Talk:Jerry Weller

message: The section about the Zury name confusion which someone deleted in haste should be readded.  It seems legit because Weller's own House bio refers to her as Rios Sosa.  Pointing out the confusion is fair game in Wikipedia, expressing opinion why it exists is not.    
If KV could make a case for why the list of Zury's ex-husbands, or the General's political career is relevent to Weller's article, it'd be worth discussing.  "Because it is" doesn't make that case though.  If that's the reasoning, then there should be discussion of Weller's ex-wife on Zury's page. And by extension of the same principle, there should be a big section on the Bay of Pigs on Carolyn Bessette's page.
-Frankflynn42 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the listing of Zury Ríos Montt's ex-husbands; however, I did note that she was previously married three times. In my opinion this is fair because the ex-husbands themselves may not be relevant, but her pattern of behavior is an issue. Also, as far as details pertaining to her father, I think she opened the door by campaigning for him and voicing public support. Had she distanced herself, I wouldn't think she ought to be held accountable for the sins of the father. Given the circumstances, I think it is fair game. I removed the NPOV tag. Propol 15:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zury Name

message: First of all, nice work Bolivian Unicyclist.  This article is much much closer to being an actual encyclopedia article because of your efforts. Propol: I am still not sure why Zury's marriage history is relevent to Weller's article.  It is however a fact, and no dispute there. I do find it rather unusual that the section on Weller's personal life is longer than that of his long record of public service and that the personal section hardly mentions him, the actual subject of the article!     Again, the question is relevence. I have added citation needed tags in places that I believe are critical.  I have removed a couple links to the KV's blog which were certainly not research references.  Frankly, I don't think the blog should be linked to at all, per Wikipedia's general recommendation.  But since there is usually an editing war going on here, I think a link to the blog can be sustained if information on its bias is included.  Finally, Weller's campaign website link was removed because that's a non functioning link.  
Frankflynn42 03:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, thanks for the kind words, Frankflynn42. I've added a couple of the requested references; unfortunately, as all I could find was either in Spanish or from Kankakee Voice's page, I went with the Spanish. Re her surnames: irrespective of my personal feelings about these people, I can't get worked up about the Ríos Sosa / Ríos Montt issue. The Guatemalan press seems to use the two pretty indistinctly, and a Google search restricted to "gt" domains actually returns more Sosas than Montts. Reading between the lines, I'd guess that Ríos Sosa is what's on her passport and academic certificates, while Ríos Montt is a style she prefers as a vindication of her father and an expression of her support  for him. KV's claim that she affected the style Ríos Sosa to pull the wool over Uncle Sam's eyes is not supported by the facts or by the way names work in Spanish-speaking countries. Sorry. Bolivian Unicyclist 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolivian Unicyclist

message: As far as the editing goes, I have removed the citation on the issue of Zury "masterminding" Black Thursday.  The opinion column used in the citation was rather slanderous, but above all it was one man's opinion. There must be a way to independently verify Zury's role in this important moment in Guatemala's history, or else the statement shouldn't appear in the article.  I've linked the birth announcement to the La Prensa article.  I think the article needs reliable evidence that the FRG organized the riots.  Organizing riots seems a bit of an oxymoron; but it is one thing to say that the rioters were members of the FRG and another to say the FRG planned the violence. I think the first statement is a given, but the second requires some evidence.  It seems charges against the general on the matter were dropped.  Any additional prosecutions could constitute evidence.  This section also gave the impression that the general was doing something illegal by seeking to appear on the ballot.  I have added information that presents it as a legal dispute in which the general's argument was ultimately accepted.  Only the members of the constitutional court know the reason they made their decision as they did. I still feel it's rather irrelevent to Weller's article.  But if we're going to present it, let's be factual about it.  
KV you make a lot of insinuations, and I think a blog is a good forum for that. But I think the mission here is verifiable fact.  For instance, I have pretty much put the page here on John Pavich together solo.  I think it stands up pretty well under factual analysis.  But one could certainly insinuate much about Pavich.  He touts his CIA service record in Europe, but what was his role, if any, in the renditions and secret flights that the CIA conducted during his service?  Does his service with the agency indicate tacit personal approval of these actions?  What was his reaction to Dick Marty's report?  So far, the media has been more enamored with the simple fact that he was a spy.  It's a fact that Pavich helped defend a Bosnian-Serb war criminal.  Certainly, we recognize the right to a fair trial even in international settings, and don't hold counsel responsible in any way for the actions of their clients,  but as you criticize Weller's silence on his father in law (who isn't an indicted war criminal), Pavich is interestingly silent about past Bosnian-Serb and Serb regimes.  But what I just laid down is a whole lot of bluster and insinuation, but not much fact. So it isn't anything that should appear in a factual article about him. 
-Frankflynn42 04:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid comments. I knew I was on shaky ground with that opinion column but (I thought) it did at least serve to indicate that "some people believed" (weasel alert) her to be behind the incident.  Seven  members of the FRG did face charges for orchestrating the riot, including the journalist's death -- the general, Juan Pablo Ríos (his grandson), Ingrid Argueta (his niece),  Waleska Sánchez (Zury's secretary) and 3 others   -- but I don't know what the outcome of the proceedings was, other than the charges against the general himself were dropped. Bolivian Unicyclist 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 'Manslaughter' is right for homicidio preterintencional; the other charges -- (?) abuse of authority, failing to make a report, failing to perform duty -- sound a lot less serious. But I'm guessing. The quote about Zury being photographed on another article is, I think, someone's fingers getting into a fumble. I've reworded the claim on jueves negro, and should probably do the same elsewhere (it appears on the general's article, I think). I certainly haven't turned up anything as juicily incriminating as a photo of Zury on the day (they were all wearing ski-masks, of course). Maybe KV knows of one? Bolivian Unicyclist 19:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Thursday

