Talk:Julia Nunes/Archive 1

These two links were added to the references section of the article. As far as I can see they're valid, but they weren't supporting any particular assertion. I've left them here so anyone who wants to can put them back in the article. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 04:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Put this one back into the article (properly linked in) Bmju (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• announcement of Ben Folds, Julia Nunes gig, May 2008 - Western Connecticut State University News

What's the deal with the proposed deletion? She's one of the most subscribed musicians on YouTube; she has a legitimate CD for sale (both physically and on iTunes); has toured with high-profile musicians (Ben Folds)... how non-notable is that? True, it could do with a few more sources, but so could the vast majority of Wiki pages. --Sqrnookle (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is a keep. There are reliable sources available here, here, here, here, and here. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• The first of those (WHEC) is a reliable source, the other four most likely aren't. Anyone can get on cdbaby; lovethemusicreviews and 411mania both appear to be non-notable blogs; the Gawker piece is from a name source but it's hardly substantial. As for Sqrnookle's reasons, if there's an RS on her touring with Ben Folds then that might help, but having a CD on cdbaby and itunes isn't a notability criterion and nor is having a lot of youtube subscribers. i think she's on the verge of something but isn't there yet. tomasz. 17:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Quoting tomasz; "...if there's an RS on her touring with Ben Folds then that might help...". The WHEC articles does mention it. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added more citations, including an additional one for opening for Ben Folds. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So if we are concerned about being notable, why haven't you suggested that Gary Brolsma, the Numa Numa guy have his wikipedia entry removed. All he did was lip sync to a Romanian Pop song. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Brolsma. I think it would be a mistake at this time to remove this individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.234.73 (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

One difference is that became an overnight phenom with reams of reliable, verifiable sources. Our opinion of the worth of the person's achievements is not really relevant to whether they're notable by our standards or not. tomasz. 13:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked at this discussion just to prove myself right, that someone was going to whine about her being non-notable. They're not notable if they don't appear on Entertainment Tonight right?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

←I don't think we're going to make any progress by discussing Julia's notability any further on this talk page. The debate was had, and closed, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Nunes. Unless anyone wants to re-nominate the article, we should leave the debate here and move on. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious how you happened upon this comment so quickly. Is there some kind of alert? Anyway, the point is to underline the capricious mentality that so many bring to Wikipedia and influences the content of articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDarkOneLives (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:) The page is on my WP:Watchlist. I happened to check my watchlist just after you posted your comment.

I understand what you were trying to do, but all that's likely to be achieved by that is a raising of the temperature. The deletion discussion is closed, and neither you nor I want to open it again. Since there's no decision to be made here, the discussion can't be useful. We're better off leaving it alone. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing to be gained by pointing out the randomness of the so-called Wikipedia "Standards". I.e. where the "guidelines" generally mean what a given handful of people decide they mean, which varies ridiculously from article to article.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Her enthusiasm for the ukulele was picked up three years ago.

Three years ago, being when? Seems like a date is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. 164.144.248.25 (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The specific wording is bad but I doubt there are many people who could give you an exact date when they began playing. Try finding such an exact citation for any famous musician. They'll usually say they began playing at whatever age, or grade, or maybe a year.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

removed for being non encylopedic Droidguy1119 (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where to find this information on Wikipedia, but are songs in italics or quotes? Same for album names. Because this article switches between both several times. --Mynameisnotpj (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any known family connection to Manuel Nunes, one of three 19th century Hawaiian luthiers credited with the invention of the ukulele? From what little I've read elsewhere it seems likely there isn't, but I don't know for sure. If properly sourced a statement one way or the other would be a good addition to this article. 24.58.33.52 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

