User talk:Jprw/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Splattergate listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Splattergate. Since you had some involvement with the Splattergate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Gobonobo ^{T C} 01:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Watts Up With That?

The article Watts Up With That? you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Watts Up With That? for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Aaron north (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Broken Compass cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Broken Compass cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger Scruton

Hi Jrpw, can I ask that you please stop removing pertinent material from Scruton? Almost every edit you've made there has been to promote him in some way. I think if you want to do that—in the sense of wanting to present an accurate picture—the best way is to start building up the article about his philosophy. We say almost nothing about it, but if we had a fuller account of his thinking, then the details you don't like would be viewed in context. The way to write a good BLP is to give a full and rounded picture of the person. I'd be willing to help you with it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"Almost every edit you've made there has been to promote him in some way". Not true; however, it could be argued that almost all the edits you've made have been to detract from him in some way (you clearly don't like him or his views). So I think that collaboration might not work in practice, but thanks for the offer. Plus, I don't have your stamina. Jprw (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's not true that I don't like him. I have his work to thank in part for getting a first in my Kant final, so I've always had a soft spot for him. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Scruton again

You've reverted the tobacco material—either removing the section entirely or removing the key details—13 times since August 2010, reverting against multiple editors. You've been blocked twice because of it, once for 3RR and once for block evasion. There has been consensus on talk that the details are appropriate, and this was confirmed on September 5 at the BLP noticeboard, which is where I first saw it. Despite that, you've continued to revert:

Aug 28, Sept 4, Sept 5, Sept 5, Sept 8, Sept 9, Sept 9, Sept 9, Sept 9, Sept 9, 72-block for violation of 3RR, Sept 10, added three POV tags as 95.27.94.16, Sept 11, 5-day block for block evasion, Oct 12, Oct 12, Dec 4, Dec 4.

Every time you revert, you draw more attention to it and cause more discussion. As soon as the discussion is archived by the bot, you start reverting again. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

See the Scruton discussion page for a response to this -- as for the block, I believe that this was shamefully orchestrated by yourself (I was trying to remove contentious material as per WP:BLP) and it was through your friendships with the Admin that you escaped censorship yourself -- a most disgraceful episode. If you recall, I asked on numerous occasions why you had not been blocked over the reverts and was met with a wall of silence from both yourself, other editors , and admin. Your behaviour is deeply mendacious and disingenuous. Please do not comment on my talk page again, you are not welcome here. Jprw (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jprw,

Thanks for your efforts to keep Wikipedia balanced and truthful. I noticed an attack on me in the Roger Scruton discussion pages by Slim Virgin, and so wrote a reply to her criticisms, only to discover that she has now blocked me from replying to her accusations! So I am blocked from contributing to the Scruton article, blocked from making any comments on her changes, and now blocked from defending myself from her attacks on me! Nasty does not capture it!

I have posted below the reply I wrote (with an additional comment on top!) which I have now posted on the Philip Rieff talk page. She knows she has a very poor case. I believe that small groups of Wikipedia editors are trying to subvert Wikipedia. The Left seem have a real problem hearing alternative points of view. They just seem to want to write propaganda. As it happens a friend of mine and myself are close to launching a software business, which "could" become extremely profitable, and we are currently discussing whether or not we should make a very large donation to Wikipedia if our business takes off as hoped. Needless to add I am very much against making any such donation now. Thanks again for your efforts. It is a relief to know there are sane people in this world.

(85.211.84.10 (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)).

Plagiarism!

It seems that SlimVirgin has now banned me from replying to her criticisms on the Roger Scruton talk page! What a truly nasty woman. I therefore give my reply (given that she is mainly talking about this article) on this talk page.

I am very familiar with Philip Rieff's writings. I have several of his books (6 to be precise - nearly all his output) and I am happy to discuss with others who are familiar with his work (which of course excludes the increasingly hysterical "Slim Virgin" whose knowledge of the writer being discussed is as usual approximately zero) what is the best short summary of his ideas, but SlimVirgin has now blocked my access to the Rieff article as well!

I recall there was an existing entry (written by others) on Philip Rieff which I updated by adding some information on his last books (not "Charisma" that I can recall but certainly his "Sacred Order/Social Order" trilogy) the summary of which I took directly from my reading of his books. I also recall adding (in the hope that I was improving them) to the summaries that people had already given of his previous books.

"Slim Virgin" objects that some of the phrases used (I presume my additions) in the summaries were taken (without acknowledgement) from a summary of these books already given by David Glen. I think it is wholly appropriate that David Glen should get a reference, and as far as I am aware nobody is disputing that an addition of a reference to David Glen would be an improvement, and that it would have been better if I had made an explicit reference to his summaries, but I do not think that SlimVirgin has quite grasped the fact that David Glen (at least in those phrases that were used in his summaries of his early books) is supplying a precis of the words and sentences and paragraphs and thoughts of David Rieff! What is being attempted by David Glen (and the Wikipedia article on Philip Rieff) in other words is a short summary of the contents of the early books by Philip Rieff. The focus is not on David Glen or myself, or on anybody else, except David Rieff! The most important question is - Is it an accurate summary of the words, sentences, and paragraphs and thoughts written by David Rieff?

In "The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith After Freud" Rieff does indeed argue that Freud's renegade disciples disciples, Carl Jung, Wilhelm Reich, D.H. Lawrence, failed to grasp his fundamental pessimism, and instead spun off utopian fantasies about cultural liberation. More broadly, Rieff did indeed warn that urbanization and modernity were giving rise to a hollow gospel of self-fulfilment, and that the central fact of our age is the emergence of psychological man, a figure with no sense of duty, and little sense of history. When talking about Kant Rieff does claim that an authentic religious culture is not about the citizens' intellectual understanding of rules of right and wrong, but about structures of authority, myth, and meaning that are so deep that people are only half-aware of them. A lot of that is a direct paraphrase of Rieff's own words. It is a summary in short by David Glen of Rieff. In other words it is a reliable summary of what Rieff is saying in those early books. All credit to David Glen for producing an accurate brief summary, or at least, credit should have been given to David Glen, but it is precisely because they are an accurate summary of David Rieff's words that they ended up being used in the Wikipedia entry.

Looking at the Glen article I note the phrase explaining Rieff's use of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's notion of the "clerisy", that is, an informal class of learned people who preserve and maintain a country's cultural heritage, also came from David Glen. I do not know if SlimVirgin is familiar with Coleridge, but Samuel Taylor Coleridge does talk about a "clerisy" which is the informal class of learned people who preserve and maintained a country's cultural heritage. That probably explains why I used that phrase. I have no objection to David Glen getting credit for using that precise sequence of words, although I am wondering why the use of such a straightforward definition of what clerisy means without crediting David Glen for putting together that exact phrase is causing SlimVirgin such hysterics?

Slim Virgin then complains that I "did the same in the Scruton article" copying Roger Scruton's words without in-text attribution (although she admits that I provided citations) and sees herself as very loving and tolerant for not removing it. I have to remind myself at this point that it is an article about Roger Scruton. It is not about me, or SlimVirgin, it is about the words, sentences, paragraphs, and thoughts of Roger Scruton." Yet again the key question is - Are they an accurate summary or not? The complaint is not that they are inaccurate, it is that they are too accurate because they are taken from his words!

She then repeats the false allegation that I am User Yorkshirian (on the grounds that somebody once said it) and that I was banned from contributing to the talk page on Right-Wing politics (another lie) or at least I should have been for being so rude, and tops it off with her claim that I "cannot be trusted" - her clinching evidence for this being that I too closely based my summary of Roger Scruton on his actual words.

This would be laughable if it were not so pathetic.

P.S It seems that the phrase "The book uses 39 paintings and other artworks as launching points for meditations on what Mr. Rieff calls the "third culture" -- an empty, permissive realm where no authority is recognized." (which is nearly all a direct quote from Mr Rieff) is also mentioned

(85.211.84.10 (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)).

I've reproduced it on the Roger Scruton talk page. Her behaviour is abominable and the fact that her cohorts in admin are always willing to back her up is a sad reflection of the standards that are tolerated at Wikipedia. I'd reconsider that donation if I were you)) Jprw (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Roger Scruton talk page

By this edit I don't mean to take sides in any way. What I mean is that in a heated debate, "you're lying!" is not a very constructive counterargument. Please be mindful of that in the future. Gabbe (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yorkshirian for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. TFD (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You really have to laugh at the sheer mendacity of THE FOUR DEUCES. I am quite sure he does not believe for a moment that you or I are "Yorkshirian" (if that person even existed) but he is so keen to close down debate (the word Stalinist is very apt here) he is now threatening you with the accusation that you are a sock puppet! Why? Because you dared to disagree with his declaration that Fascism is "Right-Wing"! Needless to add because I made a slight improvement to the Right-Wing entry (which you can read for yourself) I was barred for two months. Presumably this is to discourage you (and others like you i.e. anybody interested in truth seeking) from harbouring any illusions about trying to improve article by making them more accurate. I am beginning to see why (with THE FOUR DEUCES charging around like the Witchfinder General accusing anybody who disagrees with him as being a "sock puppet") Wikipedia is widely viewed (especially on politics and other hot button topics) as bunkum.

Nevertheless it is quite an insight (for me) into the hate filled intolerance of many on the Left.

(85.211.72.11 (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)).

Yes, I have to agree with what you are saying. He even had the temerity to delete your comment above from my talk page! (I've just restored it; he really is behaving in an embittered way). The way in which editors like THE FOUR DEUCES are allowed to run amok on Wikipedia censoring – or smearing – anyone who disagrees with them, or puts a case to them that they may not be comfortable with, is prima facie proof of the non-neutrality of WP politics pages. Jprw (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, you can't talk about other editors this way. User talk pages are publicly visible, so WP:NPA still applies. Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but if another editor's behaviour is reprehensible I have a right to point it out, especially on my talk page.Jprw (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't call another editor "an embittered individual." You focus on the behavior, not the editor. You say, "I don't agree with what so-and-so is doing and how he/she treats other editors. I believe he/she may be in violation of (whatever policy)." No name calling. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that, I have changed the wording accordingly. Jprw (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please not restore comments made by banned editors, which is meatpuppetry. I will add this latest incident to your sockpuppet investigation. TFD (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What a perfect little Bolshevik party apparatchik you would have made. Jprw (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

TFD, Jprw is wrong to be calling you names, but you are wrong to be pursuing the SPI with such weak evidence. Cla68 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It has actually been very illuminating to watch how the Left seek to enforce their political opinions within an institution - in this case Wikipedia. You notice that because I repeatedly replaced my (unanswered) reply to Rick Norwood in the latest discussion pages of the Right Wing entry (which somebody called THE FOUR DEUCES equally repeatedly - 12 times in a row at the last count- deleted without censure) that I am now banned from the talkpages of that article. The grounds for this is the claim (which entirely coincidentally just happens to have been made by THE FOUR DEUCES) is that I am a sock puppet of a banned contributor. The evidence for this is that this banned author ALSO questioned the validity of dogmatically asserting that Fascism is right-wing, and he or she also (from the ISP data) lives in the North of England. After all Yorkshire is in the north of England!

It is by their actions you shall know them. How entirely predictable that you are now being accused of being a sock puppet and that comments on your page are being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.6.198 (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

THE FOUR DEUCES just deleted your above comment again (which I have restored). I'm sure that he doesn't have the right to do this on other editors' talk pages. Notice how he mimics the totalitarian tactics adopted by SlimVirgin. The pattern seems to be as follows:

• Leftist editor posts biased and inaccurate entry on WP politics page based on prejudice and ignorance
• Post is challenged by another editor adducing reasoned and justified arguments and facts
• Leftist editor cannot cope with being challenged and having his ignorance and bias exposed
• Leftist editor creates trumped-up charges against the editor that has "wronged" him and has the editor blocked.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the majority of editors and contributors on WP politics pages are of a leftist persuasion and protect and facilitate the process of censorship mentioned above by going through various admin procedures and decisions. It is all extremely illuminating, as you say. Jprw (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI

You are being discussed at ANI.[1] TFD (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy the latest power trip! [2] Jprw (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Move - where was this discussed?

I must have missed the discussion on

(Move log); 17:29 . . Jprw (talk | contribs) moved Mass killings under Communist regimes to Twentieth-century mass killings under Communist regimes (these events are specific to the 20th century)

and I can't find it now. Would you move this back until a full discussion can be made?

Smallbones (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears it has been done by someone else. Jprw (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Dalglish

Hello. Happy to help. As a starter, can I immodestly recommend reading User:Dweller/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates? --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You certainly can, thanks)) I look forward to getting any input from your side, however small, and there's no rush. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No Pressure

Started a review on the article here. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Jprw, are you gonna correct the problems I addressed? I just want to make sure so I could give you more time or fail it. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Kesennuma, Miyagi

Hi Jprw,
Unfortunately the link you posted to the Tsunami video at Kesennuma, Miyagi is already no longer available due to "Unauthorized usage". :-( I have therefore removed it. If you can find a new link to it, that would be good! Regards- 220.101 talk^\Contribs 15:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Jprw. You have new messages at 220.101.28.25's talk page.
Message added 18:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your GA nomination of No Pressure (film)

The article No Pressure (film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:No Pressure (film) for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll try to to get around to solving the problems you raise this weekend. Jprw (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile GA review

Hello, I've reviewed Jimmy Savile against the GA criteria and unfortunately I feel that there are too many issues to list the article at this time. The review is at Talk:Jimmy Savile/GA1, let me know if you have any questions. --BelovedFreak 10:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips edits

Hi

I've twice undone an unexplained deletion of referenced material which you made to the Melanie Phillips article; and you've twice reverted this, with the latest edit summary simply saying "read the edit summary". I've looked at the edit summary which I presume you're referring to "It is not mentioned in that reference!!! You'll have to do a lot better than that if you want to attack and misrepresent her" and this doesn't help me to understand why you're repeatedly deleting the material. You should assume good faith here; just because an editor restores critical material to a WP:BLP article, you shouldn't assume they have an agenda, especially if the material is referenced - and in this case, both references given DO mention the fact which you're trying to delete. You'll notice that at least one other editor appears to believe that the material is a valid inclusion. If you want to delete this material, I think you would be better off raising it on the article's talk page, so that we can arrive at a consensus on this. For now, I won't re-insert the material, to give you a chance to argue your case. Best regards.

SP-KP (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. I'm conscious of the editing noise that surrounds the page - it's the same with any other public figure who has forthright views, and that's a shame but it's inevitable given our editing model. You're absolutely right that we should be striving for a quality article which puts across her views, and also criticism of them, fairly and comprehensively. No disagreement from me there. If I had more time I would defintely put some effort into that. However, this is a separate issue. The content I reinstated wasn't really about this; it was about a nickname. Yes, an unpleasant one perhaps, and one that is used in attacks on her, sure, but it's still just a nickname. The key question I would ask myself when deciding whether this content should be in the article is whether it gets enough usage. If it does, it should stay in. If that usage is solely among her detractors, then that's not a reason to delete it; it's a reason to point this out in the article, which the deleted content did do. If you agree that that's the correct rule of thumb to use (maybe there are others, and I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this), then the next step should be to establish how widespread the name is used. Flawed though Google tests are, if you google "Mad Mel" Phillips - leave the quotemarks in - you get a very large number of hits, and almost all of those that I've checked refer to her. They are at a wide variety of sources, and I think this verifies that the name is widely used enough to be included. You're correct that we should attempt to select the highest quality references to support the inclusion; the fact that the two references are in reliable publications should be enough to meet this threshold though surely? OK, the first article is using the name in a derogatory way, but I'm not sure how you can use "Mad Mel" in a non-derogatory way, to be honest, and the second article would indeed be better if it named the people it was talking about, but given that we've established from our google search that there are lots of such people, I think it'll do until we can find a better reference. I don't know if any of this helps sway your thinking? Do let me know. SP-KP (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You're being discussed at WP:AN3

Hello Jprw. Please see WP:AN3#User:Jprw reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: ), where it is argued you're engaged in long-term edit warring. You may respond there if you wish. You've been previously blocked regarding the same article. It may be to your advantage to promise to avoid this article for a period of time. Otherwise a lengthy block may be issued. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

3RR at Roger Scruton

This is to let you know that I've filed a report here about 3RR and general edit warring at Roger Scruton. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What a shame (and how slightly bizarre) that just as progress seems to be being made on the obvious structural inadequacies of the article you fly off the handle and initiate a totally uncalled for show trial. You seem to be a quite seriously unbalanced individual. But good luck with the case, I know that this is the only way people like you can justify your existence. Jprw (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Roger Scruton. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  21:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The block is also for your personal attacks on others, as detailed at the AN3 thread.  Sandstein  21:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet another triumph for the forces of darkness at Wikipedia. I also note again that the erroneous claims and deceit on the part of the editor making the complaint once more go completely unaddressed.

If any editors are interested in how there is a leftist bias prevailing within politics pages at WP, and how this is upheld by Admin when a challenge is made from an editor interested in correcting this, I invite them to look at what has been going on recently at the Roger Scruton page, which now will go on reading like an article that would be written by a left-wing tabloid and not an encyclopedia entry. The pattern, for those who are interested, is as follows:

• Leftist editor posts biased and inaccurate entries on WP politics page based on prejudice and ignorance, or in pursuit of an agenda to discredit a figure on the right of the political spectrum;
• Posts challenged by another editor;
• Leftist editor cannot cope with being challenged and having his ignorance/bias/agenda exposed;
• Leftist editor creates trumped-up (and in the latest example regarding the 3RR violation, in fact completely bogus) charges against the editor that has "wronged" him and brings them to admin – a tactic that the "wronged" editor knows will result in the "blocking" (in effect censorship) of the editor who tried to address the leftist bias.

This is a process of censorship, and the procedure that is gone through at Admin nothing more than a show trial. It is rather ironic that I should see proof positive of this leftist bias at the Scruton page – Scruton has after all himself been vilified by the left throughout his career. Jprw (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

May I be so bold as to recommend that you cool down, make amends for what more than one editor has characterized as incivility, and request an unblock. To SlimVirgin's credit she placed an RfC on Scruton, which is fair IMO. Acknowledging this would go a long way to assuaging a reviwer of an unblock request. I noticed that you are active promoting articles to GA. We could really use your expertise on an upcoming Collaboration we're planning. I'm hoping to eventually collaborate on an FA article... we'll see. Lionel (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the advice. The admin process seems to be venal however and there is clear nepotism going on, and I don’t really want to spend any more time on this. The issue you raise re: civility is important though. Yes I probably did go over the top in some of my comments ("a trifle brusque", to quote Basil Fawlty [3]), but these comments were made in the heat of the moment. In contrast, the deceit and distortion shown by the editor called SlimVirgin was clearly premeditated; "in cold blood", as it were.

I’d be happy to do some spadework for the collaboration project you mention, let’s touch base about this again next week. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by my Talk page, Jprw. I'm excited about your offer and looking forward to working with you! I suspect many of the wp:right'ers are doing stuff for Easter, so we'll get this Collab going first thing next week. Again, thanks for your support and have a Happy Easter! Lionel (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

• Ever feel like you're editing in a vacuum, and long for some camaraderie?
• Do you want to improve an article and put a Featured Article star on your userpage but don't know how to get started?
• Want to be part of a cohesive, committed team working together to improve conservatism one article at a time?

If you're interested in having lots of fun and working with great editors, click here and make history. We're now taking nominations. Lionelt (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

External link

Hi Jprw, thank you for your contributions to the 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup Riot article. I wanted to let you know the external link that you have added to the article has been removed. Please review the guidelines for what constitutes as appropriate external links for an article on WP:EL. Happy editing. 24.87.59.164 (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3