attacks. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, whereas Wikiquote is a source of quotations. This article should contain prose with limited use of quotations per WP:What Wikipedia is not. I'm looking for a consensus on this issue before it is done. I'm not involved with Wikiquote, but I think so long as we bear in mind the effects it will have there, a cross-wiki consensus can be achieved here. Regards, Jolly Ω Janner 22:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This article consists primarily of international reactions, in a mixer form of prose and quotations. There is widespread support for the continued existence of this article, as shown by a "snow keep" vote for it, and for the concept of similar articles in general, as shown by the "keeps" and "snow keeps" of articles mentioned in the section just above this one. LjL (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Are these deletion discussions for the article or for the use of a list of quotes? The proposal is not to delete the article, but to move the quotes off Wikipedia and hopefully over time convert the sections they were in into prose. Jolly Ω Janner 22:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
As with any deletion discussion, they were nominally about the articles . However, all the articles (as opposed to just this one) were explicitly nominated to challenge the "concept" of such articles, which were (and are) all very similar in content, containing a list of international reactions provided partly, if not substantially, as quotes. I'd say that at this point, still insisting that there is not consensus for this format specifically would be ignoring reality just a little.
I'm not personally against converting to prose over time, but at this point I'm against moving them off Wikipedia first (and then "maybe one day"), as that would basically be ignoring the consensus against it. LjL (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I was aware that a deletion discussion had occurred, but not that their discussion was focused on the presence of lists of quotes on Wikipedia. With that in mind I will take your point that consensus exists for the content to stay in this article and in list format. Sorry for wasting time here; an honest mistake I assure you. Regards, Jolly Ω Janner 22:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I am personally not at all opposed to, over time, consolidating this article's content by means of avoiding repetition from heads of states who are saying basically the same thing. I've mentioned it before, I think it would be fine to condense it and make it less of a list of each singular country. But it's hard to deny there is consensus to keep it this way for the time being (in this and several similar articles). LjL (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It is the fact that so many of these articles were nominated for deletion, explicitly to challenge their concept and format, and that many of these nominations turned out as "snow keeps", some as "keeps", and only one as "merge", that makes it apparent that people approve of their existence and, by and large, of their format (you don't get this kind of "keeps" for articles that are considered dodgy). Not all articles need to be featured articles, and in particular, I don't see how WP:SPINOUT articles (which all these undoubtedly are) ever make sense as featured articles. LjL (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
That isn't how AfD works at all. There is no linkage between an AfD outcome (which largely revolves around WP:N) and article quality. None whatsoever and I won't stand for such a misrepresentation. --John (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Then again, you remove every single tiniest quotation from every article so I'm sure I wouldn't expect you to champion the existence of these Reactions articles. LjL (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I refer you to my comment just posted in the preceding section. I am becoming increasingly concerned about WP:CIR here - people just do not seem to be "getting it". - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Yup. --John (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Finally, reactions has been moved here from the Attacks page

Great to see someone has finally done this! The Attacks article was too long and while Reactions is an important aspect, it really is preferable to include that in this article. Once I figure out who achieved this, I will thank the person. Peter K Burian 15:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Coverage of sections re: other countries' reactions

When the content about various countries' plans re: accepting refugees was moved to this article, from November 2015 Attacks in Paris, I felt that was a wise move.

But now, I see that the much of the content about the response of the countries mentioned above have been deleted. Most of the long list of numerous countries' responses does not include that information. The long list of countries primarily offers commentary as to how sad they are for France. (OK, the one for Poland includes a bit of the content about refugees.)

Surprisingly, the long section about Canada's acceptance of refugees, and USA's, has not been deleted ... yet ... (thankfully).

I will be adding information back about the reactions of European countries re: accepting refugees from Syria, after they heard that the attackers in Paris had Syrian connections and training. This is one of the important reactions! The other one is the tight security at previously open borders. I believe some of that was removed too but I still need to check more closely. e.g. France's extension of the state of emergency.