message: Well, here we go again.  If there's published reporting on Weller links to campaign finance corruption, link to the reporting!  It's generous enough that we keep KV's blog in the external links in light of Wikipedia's linking policies.  Removed the statement on oil and gas company contributions, because the link did not support the assertion.  If one can provide a cumulative summary of Weller's contributions received from oil and gas companies over several election cycles, then the statement is probably factual, but link provided does not show "hundreds of thousands of dollars".  Added an external link which shows fundraising for current 11th district race.  This provides a good starting point for any details of candidate funding that the reader would seek.  
Frankflynn42 15:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finances

message: KV: I see the link to your blog was edited out by another user.  That is actually consistent with Wikipedia policy. It's worth giving that policy a read so you understand why.  Frankly, I don't mind having your blog linked, as long as its lack of neutrality is labelled as it was. 
If the photo you edited in doesn't meet fair use, you might still be able to get permission from the copyright holder. 
I have left all your edits in place and put in a neutrality tag because I want to try to build consensus here.  Here are the points with which I have a problem:
*"Congressman Jerry Weller's name has currently been connected to three different scandals currently under investigation, Jack Abramoff, Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Tom DeLay."
This might actually fit better in the fundraising section, since it concerns fundraising.  The link to DCCC is hardly neutral; the link attached to "under investigation" is partisan; for instance, no mention of Congressman Jefferson there. I do find that the citations on Abramoff and Cunningham at least demonstrate financial links.  The link under DeLay just gives a chart of PAC money received by members including DeLay, so I don't see any relevence to Weller.   
*"as Ríos Montt's father is a former dictator, charged with genocide General Efraín Ríos Montt,"
The link provided as support of "charged with genocide" does not state that Efraín Ríos Montt has been charged with genocide, and one will be hard pressed to find such a link because such a charge has not occurred.  The link discusses an investigation by Spanish prosecutors that could lead to charges. Ríos Montt was charged in relation to the death of a journalist in the Black Thursday riots and those charges were later dropped. I suggested  a link to the Guatemalan truth and reconciliation commission because it does conclude that atrocities occurred during Ríos Montt's leadership, although it does not conclude that he was personally responsible, nor does it conclude that atrocities occurred by his decree.  As the Spanish investigation shows, these last points are ongoing and open questions.  
*Weller has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars, over his 12 years in office as Congressman, in donations from big oil and gas companies. 
The link provided as support for this still shows $45,000 raised from oil and gas concerns in the current election cycle.  The assertion of hundreds of thousands, (which I am not doubting if $45,000 has been raised already in this cycle), requires a citation that shows that. One can't just guess at the numbers. 
There is a broader question of whether selective inclusion of fundraising sources constitutes a POV. The numbers of any candidate are illuminated by the context.  For instance, isn't it POV to discuss certain corporate contributions, but leave out trade union contributions or vice versa? Especially when the numbers included and excluded are essentially equal?    I'm of a mind that for any candidate of any party, we should simply link to a fundraising summary or FEC data. But, would like to see other opinions on this
Frankflynn42 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Kankakee Voice and Frankflynn42. I have tried to clean up the article a little bit. KV, I think I kept nearly all of your content, but I did reword it in some cases to sound more neutral. I understand your opinion of Weller, but let the facts do the talking for you. I also substituted more authoritative links whenever I could. I was able to find most of the info in the FEC records. KV, I also had to replace the wedding photo, I used the one with the background that you don't seem to like. Just so you know, I think it would be nice to use a wedding photo. However, as far as I can tell, we don't have the right to use the photo you selected. We can use the photo I replaced it with because it is a promotional photo provided by the subject. I'm going to drop the NPOV tag as long as nobody objects. Lastly, KV I understand it can be frustrating when others constantly revise your edits, but Frank doesn't seem like a troll to me. In fact, in the long-run he may help you. If your tone comes off too negative, or if your sources aren't rock-solid, then many people will dismiss the entire article, and then all of your effort (and everyone else's) will be for naught. 70.230.67.13 05:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blog link

