Talk:Rorschach test/Index of archives

2006-03-19

Archive link for 2006-03-19T04:26:43Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Saxifrage
Summary: "fmt, unsigned"
Sections removed:

Naive skeptics

2007-11-02

Archive link for 2007-11-02T12:13:38Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Ultraexactzz
Summary: "Archiving"
Sections removed:

More on methods of interpretation

Conflicting sentences

My $0.02

Is this a Freudian test ?

Rohrschach, not Rorschach!

SPOV (the Swiss point of view)

Naive skeptics

Seeing Nothing

Outrage

Inkblot

The Ro(h)rschach name Discussion

Under methods...

Recent major change

NPOV in controversy section

Pronounciation of Rorschach

Keeping the inkblots secret

External link is broken

Archive link for 2007-11-02T12:22:44Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Ultraexactzz
Summary: "fix'd archive link, removing additional archived material (through July 31 2007), moving misplaced comments, noting the archive"
Sections removed:

Deletion discussion

Which image

2007-11-14

Archive link for 2007-11-14T10:18:32Z (diff)

Removed by: User:LKirkby
Summary: "/* Copyright */ should be own section"
Sections removed:

Serious ethical problem: heads in the sand

2008-02-27

Archive link for 2008-02-27T19:19:42Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Hmwith
Summary: "/* Straw poll on the inkblot image */ (to gain consensus)"
Sections removed:

Straw poll on the inkblot image

Archive link for 2008-02-27T19:22:18Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Hmwith
Summary: "/* Straw poll on the inkblot image (to gain consensus) */ make it all one section, put a&b, gray, made your vote just say 1 once (if you don't mind)"
Sections removed:

Image should not be hidden & there should be no disclaimer

2008-03-03

Archive link for 2008-03-03T10:20:39Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Fredrick day
Summary: "hum..."
Sections removed:

Oh freddy

Archive link for 2008-03-03T15:49:00Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Fredrick day
Summary: "this is not a talkpage and any comments not related to the article subject can and will be removed - I seem to have attracted a "fan" and frankly I'd rather not encourage them."
Sections removed:

Oh freddy

Archive link for 2008-03-03T17:38:54Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Garycompugeek
Summary: "reverted anon pov"
Sections removed:

Oh

2008-03-04

Archive link for 2008-03-04T02:00:03Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Bryan Derksen
Summary: "archiving some of the older material"
Sections removed:

Deeper reasons for Rorschach inkblot test controversy

"Bibliometric" data on Exner

Level of abstraction

Writing speed

Videotaped sessions?

No reason to hide images

Current situation appropriate

Should the image of the first pic of the Rorschach inkblot test be hidden?

Thank you for clarifying

Steady on chaps

We could have a consensus here if.....

Another problem with posting the picture

References

Please come to a consensus

Page protected

Enough!

Even the International Rorschach Foundation themselves are showing all ten images on the web

Comment by 207.160.240.251

Please stop editwarring

2008-03-07

Archive link for 2008-03-07T23:49:40Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Dela Rabadilla
Summary: "/* Outrageous straw man for the straw poll */"
Sections removed:

The image is already public

2008-03-14

Archive link for 2008-03-14T04:33:09Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Bryan Derksen
Summary: "archiving"
Sections removed:

Copyright Issues regarding Images

Archive

Question on Reaching Resolution

Copyright

Rationale and Scope for Image Display

Serious ethical problem: heads in the sand

Pronunciation of Rorschach

Framing the Criticism

The question of the display of the picture and Wikipedia Censorship

Harmfulness of image publication.

Interpretation of censoring guidelines for image publication that results in harm to others.

RfC: Should Original Rorshach test inkblot be replaced

Precedents

Original research objection

Not the same information objection

No harm is produced objection

Already in other websites objection

Consensus objection

Click [show] (or here) to view the first card in the test (may invalidate the test).

Removal of reference to Society for Personality Assessment

Accessibility to image

Controversy

why is there an image hidden in breach of policy on NPOV, discliamer, censorship etc?

Straw poll on the inkblot image (to gain consensus)

interesting paper

Wikipedia Guideline Review

Poll: Who is willing to go to mediation?

Stop the Edit War

2009-03-22

Archive link for 2009-03-22T20:36:04Z (diff)

Removed by: User:75.180.19.74
Summary: "←Replaced content with 'TACO'"
Sections removed:

A more general discussion ?

What about the article itself ?

