Talk:Benjamin Cohen (journalist)

Untitled

The "Ben Cohen" or "Benjamin Cohen" disambiguation issue is corrected - it obviously should not lead only to a single subject, it should offer the Wikipedia reader the choice of all five of the Wikipedia subjects in question. JudyRobinson 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Third and Fourth opinions regarding Benjamin Cohen disambiguation comments are as from Talk:Benjamin_Cohen page

Third opinion

I came here from a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Addressing some comments above:

• The Wikipedia community never "voted to keep the page as is." They voted to allow the page to remain on Wikipedia rather than deleting it. Pages on Wikipedia are never static, so keeping it "as is" is meaningless.
• The proper way to organize biography articles with the same name is to use a disambiguation page. It is also proper to reference that disambiguation page at the beginning of each article that the disambig page points to. It is not correct to use one article as a disambiguation resource for another. This violates WP:NPOV by implying that Wikipedia places greater importance on one biography over another.
• My recommendation is to move this article to "Benjamin Cohen (journalist)" and convert this Benjamin Cohen article into a redirect page, redirecting "Benjamin Cohen" to Benjamin Cohen (disambiguation) -Amatulic 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

- In process following third and fourth opinions. JudyRobinson 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I also came from the third opinion page; and I agree with Amatulic; this should be a disambiguation page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding User_talk:Philsome comment on User_talk:JudyRobinson

Why is it that your sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be attempting to edit articles relating to Benjamin Cohen. For a so called new user, whose first and only topics you seem to Cohen, you appear to know a lot about Wikipedia.Philsome 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually came here researching the other Benjamin Cohen (the monetary systems expert) for an assignment and found what I discovered about Benjamin Cohen (the journalist) entries to seem out of proportion to my perception of his importance compared to the Professor's. There are a lot of other topics that interest me of course - but I'm actually quite busy at present too - so dealing with this has been the first thing I have done on Wikipedia. (I also love Lost In Space so had a v v small thing there too.) It seems odd that Philsome cares so much about one particular entry for the UK journalist. You might look back over many months of entries by Philsome - quite clearly not a new user, but the entries almost always seem quite focused on Benjamin Cohen, or related topics like Channel 4 news or Pink News. JudyRobinson 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding User_talk:Philsome further comment on User_talk:JudyRobinson

Re: your message, if you look clearly, I'm interested in a variety of LGBT topics so these figure. As does Chris Smith, Boyz, G-A-Y, Steven Twigg and the other pieces I have written on. Benjamin Cohen is an increasingly well known LGBT journalist in Britain and someone I am interested in. http://www.channel4.com/news/about_us/meet-the-team/benjamin-cohen.html Philsome 00:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That may well be Philsome but by what I see on your contributions page most, I think much more than half, of all Philsome entries all relate to this one person Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) which seems odd from a WP:NPOV and WP:COI point of view. I am just new, and actually quite pleased i have learned enough to make you question my newness, but I unfortunately got caught up unwittingly in what was a quite aggressive attempt by you to keep all people like me typing "Benjamin Cohen" always landing on your page - which is really annoying to people who are using wikipedia to research information. Your aggression on that issue, and now this afternoon on attacking me, makes me feel very wary of you as a fellow user, and I now wish my studies had not brought me into contact with you. I can happily go and edit other topics as my experience of wikipedia increases but the way you conduct yourself about this single person topic I personally find quite aggressive and somewhat disturbing. I had no idea wikipedia worked like that. If this one single guy is so important to the world, why are you almost always the one that seems to edit his entry? Really odd to me, but maybe I just don't know how this place functions yet JudyRobinson 01:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I made today at User_talk:Philsome --

Please stop trying to always push Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) above other entries

I see from earlier remarks made here and elsewhere about you that you seem to have made something of a career out of pushing this one article forward in differing ways. Your amendments today based on middle names is trite - the policy so far as I can make out from Wikipedia guidelines is that the correct alphabetizing is via article name, not by the middle name of a person who may be the subject of that article. In any case, the US professor has a middle name of "Jerry" - so even your erroneous attempt to put Benjamin Cohen (British journalist) above the others would still not succeed. What is it about your relationship with this one person that makes you try to always push this one individual's cause? I have my own suspicions based on your consistent actions but I can only ask you to stop doing this. You are wasting yours, and much more importantly, my time with these actions. I suspect your actions may be related to trying to achieve search engine prioritisation for the UK TV person and that is not a purpose of Wikipedia - i would think it is likely an abuse. So please stop doing this time and again. AgnethaFaltskog 22:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Cohen (British journalist)

I hate to be the third or fourth, or perhaps even the fifth - I can't count the rather many threads on this - person to remind User:Philsome that Wikipedia is not a personality PR agency. That user seems to have a long and consistent history - based on documented edits here - of making this particular article biased and favorable towards the article's subject, and I think that is wrong and against WP founding principles.