message: Gonna 'splode? Anyone? Anyone? 66.73.160.10 02:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumor

message: "What Do Blagojevich, Davlin, and Weller Have In Common
They were all screwed by rumors that were amazingly widespread and false." 
"First, I'm sorry--my judgment held up in the first two, but this time it didn't. Read below in another post for how it unfolded and feel free to remind me from time to time."
 
From Sweet:
"Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.), hit with rumors that he was somehow involved in the page scandal, issued a statement Thursday saying he was not a factor -- but a former page or intern he sponsored was subject to some questionable behavior by another lawmaker". 
More at the link. Billbrock 19:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said: "If false, it's news for another reason". OK, its false, what's the other reason? Are you implying that there was a deliberate attempt to falsely smear a politician only days prior to the election? If so, who is now going to be held to account for this slander? Is any of this notable to add to the article? Since it's not going to be added to the article, can we delete this entire section on the talk page yet? Dual Freq 19:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either incredibly sloppy reporting (OK, it wasn't published, but reporters were talking to many many blogs) or a deliberate attempt to smear (some sources did not have partisan axe to grind; others did).  Agree that it certainly doesn't belong here now, but it may make sense to leave it up for a day or so for purposes of refutation...Wonkette, e.g., has not retracted. If deliberate, this deserves its own story.  Billbrock 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this could be described as a smear by any stretch of the imagination. Weller's name came into the frame of the scandal in relation to rumours of a third congressman facing accusations of inappropriate behaviour. It's not hard to see why people initially leapt to the conclusion that he himself was the third congressman. As it turns out, he merely sponsored the page who has allegedly been targeted by a third congressman (and that, incidentally, should be added to the article - as should his refusal to name that congressman). That's sloppy journalism maybe, but not a smear. When people heard there was a third Congressman and then heard that Weller was involved with the scandal, they put two and two together. As it turns out, they came up with 5. 172.202.245.34 00:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, no one is to blame. Just weeks before an election and no one is to blame. Just sloppy journalism, and not a deliberate attempt to sink a candidate. "If false, it's news for another reason", yet there is suddenly no news, just an honest mistake and / or sloppy journalism. This proves this information should never have been linked here. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, but hell even a tabloid wouldn't have published this. --Dual Freq 17:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This Wonkette post has not yet been walked back: someone is to blame for that. Looks like a smear to me, and a legally actionable one at that.  IMO, this is still very much a story, but based on present knowledge, it's of zero relevance to the Weller campaign.  Also, the logical reading of the Daily Journal article is that Weller will share what he knows with the Page Board and the Ethics Committee when asked; that shouldn't be read as Weller's "refusal to name" the other Congressman. Billbrock 06:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Capitol Fax Blog updated.  Billbrock 20:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update from [http://www.archpundit.com Archpundit] 

