Jump to content

Talk:Gil Student

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

Is Gil Student Haredi or Modern?

[edit]

Scanning the article, I see statements that Gil Student Modern Orthodox. However, some statements attributed to Gil Student sound like Student is Haredi. In particular, Student attends Haredi synagogues, not modern synagogues. Was he for a time Modern, then switched to Haredi? Does he straddle? I wish I would see in the article a simple and clear statement about where he stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indinfer (talk • contribs) 16:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's one single clear test that can be applied to delineate between MO and Haredi, so your request is just about impossible. --Bachrach44 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New article

[edit]

Hello, I have written a totally new article. I had not known about the previous "goings on" about this person. I am fully certain that this person is notable enough to have an article about him in Wikipedia (I can cite many cases of far less notable rabbis or persons who have their own articles if need be!) Gil Student has written, and continues to publish, much that has gained a lot of attention from many quarters and his name continues to be associated with a number of important controversies that deal with modern-day Jewish life, particularly as relating to Modern Orthodox Judaism; Orthodox Judaism; Haredi Judaism; and Hasidic Judaism. Thank you. IZAK

P.S. I would like to make it VERY clear: I am not an "admirer" of Gil Student. I do not know him personally and I have never met him. It is also immaterial that someone spoke to him and that Gil Student allegedly claims that he "does not deserve" an article on Wikipedia (some people are modest by nature). The stark fact remains, that almost anyone who has read about the controversies surrounding Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson or Rabbi Natan Slifkin, or has read about some of the controversies surrounding the Talmud and it's views on Jesus has in all probability read or learned from, and even utilized, what Gil Student has written. To sum up, at this stage of the game, the "public" Gil Student, especially the one who writes so much on the Internet is a famous enough and noteworthy person by now, and there is absolutely no reason to delete or ban an article about him from Wikipedia for any reason whatsoever. IZAK 11:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gil Student and the very doubtful decision to delete. There was really no consensus there. JFW | T@lk 11:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frisch High School?

[edit]

Rabbi Student is an alumnus of Frisch High School? Of what possible relevance is this? Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should go. IZAK 04:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
His education has influenced his thinking, see http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_hirhurim_archive.html and the section that starts off with "Thank God for the Modern Orthodox World" where he writes "Looking back now in my post-BT days to my pre-BT days, many years ago, it seems that I had two major questions on Orthodoxy that I had assembled during my nine years of Solomon Schechter elementary education. They had nothing to do with biblical criticism, which I had been taught with my aleph beis (actually, aleph bet), because I had never bought into the whole enterprise. The questions were on the authenticity of the Oral Torah, and they were killer questions:" --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"former" Lubavitcher Rebbe

[edit]

I'm not sure why this designation was removed. Is the assertion here that he is also the current Lubavitcher Rebbe? Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Lubavitcher Chassidim consider him to still be leading them, much like the Breslover Chassidim still consider Rabbi Nachman of Breslav to be their Rebbe. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Still, the current wording is confusing; would you object to it saying "the last Lubavitcher Rebbe", as he is described in the article about him? Jayjg (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"last" will be fine. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

critiques

[edit]

How about critques on Gil and some of his methods? Like the famous letter by the famous tzadik and talmid chochom of note, Dr. Stern? I think this is relevant--or at least as relevant of so-called controversies surrounding individuals like Rav Eliashiv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs)

To clarify, wikipedia is not the place to do a critique of anyone. (Wikipedia has a policy against original research, which would include your own review of any subject, either positive or negative). However, since Student is no stranger to controversy, mentioning some of the people who have crticized him in public forums and their arguments would not be out of the scope of the article. I'm not familiar with the letter or person in question who you're mentioning, but if you can find sources for things, feel free to add to try and improve the article. --Bachrach44 15:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work MPerel

[edit]

Your improvements are terrific, thank you very much. Lobojo (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lobojo! I've moved your comment from the article page to here though, I think that's what you intended : ) --MPerel 03:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Editing Article (removing information)

[edit]

If the subject of the article self-edits the article, it raises concerns of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. Especially since the edit is deleting undisputed information contained herein. I'm not sure why this would be "whitewashed", but this is factual information that, as Alansohn pointed out on talk , may be useful in understanding the background of the subject and the influence on the subjects personal views and upbringing. I can't understand why publishing this may irk him, but that certainly is no reason to remove it.

