Jump to content

Talk:Barry Marshall

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

Self-induced gastritis

[edit]

This article states that Marshall's self-induced gastritis was resolved with the aid of antibiotics, but the Helicobacter pylori article states that it resolved without treatment. Anyone know which is right?

According to his Nobel Lecture, after several endoscopic examinations and biopsies showing that he had an on-going gastric bacterial infection and persistant gastritis he took antibiotics starting 14 days after drinking the bacterial culture. --JWSchmidt 01:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is that it probably resolved spontaneously. I will edit the Wiki but I don't want to make a big entry as the whole issue is rather complicated. I'll post something on my blog site [1]soon and correct the H.pylori article.Barjammar 22:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Barry Marshall[reply]

New writer; I used to do 10-30 upper GI fluoroscopies a day in radiology- until this H pylori was discovered as the culprit and its treatment permitted by the US medical establishment as the cause of stomach and pyloric ulcers. Now that test is rare in the US.

Back in the 1990's a nurse I worked with in an American orthopedic office informed me that she would be seeing a doctor for treatment of an ulcer (that I would have to cover her area that afternoon). I told her of a new insight into the cause of ulcers- H pylori.

A usually docile orthopod heard me and shouted out in rage that the treatment was unproven, and told me to keep the idea to myself. I was unaware that the doctor's wife was an internist who was beginning to lose thousands of dollars a year in Tagamet prescriptions and its required periodic liver testing. It burned me on how the dollar corrupts virtue. I remembered this lesson when it was discovered a form of gadolinium used in MRI's was causing NSF and radiologists poo-pooed it- until proven- now patients everywhere are screened for kidney function before any form of radiologic contrast is injected.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.170.78.58 (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this true?

[edit]

Hi. Read all about it here. [2] Barjammar 16:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Barry Marshall (yes - its really me!)[reply]

Recently, Marhsall has been criticised for appearing in an infomercial touting the book "World's Greatest Treasury of Health Secrets" sold by Bottom Line Press, which is not a medical publisher.

Seems the only citation of this is a blog, which I don't think is good citation. I'm going to remove it --Glockmeister 14:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this and have had people email me that they saw it too. I've been going nuts looking for a citation. It could have been someone pretending to be him (never know with these infomercials). Strangely, sockpuppets have been removing the citation, so something weird is going on. I looked at your history and I know you're not a sockpuppet, so I'll leave it deleted for now while I look for a citation. Mjk2357 16:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another update - I don't want to sound like a nut but this is weird to me. A guy just posted on my blog re: this article and said I was "spamming" Wikipedia. One glance at my history shows I'm no spammer - but who cares because there are a lot of self-appointed "authorities" here that don't know what they're talking about, right? The weird thing was he chose "no reply" to his post so I couldn't respond to what he wrote. And his post was in perfect English but the blog it pointed to was in Chinese and all this guy's other comments were in Chinese. So I deleted it.
Still looking for confirmation or a source this guy was on this infomercial. Someone help - YouTube turned up empty. Mjk2357 01:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll see what Google turns up Glockmeister 01:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried - I couldn't find anything. May you have better luck. I don't care about this enough to sit up all night watching infomercials! Mjk2357 02:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...my...god... look at this!! - http://www.archivista.ch/cgi-bin/mwfd/user_info.pl?uid=44. "Barjammar" was the one that initially reverted my post. This is too weird... Mjk2357 02:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence: http://www.helico.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl . Now, hopefully, Barjammar is just pretending to be Barry Marshall, right? I mean, it couldn't actually be Barry Marshall, reverting my addition without denying he was in the infomercial. Mjk2357 02:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt it. I've tried Google, but didn't get anywhereGlockmeister 06:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There might be two Barjammars, because I'm pretty sure the Barjammar that's the moderator of helico.com is the real Barry Marshall. Anyway, this has passed my strangeness threshold. I've turned the issue over to the admins. Mjk2357 18:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is true. I saw the infomercial again and recorded it. I've reposted the info with caveats, airtimes, producer's info and other references. If anyone knows how to get a video clip off a DVR and onto the Internet let me know and I'll post the raw data. Mjk2357 09:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems to be Barry Marshall. Go to https://tvz.healthsecrets.com/ and skip to 2:06 of the video clip on the main page. The person in the video has an Australian accent and looks like the person in the pictures on Barry Marshall's personal website. http://www.vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/ 70.69.54.1 11:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried contacting Barry Marshall and his Laboratory through their web sites to verify this. No luck. Barry Marshall doesn't publish his e-mail address and the only e-mail address on his "helico.com Foundation" (always suspicious am I of ".com foundations") bounces as "no such mail address". Maybe try their WHOIS record which they're required by regulation to keep up to date? [[User:Anon] Fri Jan 19 10:38:17 (UTC)

