User talk:-Barry-

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello -Barry- and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. If you want to learn more,

Wikipedia:Bootcamp teaches you the basics quickly,
Wikipedia:Tutorial is more in-depth, and
Wikipedia:Topical index is exhaustive.

The following links might also come in handy:
Glossary
FAQ
Help
Manual of Style
Five Pillars of Wikipedia

Float around for awhile until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. There are also many great committees and groups that focus on particular jobs. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Wikipedia:Translation into English and Wikipedia:Cleanup for sloppy articles. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy.

There are a few crucial points to keep in mind when editing. Be civil with users, strive to maintain a neutral point of view, verify your information, and show good etiquette like signing your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~ If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page or ask the true experts at Wikipedia:Help desk. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 05:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the helpful form letter, Draeco.

In other news, I created articles on string art and copyholders recently. The copyholder page currently needs more descriptions of copyholders. -Barry- 01:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sry,

i dont know anything about copy holders =) TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air 04:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Form Letters

hey, some people just talk like that, maaaan. TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air 15:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

Hi Barry -- Just FYI, leaving one (or more) spaces does that, and on certain skins it also produces a blue box with a dashed border around the text...

Like This

(I saw your edit summary for Talk:Wikipedia)

BCorr|Брайен 18:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


I'll have to look through all of the formating options some day. Thanks. -Barry- 19:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

hello Barry- if you have any comments or questions please ask on my talk page --Family Guy 04:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. You seem to be an expert at soliciting comments and questions, so I'll ask you something on your talk page. -Barry- 04:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Done. I asked "Why don't you contribute something to Wikipedia besides asking random people to post to your talk page?" Hope that helps. -Barry- 04:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] smiling fetus

a reference is always appreciated. sallison 04:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, see Scanner shows unborn babies smile. -Barry- 05:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Mandatory check"

Curious. On your page, you state that "Articles should go through at least one mandatory check before being publicly posted as a Wikipedia article." Who would be in charge of this checking, and by which authority would it be checked? --mtz206 04:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe two or three Wikipedians should have to tick a box to approve an edit before it's applied. If an article is on your watchlist, it would also subscribe you to edit requests for that article. Maybe voters would have to be elected before they could approve or disapprove an edit. Edits wouldn't have to be checked as though they were to be published in a real encyclopedia or conventional media. This is just to prevent some of the more blatant inaccuracies and vandalism.
Basically, I'd like to see Wikipedia take it to the next level, were at least obvious vandalism doesn't have a chance. I recently reverted weeks-old vandalism from some article. No excuse for that. -Barry- 05:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Help on links can be found here. For example, to link to your Talk page you would enter [[User_talk:-Barry-]], or to link to a particular section enter [[User_talk:-Barry-#Formatting]]. It also can be helpful to click on "edit this page" to view the wiki markup and see how others link to various things (like how I used the <nowiki> tag just now). --mtz206 02:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought I tried that and it didn't work, but it works now. Not sure what I did the first time. Maybe I used single brackets. Thanks.
And that's another thing, a " | " should be the separator between the link and the text for outside links AND Wikipedia links. I think a space is currently used for outside links. And they should all use single brackets. -Barry- 02:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article organization

On your user page you said, "It should be Wikipedia policy that, if feasible, each writeup of a particular product that's distinguished by brand or author, especially if it or competing products of other brands or authors might be commercial products, be included in the single broader, most closely related article as opposed to being given its own article." This thinking could turn Wikipedia into one big article, rather using links, breaking up pages (aka content forking), and working to limit article size to create small useful articles. According to Wikipedia:Notability, "Obscure content isn't harmful." So, as long as a product is verifiable and the article on it is not original research then the page should exist and be linked to from related articles and competing products.

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but are you asking that Microsoft Windows, Mac OS and GNU/Linux be merged?