I don't know if theres a pattern, as there was some concern raised on the delete vote for this article that the subject made a blog post requesting people to come to Wikipedia to vote for him for Wikipedia to maintain this article, but this article should maintain factual information regarding subjects graduate information from Solomon Schechter elementary school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homehouse (talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I think that this has the potential to raise the clearest possible WP:COI issues, there do seem to be enough independent editors covering the article. While I do agree that there is potential relevance for the subject's schooling -- even at the elementary level -- the lack of sources, reliable or otherwise, should be addressed ASAP. Alansohn (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice much of the background information in the article is unsourced, not this piece alone. Although Gil didn't dispute the accuracy of the information, but rather its relevancy.
Another concern here is that this information regarding Gil's affiliation with Solomon Schechter elementary school was deleted anonymously at least twice previously (on May 8th and Dec. 27th) before Gil identified himself removing this undisputed information. Without prejudging if Gil made these deletions himself anonymously (even though the last one was not long before he identified himself), we should be clear about "Declaring an interest" from the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. Homehouse (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hirhurim Homehouse (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Gil Student writing. I edited my bio on request by those more familiar with Wikipedia than I am. I did not realize that it is inappropriate.

I can confirm that I attended Solomon Schechter Day School of Bergen County for elementary school. I only made that change once. I find it ridiculous that it is in a short bio but I won't object. But if you want it to be that detailed then you might want to add the following:

  • I received Yeshiva College's 1994 Sophie Manicoff Award for Excellence in Talmud.
  • I have publicly corresponded with R. Aharon Feldman, the dean on Ner Israel Rabbinical School, on issues relating to Jewish law (I sent him a question and he responded with an answer). His letter in Hebrew can be found online here: [1]
  • The same with R. Yehuda Henkin, whose letter to me was subsequently published in volume 4 of his responsa titled Bnei Banim. The letter in Hebrew can be found online here: [2]
  • I had an article published in the journal Modern Judaism, volume 24, number 3, October 2004: [3]
  • And an article in the journal Badad, volume 17: [4]
  • And an article in the magazine Jewish Action, volume 68, number 2, Winter 2007: [5]
  • My blog was awarded the prize for Best Mega Blog and Best Torah Blog in the Jewish and Israeli Blog Awards for 2007. The medal images are on the side of the blog.
  • My blog is cited in two recent academic books: Marc B. Shapiro, Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox, University of Scranton Press, 2006 [6] and Daniel Sperber, Darkah Shel Halakhah, Reuben Mass Press, 2007.

Feel free to incorporate that information as appropriate. Gstudent (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gil, Just to help us understand your point, what is the import of your correspondence with any of various known personalities you mention above? (I assume they correspond with many people frequently...) 24.184.55.85 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just random thinking of "verifiable" material. You're probably right that they aren't relevant.Gstudent (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you went a certain elementary school would not usually go in an article, my assumption is that someody put it in there because they thought that you being an Orthodox rabbi who attended a conservative school was interesting. I don't whether it belongs. Lobojo (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it go both ways. It probably depends on who the personality is and whether it may have relevance on his outlook (or upbringing). In the case of a Rabbi it would appear to be more relevant than say an actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.77.206.228 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Student was a non-Orthodox Jew who became Orthodox

[edit]

The article sources at http://www.jstandard.com/articles/3375/1/A-dream-come-true and at http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/12/thank-god-for-modern-orthodox-world.html that Gil Student was a non-Orthodox Jew (attending Solomon Schechter school), and is currently and Orthodox Rabbi (as the lead indicates.)

That would constitute making Gil Student falling into the "Baalei teshuva" category that he is listed under. There is no reason to delete that. Regardless of how you define "Baalei teshuva", Mr. Student fits into it. Either he raised his observance level and became Orthodox or he was non-religious and became a religous Jew. A classical case of a biography that properly falls into the "Baalei teshuva" category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.77.206.228 (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say he was non-Orthodox? I've had contact with him for many years and I'm fairly certain he is frum-from-birth and has said so. It's original research to decide someone changed their level of observance based on the elementary school they attended. I know another Orthodox rabbi who was completely observant but attended a Conservative high school. It's not the norm, but it just goes to show that observance is not necessarily 100% associated with the schools or even synagogues one affiliates with. --MPerel 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the conclusion that attendance at a Conservative day school by an Orthodox Rabbi does not provide adequate evidence making someone a baal teshuva. Absent an explicit source describing the transformation, this categorization would seem to violate WP:SYNTH in making this inference. Alansohn (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, before the age of bar/bas mitzvah, children aren't accountable to be observant, so it's nonsense to refer to a change of observance from one's childhood "level". --MPerel 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are relying on your own personal original research and "recollection", why don't you instead give him a call. Your other point is incorrect, as he would have been Bar Mitzvah'd in elementary school and have become "accountable to be observant" (to use your language). 198.77.206.228 (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if I was actually trying to insert something in the article about his level of observance, contacting him would still be original research now wouldn't it? But I have no intention of inserting anything about it in the article, my only reason for mentioning it on the talk page is to demonstrate the problem with assuming he was a BT based on the elementary school he attended. As far as becoming bar/bas mitzvah in elementary school, most are K-6 or even K-5 so that's unlikely. Though you're partially correct in the sense that many day schools include middle school which is when kids typically become bar/bas mitzvah. --MPerel 05:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its nothing other than adding an appropriate "category" to the article. What else does the category of "Baal teshuva" exist for on Wikipedia? As far as your second point, most Jewish elementary schools are K-8, something Solomon Schechter Day School Association specifically discusses. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least Mr. Student has raised his observance level, based on a simple reading of the cited and sourced information contained directly in this Wikipedia entry. Specifically, in the section "Position on Modern and Haredi Orthodoxy":
Student nevertheless opposes many trends within Modern Orthodoxy... According to Student, "I live in a moderate Haredi neighborhood, attend Haredi synagogues, send my children to moderate Haredi schools but still maintain professional and friendly relations with the Modern Orthodox world."[16]
So he went from a Conservative Jewish elementary school at Solomon Schechter to a coeducational high school at Frisch School to a normative Modern Orthodox college at Yeshiva University to being an Orthodox Rabbi attending Haredi synagogues and sending his children to Haredi schools.
Clearly a progressive increase in observance level, and hence a classical Baal Teshuva. (And fully cited and sourced in Wikipedia to boot.)
So unless a specific objection to this is raised, I'll restore the article to the category Baal teshuva. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a conclusion that you have drawn based on your interpretation of the limited information in his biography, in violation of WP:SYNTH. Without an independent source establishing identification as a Baal teshuva the identification cannot be used. Nor does your implied characterization of the Frisch School as being non-normative aid your case. Alansohn (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I pointed out that Frisch School is co-ed. Nowhere had I indicated that Frisch School was non-normative (or normative for that matter). That is your inference in violation of the WP:SYNTH spirit.
In any event I'll let the matter rest rather than engage in an edit war with someone who would rather the obvious be unstated. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does not work on "the obvious". Articles require sources and this characterization is no exception, no matter how glaringly obvious the conclusion is to you. That "everybody knows" something is the case may mean it is indeed true, but does not meet Wikipedia standards of verifiability, a basic pillar of this encyclopedia. I'm not sure what definition of baal teshuva you're using, but the type of gradual evolution you're describing here seems at best non-standard. Starting to wear a black hat, becoming more frum after coming back from a yeshiva in Israel, only eating chasidishe shechita or starting to daven at a chareidi shtiebel are all changes that most would not characterize as making one a baal teshuva. I can make all the synthesis I want to here, and your progression from co-ed Frisch to normative YU implies that Frisch is somehow non-normative. A transition from attending a co-ed yeshiva high school to attending YU would make the overwhelming percentage of YU alumni baalei teshuva, a synthesis that is unsupportable. There is no edit war going on here, but if you want to drop the ultimate atom bomb to end it, just find and a source identifying Rabbi Student as a baal teshuva and the "war" is over. Alansohn (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going from a conservative school to a co-ed Orthodox school to a non-co-ed Orthodox school does a Baal Teshuva make. No one said anything about "becoming frum". But improving religious (Orthodox) law adherence is the basic definition of a baal teshuva. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say if there is a source identifying him formerly associated with Conservative Judaism or identified as a Baalat TeShuva it should suffice for inclusion in that category. 24.184.55.85 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that without a source, the conclusion is original research. Given how widely Rabbi Student has been a subject of articles, all that's necessary is to find one reliable and verifiable source -- either Rabbi Student characterizing himself as a baal teshuvah (or baalat teshuvah) or someone else characterizing him as such -- and this discussion is over. Alansohn (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I agree with Alansohn. A source is a preresiquite to add it. Either him referring to himself as a Baalat Teshuva, or a verifiable source indicating he was previously a member of Conservative Judaism. 24.184.55.85 (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alansohn, per your insistence I've added verifiable sourced material on his background. I have still not re-included him in the category we have been discussing above, but I think any reasonable observer can conclude that this additional attributed (to Student himself, no less) information would qualify for re-inclusion in the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.77.206.228 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This post is attributing to the source things that weren't stated in the source. He didn't say he was a "member" only that he "attended". And he says the blog wouldn't exist if he'd attended Schechter, he did not say that he's orthodox because he went to an orthodox high school. While these conclusions may or may not be true, please don't attribute statements to the sources that weren't explicitly stated. --MPerel 04:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Use common sense. Clearly "the Conservative synagogue I attended as a child" makes him a de facto member. Even if the synagogue had no official membership rolls. To state otherwise goes against all grains of common usage and sense. And when Student writes that if there had been a Schechter high school in Teaneck when I was growing up then I almost certainly would have gone there instead of an Orthodox high school, and this blog (among other things) would never have existed he clearly is saying that he expected he would not be Orthodox Jewish otherwise.
Honestly, this is beyond ridiculous. It is clear from the history here that even the clear unambiguous stated and sourced statements attributed to the subject is insufficient for some in the quest to whitewash information not to their absolute liking.
And if you want to get technical beyond WP:COMMON, the edit was in compliance with WP:REF, WP:V, WP:NEU, WP:AGF, and WP:CIV amongst others.
In any event, in the interests of WP:CIV, to seek WP:CON beyond the call of duty and most importantly to avoid and WP:EW I have reworded the edit to conform more closely to the precise wording of the original author. I do not believe this is necessary as a matter of policy, but have nevertheless done so at this time in the interest of good will. (Also, I have left MPerel's edit deleting the high school location untouched.) 198.77.206.228 (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: I lost access to my original account (for unknown reasons) and was requested to establish a new one (rather than use no login). This caused an automated bot rv apparently due to a blogspot link (that belongs to the subject of this article.) Am trying to clarify this.) Qwertyqazqaz1 (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is churlish to pretent that his going to a conservative school (per sources) does not immediately imply that he is a BT. Since he has edited here though, I will contact him to ask. Lobojo (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<-)I am coming here at the request of Qwertyqazqaz1. My immediate response is to Lobojo. Churlish, or not, please remember the Wikipedia requires no original research or synthesis. It may seem obvious, but this is not an example of Wikipedia:Common knowledge—an example would be that the daytime sky on planet Earth is usually colored blue—so if there is no source that explicitly states Rabbi Student's non-Orthodoxy as a young person, making the syllogism that attendance at a Conservative school/synagogue implies non-Orthodoxy is a violation of the rules against original research and synthesis. This may see harsh, but the policy is firm. Consider that it impartially protects agains more radical and destructive syntheses without having to require judgement (which will differ for each person) as to the nature of the synthesis. -- Avi (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Avi. I reworded it to only hew the line specifically sourced and stated. It