Talk:Sam Adams (Oregon politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Naming issues

This discussion has been collapsed.

I would respectfully disagree with the notion that including Beau Breedlove's name violates BLP policy or constitutes libel; his name has been printed in several newspapers, and is therefore already a matter of public record. Treybien 13:45 26 January 2009 (talk) This goes under WP:BLP and do no harm. If the teen publishes a book about the subject then we can rest easy with the name in the article. But absent such a public declaration, it seems better to err on the side of caution when printing a teenager's name in regards to a sex scandal. Another issue is that this is Adams' article and having that name here doesn't seem to add anything, at all, really, there just seems no benefit to doing so and more compelling reasons not to. -- Banjeboi 21:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Being in several papers is a minimum requirement, not a golden ticket. They have their editorial standards and we have ours. In the case of biographies of living people, ours include concerns about harm and weight, and some very specific concerns about youth. The story includes so-called "grooming" behavior, not illegal, before the young man reached the age of majority. In such a case, good judgment dictates that he need not be named in a Wikipedia article about the adult Adams. David in DC (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC) He's 21 now, not sure if everyone caught this or if this affects the discussion. Not to mention his picture was on the front page of The Oregonian where he answered questions about the matter. The cat's out of the bag now. It seems silly to leave his name out, policy notwithstanding... Katr67 (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Here's the story "Beau Breedlove tells of his romance as a 17-year-old with Sam Adams". January 25, 2009. {{cite news}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help) Katr67 (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC) We know the name's been published but we aren't in the news business as much as the encyclopedia business. If someone needs to find the name, they'll do so without our help. As is the article is fine without the name. In this case there should be a real benefit to our reader's understanding of Adams to warrant including it. This may change but leaving it out seems the way to go. -- Banjeboi 23:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC) (unindent)OK, it's possibly undue weight, but I just wanted to be clear that there's no need to "protect" anybody here. Katr67 (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC) This is the guiding principal at issue: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names. UNDUE would only keep his name out of the lead, not the whole article. HARM is an essay, and thus not our editorial standards (not the opening sentence where it says BLP once said do no harm, which means that has been removed from BLP, which means that has been degraded). Essays in essence are arguments, not generally accepted editorial guidelines (as should be obvious from this example). So, HARM may be part of your guiding principles, but I prefer WP:NOTCENSORED which is part of a policy. Now, Breedlove talked to the paper and allowed his picture to be taken, so there is not a privacy concern on his part. He has now confirmed for the whole world that its OK to use his name through his actions. Couple that with his name being used everywhere else, not using it could be considered NPOV. The way the article reads it looks like we are intentionally omitting his name, and it looks awkward. The argument that since people can find it elsewhere, then they can go elsewhere to find the name is a non sequitor. That would rationalize editing the article down to "Sam Adams is a person, search the internet for more info". With Wikipedia we gather all the info out there and then try to write a Good Article that is a compilation of all that information in one, easy to use publication. And yes this article is about Adams, but we still have mentions about his boyfriend and use his name, the new president and use his name, and even the name of the legislator Breedlove worked for who has absolutely nothing to do with the scandal. It's OK to use his name. PS I am removing the collapsing banner, this discussion is not nearly long enough to need one. Aboutmovies (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC) We look at not only the letter of the policies but also the spirit of them. This is an article about Adams. There is simply nothing gained by naming the actual intern in the sex scandal. That may change as the story develops but for now, no. We are an encyclopedia and not a tabloid, what we write affects real people's lives. Newspapers and media folk are paid to dig and report dirt and their constraints tend to be solely legal whereas we also lean more ethical as well. We could report every sordid aspect of the intern but it really isn't needed to aid our readers' understanding of Adams or the current issues. We report it dispassionately and move on. -- Banjeboi 12:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC) He wasn't an intern, he was an 18 year old adult and former intern when the naughty stuff took place, and according to his own statements he was a very willing participant in the sex, not so much the cover up. Now, why can according to you we cannot name Breedlove, but we can name Lewinsky in the Clinton article? In John Edwards we have the name of his woman on the side. Ditto with Eliot Spitzer. This is exactly what we do on Wikipedia. Breedlove's name is now part of the historical record, for better or worse, and Wikipedia needs to include it. And we do gain something, the name. As to ethical restraints, I fail to see any where everyone involved in the scandal agrees it happened and to whom, and where both have