Regardless, your ideas might be relevant to the discussion at Wikipedia:Notability (software) or even Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). --Ashawley 17:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. I didn't have a chance to follow them yet. I had MS Windows and competitors in mind when I added the phrase "if feasible." Something more descriptive would be better.
Obscure content may not be harmful, but stubs are too short. It's easier for the researcher when related information is on one page, assuming the page loads in a reasonable amount of time. I think one recommendation is about 8 seconds for dial-up users.
Who's going to put an article about minor, bad software on their watch list? It would be a vandalism magnet and an invitation to lie about your product.
I have other concerns, mentioned in Talk:File comparison that I don't want to fully repeat. -Barry- 16:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Now this is just silly. -Barry- 17:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of shock sites nominated for deletion for a fourth time

The article List of shock sites has been nominatied for deletion again. I noticed that during its past nominations for deletion you voted to have the article deleted. If you have time, please support me in my attempt to have this article deleted by casting your vote in favour of deletion. Thank you. - Conrad Devonshire 07:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Done -Barry- 08:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bot reversion

Your recent edit to Timeline of labor issues and events was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The following is my response to the above, which I posted to Tawker's discussion page:

I received the notice "Your recent edit to Timeline of labor issues and events was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior..." My edit was not vandalism. Please read the edit summary. I just added sub-headings to specify the countries in which the issue or event occurred. I see you won't be back until Tuesday. Maybe I'll look into what that big shut off button is about. Seems it wouldn't be that easy to shut off the bot, but I'll see.

I should have also mentioned that Tawkerbot2 didn't create the "Bot reversion" or any other heading for the above post, messing up my discussion page. I had to create the heading. Bad bot. -Barry- 02:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It appears someone has fixed it for you, thats a tricky one to figure out, 99.9% of the time an edit like that occurs its vandalism but yours was good. Sorry about the bot being a little hard to shutdown, don't want vandals being able to kill the vandal fighter. As for the headings, people hate me for making one, people hate me for not making one, more people seem to not want the header so thats why it doesn't have a header :) -- Tawker 06:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of labor issues and events

Hi Barry. Just wanted to say hello, and good work on the timeline page. I had unlinked the headers for the US because, as a general rule, only the first instance of a name is linked in an article. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)) But I'm not too worried about it either way, so I'll leave them alone. :) Chris.--Bookandcoffee 00:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, B&C. I thought you unlinked them because you thought all of the titles should be unlinked. If a new country is added and its heading is linked, and right above it you see a United States heading that isn't, it wouldn't look right. I'll take advantage of the "as a general rule" provision and link them all. -Barry- 00:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey Barry! B&C and I are considering revising the format of the Timeline of labor issues and events, and we would appreciate your comments before we commit any real time to it. The Gomm 23:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The dark side

[edit] Perl

Barry, I'm going to be direct and say I don't like your recent additions (since May 1st) to the Perl article, and from the discussion on the talk page it appears I'm not the only one. The material and links you added are arguably anti-Perl and I'm left wondering if you have an agenda or alterior motive. I'd like to pass you off as a trouble-maker or Perl-hater and simply remove your additions, but the rest of your edit history appears good. I'm just not sure what to make of you and your edits to the Perl article. Can you explain what are you trying to do? Imroy 22:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am anti-Perl, especially with regard to the Perl community. There are plenty of decent Perl folks, but there are far too many immature idiots that have been active members of various internet discussion venues for a long time, so bad as to drive several people away, including myself.
I'm also anti-Perl because I think that in a couple of years they'll be a major shift away from Perl 5, to an even more difficult Perl 6 (or to other languages), and I'd rather learn Python 3 than Perl 6.
In the Perl article, I was obviously anti-Perl in the Con section (which wasn't my idea to create). I think the quote I added was pretty even handed for a Con section, and was basically just something from a reliable source to back up what was asserted previously. Probably a more reliable source than anything else in the article, because it came from a formal study. One of my external links, to a critique by an author, teacher, and developer, was reverted for unspecified inaccuracies, and I didn't question it or put the link back.
I'll go out of my way more to add appropriate anti-Perl material than pro-Perl material, but I've improved the article in more neutral ways too, which could only help Perl. -Barry- 22:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey asshole, we're not going to let you continue to pollute the Perl article with your bullshit. Playtime is over. Time for the grownups to step in. Pudge 14:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pudge, no matter how much someone gets under your skin, please maintain civility on Wikipedia. personal attacks are uncalled for, and escalate things to the point that they are hard to control. Yes, this user is being difficult, and potentially disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but as members of the Wikipedia community, we should assume good faith and try to work with him. Now, I agree that the rather childish edits (insisting on giant tabular benchmarks, which are known to be flawed; refusing to spell brian d. foy correctly, etc.) need to go. There's no argument from me on that. However, we should revert his work for reasons of improving the article, not as retaliation. Hopefully, he will come to see that communicating information to Wikipedia readers clearly and accurately is more important than advocacy.... -Harmil 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Shrug. To each his own. If he abides by Wikipedia policy, so will I. If he does not, then so be it.
As to good faith, I did assume good faith, until he clearly demonstrated, over time, bad faith.
Further, I am not engaging in retaliation, or anything similar to it. That is a misunderstanding. I am, rather, realizing that the bulk of his edits are terrible ones, and I prefer not to waste my time, or have anyone else's time, wasted by muddling through them, arguing with him, and whatnot. He has, again, clearly demonstrated bad faith or incompetence, and no longer shall he continue to waste the time of good people on Wikipedia. At least, not on the Perl article.
And please, don't waste your breath telling me he will "come to see" anything; he has proven he won't. I appreciate the sentiments, but ... no. He's done with Perl. Pudge 16:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't consider a three row table (four including headings) to be a "giant" benchmark. It's packed with information, and I've already made my point about the "flaws" on Perl's talk page. The benchmarks it's based on are published and regularly updated on a popular website and there's a fairly large amount of data packed into those three rows, which I think is meaningful considering the approximately 32 tests used in each measurement. In response to criticism, I added a conspicuous notice about the data being under dispute that was probably excessively cautionary.
I didn't refuse to spell Brian D Foy correctly. I know about his style guide that says to lower case it, but the discussion on his talk page makes the argument that his legal name is capitalized normally, and I explained my full feelings on Perl's talk page after I cased the name normally. I said if there was a consensus to lower case it, I would. There wasn't, but it was reverted to lower case and I kept it that way.
As for Pudge, he blatantly vandalized the article and has been officially warned. There's no misunderstanding. user:Scarpia, who I believe is Brian D Foy, did the same. Oh, and I read Pudge's profile on Perlmonks, and he's a Perl big shot too. Until now I didn't realize that such elite Perl gurus fall into my "immature idiots" category. I can't say I'm that surprised though. -Barry- 21:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been "offically warned"? I only "vandalized" as a joke, after you did it seriously. Repeatedly. And then reverted your vandalism twice. And that is why you are not allowed to edit the Perl page anymore. Thanks for playing. Or not. Pudge 21:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I just edited it 30 seconds ago. -Barry- 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop quoting something I said in irritation out of context on IRC. At best, it's one guy's opinion, unsubstantiated by anyone in charge. In all likelyhood, I'm simply reporting on a personal dispute with some of the OSCON organizers, making it appear that it's not just about me. You should not paint the entire community based on my personal dispute. I support anyone who will keep removing the quote, as it is not up to encyclopedic standards. --Randal L. Schwartz 07:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert warring

I'm writing to both of you (-Barry- and Pudgenet) to tone down the nature of your edits against each other. There is nothing good that will come of this. Further, the revert warring that has recently happened between you two on Perl must stop. While neither of you have explicitly violated WP:3RR, revert warring is not permitted and is a thoroughly unsatisfactory method for achieving consensus on content of an article. Vandalism, whether as a joke or serious, is also not tolerated. Also, nobody may ban another user from editing a given article without WP:ARBCOM's approval. Lastly, the personal attacks need to stop. Work together, not apart. I will be monitoring both of you for the time being to ensure this behavior ends. --Durin 22:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I represent pretty much everyone else editing the Perl article, who agrees his contributions are sloppy, inaccurate, and worst of all, biased against Perl and generally designed to make Perl look bad. This is not a war, this is him being a vandal, and everyone else reverting his vandalism there, just like he is vandalizing Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles too (note, with humor, how he calls me removal of his vandalism "vandalism"). I am uninterested in working with him, as he has proven beyond all reasonable doubt he does not wish to work with anyone who doesn't want to allow him to vandalize the Perl article; I did not read the last message he sent to me, and will not read any others from him. My time is too valuable, hence, his future edits on Perl will simply be reverted, because anything else is a significant waste of the valuable time of the other editors. Also, thanks for setting him straight about his idle ban threats, which I duly ignored. Pudge 03:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to thank Pudge for his continuing edits. I am fully in agreement with his opinion that -Barry- is vandalising the Perl article. Other members of the Perl community with whom I have discussed this matter concur. -- Earle Martin (talk, contribs) 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Could you please comment at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23_Perl? I did not list this, but since it is there and I have commented, you should respond to the points made by me.

Please, keep in mind that Perl is not interesting, here. Perl is what is at issue (the article, not the language). I will make every attempt to treat you and your record fairly without resorting to distortion or violation of civility policies. I hope that you will do the same, and allow a consensus to be reached.

Thank you. -Harmil 22:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I don't know what to say that's not covered on Perl's talk page and edit summaries. I suppose copying and pasting...nah, I'll just leave a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles/Disputes#Perl . Enough has been said. -Barry- 01:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles

In this edit summary you said "rvv the "compromise link" was an anti-Barry link. Nothing about Scarpia". That's astonishing. You previously linked to Talk:Perl#Bias being added II. Now, logic dictates, that I link to the (seeming) start of a thread, so I linked to the immediately prior Talk:Perl#Bias being added section (I seriously don't understand the full context and background of the matter, so I was making a best-effort). Now, you use "rvv" against me? Are you serious? Suddenly, I've changed my opinion about who is acting in bad faith here. I suggest you promptly stop editing this entry, and if you have a problem go to WP:ANI, or whever appropriate. I certainly feel the fool to have thought you were acting in good faith, and interested in a compromise. I can understand you disagreeing with my edit, but using "rvv" (instead of "rv") in your edit summary is an extreme personal attack on your part. Don't bother trying to put back the links again, as you won't be able to keep them there, without violating 3rr. --Rob 05:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The user name I saw in the edit summary was Thivierr, which I didn't remember was you (it looks nothing like Bob). I would have thought twice before using a rvv for your edit. Sorry about that. I appreciate your best-effort, and a single link is a reasonable compromise (not that I'd accept it considering Pudgenet's background). I'm right in the middle of a nasty mediated dispute between me and a bunch of editors from another article, and I thought you were one of the Perl editors. I was also right in the middle of filing a request for arbitration against Pudgenet. Good intentions weren't on my mind.
You linked to very different content from what I linked to though. It obviously should have been about Scarpia. -Barry- 06:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
(I can't find the template). Remember WP:3RR. You reverted 3 times in a couple hours about 12 hours ago. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

Regarding your addition of User:69.140.68.72 to the list, yes, you must go through the process of discussion and warning tags in a case like this. The only time that it is appropriate to skip right to a block is when it's persistent, blatant vandalism with no question whatsoever of the user's malicious intent — for example, a sock account that is created only to write personal attacks on user pages. Even in a case like this user's, where it seems to me that you're clearly in the right, there's a chance that the editor in question just doesn't understand the nature of the 'pedia and how collaboration works... so we give him or her the benefit of the doubt and hope that it's one of the often rare cases where they'll change their ways. A helpful note can go a lot further than a warning or a block.

Let me know if you need anything. Tijuana BrassE@ 21:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

He called someone a bonehead in the article, and in Saola he said "After all, the Committee for the "Scientific" Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal has, in its infinite wisdom, declared that there's no such thing as an unknown giant animal." I'd rather spend my time complaining about Wikipedia being too liberal than try to guide editors like that. I don't even think people with dynamic IPs should be allowed to edit without going through some special procedure to verify who they are. -Barry- 21:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I can sympathize, believe me — but I'd rather be too patient than not patient enough. In any case, drop me a line (or another note to WP:AIV) if it continues. Tijuana BrassE@ 21:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 09:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diff links

You're allowed to think the numerous links on the Diff page are "useful"[1], but that's not the measuring bar. The links I deleted are not relevant to the diff command. They're neat little Web sites that do the similar task that Diff does, but every generic Web file comparison tool can't be expected to be listed. After reviewing all of them, I did allow one Web site of note that provides output similar to using the actual Diff command. A lot of them are just more of the same thing and pollute the articles "External Links".

If you don't know, Wikipedia is not a link repository. Suggestions on what to include in "External Links" can be read at Wikipedia:External links. Thanks to your revert I did notice that I deleted the Unix commands template. Thanks for that. --71.254.13.237 23:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the links you deleted was to DiffNote, which I created. It's a wrapper for diff -y, with some extra features, so it's pretty closely related to diff. Several months ago, I researched the other diff tools that were listed in the article, and many use diff as their back end. I'd agree to use that as the standard for inclusion. Right now, I can only confirm that DiffNote uses diff for its back end, so I'd like DiffNote put back.
I'd also like to make it easy to find alternative file comparison tools, so I'd add a link to File comparison to the See also section and mention that other tools are listed there. I'd also add something like "similar tools listed at File comparison" at the bottom of the external links section, even though it's not an external link, since that's the section that would catch people's eye if they're looking for similar tools. File comparison would then be linked three times from Diff. I obviously like usability. That's why I created DiffNote.
I'm copying this discussion to Talk:Diff. It's on my watch list. -Barry- 01:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Having mentioned that your revert was based on protecting your own Web site's listing would have been the better thing to do for the sake of full disclosure. This conflict of interest of yours is obviously going to cloud what you think the "standard of inclusion" will be. This is one of the things Wikipedia advises against at Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid. --71.254.13.237 22:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That impression is one reason this should be discussed here. We could get opinions of other interested editors there. -Barry- 23:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pick a process and stick with it

Is the request for comment period already over? That was quick. Further, you added back a link that is not only under contention but is one for your personal Web site.[2]

The duplicity is stunning (quotes are from you, -Barry-, unless otherwise noted):

  • "this should be discussed... We could get opinions of other interested editors [at Talk:Diff]."[3]
    • "I propose a file comparison infobox" [4]
  • "I might just add the infobox tomorrow and leave it to you to dispute."[5] -- -Barry-. "And how would you see that as promoting civility and consensus?"[6] -- William Pietri
    • "It doesn't, but I don't think it violates that either."[7]
  • "I tried RFC once and it didn't attract any comments... I prefer to avoid it, but I'll participate if someone wants to initiate it."[8]
    • "I started an RfC"[9]

--71.254.7.215 04:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I responded with this. I know you questioned my motive, but I just included a link of the same kind as one you allowed [10] (the online interface). That seems acceptable no matter what the motive. I'm not even making money from it. There are no adds on the DiffNote page or on the main website. Just a UNICEF banner that I put on the main site for free. -Barry- 04:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

UNICEF, I'm obligated to agree then, right? Would you be willing to identify with this?:

"Links to normally avoid: [...] A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." (source: Wikipedia:External links)

I'm willing to negotiate what are acceptable and useful links for the Diff article, but would you agree that its difficult to reach common ground with someone with a vested interest (even if not monetarily vested) in the listing of their own materials. The ironic thing, is that your listing of DiffNote on file comparison is not being proposed for removal. --71.254.7.215 05:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You STILL aren't saying what makes my link worse than the one you allowed. You're being a bad Wikilawyer. We'll work it out through some form of dispute resolution. I don't expect anything from the RfC though. -Barry- 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that you'd said twice "I did allow one Web site of note that provides output similar to using the actual Diff command." I deleted the link I added, but the infobox issue is still open. -Barry- 06:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sorry you're feeling so bummed about the whole thing

Eh, I told you Arbcom wouldn't be pretty :) but if you cool off and come back, just know that your contributions are always welcome... and that disputes might happen, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia is Satan. ^_^ --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 22:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

Specifically, you (User:-Barry-) are indefinitely banned from editing perl or talk:perl.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking your talk page

Please, do not blank your talk page or remove comments from it. If you feel it's getting crowded, feel free to archive comments off to a sub-page, but leave a link to the archive on this page. That way, others that are trying to understand the context of your edits by reviewing previous interactions can do so. If you have any questions about the archiving process, please drop me a line. Thanks, and happy editing! -Harmil 17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../-/b/a/User_talk%7E-Barry-_9cac.html"