User talk:Barts1a/OldArchives/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page

Reaper Eternal (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Wha?

I hope you are not referring to me in this change. If you are, well, I'm a tad confused and sorry about the trouble, and have slightly less than no idea what's going on. Who, exactly, doesn't want you to help out anymore? Sven Manguard _Talk 02:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I mean users like Off2riorob and David Biddulph. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 08:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignore them. First of all, a candidate asking you to stop being a coordinator stinks of impropriety. He has no business in your business, period. Second of all, this is a volunteer group, and as such, as long as you are in good standing, and are not trying to use the position to game the elections, you should be able to be a member. IMO the only people that have a leg to stand on in telling you or anyone else not to be a coordinator are the other coordinators and even then, Skomorokh and Tony1 effectively run the show, and unless they say you should withdraw, I wouldn't. (Personally, I would also probably listen to Fetchcomms because I hold him in high regard, but the point being as it is, you should ignore those Off2riorob and David Biddulph.) SandyGeorgia tried to convince Wifione to leave, and Wifione didn't. Why should you behave any differently in that respect? Sven Manguard _Talk 19:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Silvstedt

No edit warring just trying to revert vandalism :D Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:CENSOR and tell me why this core policy opposes your so-called "Vandalism" reversion Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 09:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Silvstedt&diff=prev&oldid=399096267 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Silvstedt&diff=prev&oldid=399096773 these edits constitute vandalism my dear sir. The pic is irrelevant. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

These are no reason to revert the later edits. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints?

But the early edits prove he was there to be disruptive NOT constructive. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

They are only 2 edits. We need at lest 4 such edits to take action. Please assume good faith thanks! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 09:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I will drop the case against him if you drop the case against me. Deal? Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Have either of you you noticed that the vast majority of Batterylow4's contributions are just changing the image used on the page to one that doesn't exist on English Wikipedia? Kiore (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have. The case has been dropped against him by me. The issue now is Barts attitude toward me. Comment on THAT. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to drop the case. But first I'll remind you of WP:BOOMERANG through this message. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 11:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Dele.te001

Good faith was assumed. The user was damaging the encyclopedia. It's pretty clear to me that blanking was their only business here. Dawnseeker2000 00:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't you know not to bite the newcomers? A simple friendly message would have sufficed rather than an attitude of using rather unfriendly warnings. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I've heard of the "bite" policy, but eh, they're here to vandalize. I did overdo it with the warnings though. Dawnseeker2000 00:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a follow up here. I didn't want to have you walk away from this without letting you know that this was my bad. I didn't realize until Black Kite posted on my talk page that the user added content but "overwrote" the existing content. I had been working too quickly I guess and that's why I didn't notice. I was under the impression that the blanking was complete and that there was no attempt to add anything. I didn't look closely enough. By the time Black Kite posted to my talk I had already posted two final warnings on the user's talk. I over-reacted there, thinking that this was, without doubt, another vandal. With many thousands of pages on my watch list it just seems like that's all I see around here is vandalism. I goofed here, but this is the first of its kind in some time. Anyway, have a good night. Dawnseeker2000 02:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Message I Recently Recieved From You

Hi I just got a message from you saying that one of my corrections on Scooby Doo! and the Curse of the Lake Monster was wrong and it was changed back because of no source, but I just looked and the change I made is still there so yeah I'm confused! I'm hoping you can clear this up for me? By the way the 68.63.130.216 was my computers IP address which it recorded so you know that was me. BenderFett (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above's first edit in 4 1/2 years. That might be a new record. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Careful using Twinkle

Please be careful when you use Twinkle and revert edits as vandalism. There's a very specific definition of what edits are considered vandalism on the WP:VANDTYPES page. This edit clearly does not fall into that category. While I agree with your revert, it should not have been done using Twinkle's Rollback (Vandal) button. Using that feature incorrectly as you did is a good way to lose access to Twinkle. Ravensfire (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

not vandalism

There may be meaningful content and sock worries, but these edits are not vandalism, which has a very narrow meaning here. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked as a sock, please keep in mind, the edits weren't vandalism, although they were disruptive and block-evading. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a, for the most part, you are using Twinkle's rollback as vandalism correctly, but not always. If something was added in good faith, even if it's wrong or unsourced, it's generally not vandalism. Even stubborn or disruptive edits aren't considered vandalism. If you aren't totally sure, use the undo button or the AGF rollback in twinkle. I still goof on occasion too, but please try to be careful.

Also, when you're considering a 3rr warning, remember that multiple edits in a row are considered a single edit. So if I make 3 edits changing/removing what you did, you revert, then I add my changes back, that's really only 2 reverts, not 4. Shrug - I didn't know about it for a while, so just passing on some knowledge. Ravensfire (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Umm

this is a little bit extreme. I'd encourage you to retract it. Certainly, calling a poll to de-sysop someone on their talk page is no collegial. FYI (for reference) de-sysopping is not a simple process - if the AN/I thread takes hold the next step would be an RFC and then Arbcom. You've majorly pre-empted such actions (which will probably not be warranted anyway) and that is not going to go down well! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 00:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Festina lente

Hi. I was hoping you could explain this recent revert you made. The content looks ok to me, and the sources I've followed up so far seem to check out, so I'm not sure why you would have rolled it back. Perhaps I'm missing something? - Bilby (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it back. I presume this means it was just an error - I make enough of those too. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My bot

Indeed, I screwed up and forgot to convert to talk pages after computer restarted jsut after I had done it the first time. I do apologise. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 12:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Punching below the belt...

I would like to be able to respond to this low blow made by Big Brother of the Party; He knows my hands are tied by the block yet he made this edit knowing I wouldn't be able to respond to it until the block lifts. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 10:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Recommend just removing it (it's in your userspace) rather than responding. From the looks of above, you appear to be being trolled. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You can remove it yourself if you so desire. I don't mind. I just hope that he gets the message like I did. He clearly needs it more... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 11:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Also: i'm not the only one who got trolled... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cutelilbabygurl03&diff=prev&oldid=400642436

Quick message to Bwilkins

You had actually reduced my block from the original expiry time of 09:47 06/12/2010 (Aust. WST, GMT+8) to a new expiration time of 7:28 06/12/2010 (Aust. WST, GMT+8). I don't mind if you want to re-extend it (You do the crime; you do the time and all that jazz) but if you want to leave it as it is, that is also fine by me. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 11:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. I'm leaving it as it is. Another admin was not beyond reducing it, and I'll concur. You're always welcome to extend your wikibreak to cover it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If I may also say, Barts, as I did earlier way above, the definition of vandalism here is very narrow. If there is a shred of good faith behind an edit, it may be bickering, disruptive, wholly wrong, muddled-headed, even spiteful or whatever, but it won't taken as vandalism here. For now, if an edit doesn't straightforwardly look like lolz to you, don't rv it as vandalism. Another editor has also said you might try editing some content yourself. There is no better way to quickly learn the policies here, even more to grok what's vandalism and what's not, than to write articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

So what would you do with these 2 edits? They are clearly good faith but unreferenced. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're not vandalism, so rollback would be inappropriate - therefore undo or remove as per WP:BRD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the insight! :D Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) When I see something that looks easily verifiable and non-controversial like that, but is not yet sourced, I often leave it be. If you know something about the topic or something else gets you to wondering about it, tag it with a {{cite}} instead. Better still, do a search and see if you can find a citation :) By the bye, such awards mean even less than they once did, there are so many now. Most edits to en.WP, even by IPs, are helpful. Don't let a clumsy but helpful edit lead you to think everything about it is harmful. Also, think of it this way, one of the reasons volunteers are willing to put so much of their time into reverting vandalism is to keep the website open to anonymous IP editors, who mostly do give so much helpful input here. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your wise words of wisdom. A quick search turns up no references for "The Ultimate Book Award" and the page that is given in the link is a redlink with no deletion log. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I did a search for that award and the edit does look like a hoax, which is vandalism. See how I handled it, by leaving an edit summary. If the IP came back and edit warred over it, I would indeed use rollback, since my first edit summary is still there, hoaxing is vandalism and rolling back edit warring over this would not fall under 3rr. However, you must always make clear to other editors what you're doing and moreover, sometimes you'll need to look into an edit before you can know if it's vandalism or not. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I have learned much more than I would have had the block not happened. Disclaimer: This is NOT an invitation to block! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have any nagging questions at all as to whether an edit may be vandalism or not, don't rollback. Do it manually with an edit summary. Likewise, if they then edit war over it, think about asking an admin or experienced user to help out, rather than rolling back, unless you know, spot on, without a shred of qualm or wonder, that you're rolling back straightforward vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. Thanks again! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 13:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Note

One thing you'll find over time is that you will occasionally attract malcontents, or "enemies" if you want to get really dramatic. When that happens, the best thing to do is not let them get to you. Report them to the proper authorities in the proper place, and let them handle it. And even try to see the humor in their outrageous behavior. Let's put it this way: I've attracted "enemies" from time to time, and most, if not all, are now indef'd and/or banned. Malcontents will eventually go too far, and they'll be banished to the wiki phantom zone. Sometimes that can take awhile, though, so patience as well as cool-and-calm may be required. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. If only evil forces destroyed themselves so easily in real life... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 23:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This... isn't... real life??? :'( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

Big Brother of the Party moved http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bermicourt/Sandbox_3&redirect=no to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Big_Brother_of_The_Party/Sandbox without an apparent valid reason. Can someone move it back please (If not; you don't mind if I move it back; do you?) Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 23:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a peculiar move, unless (1) Bermicourt gave permission and/or (2) Big Brother is also Bermicourt. I've just asked him what the deal is with that move. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Judging from their edit histories, they have nothing in common, and in view of Big Brother's subsequent modifications, it looks rather like a "hostile takeover". Favonian (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and move it back. My block has lifted now... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 23:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, please look at this kind message left by BB! Favonian (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 23:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've done it now. Thanks for uncovering this mess! Favonian (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

FUR of File:Yeonpyeong smoke Nov2010.jpg

This image is being used for news reporting of a current event. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a photo from a press agency. By definition we can't use it, unless we're discussing the photo itself. And even then I'd be a tad wary, as I'd want a really good reason for discussing the photo. :) As an aside, this wasn't a case of vandalism, and edit warring for any reason other than to remove blatant vandalism is a problem. Blanking a section with no reason might be vandalism, but removing an image with a valid rationale isn't, I'm afraid. More generally, if you see two or more editors edit warring, it is important that you don't get involved - you can warn if you really think you should, (in this case a templated warning was, I think, a bad idea), or report the edit warring to the noticeboard, but you shouldn't revert the person you think is in the wrong, as the second you do that you're edit warring as well. - Bilby (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Bilby -- see talk page discussion thread Talk:Bombardment of Yeonpyeong#Smoke rising after artillery barrage.

Is it not significant and relevant that I tried again and again to use discussion to reach consensus. Are these points relevant:

• This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image of the smoke rising above the silhouette of Yeonpyeong Island after the North Korean artillery barrage in November 2010.
• The image of the smoke plus the silhouette itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role).

I also tried to reach toward consensus and understanding here here, but to no avail.

IMO, Barts1a is now punished because the patience of Future Perfect at Sunrise was over-taxed by my me. My repeated requests for explanation and discussion may have been frustrating, but my approach was legitimate and sincere and supported by research and active, demonstrable efforts to work through this. --Tenmei (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! No, blocks aren't punishment - they're preventative. In this case, Barts1a was edit warring to include a non-free image. As we need to take copyright and fair use very seriously, that's a fairly major error, and I presume Future Perfect at Sunrise gave the short block to prevent that from continuing. Barts1a meant well, but the policy on the use of pictures from press agencies is very clear, and we simply can't use them unless the photo itself is the topic of discussion. Similarly, 3RR is a bright line that can only be crossed to prevent vandalism. In this case it wasn't vandalism, but a valid rationale - even if you don't agree with it's application. - Bilby (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick message to Future Perfect at Sunrise

I would like some understanding as to why you applied this block so I can correct my actions please? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 01:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Support request for unblock of this user

Before anyone questions my reasons for posting here, I am doing this of my own free will and without any nudging from anybody. I am asking that this user be unblocked, plain and simple. The user has only had by his own admission, one previous block, and it is my belief that the user has taken the side flack from Tenmei's communications with Fut.Perf. OK, he edit warred over something he genuinely thought was right. I wouldn't say he's the first, I doubt he'll be the last to do it. I've done it myself before, but I've never been hit like this, or had such a stark and in my opinion, quite incivil message left by anyone, which is what I consider the reviewing admin's post to be. Threatening this user in such a strong manner with an indef I feel is unjustified and uncalled for. Discuss, resolve, assist. Not smack with a big hammer because they don't agree with you. BarkingFish 01:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi BarkingFish,

I did not make that comment lightly. I am not smacking anyone with a big hammer "because they don't agree with me". I am threatening to smack him with a big hammer because he is repeatedly, constantly getting into contentious situations and doing or saying something unwise. If I see a new editor doing this, I try to gently explain why what he's doing isn't going to work. However, if I see an editor constantly ignoring such advice from many, many other users, and when he finally does what they suggest, leaps immediately into a new conflict somewhere else, there comes a time when he has to decide if he wants to edit here or not. If he continues on the path he is on now, he is not helping the encyclopedia, he is hurting it. If he changes course, and starts doing useful things and avoiding 24-7 controversy and being unhelpful with comments on various noticeboards and help pages, then he might become, over time, a benefit to it. That would be fantastic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is also directed at Future Perfect at Sunrise as they are the admin that put the block on in the first place. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 02:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No Barts, it isn't. Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Proof? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 08:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts it's obvious to everybody except you. Please calm down and start thinking. I understand you may feel pissed off about these blocks but if you could accept that people are genuinely trying to give you good advice you would do better. People are taking a lot of trouble to try and explain things to you because it looks as if you are trying to help. I would advise you to make the best of that. Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You do realise I am NOT referring to the block itself; but the message left by BarkingFish above... right? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 08:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You're doing it again, Barts. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I am referring to Floquenbeams statement under which your response is threaded. Look Barts, you obviously don't like being told off, corrected, threatened, punished etc. Neither does anybody else. So stop doing it to other people and other people will stop doing it to you. I'm not coming over here to wind you up. I am here because you and I have already had a discussion along these lines. People do want you to do well you know - but the remedy lies in your hands. Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

An apology

I would like to apologize for my edit warring. I can promise that it will not happen again and not just because a new and free image was uploaded over the image responsible for this whole mess. I do hope that everyone affected is willing to put it behind them as I am. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 04:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts it's not a question of you or anyone else "putting it behind them". It's a question of you reading some policies, accepting advice and curbing your urge to keep telling everybody else how to behave and what to do. Currently you don't have a clue. You need to get one. Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Yeonpyeong smoke Nov2010.jpg

Why was the file deleted? A free variant was uploaded by the user before deletion. The free variant clearly differed from the AP variant. Even the smoke plume was different! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 11:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't free, that's why. It was from a random website that evidently paid no attention to image copyright whatsoever and was most likely just stealing the images from somewhere else; moreover, it didn't even say they were free. How T. got the idea in his head that this was a free image is quite beyond me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you even look at the (now deleted) free image source? Also: another image from the same source is still up... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts, do you have any understanding whatsoever about copyright? Every single image that someone else holds the copyright to - no matter where the image is found - would cause Wikipedia legal issues. Just because I put photo that I took on a website, it does not mean that it is now public domain, I'm merely displaying my legally-copyrighted work. Because copyright is a massive legal situation, IAR can never circumvent it it. If I download a photo from the internet and modify it, the photo's copyright still belongs to the original owner, mine is merely a derivative work, and I cannot own it. A piece of advice: do not try to argue copyright unless you 100% understand it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect posed a rhetorical question.

"How T. got the idea in his head that this was a free image is quite beyond me."

In this instance, the answer is relevant. As a matter of fact, the source explicitly uses the words "free content" in its header; and in addition to providing a hyperlink to the source, I used the words "free content" when uploading an alternate image.

Even if it was wrong to rely on those words at the source site, small issue should have been the subject of discussion. It was not. --Tenmei (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC) (Emphasis placed by Barts1a)

Although I think the image likely was swiped and uploaded to that site with no screening, there is a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. Any way one looks at it, there is no evidence of a free licence for either image, lots of evidence they're copyrighted and hence, cannot be used as free images here. Also, the bounds of Wikipedia:Fair_use are very narrow here. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale -- Yes, thank you. Your reasonable tone helps us diminish the confusion which has arisen from the sound of one hand clapping. This was never about copyright, nor about failing to respect the interests of copyright holders -- see here. The use for which image was uploaded had to do with the file itself as the subject of sourced commentary. This should have been a subject for discussion.

I may be wrong, of course; but how can collaborative work proceed without discussion? As far as I could tell, that was the point Barts1a was trying to make? No? --Tenmei (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a -- this one image isn't worth the fuss. Sometimes things seem to get out of hand in our Wikipedia venue; and this is one of those times. I'm sure we both regret that we have encountered this, but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There was never anything much to talk about, the image(s) didn't fall within the bounds of acceptable fair use on en.WP. Copyright policy is not handled through consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Online Gambling

Barts1a, you are wrong here, I supplied good content to wikipedia. Links I supplied repliced the old ones that were dead, and are from a high quality website.

Undo the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliviaWatkins (talk • contribs) 00:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I will not be doing this. The website is clearly not "high quality" Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints/constructive criticism? Merry Christmas to all! 00:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, Barts1a has done the right thing here, it seems. That doesn't look like a reliable source. OliviaWatkins, please discuss your changes on the article's talk page if you wish to make them, as other editors disagree with you additions. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6