After searching flickr for possible CC images I turned up none, so I sent an email to Julia herself and she agreed that this article needed a photo. I've sent her information on how to add a picture, hopefully she'll follow through. Mopenstein (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Might be more likely to happen if you get her permission to use a photo from her web site and add it yourself? 24.58.33.52 (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the link to the Bushman World Ukulele Video Contest 2007 entry in the "External links" section because I think is irrelevant. There are already plenty of links to Julia's sites there. UltraEdit (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that an image of an album cannot be used to illustrate a biography. The copyright information on this image needs to be resolved. Until it is, we have to assume that it is non-free and Wikipedia policy specifies that they cannot be used to illustrate living persons. See example 8 here on unacceptable use of non-free content. An image of the album can only be used to illustrate the album itself. In the meantime, the uploaded image is in need of correct copyright and permission and liable to be removed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the third time for me typing this out. I have sent my correspondence to the Commons, showing the subject and creator uploaded and chose the license for the image. I'm not touching this image or article again. They can delete it for all I care. I'm not defending someone else's work. You knuckle heads want a free image, I get you one and then I have to waste time dealing with it. Fuck this article, that image and wikipedia (no one in particular just as a whole). Have a nice day and please do not contact me again about this matter. Mopenstein (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way. I've already thanked you for your work on the image, but until it is correctly licensed we have to assume it isn't. The image on Common is scheduled for deletion. Do we just pretend it's not going to happen and leave it be? You should have got the image correctly licensed before adding it to the article and saved yourself and everyone else this grief. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not my image, I'm just the middle man attempting to make wikipedia slightly better by encouraging the entry's subject to upload a photo. The one Julia Nunes created, chose and uploaded is being deleted because no one believes it was her. I got the god damned subject of the article to upload an image of her that is also an album cover and license it as Creative Commons. License is fine. You should just delete more stuff, then make claims that others who are actually adding and creating content didn't do something and continue to cause grief for other people. Mopenstein (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I Added the tracks but I don't have time to add anything else, can anyone update the page to include her new EP, "I Think You Know"? Thelukeeffect (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed this from the info box and it was reverted by Fishhead2100. My reasons for removing it were that it is not a genre, it is a description of an instrument. Fishhead2100 claims "Acoustic music has varying genres such as acoustic rock, acoustic metal, acoustic jazz, acoustic Christian rock, etc." So basically that tells us that "Acoustic" can describe a very wide range of styles of music, but none of them are genres or subgenres and "Acoustic" on its own certainly isn't. Rock is a genre. "Acoustic rock" is neither a genre nor a sub-genre, it is Rock played on an Acoustic instrument.

The purpose of the infobox is to summarise an artist's music, calling it "acoustic" tells the reader nothing. It doesn't tell us if she plays rock, polka, folk, country, dancehall, R&b or flamenco. It just tells us her instrument is not plugged in. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What information do you to support that acoustic music isn't a genre? She even puts acoustic as a genre she does on her MySpace. You are just one person and nobody had a problem with acoustic being a genre before. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That isn't generally how things work, I cannot provide information to support a negative. You, however, can show where "Acoustic" is described as a genre. Even the wikilink that is getting used here does not describe "Acoustic" as a genre. It links to a article page that is currently up for deletion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to discredit acoustic as a genre, but you don't have anything to support why you are trying to discredit it. You might not be able to find anything against it. You are saying that acoustic rock isn't a sub-genre, but that's all some people play is acoustic rock. It would be like trying to tell Ewan Dobson that acoustic metal isn't a genre. I give you credit for trying. I really do, but it seems like you are discrediting something without proper justification via references. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to 'discredit' a genre, as it simply doesn't exist. If you can provide a reference that refers to "Acoustic" as a genre then this discussion need go no further. That's how Wikipedia works. If you wish it to remain on the article, you cite it. It is not up to others to disprove it.

In the mean time it remains pretty clear that "Acoustic" is an adjective, not a noun, and therefore cannot be a genre in its own right. You'd be as well saying that Nune plays music of the "Solo" genre. "Acoustic" tell us nothing about the type of music being played, just how it is being played.

If "Acoustic" is a genre, why is there no Wikipedia article for it that states it is a genre? The article being linked to presently does not identify it as a genre and is a vague description of how music may be played acoustically. As any type of music can be played acoustically, calling this a genre means that all music is of genre "Acoustic". Accurate perhaps, but totally uninformative.

Whether "acoustic metal" is a genre isn't really the point. At least "acoustic" metal" contains a noun and can said to be something. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not convincing me of your stance. As you can plainly see, nobody cares or we would have more people commenting. Acoustic is a genre whether you like it or not. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify your argument please. Right now it seems to consist of "it's a genre because I say so". Clearly this is not enough. I have asked you to cite your claims and you appear to be unable to. Wikipedia policy is quite clear about uncited material that is challenged. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I did state a reference. I guess you missed that. If you search that text "MySpace" then you will find it in this section. You haven't proven with a reference that acoustic isn't a genre. Right now it seems to consist of "its not a genre because I say so." I have proven my side, but you haven't proven yours. But like I said, nobody else seems to have a problem with calling something it is. You go tell people who play acoustic music that acoustic isn't a genre. They will tell you that is a genre. This is so redundant now because I have proven my side and you haven't proven yours. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed this again for reasons outlined above. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} hasn't 'proven' anything, despite claims to the contrary.

• Not a genre, no Wikipedia genre article
• Article linked is about how instruments may be played, it has nothing about a single genre of music
• Despite requests, no cite provided that explains "Acoustic" as a genre
• Despite requests, no explanation provided to how "Acoustic" music may be described as a genre

All that has been provided is a mention of "Acoustic" on Nunes MySpace site. As I have said, there is no issue with describing Nune's performances as "Acoustic", but it isn't a genre any more than 'solo' is. It is an adjective. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

After seeking clarification on Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!}'s talk page, I've a bit more understanding of his position. Unfortunately it consists of;

• considering that directing other editors to his MySpace page is providing an acceptable source.
• considering that the burden of proof lies with those who wish the challenged content removed, not with those who are adding it.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I came here from the 3rd opinion page, and seeming that I could help elsewhere, I'll try to help here too. Before we go on an all-out legalese debate over proof and jury!

• Genre is 'a loose set of criteria for a category of composition' which means that it has to do with the style of the way the notes and rhythm are used that's why you can have rock music (as an example) played on electrical or acoustical guitars but also on pan pipes or Gregorian voices: rhythm is there, composition is there. Some musicians don't like to classify themselves or create music that fits into different categories, that doesn't mean that it cannot be classified.
• So, my suggestion is: use the sourced statement that describes her music as pop (self referencing is not a good source) for the infobox and include in the main text that she describes her music as "acoustic".
• That way we preserve the artist's own ideas about what she does and give it a sourced classification (using standardized terms). Galf (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. This is an excellent suggestion. We need to differentiate between describing an artist's performance as "acoustic" (in the same way we may describe it as "upbeat" or "proficient" ) and saying that "Acoustic" is a genre that a performer specialises in. Clearly it is true that Nunes is a performer of acoustic music (I don't think there are any significant examples of her playing non-acoustic instruments) and it would be accurate to say so. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If Fishhead2100 has nothing to add I will implement Galf's suggested compromise in the next couple of days. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He never said it wasn't a genre. You still need to prove to me with links that it isn't a genre. You have not bothered to do so. Until you do, nothing should be done. Wikipedia:Honesty is what you have failed on one point. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And you are repeatedly and, I can only assume, deliberately failing to acknowledge that what you are insisting on is contrary to Wikipedia policy in regards to who has to provide cites. You provide the references to prove your point. I do not provide reference to disprove your point. Let me quote the policy directly;

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That is laziness on your part. She is not a pop artist. She is indie of course, but she is an acoustic artist as well. You never implemented any changes. All you did was remove acoustic and add pop. But you can't tell me whether or not she is pop. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please review my change again, you appear to have missed half of it; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Nunes&diff=352315780&oldid=351417347. The phrasing is a bit clumsy, happy to hear any suggestions to improve it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. C.C. , I think you are missing the point here.She is considered as a "pop" artist because there is a reference saying so (see Julia_Nunes#cite_note-3). I can think that she is a Fado singer but that does not matter the least bit, because as a wikipedia editor I AM NOT entitled to an opinion (WP:OR). That's why my blogs, facebook, myspace, orkut pages or even newspaper published articles are not valid references (see WP:SOURCES and WP:SELFPUB). An encyclopedia is a collection of information created and validated elsewhere, it is a tertiary source of information (again, see WP:OR). So, it doesn´t matter what I think of her music, anymore that what you do, the only thing that matters is what someone else, not editing wikipedia, published through a reliable outlet.This is what referencing is about. You might think she is an Indie artist, I think she is a fado singer, however, if rolling stone has an article calling her "the greatest sensation of electro clash since Peaches" or NME includes her in "10 greatest players in nu metal" that's what the article about her should read. Finally, there is no need to call other editors "lazy" on any other epithet (see Wikipedia:Civility) and because this in not a battle ground (see wp:battle) and content should be agreed by consensus ([see [wp:consensus]]) all you need to do is cite a relevant source when adding material to this or any other article.Galf (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That reference says nothing about her being pop. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 13:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it doesn't. It says that she covers artists she likes such as Destiny's Child, who's genres are given in their article as "pop, r&b and soul". Again you are missing the point entirely. Here is a better reference: http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=news/entertainment/listening_room&id=7260356 calling her "acoustic pop confection" which actually supports your assertion that she plays acoustic pop music. As I said before it doesn't matter what you or I think, it matters only what can be sourced.Galf (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, his assertion was she played "Acoustic", which being simply an adjective, isn't any type of music at all. Acoustic pop is much better. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Escape Orbit, just WP:LETITGO. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that there are a lot of YouTube links used as citations. Now I know that YouTube isn't the best for references. I am not going to remove them, but it needs to be flushed it out and changed to non-YouTube links. Mr. C.C. (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

But it was on YouTube that JuNu became a success. - Jasonbres (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So have a lot of other "YouTube celebrities," but that doesn't assert why they should be used. You wouldn't look to YouTube to reference any other article, so why the double standard? Mr. C.C. (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SELFPUB.--Dodo bird (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss image changes to the infobox before editing. The new image is rather bad and unflattering. It is hard to see her face, her eyes are closed; the whole photo is underexposed, and at a bad angle. The other one is three years old, but I'd rather we wait until a good photo is generated than put in a new one that makes the article look bad. Elizium23 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr. C.C. has again started edit warring over the matter of the genre he claims as "Acoustic" being added to this article's infobox. This was discussed some while back, and a third opinion sought. It didn't go his way, but apparently we need to go through it all again. My points are;

• The article linked to makes no claims to being a genre of music.
• Mr. C.C. cannot cite anywhere that demonstrates there is a genre of music called "Acoustic".
• If we were to accept Acoustic music to be a genre, then that must mean that Nunes plays the same genre of music as Bob Dylan and Luiz Gonzaga, because (some of) their music certainly fits the description given at Acoustic music. Does this make sense to anyone? They certainly don't sound much alike to me.
• Acoustic is a description of how the music is produced. It is not a genre. If it was a genre then prior to the invention of electricity, amplification, etc, everyone played exactly the same genre. I do not believe this to be the case.
• Mr. C.C. response to this is that until it is proven that Acoustic is not a genre it can be added to the genre field. This argument is a logical fallacy and at odds with Wikipedia policy. The onus is on him to prove that it is a genre.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If Mr. C.C. chooses not to respond to what I say above I'll take it he's not interested in defending his change or establishing a consensus, so I'll revert it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverted. Perhaps Fishhead2100 could first create a page for Acoustic (genre) before re-adding this again. That way it would be easier demonstrating it exists, before even attempting to cite that Nunes plays it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverted again. Fishhead2100 declines to respond to any of the above and either will not or can not support the change he wishes to make. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Despite Fishhead2100's continued refusal to discuss his edit, and his continued re-adding of it, I have once again sought a 3rd opinion on this matter. We had some success with this last time, it's just a pity that he decided to change his mind about the prior compromise. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw this listed at Third Opinion, but cannot give a Third Opinion because I have had prior dealings with one of the parties and am not, therefore, neutral as defined by the 3O project. I am, therefore, leaving the matter listed at 3O and weighing in here as just another editor (though this may give rise to the Third Opinion Paradox). When I look at the history of this issue I see that:

• The Acoustic genre (and I don't mean by that to take a position about whether or not Acoustic is or is not a genre) was first added to the article when the infobox was first added in this edit in January, 2009.
• It remained in the article until it was removed in this edit on March 22, 2010. The controversy documented in the Acoustic section, above, on this talk page resulted.
• That controversy was settled by (after a couple of iterations), the Acoustic Pop genre being added in this edit on March 28, 2010.
• The Acoustic-alone tag then remained off the article until it was re-added by Fishhead2100 in this edit on March 23, 2012, was reverted by Escape Orbit six hours later and has been in continuous issue since that time.

In my opinion, there was a clear consensus established in the March 28 compromise to not have Acoustic, alone, as a genre on this article. As a result, and though consensus can of course change, it cannot be re-added to the article unless a new consensus is established to do so, as is clearly set out in the "No consensus" section of the consensus policy. Fishhead2100's only options are to attempt to convince the other editors editing here to agree to re-add the genre or to file a request for comments to try to bring additional editors' opinions into the discussion. For Fishhead2100 to continue to attempt to reintroduce the genre into the article over other editor's objections is tendentious and disruptive editing in violation of policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out that in the AfD discussion in 2010 for Acoustic music, there was widespread agreement, even among those that wanted to keep, that it was not a genre, so it clearly should not be in an artist infobox as a genre.--SabreBD (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. For what I can see there is an easy way for Fishhead2100 get what he wishes here. And that's to produce evidence of the genre from a reliable source. Even his own description of the genre would be a start that could shed a great deal of light on the dispute. But he has to accept that "music played on an acoustic instrument" is not a genre in itself. And nonsense like "You have to prove it's not a genre" simply will not do. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, "acoustic ____" is not necessarily a genre, but a method of playing music. If acoustic music were to be a genre, then electric ____ would have to equalize it. Terms such as "electric rock" and "electric metal" could be used acceptably. Also, going to myspace to determine genres is a questonable means of determining genre, and is definitely not in harmony with reliable source guidelines. I think the arguments for acoustic music being a genre do not have enough substance or solidity to hold up. If this continues, maybe the page should be protected. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If acoustic music was a genre, there would only be two genres, acoustic and electric. Please do not create redlinks to pages that will never be created. WP:Redlinks. I think we should put this to a vote. Thepoodlechef (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been a week now. Fishhead2100 has declined to explain his change, has made no attempt to engage with any of the above responses, and has produced no reference to support his change. I'm going to revert his change back again to what is the consensus; "Acoustic music" is not a genre. I trust that should he have anything new to add he'll bring it to this talk page, rather than disruptively re-insert. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Julia has been doing a great deal of living room tours over the last year, but I have nothing to support them other than I have attended one and that the tour dates are posted on her web sites, but once done are taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggie80 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Wiki,

Your link under the section "Recent Work" for the Bushman World Ukulele Video Contest should be http://bushmanmusic.com/video-contest.html You have http://bushmanmusic.com/video-contest please add the .html so the link will work.

Under "References" see point 16. you also have a bad link. It should be http://bushmanmusic.com/video-contest.html

Thanks for fixing this ASAP!

John 317-250-8156 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.128.177 (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Julia Nunes. 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/20080602092619/http://cdbaby.com/cd/julianunes to http://cdbaby.com/cd/julianunes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080722014459/http://junumusic.com/home.html to http://www.junumusic.com/home.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816074004/http://www.wellwhiskey.info/Portals/0/june08.pdf to http://www.wellwhiskey.info/Portals/0/june08.pdf

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) 10:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)