Jump to content

Talk:Richard Pombo

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

Wikipedia vandalism?

[edit]

Did Richard Plombo direct congressional staffers to remove information from his biography in Wikipedia, such as his connections with Abramoff, as some have charged? Where could I learn more about this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.70.32 (talk • contribs)

We know for sure that someone inside the House of Representatives edited this article, removing references to possible ties to Abramoff and other politically damaging items. You can see the edit history for yourself, the IP of the House is 143.231.249.141. For more up-to-date information, see Wikipedia:Congressional Staffer Edits and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress. Mushroom (Talk) 11:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First the warning at the top of this page should be at the top of the article. Leading by informing of the bias danger in edits would both alert readers to exercise more critcal examination of what they read in the article and possibly discourage activists from demeaning Wikipedia's community ethic.

Abramhoff is an inappropriate entry as it is too new, too uncertain and not "ripe" for inclusion yet.

Note recent edits. Any connection to this? ---J.Smith 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Partisan?

[edit]

How can the below "Beyond (Tom) Delay" be considered non-partisan?

"In 2005, Richard Pombo's activities on behalf of various clients of lobbyist Jack Abramoff came under scrutiny. In December 2005, the non-partisan web sites www.beyonddelay.org and www.jackinthebox.org list Pombo as one of the 13 most corrupt politicians in Congress."

This is not in keeping with a NPOV and was posted by an anon user.

(Note: previous poster neglected to sign at this point.)


The site in question focuses on a report that does label both Republicans (eleven) and Democrats (two) on their list of "most corrupt polticians". This lends at least some support to the idea that the site is not strictly partisan, although it may or may not include some level of partisan bias. The choice of De Lay in particular for the title of the site does not, in my opinion, necessarily evidence bias so much as his increased visibility as the former House Majority Leader. Anyway, I'm not deeply familiar enough with the site to give a strong point of view on the question of any level of partisan bias it may have, but a quick review of the site does not, to me, make it clear that the site is partisan in nature. --Joe Decker 23:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-environmentalism

[edit]

Pombo's anti-environmentalism, or "environmental conservatism" as I think some would rather call it, is surely one of his most interesting, if controversial, features. Shouldn't the article have more than one sentence on the subject? I added a link to a Wall Street Journal article relating some of his more wacky ideas (like getting rid of 15 national parks to save money) and his rise in prominence with industry, perhaps the information contained in the article would be a good starting point for an addition to this article? - Jersyko talk 18:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abramoff-investigation

[edit]

I moved a sentence out from the McCloskey paragraph that was unrelated to McCloskey, that text stated that Pombo was under investigation in the Abramoff scandal. I didn't see a source for this information, however, and I'm open to the idea that there's no evidence for the claim of an investigation. The sentence also feels redundant-in-part with what are now the preceeding sentences, and should perhaps be edited on that grounds. --Joe Decker 23:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of taxpayer money

[edit]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/13/pombo-rv-vacation/

CREW

[edit]

I removed the sentence "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released a report in January 2006 naming Pombo as one of the ten most corrupt members of the House of Representatives." from the leading paragraph of this article, for a couple reasons. (1) This is only an opinion from a group (CREW) with a self-described "progressive" ideology - see wikipedia entry on CREW. (2) It's blatantly partisan and editorial. (3) The exact same sentence already appears quite appropriately in the section "Controversy and Criticism." And no, before anyone asks, I have no connection to Richard Pombo, or any politician, for that matter. 04:33, 29 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.118.150 (talk • contribs)

Agreed, it belongs in a lower section, where it already is. John Broughton 13:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

Guys, this whole article is biased. I'm new to wikipedia and don't know how to tag it in some way, but please, try to keep the blatant partisanship out of the website. 16:52, 20 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.59.237 (talk • contribs) .

Welcome to wikipedia. A couple of suggestions: read Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (new sections/comments go at the bottom of pages).
As for your comment about bias, one of the better ways to address that is for you to mention specific paragraphs, sentences, or wording that seems to you biased or partisan, and get comments from others, here. John Broughton 17:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 128.36.59.237. It would be too tedious to point out "specific paragraphs, sentences, or wording" that contribute to bias; that would require going through just about all of the article. The structure of the entire article is biased, designed to maximize attention around allegations made against the congressman to portray him in a negative light. 172 | Talk 23:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, don't list ALL examples. Why don't you start with (say) the first three to five that you come upon? (And as far as "structure" being a problem, that's a rather general statement - again, being specific really is helpful in getting other editors to understand your concerns.) John Broughton | Talk 23:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of going through and keeping a list of the biases. I will post the first few once I find them. I agree with 128.36.59.237, the whole tone of the article seems biased. P3net 01:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of text from Wikipedia article

[edit]

The following text was removed by 172 | Talk with the edit summary this material was irrelevant in the Norm Coleman and Marty Meehan articles and it is irrelevant here. I don't have particularly strong feelings about whether it should or should not be in the article, but I want to note it here in any case. John Broughton | Talk 23:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pombo's staff has attempted to excise critical information regarding his ties to Abramoff from Wikipedia. [1] According to High Country News, as reported by the Argus, a newspaper in California's East Bay area, this was not just an attempt, but an actual "scrubbing/sanitizing" of his Wiki entry, done during the 2006 Super Bowl weekend.
That's neither here nor there. I did not deny it happened. It's just completely irrelevant in an article about members of the U.S. House. Any member of congress does much more notable stuff than editing a Wikipedia entry just about any day. 172 | Talk 02:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for controversies?

[edit]

Anyone think it is time to fork the controversy section to its own article? Arbusto 23:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else might; I don't. The norm is to spin off a controversy when it's big enough for its own article; that's not the same thing as spinning off a set of (largely) unrelated controversies into a single article. I don't know of any case where such was done, for what that's worth; I know of a lot of articles with large sections about varied controversies. John Broughton | Talk 00:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. At least, not yet. Argyrios 21:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to 69.249.253.211

[edit]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Pombo. 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 09:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Pombo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Pombo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of sourcing

[edit]

I'm posting here after seeing a dialogue at User talk:Bishonen #Richard Pombo. This is primarily for Rencoyote, but hopefully it will encourage him and any others interested in this subject to use this talk page for discussion.

Rencoyote, I see from Bishonen's talk page that you know Richard Pombo - worked for him some ten years ago - and are concerned that this biography is outdated and dwells too much on negative aspects. What you need to know is that Wikipedia is mainly written based upon independent sources published in a medium that has some reputation for accuracy - what we call "reliable sources". What can be found in such sources overrides anything else: blogs, personal websites, what acquaintances can recall, and even what the subject may say about themselves. That may come as a bit of a surprise, but it's sensible if you think about it. A dispassionate account of an event from a knowledgeable third party is free of the inherent bias that we have in favour of ourselves and our friends, and the nias we carry against our "enemies".

So I want to encourage you first of all to find all of the reliable sources that you would want someone to read if you were trying to convince them that this article is outdated and too negative. Then make a list of those sources on this talk page, and ask experienced editors like Guy, for whom I have a great deal of respect, if they find themselves convinced by what those sources say. If they do, you can work with them to add more text to update the article and give balance to it. That will always be easier to do than to convince other editors to remove text which is supported by reliable sources. Does that give you an idea of a path forward? Let me know if I can be of help going forward. --RexxS (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, a dispassionate account is my intent. Will use this page to lay out sources. Rencoyote (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous suggested edits

[edit]

Article requires attention {{Requires attention|for=|date=November 2016}}. As RexxS suggested, I will attempt here to provide reliable sources. However, with the Richard Pombo article, I hope it is appreciated by more than just me that there is much more wrong with this article than simply reliable sources. I make that case below, primarily that the article is overall poorly written, poorly organized, includes many dead links (so according to Wikipedia policy [2], should immediately be removed), (is potentially libelous - a charge I assume Pombo would have to address) and the [3] section is heavily biased, as has been noticed above by previous users for a decade.

There is much more wrong than I outline below but this will take me forever.....I made changes the last two days that took me a long time and I justified each one. Would be nice if someone could simply review my edits, cumulatively? JzG or Bishonen or RexxS? If that is not possible, here is an overview of changes needed for another editor:

INTRO

1) Pombo is now a lobbyist for Gavel Resources [4] and [5]

TIME: SINCE MUCH OF THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN IN 2006 AND 2010, PARTS ARE WRITTEN IN PRESENT TENSE

1) Second paragraph, "although he does not live in the district" should be changed to "although he did not live in the district"

2) POLITICAL POSITIONS section: written in present tense in the context of a current House of Representatives career. For example, "Pombo has a conservative track record" (dead link [6]) and "Pombo has expressed support for the Iraq War" and "Pombo said at a May debate."

3) ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD section: "Pombo has likewise pushed for" and "front group that is campaigning for Pombo's bill"

4) 2010 CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN section: "Jeff Denham has stated that Pombo is a liability to the Republican Party and has..."

ARTICLE STRUCTURE CAN IMPROVE

1) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES section: Includes 1992 - 2004 elections but doesn't include the 2006 election.

2) POLITICAL POSITIONS section doesn't include ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD, which is a political position

3) CONTROVERSIES & CRITICISM section: all but one of the controversies come up in the context of the 2006 election, when one happened in the 2004 election.

4) 2006 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN section: I would think this should be part of the overall HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES section.

NO SOURCE or DEADLINKS By footnote number: 1 Dead link, doesn't change [7] ...there are so many -- I will do this another time

ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD

1) This section opens with almost a shocking statement that Pombo wanted to sell a quarter of national park service lands. The entire paragraph is poorly sourced. At least one source says the option to sell NPS lands was a leaked draft, not an actual policy position.

2) "In September 2005, Pombo helped write a revision..." -- Pombo didn't help write, he wrote it: [8]. The bill is cited at the end of that paragraph, but it incorrectly states that the bill did not pass. The bill did pass. The link shows it passed. It wasn't signed into law, but it did pass the House.

3) The League of Conservation Voters is described as nonpartisan, which is correct. However League of Conservation Voters more correctly describes them in this way: "The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is an American liberal political advocacy organization..."

4) "His political revival..." should be changed. He didn't hold a "political revival" - I think the writer meant to refer to his political "comeback" in 2010.

5) A few good sources for a more robust look at Pombo's environmental record include: [9] On his being the youngest committee chairman, bipartisanship, and working across the aisle with Senator Feinstein on Healthy Forests [10] More on Healthy Forest legislation that was signed into law [11] Bipartisanship and environmental stewardship, all ignored in Richard Pombo article: Feinstein and Pombo seeking funding for perchlorate contamination cleanup [12] Only liberal sources are used, this from a conservative source on the campaign waged against Pombo in 2006 election: [13]

CONTROVERSIES AND CRITICISMS

1) Both of the links in this paragraph are dead. If this section is retained, I created an intro to this section that puts the 2006 election in a national election context: [14].

2) [15] Begins with "Pombo and his political action committee RICH PAC was among a dozen leaders...under investigation" --- First of all, a PAC is not a leader. Secondly, the claim being made is that Pombo was under investigation for ties to Jack Abramoff. The source [16] doesn't mention Abramoff once. The source is about a baseball game.

3) There is no source to back up this claim: "Pombo had accepted more money from Abramoff than had any other member of Congress ($500,000)." The only source I saw was one that quoted the Wikipedia Richard Pombo page.

4) A McClatchy Reporter who followed much of Pombo's career, Michael Doyle, published an article in the Fresno Bee in 2010 that there was nothing there on the Abramoff ties. The article link is now dead, but a blog copied the article: [17]. I verified that the article did exist as it was linked to other places, such as at [18].

4a) The article cites a 440 page book on the fall of Jack Abramoff and points out that not one of the pages mentions Pombo.

5) Continuing on in [19], the paragraph beginning "On January 8, 2006..." an article primarily about Richard Pombo intervening in a case against Charles Hurwitz applies the Abramoff corruption test throughout and then in one of the last paragraphs makes an allegation that Pombo received money from a tribe client of Abramoff. The text of the article states in the last half of a paragraph "In another case, Pombo helped one of Abramoff's clients, the Mashpee Indians in Massachusetts, gain official recognition as a tribe; the congressman received contributions from the lobbyist and the tribe in that instance." This is the only claim I can find to such an allegation, and the 2010 Michael Doyle article in the Fresno Bee (see #4 above) addressing the Pombo-Abramoff claims made in 2006 doesn't make the connection.

6) Next paragraph, beginning "In the 2006 cycle, Abramoff was one of the top donors to Pombo's political action committee." This isn't true, and it's a deadlink [20]

6a) The paragraph continues by providing information about an unrelated event and potential controversy. A previous paragraph's footnoted source [21] provides the info in this paragraph, but again, the article doesn't mention Abramoff once, so why does the paragraph begin with a false claim about Abramoff?

6b) The paragraph ends with a statement that is an allegation in itself, that funds were "diverted." The full sentence: "Apparently contributions were diverted to some other entity making it difficult to track who attended and contributed." Wow! The article [22] doesn't mention diversion of funds.

6c) Do you see what I mean about this section needing some TLC?

6d) The next paragraph begins with "The Illitch family..." the source is the same as repeatedly used above [23], and neither does it talk about the Illitch family nor does it mention Abramoff, yet the context here of these intro paragraphs to the "Controversies" section is all about Pombo's connection to Abramoff.

6e) In the 2006 election, opponents were making it all about Jack Abramoff. The way this article is written, it shows the inherent built-in bias by opposition in that era. Since there was never an investigation, charge, indictment, or jail, to me, this is now a non-issue. Especially after Michael Doyle's Fresno Bee article.

6f) But wait, there's more! In the last paragraph, it cites [24] and says that Pombo only had two interactions with Abramoff that occurred....back in 1996! Pombo, however, denied those meetings, a spokesman stating that Abramoff pled guilty to faking contacts with congress and billing his clients ("padding the books"). Should that not be mentioned in the Wikipedia article?

6g) From the article cited in 6f), and the Wikipedia article does not reflect, that Abramoff gave a total of $7,500 to Pombo, and then the Stockton Record states "Abramoff ultimately contributed $7,500 to Pombo, money the congressman has since donated to charity." I think that's worthy of mentioning, if Abramoff is mentioned at all.

6h) In sum, Abramoff was a criminal who was attempted to be linked to Pombo. These paragraphs all try to make the case, but the evidence is flimsy to non-existent, and Pombo's defense, cited repeatedly in sources, is entirely absent in the Wikipedia write-up. Pombo was never under investigation. No staffer was ever under investigation. It's maybe worthy of a sentence or two but the current write-up is overblown.

Okay, phew, done with Abramoff. But now the "Controversies and criticisms" section gets harder to believe. It should be summarized into a few paragraphs at the most.

7) [25] should be deleted. Dead link [26] appears to have been taken from an opinion article judging by the op-ed like title.

7a) The second source in this section, [27], doesn't mention family or relatives. It's about a freeway he proposed. And from experience, I don't know what property owner in the East Bay or Central Valley of CA who wants a freeway built through their property to help the value of their property.

8) [28] --- no link. I imagine the article cited talks about this, but it's a reach to make a connection between a letter asking for loosening environmental restrictions on windfarms and an interest in a parents' property tied to windfarms.

9) [29] two dead links, lots of claims. In my changes, see how I worded it in the new "controversies" section, putting it into context with other politicians: [30]. Note that of the politicians mentioned, the page for Bernie Sanders, who pays his family from campaign funds (see reliable source: Fortune magazine [31]) -- but you'd never know from his wiki page. Same goes for the Wikipedia pages for public political figures Mike Huckabee see [32], and Jim Webb see [33]. Those are the prominent cases. It's a common practice but doesn't get much attention. I don't think it does on Richard Pombo, either, especially when the links no longer work.

10) Another dead link on the Mailings during 2004 campaign section [34]. If you think it should stay, it fits better in the 2004 election section.

11) RV trip section: [35]

11a) Dead link [36]

11b) Pombo's spokesman said in two of the sources for this RV paragraph that $25,000 was saved on travel by renting an RV.

11c) The paragraph fails to say why he would go to national parks but the source says it was because he was chairman of the committee of jurisdiction over the parks, a key detail. The source also says that he got approval from House Administration to go on the trip.

12) Hurwitz section [37]: The glaringly obvious part of this paragraph is when it says "The investigation was ultimately dropped." This is a non-issue -- there isn't any more info online about this case. Pombo writes a letter. The claim is he abused his authority by intervening. The case against Hurwitz was dropped. There was never an investigation, charge, indictment or jail time for Pombo over the letter he wrote.

13) Corruption at Interior: [38] Another one that can go, but if it stays and is not consolidated, the title should change. A careful reading of the source [39] shows that this was not allegations of POMBO's corruption at Interior, which is what the Wikipedia reader would infer from the headline. This is a case of Democratic House members asking Pombo to hold a hearing. Pombo did nothing. Another non-issue.

14) Probed oil firm linked to Pombo, the last in the Controversies section [40]. The source link is another where a claim was made (bad person gives to Pombo + bad person is under investigation = Pombo is bad). No investigation, no wrongdoing, no charge, no jail and that's the last time you see the charge made. In the article it states "Should the FBI indict VECO or its executives, Fogliani said they likely would donate the contributions to a charity such as the Boys & Girls Club, as they have three times before this election cycle."

The entirety of the Controversies and Criticisms section can be condensed, summarized, put into context of the greater national election, merged with information in the [41] section and I ask that you thoroughly review and give your consideration to the edits I made previously that seek to accomplish a more objective view of the subject.

LAST SECTIONS Poorly written and organized: [42] 1st paragraph is okay. 2nd is a little odd. I wouldn't consider the 2nd paragraph to be entirely relevant or significant.

16) [43] - this section doesn't include the 2010 race.

17) Could be added as new information: post-2010 activities at Gavel Resources (see #1 above) and his portrait unveiling [44].

--Rencoyote (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rencoyote: You've presented a lot of information here and I'm sure it's the right way forward. As you can see, another editor has already started revising the article based on your suggestions.
I need to correct a misapprehension, though. Wikipedia definitely does not require dead links to be removed. Quite the opposite, dead links should be marked with the {{dead link}} template, or fixed by finding an archived version of the original page used. Please read WP:LINKROT.
For example, the first link http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2010/01/04/update/pombo_100104.txt is dead. However, a quick search on the site for "Pombo to run for congressional seat" yields http://www.lodinews.com/news/article_5c39dc26-c4bd-520f-a036-a13bd0e3911b.html which is the full article by Ross Farrow. I've fixed that dead link. The alternative is to use www.archive.org to find its archived version of a page whose url is now dead, as has already been done for cite number 4 (https://web.archive.org/web/20071212161136/http://www.portuguesefoundation.org/famous.htm). Sometimes news articles are removed from the newspaper's servers; Star Tribune has this notice: "The page you requested could not be found. It may have been moved; more likely it has been removed from our servers. Most articles are automatically purged from startribune.com's free news database after three weeks." So you may have to find another source that gives the same information. In this case, Pombo's support for oil drilling in the ANWR was also noted in this article, and reported by the Orlando Sentinel as well, so I've replaced the Star Sentinel cite with one to McClatchy, although that's not ideal.
Can I suggest that you make a slow start at making changes that are not controversial like changing to past tense? By taking it in small steps, and giving other editors a chance to review your contributions, you're much more likely to have the changes stick.
Have a think about what changes you could make that nobody is going to see as controversial and make a start with those. You may consider that removing any sentence that is sourced, or removing any sources, is likely to be seen as controversial by some editor and they will almost certainly revert you. Thank you for the effort you've put into trying to improve the article. Editing Wikipedia can present a steep learning curve, and I hope that you will stick with it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, you are so kind, I will proceed as you suggested. And thanks to Viewmont Viking for getting started. Rencoyote (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Richard Pombo. 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) 07:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Pombo. 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) 01:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Pombo&oldid=1257921402"