Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Chris Hoy

Country

Anyone who follows Track cycling will know it is very much a British Team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank800 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Please do not delete GB from the infobox, Hoy represents both Scotland and Great Britain, many people argue to have one or the other, having both is the best compromise.Thaf (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that English athletes at the Olympic Games are noted as being British (cf Rebecca Adlington, for example) while Chris Hoy and the other Scottish athletes are noted as Scottish. Shouldn't there be some consistency about this? I prefer the compromise formula "Scottish and British" (in the case of Chris Hoy) as it covers all of the teams he is likely to compete for. Does anyone agree with me? As it is it looks like Scottish Nationalism tomfoolery. --Dalekmikey (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to go insulting people. The current representation looks fine to me, now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not insulting anyone, honest. My intention was to point out the inconsistency with which Scottish and English athletes are treated on Wikipedia in general, as exampled in this article. I apologise for any offence taken, but I suspect that those that would eliminate the word British from all articles about Scotland have a particular reason for doing so. Eliminating the word British from Scottish articles (and I am speaking more widely than this article here) does not seem to be a neutral point of view to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [--86.165.239.45 (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[Special:Contributions/86.165.239.45|86.165.239.45]] (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't argue for deleting it, so there's not much point in addressing comments about such to me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This point is not just addressed to you, it is addressed to all that come this way and can read it - my view is that this article doesn't look fine in its current format.--86.165.239.45 (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to do that, this is not the appropriate place. This talk page is about the article of Chris Hoy, not Rebecca Adlington or systematic bias. SeveroTC 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Adlington has represented England in the Commonwealth Games, she should have English as well as British in the infobox, because then she would have represented both national entities in a major competition. Users 86.165.239.45 and Dalekmikey should assume good faith as to why Hoy has Scottish in his infobox. Hoy has won gold medals for Scotland in the Commonwealth Games as well as his successes for Great Britain in the Olympics and cycling-specific events. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no good reason for Hoy to be continued to be listed as solely Scottish and not British. This is not to say I don't love Scotland and Scottish people, but do you ever see an American athlete having their nationality listed as a 'Texan' and not American for instance? Yes, Scotland competes as a separate team in the Commonwealth games, as do the rest of the UK. I'm sure that American (or any country for that matter) teams also compete in sporting competitions as smaller states. Does this happen at the Olympics though? No, because at the Olympics only the true sovereign nations are represented. By true I mean countries that you can actually get a passport for (sorry if anyone didn't know but you cannot get a Scottish/Welsh/English/Northern Irish passport). With this line of thinking all the articles of Team GB athletes from Cornwall should be changed from British to Cornish, as some residents also claim it is a country in it's own right. I agree with the previous poster that the thinking behind this decision was not taken from a neutral perspective. (82.44.72.174 (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You're responding to a very old thread, I would take a look at the discussion going on at the bottom of the page :) --Τασουλα (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

I wondered how long it would take for some of the wikidiots to desecrate this article. Hoy has stated many times he's a proud Scot AND Brit- this is a fact and is a view supported by many in our nation. As per usual I feel the unsilent minority has spoken again on a wikipedia article. It's so childish, what's wrong with being proud of being British Scottish or British Welsh et al? Grow up and edit the article with facts not opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.110.42 (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected

The article has been temporarily protected against new and unregistered users, due to the amount of recent IP vandalism. Please remember that any allegations about living people must be supported by citations from reliable sources. Blocks can and will be issued against editors ignoring the Living persons bio rules. This restriction applies to talk pages, also. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Pjotr Morgen (talk) has switched to using various IP's to vandalise articles. They all originate from the University of Salzburg.Thaf (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I warned him, he has now been blocked, it would appear to be for the use of socks. Pages affected can be semi-protected, and vandalising IPs blocked - seems a bit unfair on the other members of the University, though ... Kbthompson (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, the matter was reported at the BIO-noticeboard, so there will be more eyes on these articles. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They live in Chorley, Lancashire?

No he doesn't he lives in Salford, Greater Manchester. http://www.salfordadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/1063648_hoy_and_mighty

Its Jason Queally who lives in Chorley http://www.chorley-guardian.co.uk/sport/Jason-40Queally41-and-the-aeronauts.3724299.jp—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.44.37 (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Kellogg's Bran Flakes

I wonder if he really does eat them for breakfast every day - they are 22% sugar. I'm sceptical. Edwardx (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Old comment, I know) YES, they are disgustingly sugary. But hey, it's just an advertisement...--Τασουλα (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom

Ive noticed United Kingdom being removed several times and reverted, i actually agree with the removal he was born in the country of Scotland. Yes Scotland is part of the United Kingdom but stating that in the infobox seems rather unnecessary. Just wondering if there is any precedent or reason why this would be the case, i thought maybe because he represents team GB but thats covered in the article and other Scottish athletes Andy Murray, Katherine Grainger and other don't. Blethering Scot 22:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it once because it was removed by an IP that was editng in bad faith. As you are acting in good faith I will say this: Scotland speaks for itself. There really is no reason to have "UK" or "United Kingdom" in the infobox. When it comes to ENGLAND it's a lot more useful... So many think England and Britain/UK are the same thing...*groan*.--Τασουλα (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question has been going around making a number of contradictory and bias edits on these sorts of things. adding United Kingdom for someone from England whilst removing it for someone from Scotland and within 4 minutes on 31 July changingEnglish to British and British to Scottish. In my opinion it is reasonable to simply say ***, Scotland. But i do not support such edits which are part of a blatant crusade, especially when at the same time we are prevented from stating he is a British cyclist in the opening sentence too despite that clearly being what he is most notable for. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that I will be taking that user you mentioned BW to ANI if they make another POV-pushing PointY edit (As I have done to others in the past)... Unless someone beats me too it.--Τασουλα (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been discussing this matter over at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#British_Nationality because a few days ago i came across an IP doing exactly the same thing as i have seen this user doing as well now. The trouble is at present there are no clear guidelines on how to handle British nationals, and that creates this void that sees countles changes backwards and forwards all the time. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting involved in something I probably shouldn't but... Personally I'm convinced we should use British and UK when it comes to athletes that are primarily notable for their Olympic feats, and that goes for English-born competitors as well as Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish. User:BritishWatcher's suggested rules here aren't far off the money when it comes to athletes- Basement12 (T.C) 01:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen the editor in question to be honest. I had mainly seen ips being reverted and whilst I don't see the point in going on a crusade like it seems to be i see more of an issue with England being thought of as British uk than scotland. I would support just being Scotland in infobox as further down it does cover him representing the uk and Scotland but not overly overse eithier way. Just felt it should be discussed so we have a reason or consensus to revert. To be honest I see him as Scottish nationality but don't have a problem with him being labelled as a British athlete but thats another story. Blethering Scot 12:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CHRIS HOY DECLARES HIMSELF BRITISH. Wikipedia needs to stop appeasing separatist minorities. It's bastardising facts. Watch http://www.channel4.com/news/sir-chris-hoy-i-thought-nothing-could-top-beijing at 04:14 he declares himself as British, as well as saying his Scottish too. In addition, his the most decorated British Olympian to ever compete. To not have him as British on the Wikipedia page, prevents him from being viewed within context of British people. Do I have to mention how silly that is? Erzan 17:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really the majority of Scots will tell you they are Scots but that doesn't mean we aren't British. Separate nationalities are part of the make up of the UK and unfortunately thats only going to get worse. This isn't about what we should label him as but whether there is a need to say in the Infobox that he was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom given that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and the article covers that there isn't really a need for over emphasising the fact in the infobox. And he has represented Scotland and the UK and i suggest please stop the shouting.17:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Blethering Scot
I give up. If he was edited originally British and yet declared himself as not British but just Scottish. There would be a demand for him to be edited this way. Other way round? ignored. Oh and for more facts, separatism is not on the increase, some polls for pro-Scott independence ebbing away. I can provide you with further links, to facts that help to prove this. But I suppose I'd be ignored again anyway. Erzan 17:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly go and form a reasoned statement and im sure people will read it and form an opinion on whether its a valid point maybe at the manual of style links above, however it seems heavily biased the way you are putting it forward at this time especially since not one editor here has argued or made a point regarding changing his nationality and i for one don't care whether he is listed as a British or Scottish however he was born in the country of Scotland which is part of the United Kingdom so Scottish is factually correct. British is correct also but doesn't account for the fact Uk is made up of England Scotland and Wales which are all countries. If you have an opinion on why we need United Kingdom in the infobox then please let us hear it as that is what we are trying to establish here not if he is a British or Scottish Athlete. Blethering Scot 18:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have laid your cards down nicely and it shows that you are pushing a point escpecially making comments such as this.[1] Wikipedia should strive to be objective and factual, yet it appears to be appealing to separatist users, who are in the minority in Britain, hell bent on having famous person reduced to their lowest denominator. In the minority is your pov i don't see how you can accurately speak for everyone in Wales and Scotland on that one, No evidence of anyone commenting being hell bent on anything here and having famous person reduced to their lowest denominator is just plain wrong stating which country someone was born in isnt reducing anyone to the lowest denominator it is factual and accurate. Chris Hoy states[2] i am proud to be Scottish and British. Note Scottish and British so stating Scottish where he was born is correct and factual as Scotland is part of Britain which also makes him British. He also says I’m British. I’m Scottish and British. I think you can be both – they are not mutually exclusive.Blethering Scot 18:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they are not mutually exclusive, yet at present we are prohibited from describing him as British in the introduction because of a blatant anti British bias that has existed on Wikipedia for years. The UK is the only sovereign country in the world on Wikipedia whos citizens articles do not state their nationality in the introduction. Whilst it makes sense for a footballer who plays for Scotland or England, to be described as a Scottish Footballer/English footballer. In this case Sir Chris is most notable for his Olympic success and career... in which he competes as a British track cyclist, only competing for Scotland at the commonwealth games. The article for awhile said he was a Scottish and British track cyclist, yet someone reverted that saying it was "tautology".
I do not see why we could not say.. "Sir Chris Hoy (born Edinburgh, Scotland) is a British track cyclist..." etc. That way the intro reflects he is from Scotland, but also the primary fact he is a British track cyclist. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well their is a distinct reasoning why we are different very few countries have countries within a country. They are not mutually exclusive in that someone can be Scottish and British. Im Scottish because i was born in the Country of Scotland yet i am British. I actually don't see anything wrong with saying Scottish and British track cyclist, surely thats better than this stupid edit warring going on. But Chris Hoy sums this up best when he says I’m British. I’m Scottish and British. What i do object to is someone pushing a point and having looked at Erzan comments here and at others that appears to be the case. Blethering Scot 19:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also "Sir Chris Hoy (born Edinburgh, Scotland) is a British track cyclist..." would at least I've always been told fail Open Paragraph.Blethering Scot 19:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, place of birth does not go in the lead per MOS. He should..no wait, "could" be described as either Scottish or British, both are totally acceptable. Saying he can't be either is ridiculous both ways. As Scottish has been up there for a long time, I say keep it. The lead points out he competes for both nations (one being a different kind of nation!) so perhaps both. But he really needs to be identified with Scotland either way. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ive seen place of birth on many articles, i did not realise that was against MOS, it is a shame because it made sense to put birth place next to date of birth. Saying both Scottish and British seemed like a reasonable compromise and it was in the article for awhile at least. If both are there it certainly decreases the chances of edit warring taking place replacing one with the other all the time. In this case it would be accurate and follow the sources, along with what Sir Chris himself has said. So are there any objections to putting Scottish and British on this article? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, really. As he identifies with both, and competes for both, and as we have agreed they are not mutually exclusive of each other - then it's fine. Nothing POV about it, as it comes from Hoy's own mouth and from the fact he competes for both nations. As no one is representing their own personal feelings on this matter and using fact...--Τασουλα (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing Chris Hoy and allowing his Britishness to be acknowledged. Blethering Scot I'm not trying to attack you and I'm sorry if I came across doing so. But lets be honest here, there is a strong bias against Britain's identity on Wikipedia. A bunch of separatist have got their foot in the door and managed to have a monopoly on British edits. Notice I never said you can be Scottish or English, but there is a bias 'against' editing someone British. Some people kick up a fuss, not because it is factual incorrect. But because they are separatist, motivated by emotion rather than evidence and the harsh facts. I too see myself as English, British and even European. However the facts remain, Britain is a country, sovereign nation-state and British is a nationality. So until Scotland votes for independence, this fact will remain. Erzan (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The broad community consensus is that Scottish/NIrish/Welsh/English are also nationalities, but not in the sense of nationality granted by Citizenship. The personal preference should be respected on BLPs, thus calling Hoy both Scottish and British, or one or the other, is both perfectly factual, unbias and accurate, and completely complying with MOS. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ive added the source to back up the lead. So what about the infobox then and his place of birth. I think we should remove United Kingdom as the context of the article makes it pretty clear.Blethering Scot 20:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having just Bonnie Scotland (Which is apparently the name of a film - and a brand of Whisky too...) speaks for itself, as I said before so no objection :). (Info-boxes are often too cluttered anyway) --Τασουλα (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ive gone ahead and changed it.Blethering Scot 22:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. I think we can agree that a common-sense approach has been followed here. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the British and/or Scottish parts are removed, so we'll have to keep an eye out.--Τασουλα (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I thought it was important to source it. We've had the discussion so if it's changed they really should discuss it again before doing so. Blethering Scot 10:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to the removal of UK. Scotland is clearly part of the UK and stated as such in the first sentence. As US cities and states are often put without the USA, it seems reasonable that the sovereign state does not always need to be mentioned. Its the nationality issues that cause by far the biggest controversy (Especially as if you blink whilst reading the Scottish people article you will miss any reference to British citizenship/dual national identifies etc). Glad this appears to have consensus at present on this article, will be interesting to see if there is less trouble on it now in terms of alterations compared to what happens to other articles. Saying both Scottish + British on people when there is justification for both seems like the best compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid I disagree. This is not an issue relating to the politics of Scottish independence, as some seem to try to be asserting, it's about accurately describing an athelete. Most articles state a single nationality, whether or not that's 'regional' or 'national'. Scottish atheletes are normally described as being Scottish, and the article then goes on to explain that they represent Scotland and/or the UK. If there's an issue with English atheletes being described as British, while Scots atheltes are described as being Scottish, then I suggest Enlgish ones have their descriptions changed to say English. Placing Scottish and British in an article about an athelete around which political parts are currently trying to score points is somewhat partisan and is beneath Wikipedia. Long have Scottish atheletes been described as being Scottish, and I see no reason for that not to continue. DaibhidhSCO (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is about what Chris Hoy describes himself as - which is both Scottish and British - this has nothing to do with "political point scoring" which is what you have basically accused us of doing. Yes, Scottish athletes are almost always described as Scottish - because that is what they identify as. Hoy identifies as Scottish and British. British is just as much of an identification as Scottish. Personal identification is always taken into account on BLP's. Further more you removed cited material and went against consensus, pretty please don't do that. There is nothing bias, non-factual or against Wikipedia guidelines describing him as both Scottish & British. It comes from Hoy's own mouth. - When it comes to nationalities of people from the United Kingdom we respect their personal identification. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "Scottish and British" is just tautological. If he's Scottish, he's British as well by definition and default. 2 lines of K303 20:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"is a Scottish and British track cyclist representing Scotland (at the Commonwealth Games) and Great Britain at the Olympics and World Championships" - it's frankly embarrassing to Wikipedia that people think that is an appropriate sentence. Learn what a tautology is before attempting to add it back again. Can you name a single Scottish person (other than someone who has actually renounced their citizenship) born in the UK who isn't British as well? 2 lines of K303 19:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But "Scottish people" are not only described as those born in the UK. Scottish people is far larger in its scope. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Hoy would probably not be happy if people were arguing over his nationality... --Τασουλα (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We either describe him as he describes himself with the sources or we use Scottish because that would be his nationality. Unfortunately some people would rather argue about his nationality than go with sourcing and reality which is why there is always edit warring on these type of articles.Blethering Scot 20:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His nationality is both Scottish and British, but I am now dismayed to see this being completely ignored in the article now. Never-mind. Being described as British should actually come before Scottish as that's key to his notability (We call it sporting nationality), but completely ignoring his Scottish-side is really not OK in my eyes, as it's a violation of the community consensus.--Τασουλα (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was born in Scotland he is a Scottish Cyclist. He clearly said I'm Scottish and British, first of all note the Scottish first and actually to say being British is his sporting notability isn't entirely the case he represented Scotland as well. How he identifies himself is far more important in any case especially since we have highly reliable sources quoting his view. Its Scottish or Scottish and British, plainly not just British.Blethering Scot 19:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would it be just Scottish, have you not read the quote that's being discussed? To clarify, he said he's Scottish AND British. So not just Scottish. 82.44.72.174 (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a dangerous thing to read too much into a quote such as that. If you want my honest opinion, Hoy sounded annoyed by people like the less-than-subtle Alex Salmond try to cause politicisation in the Games. I don't think he put any emphasis on what he considers himself more to be, Scottish or British, we don't know anything about his cultural traditions or political beliefs or whatever. We need to start not giving two-shits like he does and not overly complicate things.

Personally I think the article was fine the way it was about a month ago > "Is a Scottish track cyclist representing Great Britain and Scotland..." (First Link to "Scottish People" as that's more specific, and identifies him with what Cultural region of Britain he is from - which is just an Island in this case - we then simply link the other two to the respective teams...) The first thing to analyse here is 1) Is Scottish misleading? No, clearly not. 2) Is it undue weight considering he mostly represents Great Britain? No again I feel, as by default Scots are British nationals 3) The lead is supposed to represent the entire article in a nut-shell almost. I think this clearly does. Identifies what part of Britain he is from and then mentions his very important British Sporting nationality. And I can remove British any time I want because of WP:BRD as the anon added it without reason or talk-page consulting. But I wont - because discussing something is a lot more productive. Rant over. Any typo's blame on being 3AM in the morning, OK? (edit conflict) reply to the above, that's something we shouldn't even consider. His personal identity being discussed in detail is undue weight. One quote doesn't mean we need to go into tautologies. This isn't the Andy Murray article. Describing him as Scottish does NOT mean he isn't British as well, so calling him Scottish and then reading too much into it wont do. --Τασουλα (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This argument does not hold water. 'Britain - just an island'?? You must be joking. Not only is Great Britain (or United Kingdom to be more accurate) a sovereign state - as much so as the United States, France or any other country; I've noticed that you in particular constantly try to make assertions through your edits that the United Kingdom does not exist and that Scotland is an independent country. Is it as of this moment? No. And to say that Chris Hoy is British by proxy of being listed as Scottish is plain insulting. Wikipedia, especially the English language edition, has a global reach with visitors from all over the world so giving information with implied knowledge of the reader completely defeats the object of an encyclopedia. Chris Hoy just won gold only a few months ago for Great Britain & Northern Ireland, why is this not reflected in his nationality or birthplace? The nationalist bias on Wikipedia is simply astounding, and quite frankly it is not on. 31.221.49.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

I have edited the first paragraph so as to better reflect Hoy's nationality. I considered the paragraph as it stood unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

Scotland is not an independent country. That, of course, may change in the future. But unless and until it does, the country to which Hoy belongs is the United Kingdom; and the appropriate adjective for an individual belonging to that country, whether they be from England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, is 'British'. Thus, I suggest that to simply describe Hoy as Scottish is misleading and non-neutral.

In the source given, Hoy describes himself both as Scottish and British. I would think it inappropriate for Wikipedia to label him in those terms. Not only is this tautological, but nationality is a matter of fact, determined (in general) by place of birth, not personal views. That said, the fact that Hoy feels this way is notable in itself.

Thus, I have changed the paragraph to describe Hoy as British while including a sentence describing how Hoy views himself. This I feel more accurately reflects the objective facts whilst giving appropriate weight to Hoy's views.2.29.154.152 (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Hoy. 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 02:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chris Hoy. 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) 22:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Hoy. 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) 15:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chris Hoy. 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) 02:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Hoy