Oh

Method

Outrageous straw man for the straw poll

The image is already public

Unhide Picture

Straw poll on mediation

What is next on mediation

Case for not showing the original inkblots

Case for showing the original inkblots

scroll

Rorschach Images have been in public domain for 50 Years

New lead image

Image Discussion

It is wikipedia policy to remove images arbitrarily

Neutrality tag

psychopathy is not psychosis

Paranoiac-critical method

Pareidolia

Location of the inkblot image

2009-04-26

Archive link for 2009-04-26T03:18:31Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Ward3001
Summary: "Wikipedia is not a forum. Undid revision 286160957 by Americansamoa (talk)"
Sections removed:

entire

2009-04-28

Archive link for 2009-04-28T22:37:28Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Garycompugeek
Summary: "moved to archive 4"
Sections removed:

A more general discussion ?

What about the article itself ?

Oh

Method

Outrageous straw man for the straw poll

The image is already public

Unhide Picture

Straw poll on mediation

What is next on mediation

Case for not showing the original inkblots

Case for showing the original inkblots

scroll

Rorschach Images have been in public domain for 50 Years

New lead image

Image Discussion

It is wikipedia policy to remove images arbitrarily

Neutrality tag

psychopathy is not psychosis

Paranoiac-critical method

Pareidolia

2009-05-06

Archive link for 2009-05-06T00:08:13Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Chillum
Summary: "/* section break */"
Sections removed:

section break

Archive link for 2009-05-06T00:25:41Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Ward3001
Summary: "/* Analysis of discussion */ better heading"
Sections removed:

Analysis of discussion

Archive link for 2009-05-06T00:38:35Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Chillum
Summary: "/* Chillum's analysis of discussion */"
Sections removed:

Chillum's analysis of discussion

Archive link for 2009-05-06T14:40:42Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Chillum
Summary: "several people are interpreting the discussion now, not just me"
Sections removed:

Chillum's analysis of discussion

Archive link for 2009-05-06T21:49:26Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Faustian
Summary: "/* What is Consenus? */"
Sections removed:

What is Consenus?

2009-05-25

Archive link for 2009-05-25T13:18:15Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* Page break */ change header name to "arbitrary" break"
Sections removed:

Page break

2009-05-27

Archive link for 2009-05-27T22:41:42Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Faustian
Summary: "/* New consensus is disputed */"
Sections removed:

New consensus is disputed

2009-05-28

Archive link for 2009-05-28T01:16:44Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* May or may not be new consensus */ 3L"
Sections removed:

May or may not be new consensus

2009-05-29

Archive link for 2009-05-29T13:09:45Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "cutting content from a few threads inactive since 22 may & prior & archived to Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 5. I have left headers in place with pointers. if anything still needs discussed, copy a comment or two back here and continue from there"
Sections removed:

Article Title

Archive link for 2009-05-29T13:25:11Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* May or may not be new consensus */ not really needing a 3L here."
Sections removed:

May or may not be new consensus

2009-06-04

Archive link for 2009-06-04T15:47:58Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Chillum
Summary: "This is the topic of at least half the thread"
Sections removed:

How many inkblot images

2009-06-08

Archive link for 2009-06-08T12:53:50Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "some more archiving to further reduce the load of this talk page"
Sections removed:

summary of method section, please

Arbitrary break

2009-06-09

Archive link for 2009-06-09T19:08:10Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "archiving threads with no substantive commentary since 22 may to Talk:Rorschach test/Archive 5. also removing the placeholder pointers"
Sections removed:

Location of the inkblot image

RFC: Top Image - Hermann Rorschach or first card of the Rorschach inkblot test?

section break

Interpretation of discussion

Archive's missing

What is Consensus?

Another compromise

Other pages with controversial images

New consensus has emerged

2009-06-11

Archive link for 2009-06-11T15:05:14Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Chillum
Summary: "(irony)"
Sections removed:

Moving on...

2009-06-16

Archive link for 2009-06-16T15:13:16Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* The ten inkblots of the Rorschach inkblot test */ subsec"
Sections removed:

The ten inkblots of the Rorschach inkblot test

Archive link for 2009-06-16T15:21:39Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* Page protected */ subsec"
Sections removed:

Page protected

2009-06-17

Archive link for 2009-06-17T13:33:45Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "chrono move to move past the gallery and page protected note, re to renaissancee"
Sections removed:

Publish all 10 argument #01 - The cat's out of the bag

Publish all 10 argument #02 - No evidence of harm

Question

Archive link for 2009-06-17T13:37:39Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Lawrencekhoo
Summary: "/* All 10 images */"
Sections removed:

Publish all 10 argument #01 - The cat's out of the bag

Publish all 10 argument #02 - No evidence of harm

Archive link for 2009-06-17T13:50:35Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* Arguments concerning the inclusion of all 10 images */ let's keep this all under one subsec"
Sections removed:

Arguments concerning the inclusion of all 10 images

Archive link for 2009-06-17T14:46:51Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* The discussion */ archiving to Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review#The discussion, no comments since june 1"
Sections removed:

The arbitrary break

2009-06-18

Archive link for 2009-06-18T03:47:42Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "1L no longer necessary"
Sections removed:

The discussion

The addendum

Archive link for 2009-06-18T04:24:03Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "archiving conversations inactive since june 3... left placeholders"
Sections removed:

So...

2009-06-19

Archive link for 2009-06-19T01:31:59Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Jmh649
Summary: "/* =Include */"
Sections removed:

Include

Archive link for 2009-06-19T01:32:12Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Jmh649
Summary: "/* Do not include= */"
Sections removed:

Do not include

Archive link for 2009-06-19T03:45:38Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Faustian
Summary: "/* Include */let's make these options absolutely clear"
Sections removed:

Include

Include in a Dropdown box

Archive link for 2009-06-19T23:55:03Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Danglingdiagnosis
Summary: "/* Use show/hide mode for Rorschach Test inkblots? */"
Sections removed:

Including all 10 Argument #5

2009-06-20

Archive link for 2009-06-20T15:36:07Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "removing header refs to consensus review and transcluded addendum, seems we've moved beyond that, archiving a thread with no comments since june 6"
Sections removed:

Too much James M. Wood, M. Teresa Nezworski, Scott O. Lilienfeld et al?

2009 consensus review

The discussion

The addendum

2009-06-21

Archive link for 2009-06-21T01:06:11Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Bob K31416
Summary: "/* Inkblots: In a drop down box versus Not in a drop down box */"
Sections removed:

Inkblots: In a drop down box versus Not in a drop down box

Archive link for 2009-06-21T07:07:26Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "See WT:CON#Ethical. The word "ethical" did not appear until March 23, 2009. I've removed it as it appears to have been slipped in there without any discussion as to the propriety of the expansion in the scope of the policy."
Sections removed:

Inkblots: In a dropdown box versus Not in a dropdown box

Archive link for 2009-06-21T21:57:47Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Bob K31416
Summary: "format Technical and Harm sub-sections"
Sections removed:

Technical

Harm

2009-06-23

Archive link for 2009-06-23T06:48:15Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Danglingdiagnosis
Summary: "/* Arguments Con */"
Sections removed:

Argument Con #2 - Interfering with the work of a health professional

Archive link for 2009-06-23T15:48:07Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* #02 - No evidence of harm - arb break */ subsec"
Sections removed:

#02 - No evidence of harm - arb break

2009-07-02

Archive link for 2009-07-02T06:13:30Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Danglingdiagnosis
Summary: "/* Argument Con #1 - It may harm a psychologists ability to protect the welfare of his patient."
Sections removed:

Argument Con #1 - It may harm people

2009-07-04

Archive link for 2009-07-04T15:08:18Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "archiving no comments since june 27"
Sections removed:

#02 - No evidence of harm - arb break

#06 Argument Pro - It doesn't matter if we publish. The test is nearly worthless anyway.

Archive link for 2009-07-04T15:23:20Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "archiving no comments since june 23"
Sections removed:

a bit off topic

back on topic

Archive link for 2009-07-04T22:09:04Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "removing some old archive pointers, split section on harm into new L2. archiving no conversations since june 23"
Sections removed:

Custody & patrole hearings

How many inkblot images / Discussion about consensus

Encyclopedia

Preference Versus Compromise Regarding the :Image: The Evidence

And now for something completely different...

Harm

Scrolling

For shame!

Arbitrary break

Arbitrary break II

2009-07-06

Archive link for 2009-07-06T18:56:44Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* Comments from others */ section ran long, breaking off"
Sections removed:

Comments from others

Archive link for 2009-07-06T19:00:46Z (diff)

Removed by: User:DreamGuy
Summary: "/* Comments from regulars */ heading in general not helpful, responses to person not understanding NPOV policy"
Sections removed:

Comments from regulars

Archive link for 2009-07-06T19:06:04Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* RFC: Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content? */ re-add heading without "from regulars" as it now was under "points of order" tweaking header further down"
Sections removed:

Point of order

Comments from others

2009-07-10

Archive link for 2009-07-10T03:04:10Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Jmh649
Summary: "/* #06 Argument Pro - It doesn't matter if we publish. The test is nearly worthless anyway. */"
Sections removed:

#06 Argument Pro - It doesn't matter if we publish. The test is nearly worthless anyway.

Archive link for 2009-07-10T12:25:43Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Martinevans123
Summary: "/* US Coppyright law */ sp"
Sections removed:

US Coppyright law

2009-07-13

Archive link for 2009-07-13T20:20:06Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Tanao
Summary: "/* The ten inkblots of the Rorschach inkblot test */"
Sections removed:

The ten inkblots of the Rorschach inkblot test

Archive link for 2009-07-13T20:40:08Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "talk page needs another good haircut, but this will have to do for now."
Sections removed:

Include Not In a Dropdown box

Include in a Dropdown box

Do not include

Comments

Inkblots: In a dropdown box versus Not in a dropdown box

Technical

Scrolling

Archive link for 2009-07-13T20:46:52Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* Are all 10 inkblots really necessary? */ archiving, no comments since july 7"
Sections removed:

Examples of the three types of inkblots

2009-07-14

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Archive link for 2009-07-14T03:50:04Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* Arguments Con */ trying out a subpaged discussion style, all involved editors for any of the 1-6 arguments con discussions please watchlist Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Con. some portions will be transcluded here for ease of use"
Sections removed:

Argument Con #1 - It may harm a psychologist's ability to protect the welfare of his/her patient.

Argument Con #2 - It violates Wikipedia policy

Argument Con #3 - It interferes with the workings of another profession

Argument Con #4 - It violates Wikipedia policy on neutrality.

Argument Con #5 - It violates Wikipedia policy on indiscriminate collection of information.

Argument Con #6 - It violates Wikipedia policy on non-free content.

Archive link for 2009-07-14T04:02:25Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* Superceded? */ strike that, :Someone has taken the RFC tag down. I think Dangling should incorporate the opinions of the people who respond to this RFC and try to make a more refined policy proposal after this one closes. Chillum 04:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)"Reply
Sections removed:

Superceded?

Archive link for 2009-07-14T04:37:54Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "trimming the TOC a bit with ; headers instead of === under a section ==Recently archived discussions=="
Sections removed:

Use show/hide mode for Rorschach Test inkblots?

Including all 10 Argument #5

New expert sign-up section

Consensus

Old debate

Reverting, status quo, and survey re inkblots

An informal survey for the inclusion of the 10 inkblots

Harm

To be honest...

list of reliable sources mentioned here

We need an image of the test being administered

Are all 10 inkblots really necessary?

External links

False inkblot as the lead image

Just a suggestion

Is source for inkblots reliable?

Archive link for 2009-07-14T04:51:46Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "moving "Superceded?" to points of order, trim toc a bit"
Sections removed:

The ten inkblots of the Rorschach inkblot test

Page protected

Question

Recently archived discussions

Archive link for 2009-07-14T20:59:14Z (diff)

Removed by: User:209.167.232.100
Summary: "/* #04 - removing the images amounts to censorship */"
Sections removed:

#04 - removing the images amounts to censorship

Archive link for 2009-07-14T21:35:28Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* Streissand effect */ sp"
Sections removed:

Streissand effect

Archive link for 2009-07-14T23:46:47Z (diff)

Removed by: User:208.201.250.2
Summary: "/* All 10 images */"
Sections removed:

All 10 images

Arguments Pro

#01 - The cat's out of the bag

#02 - No evidence of harm

#03 - Adds to the page

#04 - Removing the images amounts to censorship

#05 - Reputable organizations have been showing the images, too

#06 Argument Pro - It doesn't matter if we publish. The test is nearly worthless anyway.

Arguments Con

2009-07-15

Archive link for 2009-07-15T01:31:23Z (diff)

Removed by: User:85.180.98.233
Summary: "/* #06 Argument Pro - It doesn't matter if we publish. The test is nearly worthless anyway. */"
Sections removed:

#06 Argument Pro - It doesn't matter if we publish. The test is nearly worthless anyway.

Archive link for 2009-07-15T01:31:52Z (diff)

Removed by: User:85.180.98.233
Summary: "/* #06 It doesn't matter if we publish. The test is nearly worthless anyway. */"
Sections removed:

#06 It doesn't matter if we publish. The test is nearly worthless anyway.

Archive link for 2009-07-15T01:41:17Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Chillum
Summary: "Now that we actually have something new, this can be its own section"
Sections removed:

New arguments go here

David S Rohde argument

Archive link for 2009-07-15T04:37:18Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Chillum
Summary: "new stuff goes at the end"
Sections removed:

A quick reality check

Archive link for 2009-07-15T12:27:59Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "ironic that you feel your opinion is the most important. new comments at the bottom please. organization is chronological, norbased on signifncance."
Sections removed:

The importance of having a leg to stand on

Archive link for 2009-07-15T12:33:51Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* The importance of having a leg to stand on */ combine related"
Sections removed:

The importance of having a leg to stand on

Archive link for 2009-07-15T18:05:34Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Jmh649
Summary: "/* Proposal policy by Danglingdiagnosis */"
Sections removed:

Proposal policy by Danglingdiagnosis

2009-07-20

Archive link for 2009-07-20T14:22:57Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "archiving no comments since july 13"
Sections removed:

Are there any new arguments?

Archive link for 2009-07-20T14:31:03Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* RFC: Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content? */ tweak"
Sections removed:

Comments from Dlabot

More comments

Archive link for 2009-07-20T15:20:09Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "NEW SUBPAGE for participants to WATCH : Talk:Rorschach test/2009-06 Arguments Pro"
Sections removed:

#01 - The cat's out of the bag

#02 - No evidence of harm

#03 - Adds to the page

#04 - Removing the images amounts to censorship

#05 - Reputable organizations have been showing the images, too

#06 - It doesn't matter if we publish. The test is nearly worthless anyway.

Archive link for 2009-07-20T15:48:37Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "archiving no comments since 16 july"
Sections removed:

Proposed policy by Danglingdiagnosis

Archive link for 2009-07-20T15:49:09Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* Proposed policy by Danglingdiagnosis */ didn't mean to L3 this"
Sections removed:

Proposed policy by Danglingdiagnosis

Archive link for 2009-07-20T16:06:05Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "combine related threads, archiving no comments since july 12"
Sections removed:

US Copyright law

Picture of Hermann Rorschach

2009-07-23

Archive link for 2009-07-23T15:15:19Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "fmt"
Sections removed:

Response from SPA/ISR Representative

Archive link for 2009-07-23T15:29:21Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "relieving pressure on the table of contents"
Sections removed:

How many kicks at the can?

Inline citation for inkblots needed

A note to the newly arrived editors

Summary of archives

US Copyright law

Sockpuppet investigation

Lead para about ethics

Propose moving "removed the inkblot" debate to a sub page

Further Discussions

Streisand effect

Archive link for 2009-07-23T15:37:34Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "RFC was a bit of a non-starter, i'm going to go ahead and withdraw it a bit early"
Sections removed:

Points of order

Comments

Comments - arb break 1

Comments - arb break 2

Archive link for 2009-07-23T15:39:08Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "fix"
Sections removed:

A request to the regulars regarding the below RFC

Archive link for 2009-07-23T15:54:55Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "PLEASE WATCH PAGE: Talk:Rorschach test/images new subpage for image-related discussion"
Sections removed:

Arguments Pro

Arguments Con

David S Rohde argument

Argument for general disclosure of testing materials (after an appropriate time)

Recognition

Response from SPA/ISR Representative

Sub-pages: policy and arguments

Archive link for 2009-07-23T15:56:04Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "/* Recently archived discussions */ rm section, no longer really necessary. consult archives if you need to"
Sections removed:

Recently archived discussions

Archive link for 2009-07-23T16:38:34Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "relieving pressure on the table of contents"
Sections removed:

data on scientific status

A quick reality check

A new look at old arguments

Social Irresponsibility

Sanity Check

Lots of attention

2009-07-25

Archive link for 2009-07-25T17:54:18Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Ward3001
Summary: "/* More misinformation */ restored my comment to it's appropriate subsection, inexplicably moved by Chillum. If I placed someone else's comments in a wrong subsection; no idea why Chillum moved."
Sections removed:

Discussion of recent additions

Archive link for 2009-07-25T18:18:23Z (diff)

Removed by: User:Xeno
Summary: "re ward - on the greater good ... moving header above my comment/ useful conversational break ,suggest mediation"
Sections removed: