Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:57, 3 March 2007

It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.

Archives

Archive01 12:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) Archive02 20:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) Archive03 10:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Archive04 12:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC) Archive05 02:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Archive06 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Archive07 11:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Archive08 07:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Archive09 04:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Archive10 04:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Archive11 00:20, 4 December 2006 Archive12 23:59, 31 December 2006 Archive13 07:20, 12 February 2007

Some ground rules before you leave a message

1. I am not an admin. I did not delete your page or article, nor did I block you. I may have, at the very most, suggested or urged deletion of pages or articles but I have no power or ability to do so on my own. I'm just an editor.
2. This also means, of course, I cannot undelete your page/article, nor unblock you. I can, however, offer you a cookie.
3. If you are here to make an argument dependent on arcane or convoluted interpretations of Misplaced Pages guidelines or rules, note that Misplaced Pages is not game of nomic nor a court of law. Adherence to common sense and rational argument trumps ruleslawyering, as far as I'm concerned. I've been there, done that, got the t-shirt, thankyouverymuch.
4. There is no Rule 4.
5. Do not assume I'm stupid, especially when arguing for something obviously untrue. I do not respond well to having my intelligence insulted.
6. Don't lie to me like I'm Montel Williams. Do I look like Montel Williams? Do I? NO? Then don't lie to me like I'm Montel Williams.
7. Especially bogus, hostile, and/or trolling remarks are subject to disemvoweling.
8. Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things (--~~~~).
9. Please extinguish all cigarettes, as this is a No Smoking page.

Thank you. -- The Management.

Start below

Added by J.Epler 2/15/07

I disagree with your assessment that I am abusing this project as a personal web space. In fact, I've contributed useful photographs and other items for inclusion into the wikipedia project. Please do what you need to do to return my jepler user page to its original framework. I appreciate your speedy attention to this matter as I see my page is no longer accessible. Thank you.

WRAJ

MASSIVE update on the page. More information than you could want, so I think that will make everyone happy and there will be no need for the AfD tag, which I have taken down as I can't find a corresponding page to go with it. If any further updates are needed to the page, please let me know. - SVRTVDude 08:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know why, after the massive update, that the WRAJ page was still deleted? - SVRTVDude 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted at the AFD, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WRAJ Internet Radio. If you object to this, you can start a deletion review about it. Metros232 11:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Orangemonster

There was probably something truthful in the above statement, somewhere, but I'm not bothering to go look for it since it's objectively false in every sense. It's a repost, nuked speedily after an AFD, which Orangemonster2k1 can't be ignorant of because he cast the only "Keep" !vote. Nice doesn't work with me, being honest does. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Calton,

It wouldn't kill you to be nice and honest, you know. :) You're far to valuable to this encyclopedia to lose, but, come on, he's just a newbie who has obviously rubbed you the wrong way. I've advised him not to remove AFD tags, and hopefully that will be the last of it. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pls stp vndlzng Peter Roskam

Pls stp. f y cntn t vndls Wkpd, y wll b blckd. Wll-srcd mtrl bt lgsltv vts, nd prtclrly bt th thrng f n mndmnt t lgsltn tht pssd 400-3, s nt "trv." Dltng t wtht frst gnng cnsnss n th Tlk pg s vndlsm. Pls stpDino 12:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My Reply

My reply

--GordonWatts 16:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In this reply to your buddy, Proto, I asked him how my link was any different thant the others, and indeed I make good arguments that will stand under the light of day.

If you could consider this... --GordonWatts 00:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• (→Your expertise - my bad - typo) --GordonWatts 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

About your comments on my user page

I wasn't aware that there was a limit on the number of links that could be included in a user page. I've removed them now.

Bonnie Ventura 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Bonnie Ventura

My website

Thanks for pointing that out. I am restructuring the Australian section of my website, and as a result all Misplaced Pages links to Australian elections at my website will now need to be changed (or deleted). Since I am cutting back my involvement at Misplaced Pages it won't be me that changes them - someone else will need to. Adam 03:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

List of the Daily Show guests AFD

Since you voted on the previous AFD (here) I thought you may wish to vote again on the article's second AFD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests (2nd nomination). Cburnett 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Juan Cole

I'd like you to consider reverting your last to this page. There has been an extreme amount of discussion on the BLP and weight issues, and if you look at the talk page, you'll see that the version you've rv'ed from has the most support. <<-armon->> 06:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary Purple Font

I've replied on my talk. Do you want me to paste my response here so you can get a centralized discussion? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed?

May I ask why? I see it as a harmless joke, and, hey, I've eaten over 150 brains already. For now, I'm putting it back up, unless you give me a good reason to keep it off. - Bagel7 09:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PS on valentines day too, ouch

Civil

You of all people have no business commenting on civility. Mr. Ray Lopez 05:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was only banned for trolling, not sockpuppteering or any other creative thing you can come up with in order to justify your "crusade." Mr. Ray Lopez 05:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice, comparing me to Al Capone. Hrrm, name one sockpuppet that I have done, or name anything other than get on your bad side I have done and I would gladly leave the project. Can't think of one, can you? Mr. Ray Lopez 05:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are incorrect. Those accounts were never mine, I never signed up for those. I either edited under "Ray Lopez" or IPs. Go ahead and request a check user if you want; judging from the check user results, those accounts were linked to Wikipediasleepercell1 and not Ray Lopez. Nice try though, and thank you for playing. Do not launch any further personal attacks at me again unless you have your facts and your house in order. Mr. Ray Lopez 06:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. You're actually quite wrong. I'm sorry that you're so blind sided by the fact that you desire to be right so strongly. Perhaps you should talk over your passive aggressiveness issues with a psychotherapist vice taking it out on your "enemies" online. Mr. Ray Lopez 07:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not the case

Talk pages are for other users to communicate with one another and it is specifically stated on WP:TALK that the only types of edits you may remove are

1. Your own
2. Personal attacks
3. Threats.
4. Vandalism

None of those were the case, and the fact that you reverted such changes without an adequate edit summary makes you impeding the editing process. I'm not trying to make an issue out of this or report you to anywhere but you plainly misunderstand how talk pages are to be used. What I'm capable of enforcing is entirely unrelated to the fact that what you were doing was outside wikipedia's stated policies and should be stopped. So please stop reverting other user's edits to your talk page. If you feel it is absolutely necessary, please use an edit summary to explain why. i kan reed 07:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

since I need to be "spoon fed" I thought I'd go extract the relevant text from the linked page

• "Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning."

To my knowledge reversion counts as editing. It's not twisting the meaning at all to assert that deleting text is on par with changing it's meaning. It's uncivil to silence users you are having a dispute with, however wrong they may be in that dispute. i kan reed 07:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OK fine

I'll have to do this point for point, because pendantry is the only appropriate answer for pendantry., 1. I DID NOT mean I felt I was incorrect about my statements regarding policy. It clearly states in the very first line of WP:TALK (emphasis mine)

• The purpose of a Misplaced Pages talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page

that's plainly stated for not just being for articles as you claimed. I was trying to avoid discussing policy because that can get in the way of meaningful communication. It was quite close to being libelous to accuse me of having false motivations in this matter. (Note: this is not intended as a legal threat, just a note that you went out of line in what you were accusing me of).

2. I did not "side" with anyone or anything. I also asked Mr Ray Lopez to reconsider his course of action because his "personalized", if you will, warnings do not match the neutral and calm tone of standard wikipedia warnings. The 3RR warning was directed at both of you. This was an understandable mistake on your part because it is a natural element of human psychology to attach sides to those you interact with. Please understand that I have no interest in this matter besides preventing inappropriate edit wars and reversions of talk page material.

3. Your links don't seem to tell me much of anything about why you reverted those particular edits. You make some accusations but that doesn't really seem to relate at all to the reverted material. They seemed to qualify as warnings regarding your behavior on wikipedia, and hence my involvement(I watch for negatives on user talk because frequently vandals remove content from their talk pages to avoid being blocked). And since it really does matter to you, yes I apologize for interefering, as it is a great deal of trouble for you over what must seem a quible. However informing users of policy regarding their actions still seems necessary to me. i kan reed 08:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a test to get up for in 8 hours and I can't address all of your concerns at this time, as I need sleep, however, I would like to indicate that you are engaging in wikilawerying(essay not policy) and I merely request that you reconsider your course of actions towards this user "Mr Ray Lopez". i kan reed 08:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Watts

After a couple of days of interaction - I think it's an entirely pointless endeavour trying to get behaviour change via discussion. Clearly, the idea is to wikilawyer everyone to death. I'll fully support any action you wish to make in regards to a community ban (I think limited to those TS pages) should do. --Fredrick day 13:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: User page

You're welcome. Pleased to be of assistance. Will 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nottingham Malaysian Society

I see you listed Nottingham Malaysian Society for deletion. Can I ask you to also take a look at the related Nottingham Malaysian Games and Nottingham Malaysian Society, and also NUOC? I think these pages are also candidates for deletion, but as I am currently at the university, I would rather not involve myself with them. If you could look over the articles and take action as you see fit, that would be great. Thanks for your time. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Netzer

"having the subject insisting on this as some sort of expression of his worldview brings up all sorts of POV and COI concerns" - have you seen Michael Netzer (in particular the history) and Mr. Netzer's userspace? It's frustrating. I feel that he is totally violating at least the spirit of WP:COI, but I don't know how to go about it. The article is totally unreferenced and is largely anecdotal. Would you consider reading my post on Mr. Netzer's talk page and offer advice how I might talk with him? Or do you think there is even a problem? --Iamunknown 08:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps the best way to talk is to do it directly. I did not write that article and the minor edits I did there were merely factual issues such as dates and such. The article is referenced in that the entire story appearing there reverberates within the interviews and web sites cited. If there is a specific issue which you feel is unreferenced and anecdotal, I'm very willing to consider your point of view, if you point it out. MichaelNetzer 12:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi dear carton!!

I created a new article.
If there is a mistake on the grammar, I am wished to point out to you. Tokyo Watcher

GordonWatts comments

Calton, I appreciate that Gordon's style is at times very annoying. I also have gathered that he still doesn't seem to quite 'get' how things work around here. Nevertheless, there's no need to be gratuitously rude. Calling names () is never useful.

If you want to comment on the problem, do so—but do it politely. If you can't handle that, then ignore Gordon. While he's obviously disconnected with how he ought to comport himself around here – and he may well end up restricted or banned for it – his actions are clearly meant in good faith. Shelve the rudeness or do something else for a while. Poking Gordon with a stick until he overreacts is not a good sport. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your exhaustive and thankless devotion to reminding folks that wikipedia is not MySpace. Thanks for all the work in the proposed deletion pages. NeoFreak 22:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Pentatope of 70 Spheres Barnstar Presented to this user for enforcing the fact that Misplaced Pages is not your Geocities home page. Salad Days 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon and Orangemonster2k1

Hi, Calton. I and two other administrators asked Orangemonster2k1 to stay away from you. He said he would, and then, presumably as a gesture of goodwill, he struck out the remarks he had addressed to you at Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard. Don't you think, under the circumstances, that it would have been better for you not to have responded to them? Also, do you have to go after him so aggressively? While I would certainly advise him gently that it would be healthier not to keep your page on his watchlist, he is not prohibited from doing so, and his recent posts to User talk:Salad Days were not in any way abusive towards you (I had also seen and wondered about that prod tag), so you really do not have the right to be so aggressive, demanding that he take your page off his watchlist now, and replacing your message on his page after he had removed it (something that is generally considered harassment).

You're dealing with a vulnerable user, who suffers from Aspergers and gets upset easily, who had apologized, and had crossed out his comments, and whose subsequent posts had nothing malicious about them. Your recent behaviour has been rather Gordon-ish, I feel, in that you are going round responding to everything, instead of just gracefully letting go. But an important difference is that Gordon's posts, while they annoy a lot of people, do not show a lack of kindness. If you can't control your anger, a wiki-break would be appropriate.

You are a valued contributor here, and I often see evidence that you are working to improve the encyclopaedia. It's very unfortunate that you seem to have the idea that it's okay to trample on people and treat them with contempt if they don't match up to your idea of the kind of people who deserve respect. There is nothing in our AGF or CIV policies/guidelines that would justify your approach. It would be nice if you could try patience and gentleness and respect first, and only start (reluctantly) calling for blocks and bans if you found that they didn't work. Please think about that. Musical Linguist 01:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I won't reply to everything, but will just pick out a few points.

Given that he a) lied about "staying away"

I don't think it's helpful to use the word "lied" without very good evidence. It is possible for someone to say that he'll stay away, and then change his mind. A lie would be if he edited your page anonymously, and then claimed that he hadn't made that edit.

How, exactly, is enabling stalking the least bit helpful

I am not enabling stalking in any way. I have already asked Orangemonster to stay away from you. And I'm extending the same request to you. Please stay away from him.

And yet you did nothing. Why was that?

Salad Days fixed his error shortly after I saw it. I find your question odd, almost as if it's an accusation. Orangemonster tried to do something, and you were extremely abusive to him as a result.

What part of the word "stalking" is giving you trouble?

Calton, may I point out that I know a lot about what stalking means, probably a great deal more than you will ever know. And I can tell you that to use that word about Orangemonster's at worst irritating behaviour is quite frankly insulting to victims of real stalking.

Misplaced Pages is not personal therapy, and if he can't edit without the stalking behavior, he needs a new hobby.

The question is, can you edit without the aggressive behaviour?

And perhaps you need to have a look at this before making claims about "lack of kindness".

I don't see that the Passive-aggressive article has to do with my point that you need to try being kinder to people who annoy you.

it's long past the point of being acceptable.

And how much politeness and respect did you show before it went past that stage?

Musical Linguist 04:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Lost talk pages

How do you find all these talk pages that meet CSD G8? Thanks for tagging them!--Kchase T 13:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I caught up with you again. =) Thanks for tagging all those Talk pages. I think I'm going to wear out my delete button because of you. ;) -- Gogo Dodo 07:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for saving the Georgia train wreck

Dear editor Calton: Thanks to you, and to editors Will Beback, Jersyko, and Zantastik for salvaging what was a huge train wreck at the article on 1957 Georgia Memorial, etc. I deal with this kind of thing all the time in the Misplaced Pages articles on taxation (tax protesters always wanting insert wildly false, unverifiable POV original research) and to some extent in the article on the Federal Reserve System. Yours, Famspear 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Job

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		You have been doing a fine job recently tagging user pages which no other person (maybe some I don't know) would ever have thought of nominating for deletion. I am awarding you the the da Vinci Barnstar because you are enhancing Misplaced Pages by removing useless pages. :). Keep it up. Parker007 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Primetime again?

I was noticing T's history that new puppets from Primetime reverted edits by Georgia guy, and he had to revert every edit/unrevision this puppet, among others made to T. I was also noticing Georgia guy make edit summaries like "Revert vandalism; please block this puppet of Macaw 54!" Macaw 54 is in fact a Primetime puppet.

AppleMacReporter 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you

I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you. Observe:

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests

--GordonWatts 02:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon

Re "No, the point remains, whatever slack you're granting Gordon: 'his massive talk posts'"

Not, "no." When an editor feels they've been mis-represented through elision, being pedantic doesn't work ("you're wrong about what you felt you wrote"?). No, sorry. I pointed out how you mis-represented my comment. That's all. Marskell 21:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Calton, the correct response from the beginning was "sorry, I choose only the words that suited my point." I did not dispute that my post criticized his talk posts; I pointed out that including "I deliberately stopped editing..." but dropping "with malice..." placed that criticism in the wrong light. But admission does not appear a part of your vocabularly, so carry on and ignore me. Marskell 05:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Your point of view." Yes, my point of view. Given that it was my post, I thought you might've replied by acknowledging it. ("Ah, I see" or "sorry", rather than "No"). That I stopped editing a year ago was extraneous, and I could only assume it was included to suggest that Gordon was the reason for the departure. (He wasn't—I was certainly tired of "Michael murdered Terri", but Gordon was only one part of that, and the page attracted some truly lunatic people unrelated to Gordon.) As for the rest, we're both a little guilty of baiting, so I'll stop: my "vocabularly" could always use improvement. Marskell 06:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Quadraxis/The Game (oldish version)

• Hi there. First off, i'll say that I didn't actually get to see what reason you gave for the deletion of this page, because it'd been deleted by the time I got your message. Basically, that page, in my understanding, falls under the category of a user subpage, not that of a general encyclopedia page. As such, it follows the criteria listed here. I don't see a reason there for my page to be deleted. Of course, if there is a reason, i'm fine having that page deleted, but If possible, i'd much prefer to be able to hold onto it, as I am keeping it with the intent of working on a new version of "The Game" eventually. I say eventually, because currently I don't have much time to edit wikipedia (also the reason I didn't see your message until after the page had been deleted). I know you don't have delete/undelete powers, but I figured it'd be best to talk to you to see if you still wish it to be deleted before I brought it up for Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. --Quadraxis 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon again

Calton, these remarks are decidedly unhelpful. Gordon's judgement and behaviour have been poor, and I believe that everyone will be best served by forcefully giving him some time away from Misplaced Pages. However, your snideness, rudeness, and now gloating toward Gordon have not helped. Please don't misunderstand a community consensus that Gordon's actions are problematic as carte blanche to kick him while he's down.

I said earlier on this page that poking Gordon with a stick until he overreacts is not a good sport. That also applies now that he's been blocked.

There's also no excuse for attacking Musical Linguist, who is both a good editor and a good-faith contributor to the discussion. I will block you for your next incivil remark on this topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never once said that you cannot politely disagree with other editors. However, you have instead been insistently inflammatory and rude. I have brought this up with you before. Several other editors have commented on this problem, including Musical Linguist and Proto. See also the request from Firsfron just up this page.

I will ask Musical Linguist to take care with her tone, but frankly she does not have the history of persistent rudeness that you do. Civility is not optional around here, and honesty and civility are not mutually exclusive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Calton, I've admired your work in the past, but in this case I have to add my voice, it may be best to let Gordon and his activities go... your comments may seem apt and funny but they might be less than completely helpful. Walk away and let others handle it, there is no danger at this point that the community is unaware of the issue. ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(Calton replies, from my talk, redacted here) You're a day late and a dollar short, considering that he's been blocked for the next month and won't be doing anything more -- whatever his faults, I've never seen him sockpuppet, I assume because he firmly believes he has The Truth and God on his side* and will be victorious -- so there's nothing I need to concern myself about.

On the other hand, if Musical Linguist wants to continue her smear campaign to make me a scapegoat, I will defend myself.

*The latter part is NOT hyperbole, I'm afraid. Diffs upon request.

--Calton | Talk 00:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is not about what state things are in now, (I'm aware he's blocked) the point is that edits like this one or the "HA" one, are not helpful and if you are thinking of making more, that's where my advice applies. You're a smart and hard worker but sometimes, in my view, it's helpful to walk away. I'm done, I don't mean to hector you, but I did want you to know. Take it as you like. There are those that may well use your tendency to be blunt against you, though. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If Proto wants to make bad-faith pronouncements that are, shall we say, detached from reality AND then immediately deny having said what he was quoted as saying, he ought not be surprised to be called on it. --Calton | Talk 02:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(I strongly prefer to keep threads together. I AM watching your page and will reply here. OR, if you like we can move the whole conversation there.. IF there's more that needs saying, but please don't answer my posts here on my talk, thanks) OK. But basically I said all I wanted to say. You can take or leave my advice as you like. But there are those that may well use your tendency to be blunt against you, though. There's really no need to reply further. ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-editor user pages

Calton, since I first saw your userfied pages to watch, I've been wondering if I might be able to help out: not necessarily systematically like you have been, but occasionally adding a user page I find. If yes, then what is your method to the madness; if not, then I'll just prod them myself. --Iamunknown 04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of external links

You've recently passed through a number of Ancient Near East articles, deleting professional information as "bad links". What is your issue here? --Wetman 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the same. In many articles, you deleted not only broken links, but the properly formatted references to reliable sources (principally news stories from outlets such as AP and Reuters) that accompanied those links - see for a case in point. By all means remove dead links, but please take more care in future not to delete the accompanying references. I've reverted a number of your edits (see contributions to identify them) so if you want to go back and remove the dead links without removing the references, please feel free. -- ChrisO 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read What to do when a reference link "goes dead". Removal of dead links should generally not be done. The internet archive allows recovery of some of for example. Yahoo News may be a poor place to link to but the underlying story was real and was produced by a reliable news source, so the deadlink is irrelevant. If all else fails you should keep the reference data but drop the actual link.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats a failing to AGF towards the editor that added the link, you should trust the link was valid. The link itself is immaterial, what matters is the underlying text. For example, say I produced a correctly formatted reference to this story in an article. If that link went dead, you may not be able to verify it by clicking on the link, but it is still attributable to a reliable source - all you would need to do is go locate the edition of the paper that was published in. The source is still reliable even if it is not accessible online. This is particularly true for the traditional reliable sources: the media.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What Nilfanion said. If articles "disappear" it's simply because they've been moved into archives or pay-per-view sections. They can still be accessed by digging up the original print source or using a service like Factiva or Lexis-Nexis. Please see for an example of what you should have done - if the links don't work, then deleting them is often the only option (I doubt if the Internet Archive keeps copies of old newswire stories simply because of the copyright issues involved). But don't delete the accompanying references. If you don't understand the point that Nilfanion and I are making, please leave link maintenance alone - you'll just end up making more work for other people who have to fix things. -- ChrisO 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)