message: This section seems a bit POV, cherry picking a long list for potentially controversial contributors. Weller has received donations from various labor groups, including: 
*AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION-COPE
*INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 150 POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
*INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES POLITICAL ACTION TOGETHER POLITICAL COMM
*LABORERS' POLITICAL LEAGUE-LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF N.A.
*RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS POLITICAL LEAGUE A PROJECT OF THE TRANS. COMM. INT'L. UNION/IAM
*SEAFARERS POLITICAL ACTIVITY DONATION-SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF N.A.-AGLIWD/NMU
*SHEET METAL AND AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS' POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
*TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS COMMITTEE
*TRANSPORTATION TRADES DEPARTMENT AFL-CIO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (TTD/PAC)
*UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (UTU PAC)
*NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION PAC
*COMMITTEE ON LETTER CARRIERS POLITICAL EDUCATION (LETTER CARRIERS POLITICAL ACTION FUND)
*DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA INC DEPAC (DAIRY EDUCATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE)
*AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC
I only list these labor and worker related groups to demonstrate how the list can be cherry picked to show whatever POV someone wants to show. Is a list of cherry picked contributers appropriate? Would a similarly cherry picked list be appropriate list for John Pavich? I recommend removal of the list in its current POV form, replace it with a link to the contribution page and let people figure it out themselves. --Dual Freq 15:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed contributor section, no other member of the Illinois delegation, or IL Governor has a similar section. It's also hopelessly POV as stated above and non-biographical. --Dual Freq 11:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your deletion of the entire section. There are several members of the Illinois delegation that have contributor sections. For example Dennis Hastert has a contributor section and nobody has objected. I would have to think that his is a frequently reviewed article. Also, comparing a House seat (a federal election) to Governor (a state election) doesn't seem consistent. Besides, there are highly credible and unbiased sources (Federal Election Commission) for the contributors section. I was supportive of your prior edits that added additional information for the purpose of a balanced NPOV article. I think it's better to go that route, rather than delete everything. By the way, I think the John Pavich article should also have a contributor section. However, Weller has raised $1.09 million from PAC's this election, while Pavich has only raised $68 thousand from PAC's.  There isn't much to say about Pavich. Lastly, I don't agree with your sentiment, replace it with a link to the contribution page and let people figure it out themselves. Under that logic, why not delete the entire Jerry Weller article and let people figure it out. They could go Google him. I'm sorry, I don't mean to come off sounding harshly. I am very willing to work with you on this topic. Thanks. Propol 12:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributions 

message: The Dennis Hastert article, cited as an example of another article that has a contributors section, is a model for how SHORT such a section should be - and it's worth noting that Hastert certainly has gotten a lot more money from a lot more sources than has Weller.  A similar discussion was just held concerning the Mark Kirk article, and the section there was then shortened to a much more appropriate length.
The problem in this article is threefold:  first, a sort of guilt by association; second, a selective (by necessity) list which can't help but introduce POV (someone decides which contributors are listed and which are not, and this is inherently POV), and third, more importantly, a violation of WP:NPOV because of undue weight.  Not counting references, the section on contributors is almost HALF of the article, but it certainly is not close to half of what is newsworthy about Weller.  
Please note that this is not an argument about WP:RS or WP:V.  Nothing above changes even if it is conceded (for the sake of argument) that all of the statements in the section are factual, and adequately sourced.  Wikipedia articles are not lists, however, per WP:NOT.  
If someone doesn't have the time to edit down the section (again, the Hastert and Kirk articles can serve as models), then the only solution may be to remove the entire section.   John Broughton  |  Talk 18:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, you could expand the biographical portion of the article. — goethean ॐ 18:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think that would work - to get the same proportion of the article being about contributions (versus other stuff) as is the case for Hastert and Kirk, for example, the article would need to be five to ten times longer, which is probably longer than the article for any other Representative.  It's more reasonable to reduce the section so that it is no longer than any similar section found in any other article on a Representative.  John Broughton  |  Talk 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted to remove the section once before using the same logic. I think it received one reply and a swift revert. Look at Barack Obama's article, it's now a 55k featured article and the term "contrib" can not be found in it. I guarantee someone could cherry pick his contributers similar to this article and add 5k worth of contributers to "smear" him with as this article does. I support total removal of the section since a shortened version would have no context and would most likely be POV. --Dual Freq 23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Contributors" section (take 2) 

message: Considering that according to the source the total share of contributions from energy companies comes out to 2.16% of total contributions, why is this an entire subsection of the article? NPOV is not to give undue weight to disproportional small things, especially when no one has made an issue of this. Therefore, I am going to delete the section, and incorporate into the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nuclear questions seep into campaigns" — goethean ॐ 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good example - of something that should be a paragraph about Weller's views on nuclear energy and plant safety, in the sec.  Much more of the article is about that than about the $20K in donations.  I've reorganized the article so that it follows the outline of other articles on Representatives, which makes it pretty easy to add such a paragraph, under "Political actions and positions". Why bury this under "contributors", in a big section, which provides little context, when it can have a paragraph of its own, and a lot more context? John Broughton  |  Talk 20:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Energy Contributions

message: I have recently been made aware that primary sources cannot be used by theselves in articles for content issues. This article is loaded with them, and unless anyone objects, I will remove them. CENSEI (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: CENSEI, your description above is incorrect, please see the Wikipedia policy found at WP:PSTS, which states, "primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia." Some of the citations you deleted were to the Federal Election Commission, which clearly qualifies as a reliable source. Also, you deleted several other SECONDARY sources, such as from The Hill, the Associated Press, and the Center for Responsive Politics / Opensecrets.org. If you have an objection to a source, please be much more specific, rather than deleting an entire section of the article. Propol (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no reason to mention or single out donations to Weller by any individual PAC or other source unless a secondary source has done so. Using any of this information without another secondary source mentioning its relevance to Weller specifically, looks like original research. In addition, the secondary sources you mentioned did not mention how any of these are ntoable with respect to Weller. CENSEI (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many articles of politicians on Wikipedia that mention individual contributors. Using primary sources, such as the Federal Election Commission, does not constitute original research - the claims are clearly supported by a reliable source. Also, some of the secondary sources that you deleted, such the Associated Press and The Hill articles, directly mention Weller and note the relevance. Not only are these matters relevant, but in some cases (i.e. Duke Cunningham) they are ongoing matters, where Weller is subject to legal action. I agree the section in this article is rather large, so I'll try to trim it down, but I am strongly opposed to blanket deletions. Propol (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just because one article violates BLP does not give editors carte blanche to perform the same violation in another article, and from the policy page, its not up for negotiation. If not one else reliable finds it notable that Weller accepted campaign money from Cunningham or Abramoff then that piece of information is not notable enough for inclusion. I would suggest that if you want this material included you take it to the notice board. CENSEI (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  CENSEI, other reliable sources (e.g. The Hill) DO find Weller's acceptance of contributions from Cunningham notable - it was in their article. Also, other users (DougsTech) have disagreed with your repeated deletions of this information. You have stated on multiple occasions that the information is a violation of BLP, but you fail to offer any specific rationale. I've tried to be cooperative on this matter (I reduced the size of the section), but I think you may be pushing it a bit far. Propol (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: A dead link is not an appropriate basis for deletion. Propol (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. If the material cannot be be found elsewhere, and if the original is unavailable, then there is no way to verify the infomation. CENSEI (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your disagreement is with WP:RS, and you need to take up your issues there. — goethean ॐ 21:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not disagreement with the reliability of the source, only with its interpretation. As we have see with this article sources that are normally very reliable and high quality have been misused to turn this into an attack page, something you have been a large part of, and I am not going to just take your word for it in this instance. CENSEI (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text:  Amd while I am on it, do you disagree with any of my other deletions, and if so why did you undo my edits as many times as you did? CENSEI (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP Issues

message: Five and a half years later do we know how this was resolved?
:Weller is currently fighting a subpoena to testify in Cunningham's trial.
::Weller, Hastert challenge Cunningham subpoenas by Jim Tankersley Chicago Tribune September 19, 2007
-- Pemilligan (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cunningham subpoena 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jerry Weller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070131202057/http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=10 to http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=10
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jerry Weller. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071225053217/http://www.vote-smart.org/extended_bio.php?can_id=CNIP0580 to http://www.vote-smart.org/extended_bio.php?can_id=CNIP0580
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214001306/http://www.elperiodico.com.gt/look/article.tpl?IdLanguage=13&IdPublication=1&NrIssue=763&NrSection=1&NrArticle=26827 to http://www.elperiodico.com.gt/look/article.tpl?IdLanguage=13&IdPublication=1&NrIssue=763&NrSection=1&NrArticle=26827
*Added  tag to http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/wellerbeach/
*Added  tag to http://www.morrisdailyherald.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=58&ArticleID=19907&TM=51768.24
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jerry Weller. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518084611/http://www.jerryweller.info/ to http://www.jerryweller.info/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified