Jump to content

user talk:snigbrook/Archive 1

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


Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Snigbrook, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Lradrama 16:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Suwud

Hi there, you just added a "speedy deletion" to suwud and I'd like to know how to proceed to prove the group's notability. There are a few online resources that can be used to show it, but most of them I don't know how to add (or don't think that they should be) to the page here at wikipedia.

Some references that mention Suwud can be found online in English at:

and in Portuguese at:

finally, in German:

All these links show that works produced by Suwud have gathered considerable attention by art institutions in Sao Paulo and elsewhere. Another indication is the participation in seven different exhibitions/screenings in 2007.

I'm not sure this helps, but I believe that all these references can show that Suwud, despite its relatively short history, is already worth of being mentioned by wikipedia. Suwud 16:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For catching the dab Lancaster thing on Theobald Butler. I'm a good old Southern girl from the US, I can't keep which county in England goes -shire and which don't straight! Thanks again!

Merge Jumbolair

I proposed merging Jumbolair to the Greystone Airport article. The controversy over John Travolta's plane is already covered in the latter article, and I do not see anything notable about the subdivision. -- Donald Albury 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oliver Kamm

Hello Snigbrook. Do you have a suggestion of how to fix the passage that you tagged with 'clarifyme'? I personally think the Srebrenica paragraph is very confusing, and might be replaced with a more generalized summary, that would have less of a he-said/she-said feeling. Or it could be omitted completely. Perhaps you have an idea what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the recent edit to Ugg boots. The district reports that they have identified the students involved and are talking appropriate action. --NERIC-Security (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

...And for taking care of that sock with the inappropriate edit summaries and blanking patterns. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower
Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! 

Jccort (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Jack David Rapley

This Page is very useful so please stop deleting it, i'm trying to get some exposure for my client in the field of his presenting and with regards to his business. If you wouldn't mind keeping it I would be extremely grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackvandriver2 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy tags on templates

When placing a speedy deletion tag on a template, please make sure to enclose the tag in <noinclude> in order to prevent pages transcluding the template from appearing in CAT:CSD. —Random832 01:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Monkey Crap

I saw your message on Redrocket talk page here. It doesn't make any sense. As you will see from this, it was User:Heli8a who moved Shaquille O'Neal to Monkey crap, and from this you'll see that Redrocket reverted the vandalism. Perhaps Twinkle has not quite got things right here? Anyway, perhaps you would like to strike through the message as it's clearly wrong. Cheers. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC) P.S.

I've removed it, it was my mistake with Twinkle. I think it's the first time I've added a speedy tag on a redirect and I forgot that it recorded a user who reverted a page move as having created the redirect. I'll remember now not to notify the "creator" of redirects created by page moves, thanks for letting me know about my error. --Snigbrook (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


Thank You!

I just wanted to say thank you for getting rid of that vandal on my user page! :)

Flardox —Preceding comment was added at 17:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bosideng

Previously, I typed "Boshideng" instead of "Bosideng", but later I found "Boshideng" is wrong, so I used "move" function to copy the whole paragraph to "Bosideng" for my convenience. Then I used "delete" function to remind administrator to delete "Boshideng". Sorry for my previous practice.

Ricky@36 09:26, 9 March 2008 (HKT)

  • That's what I was confused about - you had used the move feature, which is the correct way of moving a page, and thatis how the redirect was created. You had been told "Please do not create redirects" and to use the 'move' feature - but that always creates a redirect with the old title. --Snigbrook (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The redirect link was automatically generated after pressing "move" button. Ricky@36 16:30, 9 March 2008 (HKT)

99-year lease

Thanks for working on the article about the 99-year lease. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User:75.3.231.16 and Grey's Anatomy

I have not blocked User:75.3.231.16 based on the single edit at Grey's Anatomy. However, based on the pattern of vandalism at the article, I have protected it for two weeks against edits by new or anonymous users. —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of Geordies

The reason I keep deleting that is because it is a controversal article and the user who posted that has been using a self admitted sockpuppet as an attempt to win the argument and support his own views, as he was blocked for edit warring on the topic in the past, hence using a sock so he gain the upper hand. 86.148.189.191 (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He's used a sockpuppet to gain the upper hand in that article and sock views should not count, that is against the policy WP:SOCK. 86.148.189.191 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User banned for sockpuppetry confirmed via checkuser. 86.148.189.191 (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yo

Good looks.

NiggardlyNorm (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Inserting a picture

fantastic!

this is my first time editing, as you can tell

thank you big time for helping out here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokiland (talk • contribs) 17:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deleted redirect, And They Obey (song)

And They Obey (song) had been pointing to …And They Obey (song), which obviously doesn't exist and was causing a broken redirect. I've restored the page and pointed And They Obey (song) to …And They Obey. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Something Upstairs

Hello, Snigbrook. Why did you move the see also links? Nothing444 22:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ross Mawhinney hoax

I did investigate this quite throughly before tagging it as a hoax. Google search for his name and BluRadio bring back nothing. I've searched the entire BluRadio site, both manually and using search engines and found no mention of him. "Italy's Strongest Woman Micale Fre" is complete nonsense. No record of Boy George ever being a regular on Belfast CityBeat. There's just nothing in there that's verifiable, and believe me I tried. I don't know how it lasted this long.... One Night In Hackney303 01:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks like some of it is a hoax, all I could verify was that he presented on Citybeat during 2002, and I don't think anything in the article would be sufficient for the notability criteria even if it was all verifiable. --Snigbrook (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Ussuri republic

Hello. I found this article and saw that you added the 'suspected hoax' template to it on March 23. Having examined the references, I agree that it seems to be a hoax, and have nominated it for deletion. Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ussuri republic. Terraxos (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

UAA reports

Good work with all the recent UAA reports, they're accurately detailed and to the point. Well done. Rudget. 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm Glad...

That you are trying to help me and in the future if you need my help, just give me a message an I will give it my all to help you. But, I'm satisfied with my user name. --Soldidozen (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 28 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Catalyst (museum), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

21656???!!!

Not mine. I would have been logged in if I wanted to make a(nother) doppelganger. 21655 τalk/ ʃign 17:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Can you move this comment to my talk page when you reply? 21655 τalk/ ʃign 17:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Vukcevich Super Cup

It doesn't look like you added the AFD discussion page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 28, or am I missing something? There are instructions at WP:AFD. Quale (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for letting me know about it - looks like something went wrong with Twinkle. It's the first time I have created a "2nd nomination" AFD - possibly Twinkle has a problem with them. I've added it there now. --Snigbrook (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. I saw the original PROD but didn't realize that it may have gone through AFD previously, making a PROD inapropriate. Thanks for catching that and submitting it to AFD. Quale (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy tags...

Thanks for pointing that out! I've not been on NPP for a while and it shows...--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 02:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your due diligence re: noshoring as a neologism. The reason I entered it is that I heard this term, wanted to learn more about it, went to Wikipedia, saw there was no entry, and I created one based on what I have learned from a few online sources. I am hoping that it will be helpful to others interested in this topic, and that it will be augmented by them as well.Casper SSLLC (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of People's jury

An editor has nominated People's jury, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's jury and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries

On the polar bear time. Just remember to lock your computer next time! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Manic Expression

Good work listing both of them. He seems to be setting about removing the afd tags, but hopefully will stop now that I warned him. Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a copy-and-paste move

Hi, you recently notified me (thank you!) that I had done a copy-and-paste move instead of using the "move" command. I didn't know about the "move" command, but I do now. However, it appears that an administrator is required to fix up the situation. Are you such an administrator? The two articles in question are Threshold Pledge (old one) and Fund and release (new one). --Karl Fogel 15:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems I probably should have left the above comment on my talk page, where you made your original comment. (But how can I tell if you're watching there? Communications conventions that are intuitive for people who have really learned the Wikipedia system are not so intuitive for those of us who just make occasional edits, unfortunately...) --Karl Fogel 15:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Leukoencephalopathy

Hello, you reverted my removal of a redirect here. You mentioned the disambig at the top of the page. That only redirects to toxic leukoencephalopathy. That is not the only other cause of this symptom. I do believe that the page for leukoencephalopathy should be about the symptom, not a redirect to either the viral or the toxic causes of that symptom. Helikophis (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • If an article is written that is more than a dictionary definition, then it can replace the redirect. Otherwise, a redirect is better than nothing. That was why I reverted to the redirect - if you think the redirect is not useful then take it to Redirects for discussion where it can be discussed. As there is a third article (Leukoencephalopathy with vanishing white matter), it looks like an article, or at least a disambiguation page is needed, but until it is created a redirect is probably better than a red link. --Snigbrook (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Haxted Watermill

You changed the article to show the mill in Surrey. The actual border runs through the waterwheel, the building itself is in Kent. Mjroots (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Withington Cotton House

You might have mentioned that you had removed the prod. The article really is a fairy story you know. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I have looked at the article again, and about half of it is not about the building. I have found sources to verify that the building existed, and was called Cotton House, and later Withington Hall, but nothing to suggest that it was notable. The "reference" appears to refer to Withington Old Hall, which is another building (as you mentioned in the prod), so the accuracy of the article is in doubt. You could take it to Articles for deletion, which is what I intend to do soon. --Snigbrook (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh the building certainly existed, but nobody thinks it had anything to do with cotton. It's just one of thousands of large-ish houses in Manchester. It isn't a listed building, it doesn't appear in Pevsner, it isn't in Cooper's history of Manchester suburbs, and it doesn't appear in Whittaker's (sp?) personal memories of Withington. Booker's contemporary description of Withinton (in Didsbury, 1860-ish) not only doesn't mention it, but states that there is no manufacturing in the district. Cotton processing needs water—lots of it—and there's no dams there. I don't have Johnson's map of the area (c 1810-30?) to hand, but it shows Cotton Fields and maybe Cotton Lane (IIRC, not sure) but no building. Secondary issue: the author was a one-off appearance, he/she didn't respond to requests re the article. To my mind, the article has no place in an encyclopedia; whether it was copied from a local paper or was made up one afternoon, I don't know. I mentioned at WT:GM, there didn't seem to be any enthusiasm for it there. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
*I have nominated it at Articles for deletion, see the discussion page. --Snigbrook (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Paddy Considine

Snigbrook, I was at school with Paddy Considine from 11 years old to 16 years old. He lived 3 streets away from me, and is 15 days older than me. As I was born on September 20, 1973, that makes Paddy's date of birth September 5, 1973. Whosoever believes he was born in 1974 I can categorically state is wrong! It is really beginning to annoy me that if someone has no PROVEN fact, then they should not update pages based on UNVERIFIED information. External links do NOT convey proof of fact. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikejamestaylor (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The Wikipedia policy is verifiability not truth, and the majority of sources claim that he was born in 1974, another one not cited in the article is on the BBC site. Maybe it should be mentioned in the article that his date of birth is disputed. --Snigbrook (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well verifiability in this case seems to be based on sources that are wrong - I wouldn't be so vociferous if I wasn't 100% sure. Even Paddy's own fansite had him down as 1974. Maybe he's happy for people to think he's a year younger than he really is. I will put in a mention of his disputed date of birth in the article. Many Thanks. Mike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikejamestaylor (talk • contribs) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Albert Junior

Hi. I don't often put deletion notices on userpages, but this guy is nothing but a vandal here to promote himself. The content on his page had been deleted once before; he isn't here to do anything but self-promotion. Thanks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Winshill

Thank you for removing what I suspected to be copyrighted text in this article. I did ask the person who posted the text to affirm whether it was copyrighted or not, but no response and you beat me to it. --217.44.3.225 (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Realtime Worlds games

You said it could be nominated at TfD, but should it be? Especially now that I've found out that one of its three titles doesn't even belong... Please advise - thanks! xenocidic (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that it cannot be speedy deleted: the criteria (WP:CSD#Templates) are specified and none apply to this template. I have no opinion about whether it should be nominated at TfD. --Snigbrook (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Template:Realtime_Worlds_game's still needs deleted. doubt anyone will use the redirect. xenocidic (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

HIStory

hisTORY - Isn't the capitisation ignored and whether it is hiStory or HiStOrY - it would still be the same?

Mr.Muffet (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, most capitalisations go to history when typed in (or are red links when inserted as links into articles. Only the "HIStory" and "hIStory" versions go to the article about the album: "hIStory" links there because the first letter of an article is always interpreted by the software as if it is capitalised. I have also left a message on your talk page. --Snigbrook (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No its called HIStory. Stop your redirecting, i have already informed an admin.Realist2 (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you keep an eye on that album i believe it is still redirected. Realist2 (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to (for now), but if you have informed an admin it should be resolved. --Snigbrook (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you like me to un-direct it? Mr.Muffet (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed it so it does not redirect - it had been changed to a double redirect (Micheal Jackson redirects to Michael Jackson. Please do not remove the comments of other users on my talk page [1]. --Snigbrook (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice barnstar

Mr.Muffet (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Aighton

Hi, I just quickly created the stub as I had just written an entry over at Wiktionary on the village- if the village no longer exists as an independent entity (and looking again at the Gazetteer quote, it didn't much then) I'll merge it across and expand the main article. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD Help

Thanks, that worked. Regards.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks you so much for helping with the old George Brett, Sr. (Macmillan) article

I created the article title when I was a newer user. I very much appreciate your doing this. It is me i think (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

Why have I been accused of Sockpuppetry? All I have done is added content, made the articles easier to follow by putting information into tables and restored some information that was there before and went away. I looked at prior versions to see what was the most descriptive and went from there, as it was more accurate than what replaced it, but not perfect. If this high school like name calling persists, it would seem that this would not be a worthy thing to invest any more time in. Either prove to me that this is not like high school or I'll tell of my experience to everyone I know. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the information you added had previously been added twice by different users, and removed on both occasions. The sockpuppetry case originally referred to those two users but as you have made similar edits I have mentioned it there: so I added the template to your talk page. The other two users have been accused of not discussing the changes properly with Libro0 so you may want to discuss on that Libro0's talk page on the article talk pages. The template I added is maybe not exactly what I wanted to say, I did not start the sockpuppet discussion, but as I mentioned the similarity of your edits at the user page (the similarity of the users' edits to those articles was the reason Libro0 started the case), I thought it would be a good idea to let you know about it. --Snigbrook (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It is definitely him, no doubt about it. I just want this guy to abide by the rules. He seems to stubborn to want to compromise. He is using the sock puppets to avoid discussion. This new identity looks like he wants to make himself more credible. Libro0 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Libro0, etc.

User:Libro0 has accused me of being someone else, which is absurd. Apparently I picked the wrong time to start editing and got caught up in what seems to me like paranoia, which lead to his uncivil attack. Oddly, he was one of the ones who actually added some of the information in that I replaced. Something is not right here. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice try. He exhibits identical edits and behavior as his puppetmaster. Like no attempts at discussion. He is confusing harrassment with dialogue. Libro0 (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Following up. This user is getting out of hand. He is undoing all my edits just to undo them. Pure spite. All he has contributed is copies of my work or needless alterations. I on the other hand bring new and useful information here, correct errors, or upgrade what there is. Libro0 (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think discussion is needed about the articles. Whether there is sockpuppetry or not it does look like a content dispute which is becoming an edit war. Maybe WP:Third opinion may be useful in this dispute. --Snigbrook (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out that it is not so much a question of content as it is of etiquette. Unfortunately I got annoyed with bad grammar and wording. He got offended and now he will not allow me to edit/correct anything anymore. All of my work regardless of quality or intent is reverted solely because he is bitter with me. I allow his good edits to remain and assist where needed. I do not undo him out of an emotional state. I am currently focusing on other areas now. When he chooses an ID and begins civil dialogue I will be happy to collaborate. Libro0 (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Again he/she has accused be of being this other user, this time more subtly. He is a loose cannon and apparently can't get the notion out of his/her mind. I replied to his/her passive-aggressive allegations, but I am starting to think that he/she is just a troll trying to get a rise. I really need to stop feeding the troll and would like a bit of help here. --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

HarveyCater

Howdy! user:HarveyCarter is indeed banned and has multiple sockpuppets. If you go to that page, it says right there: "This blocked user is the operator of one or more abusive or block/ban-evading sock puppets." Thanks for the info on AOL, I haven't done a WHOIS on most of these IPs in some time. When I did it last, they were AOL accounts. As for the template, I am trying to tell as many people as I can, so I can get as much help as I can. I can't fight this fight alone, and need other responsible users to help me. I have been fighting this guy since December 2006 (at least-he might have had other accounts before then, that I suspect) for a year and half off and on. He is persistent. I suspect that he has another account, a good one, that he makes good edits under, that I haven't figured out yet. I believe that he is really a "good" user on here that has not been detected. And he does this for kicks. He says stuff just to flip shit and get under peoples skin. Thanks, ~ IP4240207xx (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: He did make one edit under this address: 92.226.131.27 (talk · contribs) - 2 May 2008
That address belongs to a German company. The 92 at the start is just a coincidence, and as there is only one edit from that IP, there is not enough information to confirm it is another sockpuppet, particularly as it is outside the usual ranges used and the only edit is a typical vandalism edit. --Snigbrook (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
While I was typing my note to you, he was reverting all of my edits: 92.9.165.3 (talk · contribs)
Most of your edits were undoing his edits. Was there a reason for that? --Snigbrook (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Reason: Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." - IP4240207xx (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
My message "Most of your edits..." was based on a misunderstanding: you had not signed the "While I was typing..." message and I thought it had been posted by 92.9.165.3 as that IP was at the end of the message. --Snigbrook (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Rusty Goffe

Hello There. I see that you are persistantly reventing truthful and constructive edits to the Rusty Goffe. I know Rusty Goffe in Real Life as i live in the same town as him. These are facts, although I cannot find the most reliable sources to back up these statements, it is quite difficult, because Mr. Goffe is not exactly an A-list celebrity, therefor doesn't have much written about him on the internet. But, that shouldn't matter, as these references are reliable enough. 88.108.66.157 (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the references are not reliable sources: one is a personal web site and another is a blog; also what is being claimed in the article is not mentioned in the sources. Wikipedia has a policy of not allowing controversial information about living people: "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source". --Snigbrook (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me

But please remove your rather disgusting comment figurine from my page.

I am the one who has looked through the sources, checking that they are correct - that is why I removed one of the incorrect sources about a divorce from the Rusty Goffe page that another editor had put there, that I noticed you editing on.

Goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamletpride (talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I took away the incorrect source from Rusty Goffe - I conclude that the others are all reliable after reading them. Please do not revert again. Hamletpride (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Upon reading it, I see that you are in fact correct about that article. However, the Rusty Goffe page itself only currently shows the information which is backed up by sources, as I read through the sources and removed anything they did not back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamletpride (talk • contribs) 15:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
As that web site not mention him, and I am unable to find a reliable source, I have had to remove the information again. You may add it again if you can cite a reliable source for it. --Snigbrook (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Thank you for experimenting with the page Rusty Goffe on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. 88.108.125.174 (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the St. Nicholas-at-Wade page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. 88.108.125.174 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not only were my edits clearly not vandalism, but they were made according to policy. --Snigbrook (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for corecting the vandalism revert on my talk page! StaticGull  Talk  14:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for catching the typo I made in Decline of the English Murder. Autarch (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Libro0 at it again, may be banned user

User:Libro0 is at it again with the passive aggressive attacks, trolling, general rabble rousing, and making edits and comments designed to generate a response. I also suspect that User:Libro0 may be a sockpuppet of banned user User:Tecmobowl. The editing pattern is similar. --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

When he says trolling he means article cleanup. When he says passive-aggressive he means abiding by wikipedia policy.... Libro0 (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"The editing pattern is similar" is not specific enough: as it is not obvious from looking at the users' edits, is there anything more specific to suggest Libro0 is a sockpuppet? --Snigbrook (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • He is also pestering me with his "passive-aggressive" attacks pretending to be constructive criticism "abiding by Wikipedia policy." He is not really attempting to "discuss content" instead it is a campaign of intimidation, accusations and cryptic messages with thinly veiled threats and allegations. If anyone is making the "Wikipedia experience unpleasant" it is Libro0. It would not shock me if he is a sockpuppet or a puppetmaster himself or someone who gets their jollies by making others suffer, or as they say on the internets a troll. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Libro0

Since I have had it with the abuse, I have started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Libro0. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize to Snigbrook for the constant disruptions. I should have stayed away from the sports card pages. I feel that my edits and attempts to communiacate are justified and civil. I have abided by policy. I contribute to several areas all without problems from of users. The other areas are quite easy to edit and discuss content. I have never come across a user as difficult and stubborn as this I_H_C et al. Good and proper edits are reverted by him. He refuses correction. I have decided to leave the sports card project to what I am far beyond certain are sock puppets. Furthermore, I have never created a sock puppet. I was not admitting to have created Box Benefits. I was citing its creation as a ploy to frame me hence my comment about it clearly having been a sock puppet. I operate through one ID and one ID only. I want to state clearly that I stand by my edits and comments as being justified. I think it is very clear I have been on a one sided attempt to make this project a community oriented one and failed. Collaborative efforts have also failed. I feel the other user has done his utmost to fight me and incriminate.If you were to compare my interaction and edits in other areas it will become clear that my methods were the same here. The only difference is the recipient. I stand by all my contributions to wikipedia. They should definitely speak for themselves. As for Box Benefits: I most certainly did not admit to making it. I was stating that it was clearly made by someone trying very hard to incriminate me. I will be more than glad to stay away from the sports card pages seeing as how I have other contributions to make here. I want to state for the record that if I ever touch a sports card page that I insist that you block me. I give you my word of sacrifice which I doubt the puppets would do the same. In fact if any user other than I_H_C BCGuy and any of his alleged sock puppets uses edits those pages you may also block me. I understand that this may sound like a foolish risk but I will accept it nonetheless. If he is innocent he will not try and make a new puppet to get me banned. And I will certainly not try to get myself banned. Libro0 (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for correcting the vandalism on my talk page! I figured those goof-balls would hit my User page as soon as they knew where to find it. They might not be done, either. Pooua (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

email

I emailed you about a topic of mutual concern. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I noticed you fixed the mistake I made at Charles Kay-Shuttleworth, 5th Baron Shuttleworth, seems in copying the template I forgot to change the dates. Well spoted and thank you for looking the page over. I wasn't sure I got the formatting etc right for the rest of the page (and was debating whether it should be set as a stub)... anyway, glad to see someone else took a look at it and the mistake didn;t last too long! Oboler (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Golden Valley

Hi, thanks for checking Golden Valley, Derbyshire. I was just wondering if local knowledge is valid as a verifiable source? Thanks Rich 08:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think local knowledge would be original research unless it has been published, so officially it should not be used: references need to be cited. I always include at least one reference in each article I create, although many people don't, particularly when writing short stubs. Although it is not always necessary to cite sources for everything claimed in the article; one example of this is information can be verified on maps if geographic coordinates are included, e.g. as part of the UK place infobox. --Snigbrook (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagged page

Hello, I wanted to ask you if it was still necessary for the page User:Box Benefits to maintain a sockpuppet tag with my name in it. There has never been any grounds for it. Is there anything you can do? Libro0 (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, as Baseball Card Guy had already used a sockpuppet tag incorrectly and without evidence, and as no sockpuppet case was created. --Snigbrook (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mary Richardson (speedy delete)

Hi there. No, as far as I know it was only speedily deleted a couple of times in the last few hours. I think I must have misunderstood the exact reason for using the speedy tag this time round. The first time I used the notability/bio one. SOrry about that. Ged UK (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been deleted, doesn't really matter now. --Snigbrook (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. For clarification, if an article is speedily deleted and then re-created, should I mark it with the 'previously deleted' tag, or whichever one it had the first time? Ged UK (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It if is still eligible for speedy deletion according to the criteria, it should be tagged for the same reason it previously was. --Snigbrook (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that :) Ged UK (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Peter Wall

(copied over from my talk page:) Exactly. I'm working on it, but it's taking twice as long because people aren't respecting the "inuse" tag. Once I take it off, I'm more than happy for you (or anyone else) to add whatever tags seem to you appropriate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Paramahamsa Hariharananda

The biography was written by an unnotable author who is the ordained spiritual successor of the subject and is hardly a reliable third party source. And, unless we get hold of a copy of that unreliable book, we cannot verify if the bulk of the details mentioned in the article are really written there. The article is a complete mess and does not reflect how an encyclopedia entry should be written. It has been tagged for 6 months and no one seems to be capable or willing to edit it. Consider the following lines as solid proof of this fact:

Baba's father Haripada Bhattacharya was an affluent community landlord. He was a Brahmin, known for his integrity and self-discipline. He was as scholar of Sanskrit, well versed in the scriptures of Hinduism and had a thorough knowledge of Ayurveda, homeopathy, some modern medicine as well as an interest in legal matters. He led a strict life with a deep love for God and had high ethical and moral standards.He was a respected priest, astrologer, and healer. He had divined the special destiny of his tenth child, and used to call him affectionately "Sannyasi Thakur" (Lord monk)... At four and a half, Hariharananda had already memorized all the puja mantras of Hinduism by simply hearing his father, recite them a few times... Omkarnath Baba was cousion our beloved Baba also from Naida the holy land of Sri chaitanya..."

Kindly reconsider restoring the deletion tag and the other tags because this article, as it is at the moment and has been for a very long time, does not seem fit for a place at such a highly relied-upon online resource as Wikipedia. - Shannon Rose (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If, as you just said, the biography is not to be taken as reference but, as stated, only as further reading, then the article would have no reference at all. Simply because the so-called reference is a link to a webpage containing a truncated newspaper article of only three paragraphs long. How did the creator of Paramahamsa Hariharananda in its present form manage to extract all those information from that so-called reference? It's a trick, he or she has given as reference an article that we need to pay subscription to view in full. Just to be realistic, do you think the newspaper would write something like "At four and a half, Hariharananda had already memorized all the puja mantras of Hinduism by simply hearing his father, recite them a few times"?

I don't think you are willing to edit the article to the point of meeting WP standards, I also am not willing (and, honestly, I can't due to lack of reliable reference) but since we both desire to do the right thing for the benefit of the encyclopedia why don't you just help me propose it to be deleted? I could make a mistake again and someone with a POV in favor of the article may be able to use a technicality to further solidify the presence of that rubbish. I am therefore soliciting your help. - Shannon Rose (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Snigbrook. You have new messages at StewieGriffin!'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

StewieGriffin! • Talk 06:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Scylla (Prison Break)

Hey, was that a mistake because I'm not the creator, I placed the speedy delete tag on it.--Woland (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Travis McCoy

Thank you for cleaning up the article. I watch that article because it gets so much vandalism (as you witnessed). Reverting its vandalism has made it my second most edited article, accumulating more edits than an article that I helped improve to GA! The kind of person that is his fan is apparently the same type of person who vandalized Wikipedia. I urge you to add it to your watchlist and help me attempt to keep it vandalism free. Royalbroil 21:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist. I wasn't sure if it was vandalism or not, I removed it as it violated WP:BLP policy, I had only found the article when fixing links to a disambiguation page. --Snigbrook (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Edits to that article are a good test of your knowledge of the various policies. I love how he keeps having girlfriends/wives with different names (according to anons)! I expect a citation to add almost anything to the article since it's a huge vandal magnet. Royalbroil 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation

Thanks for the explanation - I never even thought to look at the WikiProject template. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Which + at the top of the page?

At the top of this page it says "press the '+' at the top of the page to add a new section - sorry but I couldn't find a '+' so I hope this works --PaulW (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The "+" sign was changed to "new section", only the {{user talk}} template, which I have on my user page, has not been changed. --Snigbrook (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the template. Thanks for pointing it out, I had not noticed (I had forgotten that it had been changed, as I had set my preferences to show "+" again). --Snigbrook (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia, please let me know what I did wrong

Hi, You have recommended merging Newnham Primary School with Newnham Village, which I think will seriously limit the amount of useful school specific information we can add. I am new to wikipedia and this is my first posting, as you can imagine it is disappointing to spend time adding material and have it rejected. I originally added the information because I found a catagory for Primary schools and noticed that ours is not listed. Many other schools I found were just 'stubs' with no content, so I am not sure what is wrong with [Newnham School] ... Is a 'stub' something special? I was intending for myself and others to add extra content, but I am currently unable to add a logo or pictures due to the 4 day upload limit. Some references have been added, is this what was needed? --PaulW (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A stub tag is just a suggestion to expand the article, that is visible on the page. My suggestion to merge was based on the the likely result of a deletion debate: for more information see Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Education (articles about secondary schools usually survive after being nominated for deletion, those about primary schools are usually deleted or merged). That does not necessarily mean that the school is not notable, the relevant notability guidelines are the general notability guideline and Notability (schools). The references are useful for verifiability, but are only statistical and directory-style information and do not assert notability of the school. However, if the school is not notable enough for a separate article the information can still be added to the village article, with the school article redirecting to the relevant section. --Snigbrook (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed reply, I will work with the teachers and parents to try and provide the Notability guidelines you recommend, I have already been given two items to add, hopefully we can show the school is one of those primary schools that merit inclusion. Many thanks --PaulW (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you on this again, just a little advice, in adding Notability should I add information directly on the wikipedia page or should I keep the page size down by adding a small reference and linking to more details on the external School Web Site? I think I can link to specific pages and save copying information in multiple places (more complex to maintain), but I don't know if external references count when establishing notability. Thanks --PaulW (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Information should not copied from another site unless either the copyright is compatible Wikipedia's GFDL copyright or is in the public domain, or if you own the copyright and provide permission for it to be used on Wikipedia. References should be reliable sources, and if it is something you have published yourself, it is unlikely to be accepted as a reference unless it cites its sources. To make the sources clearer, in-text citations could be used instead of a list of references.
For more information about what should be in an article about a school, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. For example, I don't think the "school aims" section should be in the article, as it appears to be promotional in tone, and does not provide any additional information. --Snigbrook (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
More good advice, thanks for your help. I'll read up on citations and edit the page this weekend to cut down the "school aims" section. There's a lot more to this wikipedia editing than meets the eye. Thanks again --PaulW (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


!

Let Me Put My Att Will Page Back Up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tommy (talk • contribs) 08:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

CSD#R1

Please don't tag pages for CSD#R1 from a list. It just needlessly adds revisions to the database. An administrator will take care of the broken redirects when one has a moment to do so. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reductio

Hello Snigbrook, You recently deleted the article on Reductio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio) because of "blatant copyright infringement". I own this content so I have released it under the GFDL. You can confirm this because I have added a reference to GFDL at the bottom of each page on the Reductio website (http://reductiotest.org/) "Copyright © Workingmouse Pty Ltd 2008 (GFDL)"

Please reinstate the article - I don't have the original contents, including markup, so I am hoping it can be restored from the deletion.

Thanks. Dibblego (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you intend to recreate the article, you will need sources that assert notability, to prevent it being deleted again. You could either rewrite the article or try deletion review. --Snigbrook (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Bamford Fictional Location

I had forgotten the name and author of the book, but after relentless internet searching, I have not found the details I need, but I am completely certain that Bamford is a fictional location in a book as I have read the book containing this location. I have tried to find the book but unfortunatly it appears to be lost somewhere in the black hole I call my house. I shall keep looking and will update with more details. I cannot be certain of a timescale involved. Manadude2 (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The link was removed by another user, wich the edit summary "Removed "fictional Bamford"- Sweeny Todd ref not geographical" (it is a person's name in the book); there is also a location in books by Ann Granger so I have added this as a link. Maybe a disabmguation page is needed as it is also a surname. --Snigbrook (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fredy Peccerelli

Oops. Thanks. Can't believe I misspelled his name.Notmyrealname (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


Your edits to Banham

No.

The person in question is, in my opinion a mentally disturbed young man. He is absolutely convinced that the auction took place, something I have verified is false with both the resident of the building in question and the owner of the contents of that building. (Not the same person ; I would know of this event anyway). No such auction took place or has ever taken place, no items have ever been auctioned. The owners of the building have never owned the painting referred to.

He claims it got "wide publicity" ; if you believe that to be true, try to find any of it, anywhere, in any of the archives of the local papers. I've tried ; it simply does not exist.

If you wish to contact the auctioneers I can guarantee this refers to a different "Old Rectory" (there are umpteen of such) owned by someone else entirely. (There are a lot of similar named villages : Barnham, Bramham etc. here with Old Rectories).

The "clue", which the poster continually ignored, is the information that it refers to the "biggest auction in Suffolk". Banham is in Norfolk.

The poster lives in a fantasy world in my opinion and is in a state where he believes he is beyond error. The auction claim, which has been repeated elsewhere (believed to emanate from the same four or five complainants who admitted some of their collusion) is simply "wrong". It is factually inaccurate. It did not happen. BullMonkey still refuses to accept this. He has it fixed in his head as an absolute fact.

It says much for the accuracy of "BullMonkey" that he continues to maintain this fact in the teeth of evidence. It is likely to be because he is unable to differentiate between fact and reality.

Most of the wild claims were immediately rejected, the remainder did not survive further examination. Despite what the poster says there was no "notorious Banham Marshalls College" ; despite a desperate four year investigation the Police found virtually nothing. It refers to a different school on a different site (albeit owned by the same people, but with virtually entirely different staff).

At the time (76-84 ish) the incidents referred to occurred (they are very loosely based on real events but absurdly exaggerated ; I know, I was there) "Banham Marshalls College" was a collection of fields.

This is easily verifiable via actual records - the building inspector records for example.

The opinion of the local paper is not "fact" ; indeed in its headline "Shame of Banham Marshalls Teachers" it managed to make two factual errors in a five word sentence (and one error of opinion ; they are pissed off) ; the only word which is accurate is "of".

The "Old Rectory School" did not take "vulnerable children" ; it took the difficult end of children with severe behavioural disorders ; effectively proto-criminals. Banham Marshalls College had a significantly different intake in both type and difficulty.

Finally, there are pending court cases on this topic which involve who I believe the poster to be (but obviously I do not know).

(Apologies if I have misused the talk pages)

cc Snigbrook, RyanLupin

Bmctruth (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your Edits to Banham

Thank you for a rational edit.

"Banham Marshalls College, an independent school in the village, was the subject of Norfolk's biggest ever child cruelty investigation. As a result of the investigation into the school, a special school for children with learning and behavioural problems, the proprietor and former head teacher George Robson received a two year suspended prison sentence. The school was later transferred to new ownership."

I have two concerns about this.

1) Factual details: The last sentence is simply wrong (it closed ; the school now there is an entirely new one). George Robson wasn't the head teacher of Banham Marshalls College (Robert Wilson, Derek Cooper, and Barry Taaffe held that role) The description of the school is inaccurate (minor).

2) The article makes the implication (which the newspaper does continually, despite knowing it to be untrue) that the incidents occurred at Banham Marshalls College. (I can explain why I believe they do this if you wish)

Suggested edit:

"Banham Marshalls College, an independent school for children with communication, learning and behavioural problems in the village, was the subject of Norfolk's biggest ever child cruelty investigation. The proprietor, George Robson later received a two year suspended prison sentence relating to incidents that took place at the "Old Rectory School", a school for boys with severe behavioural problems of which he was Headmaster, in the 1970s and early 1980s."

Bmctruth (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what is stated in reliable sources. What you have suggested appears to be reasonable (although I have not checked; although I will do). Certainly the previous version was not written from a neutral point of view and I have not been able to verify the details of the auction, whether it referred to Banham or somewhere else (a Google search with the relevant terms only found one result and that was the Wikipedia page). --Snigbrook (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The first lot of changes I suggested are minor factual errors ; I am aware you only have my word for this but there is no benefit for me in making any of those changes. (I tried to write the rewrite as a balanced accurate description of the events).

In the appeals http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/2754.html&query=robson&method=boolean para1. confirms the events took place at the Old Rectory School, not at Banham Marshalls College. (The dates are late because they include a large number of claims rejected by the court)

As regards the supposed auction, I know the people who would have been involved in the "auction" and who lived in the building then (and still do) well and have asked both directly personally if this event took place (at any time) or they had owned the described painting ; admittedly this is not verifiable evidence. BullMonkey refuses to accept any error at any time (if he is who I think it is this is normal for him). I have found 2 or 3 auctions in Suffolk in 2005 that it might be but I cannot find any direct information about the Haunted Painting auction of Lady Nelson and the Yaxley Hall website does not say. I have

WP:CP

Just wanted to thank you for your contributions here. I'm trying to clear the backlog, currently working at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 May 31/Articles, and I've found both of your comments there very helpful. So, thanks! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dachau

i was wrong about vandal. my mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheadotooth (talk • contribs) 17:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fart Fetish

Hi, friend! I don't think your tagging of my "fart fetish" article for speedy-deletion be a fair action. Fart fetish does really exists... you know there's people on the world with tastes for every good and bad thing in sexual matter, this is the very case of the fart fetish paraphilia. Check out the websites on the subject and you will see fart fetishism is a real thing. If Wikipedia "talks" about paraphilias in a general outline of the subject, so fart fetish must be included... under popular or scientific name. Thanx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Nighttime (talk • contribs) 02:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion; not speedy but via the Articles for deletion process and it was deleted after the debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fart fetish. It was deleted due to lack of reliable sources. If reliable sources exist, they need to be cited if the article is to be created again, as a recreation of an article after AFD can result in speedy deletion if the problems that led to its deletion have not been resolved. --Snigbrook (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Award

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For frequently appearing on my watchlist sorting links to ambiguous or erroneous titles for at least the last year now! I certainly appreciate it! Please keep up the great work. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

?

So calling someone on their lie is a personal attack? Baseball Card Guy (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as it was an uncivil comment to a user, and not a valid comment about the user's contributions. The user is not restricted from editing, and if you have a disagreement I suggest you ask for a third opinion. --Snigbrook (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snigbrook/Archive_1&oldid=1140240478"