just says what Mr. Student clearly indicated. That should resolve any questions regarding it. Now the automated bot didn't like the blogspot address (of hirhurim.blogspot.com). Hopefully someone can help me out on that one. Thanks again Qwertyqazqaz1 (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply Avi, I have an apology to make here. Anyway this is all moot. He has replied with a link to a post he made in 2005, here where he refers to himself as a having beceom a BT. So that is that. He actually sent that to me on January 7, because I asked him then and forgot, but I didn't notice the reply until I went to ask him again. If only I noticed this, I could have saved you all a lot of bickering, so my apologies. Lobojo (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is as reliable as any of the other hirhurim postings, and as long as any one of those is considered acceptable for wiki in regards to Rabbi Student himself, then all of them are so acceptable. Good find. . -- Avi (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The blogspot ref would still need the backup from a reference from a third party, or at least a backup of a referenced from a checked source. Blogspot is totally self-published and unchecked. Though most-probably it is the subject that is writing his own blog, and he is most-probably telling the truth about himself, the problem is with the 'most-probably'. There is NO way of actually checking that, unless there is that third-party reference. That makes the value of a reference to blogspot close to zero, and hence, the value of the statement that it should proof is also close to zero. Most blogspot links are actually more suitable as an external link than as a reference (though still debatable in the external links section). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dirk, yes, in general blogs are NOT reliable sources. However, in this case, where the blog is unquestionably Student's and may be used specifically in the article about Student as long as it conforms to WP:SELFPUB. Which in this case, it appears to. -- Avi (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A blog post is not generally a reliable source, but it certainly is a reliable source about a statement by the individual himself, about the individual himself. The source added that states "Looking back now in my post-BT days to my pre-BT days, many years ago, it seems that I had two major questions on Orthodoxy that I had assembled during my nine years of Solomon Schechter elementary education." would seem to be rather unambiguous support for characterizing Student as a BT. Now that there is an appropriate source, it would seem that this issue has been resolved. Alansohn (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, this is all that was necessary, a source explicitly describing him as a BT. Thanks for providing, Lobojo. --MPerel 16:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The oddest part is that the source used for the Baal teshuva already is referenced on the article for his school reference. Apparently everyone just overlooked the BT mention. Qwertyqazqaz1 (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and that is what I meantioned above .. I see that WP:SELFPUB does apply, but the problem comes in the last statement there, "the article is not based primarily on such sources." .. at the moment it is 10 out of 22 (blogspot and jewishpress, the latter also seems to be a posting site, don't know exactly what the reliability status is, it seems quite established, but also contains quite some advertisements; 2 of the 10 seem the same (refs 3 and 4), and none of them is backed up by a third party reference), so about 40% of the article is based on these references. I think that it should be looked at carefully. Is none of these 9 self published posts backed up by 'checked' sources? --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Jewish Press is The Jewish Press, and is a reliable source not a posting site, ads are what pay for you to read it for free, see? Lobojo (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an edit with the additional sourced information on his background. It goes out of the way to precisely convey what the source states. In addition, the edit puts the background in chronological order. Homehouse (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The parentheses in the "Attention on the Internet" section reading "(This is, however, an incorrect statement. Many Hareidi Jews consider the legal sections of the Talmud to be off limits to women. However, most Hareidi women learn other parts of Torah such as the Hebrew Bible and Codes of Jewish Law. And nearly all Modern Orthodox Jews support women's learning of any part of Torah or Talmud they desire.)" is itself mistaken. Whoever wrote it accurately wrote that Haredi learn parts of Torah such as the Bible. This is true, and must be the reason that Student referred to "advanced learning" i.e. Talmudic learning.184.75.33.92 (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to a Christian Nation

[edit]

I found the mention that he "declined to run an ad" pretty much incomprehensible and irrelevant. Is there at least a source for this bit of trivia? MikeR613 (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gil Student. 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 07:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gil Student. 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) 21:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gil Student. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gil_Student&oldid=1205314993"