Any luck with WHOIS? I asked around. We may have an answer in a few days Toru-chan 00:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the infomercial comments on this article are driven by mjk2357 original research and not any actual biographical sources. The history shows that mjk2357 added to the article the statement "Recently, Marshall has been criticised for appearing in an infomercial touting the book..." which was sourced only from mjk2357's blog site. BLPs require neutral point of view (NPOV) and no original research. I personally posted a comment on mjk2357's blog site about the wikipedia rules for biographies http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons in October which mjk2357 promptly deleted (see above). More than three removals/edits by various editors have all been reverted by mjk2357. TLB 10:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above - Dr. Marshall has confirmed the information in this section - also see his own blog. When the guy himself admits it, and there's taped evidence, it's not orig. research! Mjk2357 12:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No comment from mjk2357 on NPOV and I don’t think he understands original research (yes, the content is verifiable but that is only 1 of 3 criteria for biographies). I am going to undo this is clearly disputed material. Additionally there is an exception for 3RR 24hour rule for living biographies.
This appears to be original research to me. Definition is here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Original_research. None of the section footnotes even mentions Marshall. My main issue is that the primary source is the authors blog and the subjects response (Dr. Marshall) was directly instigated by this wikipedia article section, not to any other source. This seems fundamentally at odds with what wikipedia is meant to do; not to create new content but to summarize and encapsulate a subject. This would be especially true for biographies of living persons. This section should be dropped until properly sourced as this section is completely self-referential.
I have issues with the section as outlined below:
"Recently Dr. Marshall appeared in an infomercial by Bottom Line Health, promoting The World's Greatest Treasury of Health Secrets, which is not a peer-reviewed book."
- "Recently" is ambiguous.
- The Bottom Line Health page does not exist, not sure if it ever did.
- There is no evidence that Bottom Line Health suggested this was a "peer-reviewed" book. The book is not an academic or scholarly release and is instead targeted at a general audience. Please see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Peer_reviewed#Reasons_for_peer_review
"Bottom Line Health claims in the infomercial that no doctor was paid for the inclusion of their research in the book, however the publisher does not specify that Dr. Marshall was not compensated for his appearance in the video program promoting it."
- No reference for this information. This statement is conjecture and there is not any relevance provided.
"Bottom Line Health is not a medical publisher and it has published other material on 'natural and alternative cures' making claims that have not been validated by the FDA."
- This is not sourced, the footnotes are customer complaints.
- Again, what information describes this book as anything other than general audience? Publishers publish many types of content, is there a reason why the publishers should be exclusively medical publishers?
- Is there any information that the book claims its remedies have been approved by the FDA? By definition would not "natural and alternative" medicine be unapproved by the FDA? As a note, the FDA has in fact approved treatment for ulcers described in the book by Marshall. TLB 08:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious issue

[edit]

Hi; I checked with the manager of my office and apparently there was no payment. Someone may put evidence on my blog page. Barjammar 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Barry Marshall.[reply]

I refer you once again to Dr. Marshall's own blog where he says he was paid for his appearance. However this was donated to charity. If you research this book you will find it is pure quackery. It's a serious issue that a Nobel Prize winner was seen endorsing it! Dr. Marshall himself has admitted that it was a mistake for him to appear in the book. Anyone who looks up Dr. Marshall's page after seeing this informercial deserves to see this information and know that Dr. Marshall no longer endorses this book. As for the claims not being validated by the FDA, this is stated on Bottom Line's website, which is sourced. You are justified in editing this section but not in removing it entirely. I find it suspicious also that someone whose only contributions to Wikipedia are on this page (plus one other minor edit) is such a hawk about the rules. Perhaps this is a separate account you have for doing controversial things such as this? Mjk2357 12:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above paragraph sounds completely different from the disputed section content; an altogether different intention and tone. TLB 12:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you saying? That you would accept inclusion of the section if it was rewritten? If so feel free to do so. However blanking sourced material repeatedly is in violation of policy. However, I have added a dispute tag and I am waiting for input from other users before restoring anything - at least for the time being. Mjk2357 12:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I checked the policy for living biographies and by repeatedly blanking a sourced section it's you that's in violation of the policy, not me. Mjk2357 12:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These were reverts of your work which have been going on since October, not blanking. WP:BLP demands WP:NPOV and WP:NOR otherwise it is meant to be removed immediately. TLB 07:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above it's not a violation of NPOV or NOR if the subject of the article confirms the accuracy of the section! What part about that don't you understand? I'm willing to let this issue be debated and not get into a time-wasting revert war with you but by removing the tag you're hiding even the mention of a debate.
Again I also repeat my suspicions that such a new user who only cares about this one issue can quote policy, albeit inaccurately, in such detail. You wouldn't happen to be using double accounts, would you? Bad form. Mjk2357 04:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious issue (continued)

[edit]
I should not have removed the tags, I thought the discussion with Toru-chan was finished. TLB 13:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you've admitted that, but another Australian (I know you're from Sydney) has just removed them again. This is not a national pride issue, ok? It's about someone with a lot of credibility endorsing something with no credibility and leading people astray.Mjk2357 16:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More groundless accusations. I could say that this is another example of an American moral agenda being forced onto the world, but I won't. Please try to stay on subject without the personal attacks.One example TLB 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well my perspective is your own nationalism is keeping you from being objective here. As for a moral agenda, everyone has one, including Wikipedia. Wikipedia's is supposed to be free and accurate information. The info I added was accurate. Unfortunately you and another Australian have succeeded (so far) in suppressing it. As for when I was warned about no personal attacks, that user was nobly trying to cool a debate with the LaRouche people, who, if you've been here as long as I have, you would know almost ruined Wikipedia. I don't have any apologies to make about standing up to them. Mjk2357 10:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"As I explained above it's not a violation of NPOV or NOR if the subject of the article confirms the accuracy of the section!" What does the subject confirmation have to do with NPOV? Wouldn't a subject's response to a wikipedia article be biased? I have outlined my problems with your treatment of the subject in the "Is this true?" section as not neutral; I don't think that Dr. Marshall's response is any more neutral. The sections commentary, relevance and moral judgements are your original work. I agree with Toru-chan that there should be links to both websites and people wanting more information can read the commentary for themselves.
I also think using your blog as a the primary source for a section you are writing on wikipedia is unethical. So is blackmailing a response out of Dr. Marshall by publishing original and negative commentary against him and reverting any removals of this commentary by the subject and other editors. TLB 13:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only posted my blog entry to get other people to confirm what I thought I saw while groggily watching TV at 4:40 AM! If you want to delete the blog link, fine. But suppressing this information is not fine. Users should be alerted as to an ongoing debate and be allowed to contribute to it. I agree Dr. Marshall's response is not NPOV since it's from the subject, but since it confirms embarrassing information, rather than denying it, that doesn't really matter, does it? If President Bush tomorrow admitted the whole Iraq War was based on lies, does that make it POV and not suitable for wikipedia? Ridiculous. Mjk2357 16:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit to posting unverified negative comments on a wikipedia biography in order to draw readers to your blog and support your agenda? Are you from Current Affair? Biographies and wikipedia articles should be a summary of collected information/commentary on a subject. So far your blog is the only other source which mentions Dr. Marshall. I do not want to delete your blog as an external link, I just don't feel the section you defended for months was neutral or a summary of biographical information on the subject. TLB 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, in order to confirm that I really saw what I thought I saw. I knew a link on the main page would actually draw people to answer - which they did, confirming the story, while few people read the talk page. After the info was confirmed I should have removed the link, but I just forgot. As you can see from my blog I don't even update it frequently so I'm hardly trying to "draw traffic" or anything like that. Mjk2357 10:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for blackmail - wow - now you're going all out with the weird accusations. Like I said before I like Dr. Marhsall - I think he's a cool guy - a good model for scientists - however he made a mistake that is now misleading people. As Toru-Chan said, people come to Wikipedia for information - it should not be censored. Mjk2357 16:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not think your blog link should be removed, even if previously posted on wikipeida under dubious means. I am saying that crusaders should not be writing a section on the crusades. TLB 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so nobody who has a moral position on an issue can edit a page about that issue? In that case I think the Stalin and Fascism pages would be entirely blank. That argument doesn't hold up, and you obviously don't apply it to yourself otherwise you as an Australian with an obvious emotional interest in this issue would excuse yourself from getting involved. But you didn't - in fact you even changed a title heading on the talk page to disguise the fact that there is a "national pride" factor involved with this debate - you're hiding your own POV. Mjk2357 10:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to, "If you research this book you will find it is pure quackery". First let me say I in no way am attempting to defend the infomercial or book but didn't Dr. Marshall review one of the sections? Is this section quackery? The comments on your blog are from "anonymous" users and don't reference the content at all. Another infomercial comment site seems to only be about Hugh Downs and not the content. I found another website with customer comments about how the content was "obvious", and many said that you would be better off searching google to find these "remedies". What if you don't have access to the internet? Does your term "quackery" mean the book contains false information or just obvious, vague or basic medical information as specified in the internet comments? TLB 13:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One example (there are plenty more): The book advises treating heartburn by drinking vinegar. This is against all medical advice and could be very dangerous. The tone of the infomercial is such that "most doctors are misleading you" and you should use "alternative cures." I suggest you watch the infomercial yourself - a user has supplied a link on this page I believe. Mjk2357 16:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the infomercial and I think your analysis is subjective. The quotes you used above are not quotes from the infomercial linked at the bottom of this discussion. Maybe I am only seeing a shortened version? Where are the quotes you used above? TLB 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The full infomercial is an hour long. Because of my slow connection I can't view the video - was the video an hour or just a clip? I clearly remember the host talking about vinegar, but I don't have the full recording on my DVR anymore. Mjk2357 10:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You wouldn't happen to be using double accounts, would you?" I see you are never short of accusations. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a sockpuppet or spammer? This is my first and only wikipedia account. As for bad form, you deleted a post I put on your blog (the primary source for the disputed section) last year about wikipedia rules for BLP (before you had anything verified). TLB 13:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I explained above why I posted that. I deleted your comment because it was an anonymous attack (see first comment on this talk page where I talked with Glockmeister about your anonymous post on my blog). Had you left contact info we could have debated all this back in October and not be wasting our time now. Mjk2357 16:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? All of your posts on your blog are anonymous. What contact information was I meant to leave, my email address, phone number? The customer complaints on the infomercial info sites are anonymous as well but those are sourced. TLB 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about a wikipedia account? Obviously you had one. Just say I am user Trizow and I think this post violates policy X. If you had been nice about it I would have removed the link. Mjk2357 10:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad I now know some of the rules for wikipedia as experienced editors with agendas can exploit unexperienced users. I have been reading wikipedia for years but new to create an account (last year) when I read this very article and decided that I should chime in as an advocate. I don't really see why you need to make personal attacks to advance your case. TLB 13:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you are not a sockpuppet I apologize. You claimed I was a spammer- wish to apologize for that? I helped to expose a big sockpuppeteer named Zdrv a while back - maybe now I think everyone is one because of that. However, once again, you are mistaken when it comes to the rules. You can't claim NPOV and NOR violations when Dr. Marshall himself has admitted this event happened. The fact that he doesn't want the material included is immaterial - no subject would want embarrassing material included - but that doesn't mean Wiki biographies should be 100% positive. Mjk2357 16:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cut and pasted word for word the notice for BLPs. Not sure how this means I called you a spammer, this was what I knew about wikipedia at the time. As I have said previously, verifiability of infomercial appearance is not in debate, the infomercial/book integrity, relevance to biographical sources and your commentary/judgements/agenda are what I have identified as NPOV and NOR. TLB 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The title of your post was "Please Stop Spamming Wikipedia." I think that qualifies as calling me a spammer. Perhaps you did not know the terminology back then. Mjk2357 10:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate that my Wikipedia page is getting back to normal with the "book" episode being represented by a link. I don't have time to study the rules but whoever did that for me, many thanks. I hope it sticks. Barjammar 13:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Barry Marshall[reply]

I think we do need to make some reference to it, but also don't think we need blow it out of proportion. Barjammar was basically suckered into giving an endorsement for a book that he believed, based on the article he checked for them, was bone fide. Could happen to any of us, and he's come clean. That aught to be good enough. We've *all* made the odd mistake in our past. Acknowledge it, but it needn't take up half our of Wiki. BTW Contrary to what Barjammar thinks, this is not an exclusively Wiki/mjk thing. It was discussed on quite a few web sites. People tend to come to Wiki when they're looking for an answer. For that reason, we still need to have a reference for anyone looking for it. But lets keep it in proportion. Toru-chan 01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toru-chan please restore the infomercial section to the degree you feel appropriate, as I do not feel like wasting time in a revert/policy debate war with Trizow. Thanks! Mjk2357 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mjk, yeah, it's a grey area. Probably it is worth a subheading in the wiki article itself, but so long as your blog and Barjammar's admission are live external links it is still on the record and we can leave it like that. Basically we'll give Barjammar the benefit of the doubt on this occasion. If Barjammar goes in another Informercial we can reconsider, but somehow I don't see it! :-) Toru-chan 03:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it - I think he's learned his lesson ;) Actually I think he is pretty cool - drinking the bacteria himself to prove it causes ulcers? Now that's science! Too bad he took it as a personal attack - I'm just an opponent of quacks as I'm sure he is as well. Mjk2357 12:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Always best to keep your cool. Guess he was embarrassed. Anyway Barjammar: tempting as it may be, best scrap plans to appear on the new Suzanne Somers Thighmaster promotional tour, and get back to your medical research. ;-) Toru-chan 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this all seems to have settled down to a nice tidy verified one-sentence mention (which is about what it deserves), I think the dispute over the neutrality of the article is probably over; I've removed the tag. Glad to see it was worked out... Shimgray | talk | 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

[edit]

infomercial, program length commercial, seems to be @:

< http://tvz.healthsecrets.com/?CFID=751683&CFTOKEN=19549302 >.

I often don't use my computer sound, so I could see, not hear.

It includes Hugh Malcolm Downs, Barry Marshall, & "Arthur Johnson".

I found comments @:

< http://thepermanentpress.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-heck-is-this-nobel-prize-winner.html >;

< http://tvsquad.com/2006/09/29/creepy-infomercial-replaces-creepy-host-with-hugh-downs >.

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 12:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questions About "Barry Marshall" Entry

[edit]

Um, I was just wondering, if Barry Marshall and Robin Warren discovered the cause of gastritis and stomach ulcers, then who discovered the cure? Was it them who found the cure? Did scientists and doctors find the cure automatically because the treatment is the same for all bacteria? Or did it take more research to discover the cure? Please answer my questions if you do in fact know the answer, below. 

Thankyou.


ANSWER: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.21.104 (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of a reference is this?

[edit]

The number 2: Customer reaction/complaints to World's Greatest Treasury of Health Secrets

The same Barry Marshall?

[edit]

When moving house a few months ago, I came across some papers related to my 1985 nomination in the Western Australia Section of the Five Outstanding Young Australian Awards, run by Australian Jaycees. Included in that documentation was a letter listing the 5 winners from the 16 nominees. One of the five winners was "Barry Marshall", but no details were given in the letter regarding his achievements. The awards ceremony in Bunbury on 31 August 1985 is long lost from my memory, but the letter says that's the date the awards were presented, and I do remember attending.

Can anyone confirm whether this award winner is the same Barry Marshall? I suspect it is, but I don't want to add unverified information to the main article. Yes, I've Googled, but have found no supporting evidence.

Picture

[edit]

The picture attached to the article was most certainly not the Barry Marshall that is the subject of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.187.169.10 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Barry Marshall. 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) 08:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Barry Marshall. 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) 03:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barry_Marshall&oldid=1252194044"