Mr Cohen is a person that has a somewhat interesting, even colorful past, and that is not always reflected by reporting only on corporate success.

His actions prior to becoming noticed here and which are evidenced by independent verifiable sources belong in this article. And not only in ways that reflect favorably upon the article's subject, but in line with the documented facts.

That includes what he tried to do to Apple iTunes, other corporate actions in the past and so on, which User_talk:Philsome seems to prefer are not included here as facts in this article. Why, we can suppose.

It is not in any way Wikipedia's function to make any subject of any articles here feel or look good. Neither should it be User_talk:Philsome or any editor's role to protect and favorably polish any individual article. To do that looks decidedly suspicious to people here. Actions like that must be reverted.

I want to assume WP:AGF and WP:NPOV with User_talk:Philsome - but I am yet to find any edit they have EVER made to this article that anyone could see as not being positive towards the subject. That bothers me a lot. I wonder what is the relationship between that user and the subject of this article - anyone bothering can see a disturbing trail of edits that lead me to a conclusion I am not allowed to voice here.

It disturbs me as to who User_talk:Philsome really is in the real world, but also I know that is not a topic to discuss here, but whomever they are, their editing behavior does leave you wondering what their real motivations are in editing this particular article.

Edits like User_talk:Philsome's most recent edits to this article, if left to endure, will in their own small way become part of the death of the WP project, IMHO.

And, for the record, anyone that cares to check through the links I took the trouble to find for current version of this article will discover that the facts relevant to this article's subject are somewhat, some would say quite a bit, different to the version that User_talk:Philsome had selected.

Let the community decide. --Satellite9876 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel it important to note to the community that within minutes of my edits - an editor reverted. On what basis? Who does he know? Interesting to ponder...

--Satellite9876 (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Also - most important - where does User_talk:Jebuss think any of my edits which were reverted are "unsourced" - as claimed? Every edit in question was backed by a verifiable reliable source. Could someone in the public eye be protecting their WP entry? Now there's a story...

--Satellite9876 (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request

Could someone please sum up the issue? Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I am involved. There are several issues currently about this article relating to edits that seem (in my view) designed to present the subject of the article in as favourable a light as possible. The specific issue that is the topic of the current Third Party Opinion request is summarised in the section here titled "Shares valuation".

In a nutshell, it is my view that the best possible indicator of a share's 'true' worth or value is the dollar/pound amount at which it changes hands. That seems to be the view of the Daily Telegraph business news report at the time. Other editors - who IMHO have a tendency to 'polish' this article at times - would prefer to use a theoretical value based on a share swap as opposed to the transaction value at which the shares were actually sold. Hope that helps clarify.--Satellite9876 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I would agree with you. Could you perhaps indicate your choice of phrasing of the disputed section and that of the other editor(s)? Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. My previous version read along these lines:

In 1998 Cohen set up the SoJewish website which was designed to replicate a site targeted at the UK Asian community. This SoJewish site was at one time reported to be valued at £5 million but the UK newspaper Daily Telegraph reported he later sold his interest in the business for just £40,000.

The most recent version favored by the editor/s with whom I do not agree reads:

This SoJewish site which was at one time reported to be valued at £5 million but later was sold to AIM quoted Totally plc for shares then worth just just over £4 million.

I think that second formulation is a misrepresentation of the key facts in the matter, namely - what the company was originally valued at in the Internet boom times compared to what its value ultimately proved to be, as measured by the market price. --Satellite9876 (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So you can back your claim up with a reputable source whereas the other editors can't? If so, then it's obvious that your edit is favoured, but I'd like to hear the other editors' justification for their interpretation. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too. --Satellite9876 (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jebuss is currently blocked from editing as a result of their edits to this article. They have also been advised of this Third Opinion discussion. After their block has expired I will consider edits discussed above.--Satellite9876 (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't feel any more time should be wasted on the matter. The editor was clearly in the wrong for edit warring and your edits (Satellite9876) seem to be much more appropriate. If the editor continues to edit war when the block expires then it could lead to a permanent ban for them. Hopefully they will see the error of their ways and won't come to that though. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay - have taken the article into the condition that I believe is warranted by WP:RS -- and I really hope that some form of adult editing peace will continue on from here now. --Satellite9876 (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been forwarded the details of this dispute.as there are errors in the current article and dispute.

My company sojewish merged with the London Jewish news and reversed into totally plc on the aim market. This means that totally plc ourchased the combined sojewish ljn for more shares then worth around 4 million. I was a small shareholder in the combined enetity as it had previously had considerable investments in it. My shares in totally plc were worth £310,000.

The daily telegraph article refers to me selling a proportion of those shares for £40,000. They were not sold to totally plc because they were shares in totally plc. As totally plc is a publically traded company they were sold in the market presumably to a large number of different investors.

Benjamin cohen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.169.221.250 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello to the unidentified user signing as Benjamin Cohen. I am left wondering who he is in close contact with - if indeed it is the subject of this article. In any case, the facts of the reported value of the interest when sold is that the shares Mr Cohen swapped for his company SoJewish were sold for £40k. The article as written correctly reflects these reported facts. The sale price - rather than any historical book value - is the most accurate valuation of any company. If indeed you are Mr Cohen, hopefully you will already well know that. --Satellite9876 (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In line with desired WP accuracy, have updated the article a couple of times to also take account of "Benjamin Cohen's" expressed issues, but still sticking with the WP:RS in the article.--Satellite9876 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed and resolved. I'm afraid, "Mr. Cohen", Wikipedia works on reliable sources. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I also just can't help noting that Mr "Benjamin Cohen" popped up literally 5 minutes after the changes related to the share valuation were made to this article, yet he was not of course officially a party to several earlier discussions by WP community members about this issue. That disturbs me about the identities, or at the very least the roles, of various people that have been rather consistently favorably editing this particular article for quite some time now. Apologies to all for my WP:AGF issues on this one, but this editing fact has really been bugging me these past few days.

--Satellite9876 (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Shares valuation

There has been editing on this article around the value of the shares. The WP:RS I have seen say that the subject of the article sold his shares for £40k and since it is him the article is about, that seems the correct figure to include in this article. My view regarding the share valuation is simply that the article should most relevantly discuss the share value of the individual the subject of the article in question, and as reported in the Daily Telegraph. Other editors hold differing views, with the net effect of making the value of the shares when sold far greater than the Daily Telegraph states to be the case. Actual sales price is ultimately the best determinant of a share's real value, hence I prefer the Telegraph report on the sales price. The relevant quote from this Daily Telegraph report is as follows:

"The business was valued at £5m at the height of the internet boom, although Cohen sold the site to Totally, an Aim-listed rival which runs totallyjewish.com, for £310,000 in an all-share deal. By the time Cohen sold half his stake, the shares were worth just £40,000 (emphasis added)."

--Satellite9876 (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages have a good purpose

I can only feel exasperated by the actions of various fellow contributors seeming to want to make this article always read favorably to the subject. I also think that using talk pages to communicate is surely always preferable to leaping onto noticeboards. What concerns me is that a small number of users seem to appear somewhat determined to have this article become a 'more lilywhite' account of the history of the article's subject. I personally think that is utterly against what WP stands for. Nobody's history is that 'Disney' - and certainly not the subject of this particular article based on my reading of the WP:RS. --Satellite9876 (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up to all concerned with this article

Cohen has just published an article lambasting alleged inaccuracies in this article. I do not know which version of events is correct, but expect the article to come under a lot of scrutiny for the next few days. – iridescent 12:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It does seem at first sight to fall short of the high standards we expect of biographies, but at least Mr Cohen has pointed out for what it's worth where he thinks the errors are. Fortunately I hadn't heard of him prior to this and have a gap in my editing schedule until Monday, so will have a go at tidying it up. As for share prices, given the vagaries of the market, I doubt they have that much significance, but will try to keep an open mind on that point. Meanwhile I have the article watched and will resist breaches of sourcing policy and self-interest. --Rodhullandemu 13:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up iridescent. Just read his article there. It reads like it could have been written by the same users such as User:Jebuss and User:Philsome each of whose edits are only ever written in a way that increases the favorable reporting of the subject. Contrary to the real Mr Cohen's opinions in his PinkNews article, I do not hold any particular view of him - but IMHO his WP article has until recently been being managed like a personal fanzine or a user blog would be. I think it needs to be gently pointed out here that the consistent edits of the above-mentioned users go far further than edits made by someone - as Cohen contends - "who seems to be a bit of a fan". They appear that they possibly could be more than just that.

Some points I thought were easily gleaned from WP:RS:

-- Cohen's half-interest in shares he traded his company for was sold by him on the market for £40,000 not for the millions that the aforementioned users seem to consistently want the article to read. The true value of any asset is always most accurately measured by its actual sales price, not a notional book value of shares untraded on the open market. The highest reported valuation (£5m) and the ultimate reported valuation (as evidenced by sales price) of Cohen's interest in the transaction seems to be the most relevant amounts to include for readers of the article here.

-- There has been no suggestion by any user that his CyberBritain business ever had sales of just £165 - that is correctly noted in the article as being the reported annual profit.

-- I must say I feel pretty uncomfortable with Cohen's own publication being used at all by WP as a WP:RS for an article on its founder/owner, as it is not independent of the subject of this article. The other sources currently relied on in the article -- such as a contemporaneous business article written at the relevant time by UK newspaper Daily Telegraph -- seemed more relevant to me as being of the standard we usually rely upon for an accurate WP bio article. That reporting seems preferable to sources which are not independent of the article's subject.

-- Finally, as for Mr Cohen's PinkNews claim today that his company had "considerably prior to Apple being granted a trademark registered the iTunes.co.uk website" - that claim can only be viewed as being incorrect, and untrue in light of the official independent UK registrar Nominet Dispute Resolution Service expert decision report that was published at the time with the result of Apple forcing Cohen to handover that Domain name because he held no legal rights to retain it. The Nominet decision in that case records that Cohen attempted to register the iTunes.co.uk domain name several weeks after Apple had gained its statutory protection rights by having applied for a successfully granted trademark, for the word "iTunes" in the UK market. Cohen's attempts to hang onto the name were described as "abusive". In that report the expert assessing the actions of Cohen and of Apple during their dispute decides: "(Cohen) made an Abusive Registration (of iTunes.co.uk)...in a manner taking unfair advantage of, and being unfairly detrimental to, the Rights of (Apple)." This official report described how Mr Cohen had tried unsuccessfully to sell the trademark to Apple competitor Napster for a large sum of money, and had also tried unsuccessfully to pressure Apple_Inc to purchase the domain name from his company -- at the same time as Mr Cohen was redirecting the site address to reach Napster's site.

Frankly, Mr Cohen's claims made in today's article in Pink News are, IMHO, similar to the biased highly selective use of available facts that has rendered this WP article biased favorably towards the subject in the past.

Maybe some other users can please take a look at this article and the sources I felt to be most accurate to check that they agree with the view I take here?

PS -- Rodhull I would be really grateful if you can find the time to see what you make of it, especially given my frustration with the history of many of the prior edits made to it. --Satellite9876 (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• It needs taking by the scruff of its neck and sorting out; we are not here to puff up egos, but neither are we here to destroy lives and careers; having said that, the reported BAILLI judgement against Mr Cohen's company re Apple doesn't do him any favours, and if that is to be regarded as a reliable source, equity might suggest that it should be countered by a source of equal authority; to be perfectly fair, as an ex-practising lawyer, I am fully aware of the limitations of the system we have. Nevertheless, as an encyclopedia, we don't engage in judging disputes between parties; we report verifiable facts, and that's where it ends. --Rodhullandemu 03:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Loved your "scruff of the neck" comment! I found the difference between this article's very passing mention of Cohen's actions revealed by the Nominet decision in the Apple iTunes case to be quite at odds with the far more 'facts-rich' content in the WP article about Cohen's Apple case. I agree wholeheartedly that we should incorporate WP:RS as the bedrock of each article. The current reference to the dispute in this article unfortunately gives the reader almost no information as to the actions of the article's subject in the case. As for 'source/s of equal authority' to counter the Nominet report - there really isn't much except a failed attempt to take the matter to the High Court - which the court threw out. Plus Cohen's own PR efforts at criticizing the Nominet process. But then, methinks he would say that.

Just re-reading his remarks ("Correcting errors in my Wikipedia entry") yesterday in PinkNews about his own WP article, offers an interesting insight into the kind of 'interpreting' of facts that has plagued this WP article for such a long time. I find it 'slippery' writing indeed to contend as Cohen does there that: "considerably prior to Apple being granted a trademark (my company) registered the iTunes.co.uk website" (emph. is mine). The Nominet decision is very clear that Apple lodged their trademark protection application several weeks before Cohen bought the iTunes domain name. After gaining their trademark Apple is protected from the date at which they applied. Cohen's wording in the PinkNews piece uses the wording "being granted" in a technical way to skirt past the facts the decision sets out. He also then goes on to make it sound to any uninformed reader of his words as if his company just 'happened' to have randomly chosen to register iTunes.co.uk quite some time in the past - saying as he does that he registered the iTunes domain name a "considerable" time before the trademark was granted in March 2001. That kind of writing tries to play with technical and selective interpretation of the documented facts of that case - that Cohen was found to have made an "abusive" registration of Apple's trademark, which was found in law to have existed from before Cohen registered the name. And that he registered the domain name just weeks after Apple lodged the successful application to trademark their iTunes brand name in the UK - not some lengthy ("considerable") time earlier.