If someone deletes all the sections that I add - most of which was initially in the Reactions section of the Attacks article, and considered highly suitable -- I will file for Dispute Resolution. Peter K Burian 22:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


@Peter K Burian: Sigh. Here is the content removed from the main article, and here is the same content added into this article. You can see that it looks like the same content. You can see the content is still there. Other content you had added, related to Europen response, never moved away from the main article.
Can you stop making grand claims that "everything was removed" before thoroughly checking? It's not that hard to check. You've opened talk page sections over talk page sections making these claims. I don't want this content removed, either, but there is no need for this. LjL (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect LjL my comments above made it clear that the US and Canada sections had not been removed. But the most important part of the Czech reaction was deleted; all of the comments from Hungary and Slovakia were deleted. AND as I said, only part of the comments re: Poland were deleted .. the rest were condensed, and I have no complaint with a concept being brief, as long as the meaning of the section is retained. A few minutes ago, I added back the important content that had been deleted re: Poland. (I still need to add Hungary, part of the Czech section that was deleted, and Slovakia.) You may recall that I got close to an edit war when someone kept removing half the content of Poland's response in the Attacks article. That stopped when I said I would start Dispute Resolution. Peter K Burian 23:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Peter K Burian: They were not deleted. They were simply not moved, so you can still find them in the original article, near the spots I linked. Please do check. Hit Ctrl+F on November_2015_Paris_attacks and type "Czech", then "Hungary", then "Slovakia". They are all still mentioned in the November 2015 Paris attacks#European Council section. LjL (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The sections that I am discussing are not in the original article now. There are no comments there at all from Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia; that is understandable since those are reaction comments and the new Reactions article is the one that should include them. However, when sections were moved to Reactions (including the ones about USA and Canada) those were not moved at all; i.e. they were deleted. I have added them back, and in some cases added brand new developments from today, with a new citation. Peter K Burian 00:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Peter K Burian: You can keep saying that - that there are no comments from Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia in the main article... but that doesn't make it correct. There definitely are such comments, as I've repeatedly tried to show you, but you seem to suffer from a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I think I will have to copypaste the entire text in question here (this is direct from the current version of November 2015 Paris attacks):

Poland's European affairs minister designate Konrad Szymański declared that, in the wake of the attacks, he saw no possibility of enacting the recent EU refugee relocation scheme.[220][221] The new Prime Minister of Poland, Beata Szydlo acknowledged that Poland is bound by international treaties, and said she would ask the EU to change its decision on refugee quotas.[222][223] Szydlo later stated that Poland would honour the commitment made by the previous government to accommodate 9000 refugees.[224][225] Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orban, rejected the concept of mandatory resettlement quotas.[226] Andrej Babiš, Czech deputy prime minister, proposed closing the Schengen border.[227] Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said the attacks were a wake-up call for Europe.[228] Sobotka also criticized president Milos Zeman for supporting anti-Islamic groups and spreading hatred, according to Reuters, whose report adds that the Sobotka government has been deporting migrants.[229] Slovakia's prime minister, Robert Fico, said he was confirmed right about the links between Middle East migrants and security.[230]

If you still aren't convinced, then I'm really at a loss - we must be looking at different articles. LjL (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I have now been up since 6am and I worked on my job for 9 hours and moved furniture for an hour to re-organize our living room, LjL, but you are right; I was wrong. Thanks to the sections you posted here, with citation numbers, I did find it in the main article.

NOTE: I believe that all of this should be deleted (below) because they are all reactionary comments, so they belong only in the Reactions article.) Do you agree?

This should be deleted, since the same topics - in more detail. now - are now covered in the Reactions article: Poland's European affairs minister designate Konrad Szymański declared that, in the wake of the attacks, he saw no possibility of enacting the recent EU refugee relocation scheme.[220][221] The new Prime Minister of Poland, Beata Szydlo acknowledged that Poland is bound by international treaties, and said she would ask the EU to change its decision on refugee quotas.[222][223] Szydlo later stated that Poland would honour the commitment made by the previous government to accommodate 9000 refugees.[224][225] Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orban, rejected the concept of mandatory resettlement quotas.[226] Andrej Babiš, Czech deputy prime minister, proposed closing the Schengen border.[227] Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said the attacks were a wake-up call for Europe.[228] Sobotka also criticized president Milos Zeman for supporting anti-Islamic groups and spreading hatred, according to Reuters, whose report adds that the Sobotka government has been deporting migrants.[229] Slovakia's prime minister, Robert Fico, said he was confirmed right about the links between Middle East migrants and security.[230]

Peter K Burian 00:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: they should not be deleted; they should, if anything, be summarized. That's how it works with WP:SPINOUT articles: you summarize the main points in the main article, and refer to the sub-article for details. However, keep in mind that there is widespread support for inclusion of European reactions (ones that go beyond "condolences") within the main article. LjL (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Well LjL, I was originally part of the faction that wanted the reactions sections retained, AND expanded with coverage of the important ramifications of the Attacks. Of course, once I realized that the Reactions article could be useful - and that there was an obvious link to it in the main article - I realized that this made more sense. I have no powerful desire to delete content from the main aricle that is also covered in Reactions (now in more detail than it was four hours ago) but that seemed logical. Your greater experience will be the guide in that respect. Peter K Burian 02:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Images

None of the three images currently headlining the page show a proper Tricolore - probably because they are all tall thin structures - and are not very impressive images per se. Perhaps keep the best one and swap the other two with a couple of those from the much better gallery below. Davidships (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Fifteen images are too many. Pick the best three. --John (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2k015 (UTC)
Agree that there are too many. I removed them once but I'm afraid we'll have to wait for the blow-ins to pass by before much of this can be sorted out. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I can barely make out the tricolor on some of them. IMO, the Sydney Opera House should be on top (along with Brandenburg Gate). It was one of the first landmarks to be draped in these colors and the flag is easily recognizable. Thoughts ? As for the rest of the images, we can fit them in a small gallery at the bottom. --Killuminator (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I've trimmed it to those two. The article could maybe stand another one or two. Not fifteen though. Galleries are not a good thing on Wikipedia, especially on an article experiencing problems with bloat, as this one is.--John (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The lead images have been turned back into three skyscrapers by Castncoot. I kind of agree with their rationale that the One World Trade Center should probably be included, but I wouldn't go with three skyscrapers (the other rationale of "svelte-ness" doesn't seem very convincing): the previous two images were more varied and looked much more like a French flag. I would compromise by including those two, and the One WTC. LjL (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If you can format them well, then go ahead and replace Taipei/Toronto with Sydney/Berlin. But I agree, One WTC should be the standard bearer. Good luck. Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree with using 1 WTC as a "standard bearer" at all. It isn't a very good picture. The pictures (if we must have more than one) should be chosen to illustrate the French flag being projected on buildings. Skyscrapers aren't well-suited for this. --John (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm with John (again). More, I have absolutely no idea why anyone should want to promote WTC as a "standard bearer". We've had far, far better images of far more suitable structures than that and we are not here to memorialise anything. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
To illuminate a spire on the tallest skyscraper in the Western Hemisphere with the Tricolour of France reflects a far more powerful imprint than on something much simpler to illuminate such as a short, squat building - not that there's no place for examples of the latter, which are already displayed in the parent article. Castncoot (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Aesthetics only mattter to an extent. If a picture is particularly bad, I won't insist to include it. It seems silly to just include skyscrapers, too. But one very prominent skyscraper (with pretty obvious symbolic significance) should not be an issue. LjL (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it's an issue. The purpose of the images is to illustrate the subject, not "symbolic significance". If we are trying to illustrate that the French flag was projected onto buildings, we should use an image (yes, one is probably enough) that clearly shows this. Not a bunch of pictures where you have to read the description to find out what it is supposed to be. --John (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
It is a poor image and doesn't really demonstrate the impact of the projected flag. And I really don't see the connection between al Qaeda and ISIL, if that is intended to be the symbolic reason for inclusion. Don't lump all Muslims (terrorists or otherwise) together. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The image 1) is clear with respect to display of solidarity in the 13 November attacks, 2) displays a highly complex human feat, and 3) is additionally symbolic of the highest-casualty terror attack in modern history. All of this encompassing the tallest skyscraper in the Western Hemisphere, to top it off (no pun intended). Meanwhile, you're reading in a non-existent religious connection. Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I share Sitush's concern that the "symbolic significance" you are reaching for here is unencyclopedic. --John (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
The Taipei skyscraper is actually even worse. I can barely make out any tribute on that building. The Shanghai Pearl Tower was a much better image. --Killuminator (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@John: wait, you said "per talk", but was there ever an agreement here to remove the images from the lead completely? I think we were just discussing which two or three images were most appropriate. LjL (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We've got three further down in the "Vigils" section. One of these, maybe the Berlin one, would be fine for the lead. Less is more, and we should pick only the finest images, and not try to be comprehensive. I propose a hidden note, asking people not to continually add their favourite image. --John (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Two or three would not be trying to be comprehensive, though, but merely matching the fact that this is about plural "reactions" coming from disparate places (which is also partly why I would favor NYC, Berlin and Sydney, three somewhat different types of buildings from three different continents). LjL (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

So now we have three images, two of which are both from London, all three from Europe (the excuse being that Sydney is already in the other article). This is simply ridiculous. LjL (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The Sydney image is an excellent one (I would have no issue in keeping it at all) as is the Brandenburg gate. Wembley stadium is another very clear image of the tricolour and is beside the text of a match involving the French in their first major sporting fixture after the attack. So my three would be Sydney, Brandenburg and Wembley.Chie one (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the Toronto attachment, being that it is grossly incongruous sizewise relative to the other two; I've replaced it with a more a section-appropriate placement of One WTC, with a meaningful caption and reference as to the genesis of its Tricolour illumination after the attacks. I believe this is a more constructive edit. I also agree with LjL that one of the two European images should be replaced - either with the Tokyo Skytree or the Sydney Opera House, for geodiversity. Best, Castncoot (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
You need to stop buggering about with the images, Castncoot. You are doing everything you can to ensure that your favourite symbol - One WTC - gets inserted somewhere in this thing but you have yet to justify it on any decent grounds other than, basically, 9/11. Drop the damn stick. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I, for one, also favor its inclusion, and justifying it on the grounds of 9/11 seems better than justifying other buildings on... what grounds again, other than "I like the way they look"? LjL (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I should imagine that most US-based contributors might favour its inclusion also but that is just an example of the US-centric systemic bias of this place and it is something that really, really pisses me off because it is cultural imperialism by the back door. Beyond alleged Muslim fundamentalism, what is the connection between One WTC and Paris? And are there no visually superior images from the US? - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm quite definitely not US-based, so I'm not sure who this is directed at. I don't think there's much to be "alleged" about the fact that both 9/11 and this one were prominent Islamist terrorist attacks. LjL (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Did I say you were US-based? Don't insinuate: there are plenty of other commentators in this thread and mine was in any event quite obviously a generic point. - Sitush (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I will not insinuate if you don't strawman... I wasn't favoring the inclusion of this from a US-based or US-centered point of view, so, I saw no relevance to what you said in response to my remark. It may well be that there is too much US-centrism on this encyclopedia, but I'm certainly not going to oppose inclusion of something that seems to me to be perfectly suited for inclusion just because it's American, either. LjL (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Did I say I opposed using it just because it is American? That's two consecutive false allegations you have made against me. I'm beginning to think VolunteerMarek may have a point. - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me understand this, if you complain to me about Wikipedia being US-centered, I don't have a right to presume you are talking about me; but if I state that I wouldn't oppose inclusion etc etc, you are suddenly entitled to call that a "false allegation" against you? Way to exhibit double standards. 20:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you do not understand then I am afraid that I have nothing more to offer. I've long since accepted that there are a lot of rather dense people in this world and I'm increasingly of the opinion that it isn't possible to educate them. - Sitush (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the slideshow. Always nice to stop by and see what the current photographs are. Bod (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Minecraft theories

There has been (hoaxing) rumors that the terrorists trained in Minecraft. I strongly believe that's a hoax, but a Spanish Google News search brought up this, so maybe it warrants inclusion. I'm not sure, so that's why I'm bringing it here. --TL22 (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, forbes made an article pointing at Play Station 4 and Minecraft as tools used by the terrorists, they then deleted it afterwards https://web.archive.org/web/20151115115130/http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/11/14/why-the-paris-isis-terrorists-used-ps4-to-plan-attacks/ Kotaku also covered it http://kotaku.com/reporting-error-leads-to-speculation-that-terrorists-us-1742791584 even this news channel picked the story https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaGFl_DaBos --189.224.151.170 (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Reaction articles

See this discussion regarding "reaction" articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. 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) 12:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks. 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) 00:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks/Archive_3&oldid=925611118"