Probably what bothers me the most though is that Cohen himself has to know all of these facts - his own company was the respondent in that case, and his own actions are extensively reported in minute detail there. Yet if you relied only on his PinkNews report of yesterday you would learn nothing of these most salient of facts in that case. (Nor, just in passing, would you learn that the shares he had sold for just £40,000 represented fully half his interest in the proceeds of his SoJewish business. Cohen yesterday chose just to write "a percentage" of shares rather than accurately reporting it as being as high as 50%.) "Correcting errors" in his own Wikipedia entry? Well, hopefully the community can come to a consensus decision on that.

All this is why I personally think it is so important that, as with every WP bio article, this particular article needs to be written carefully and with vigilance - to accurately reflect the relevant reported reliable sources. Otherwise WP risks descending into becoming an arm of the PR business.

I really hope the future re-writing of this article can correctly reflect properly more of these facts as reported in WP:RS - nothing more but nothing less; and not for Mr Cohen's sake, but for the integrity of this encyclopedia. --Satellite9876 (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected the iTunes reference and sourced the correction. The existing wording is inaccurate and I consider potentially libellous as it implies that I attempted to register the domain name. I did not, a company that I was a director of registered the name four years before the launch of the iTunes service. We later lost the rights in a well documented case. I have additionally added that a High Court Judicial Review failed. Benjamincohenuk (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading the Nominet chronology shows that the time in question - during which the trademark lodgement, Cohen's company's registration of iTunes.co.uk, the start of iTunes software downloads and Apple's UK trademark being granted all occurred - was a matter of weeks, not years. The "iTunes service" referred to in the comment above by Benjamincohenuk is actually describing the launch of the iTunes music store (which happened several years later in 2004), as opposed to the launch of Apple's iTunes software (January 2001) - which happened around the same period as Cohen's company registering the iTunes.co.uk domain name - as documented in the WP iTunes article and detailed clearly in the Nominet decision in the case.--Satellite9876 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs to also be noted here that there never was any "High Court Judicial Review" of Cohen's iTunes case - there was an application for one made by Mr Cohen and/or his company, and it was rejected by the High Court as being "unnecessary".--Satellite9876 (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Worth mentioning, just by the by, that the Benjamin Cohen the subject of this article was not as suggested above by Benjamincohenuk only "a director of" the company that registered the iTunes.co.uk domain name. He was actually the company's CEO.--Satellite9876 (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article here?

• Who uses these quotes at [1]? Are they really from someone noteworthy?
• This whole article sounds like what he said in [2]. "Porn was an easy way to get publicity." Then "All publicity was good publicity."

But then in [3] Mr Cohen says that back then "The value of a company could be based on how much positive publicity you got."

• Anyways, with his hook ups at [4] he is given a lot of publicity. And as I read the archive I see he has no problem advertising his many important internet ventures.
• Why is this article here?

Slaytanic-3 (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • After looking up this persons internet ventures, I will request a deletion of this article. His business consists of sites that recursively link back to what looks like ad parking. I see no original or useful content besides a back end of ad parking links. Archive.org does not show sites that would constitute a notable web presence.
  • Also, snipping Wikipedia from his site [[5]] gives me the impression that it would be in the best interest of Wikipedia to remove this article.

Slaytanic-3 (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Benjamin Cohen (journalist). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080507173919/http://www.channel4.com:80/news/authors/benjamin%20cohen/105875 to http://www.channel4.com/news/authors/benjamin%20cohen/105875
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110205172839/http://www.wisethoughts.org:80/patrons.php to http://www.wisethoughts.org/patrons.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120218234112/http://blogs.channel4.com:80/benjamin-cohen-on-technology/why-i-made-an-it-gets-better-video-on-being-gay-and-jewish/3210 to http://blogs.channel4.com/benjamin-cohen-on-technology/why-i-made-an-it-gets-better-video-on-being-gay-and-jewish/3210

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"Untouchable"

I wonder how long my edit about the sexual misconduct allegations will last...this being Wikipedia and all. [Edit] Funny how the UK's biggest cheerleader for child transition is run by... 12:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.156.170 (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Benjamin Cohen (journalist). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120107031108/http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk:80/living/features/cohen-breaking-not-making-news to http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/living/features/cohen-breaking-not-making-news

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)