done so through the media. Had Breedlove not done the interview complete with a photo shoot, I would be inclined to agree that privacy would call for keeping the name out. But he did the interview. He used his own name. Thus, no privacy problem. Aboutmovies (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Sorry, this is still an encyclopedia and this article isn't about the sex scandal but Adams' issues in regards to it. There just seems to be nothing gained except unduly bringing grief to another living person by naming them here. Perhaps we should consult with the BLP board and see what the consensus there is? -- Banjeboi 13:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC) This is a tough one. Is the young man notable himself? How much "value" does naming him the article add? What is the rush to add the name to an encyclopedia. I would wait to see how this "plays out" myself but could go either way. Good luck :) --Tom 17:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Benjiboi: how familiar with the "scandal" are you? It's not about a "gay sex scandal" (from your BLP noticeboard entry) as gay has nothing to do with anything in the scandal. Next, you were also concerned about age. He's 21, so at what age would it be OK? Breedlove participated in the cover-up, and he has participated in the media blitz, thus he is one of the actors, thus using his name is proper. That's what it adds, the name of one of the key actors in the scandal. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC) I might add that Adams and Breedlove are both very much out. So there's no "grief" to be brought to anyone as far as that is concerned. Katr67 (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC) The sensitive part of the story is not about what the other party is doing now. It is that the relationship began before the young man reached the age of majority. 16 and 17 year olds who are being groomed for sexual intimacy after their 18th birthday by powerful older men or women should be able to trust that their name won't appear on wikipedia. We can't control whether names appear elsewhere. We can exercise editorial judgment and control whether they appear in our encyclopedia. David in DC (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC) This is now the second time this has come up, who said anything about "grooming" or for that matter 16 year olds? This is more about lies, which were perpetrated well after 18, lies Breedlove took part in. As to editorial judgment, yes we can, and in my judgment it is proper. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC) The sources describe grooming, as that term is defined in the literature and, as it happens, here on Wikipedia. He was a minor when Adams met him, an intern in a legislator's office. The sources say Adams developed a relationship with the young man and consummated it after the young man's birthday. David in DC (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC) That sounds a lot like OR and your opinion on how things went down. Unless you have sources calling it grooming, you might want to be careful as BLP applies to talk pages, and Sam Adams is still alive. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC) The New York Times story that is currently footnote 28 to the article says the young man "...has said he did not have sex with the mayor until he was 18, even though they met when [the young man] was 17.... [He] told The Oregonian on Saturday he had kissed Mr. Adams twice when he was 17 and welcomed the romantic interest." That's grooming, sourced to the New York Times and the Oregonian. David in DC (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC) No, that's what you call grooming. The NYT didn't, and unless they did, you have a problem with WP:SYNTH. We don't get to interpret or add value judgments. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC) "That was criminal. Adams' actions weren't — if nothing sexual happened before the teen turned 18. The Oregon Attorney General's Office is investigating. But there is the issue of whether Adams, a la Goldschmidt, had been grooming the teen for a sexual relationship. A public official — or any adult — should recognize the dangers of having a private relationship with an underage person." Portland mayor has lost the public's trust, Statesman-Journal, 1/24/09. Sorry, try again, that's an opinion piece (should be obvious from where the URL says "OPINION" or at the top of the column where it says "Opinion"). See WP:RS where it states: Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact (emphasis not added, it was already there to make this very clear to editors). Thus, either remove your BLP violating grooming statements, or find a source that passes WP:RS. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC) [1], "A third group sees the conduct subject of the lie as the troublesome issue. This can be seen in Scott Westerman's comments he called in to the talk show. He is the president of the city's police union. "Sam Adams was an elected city commissioner...who pursued a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old boy, which most psychologists call grooming... If it was a school teacher pursuing a student, what do you think... it's definitely inappropriate....he knows that." [2]. David in DC (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Read those carefully. The two that have Adams in the same paragraph as grooming (your quote above) does not say Adams was grooming. It says as you quote above, "which most psychologists call grooming". There is a distinction there, one that makes a legal difference when it comes to libel/slander. Westerman is drawing the connection to associate Adams with grooming, but doesn't actually say Adams was grooming Breedlove. Not to mention that is the opinion of the president of the police union, and no one else's (as in not the source, The Oregonian). That is to say, if someone off the street was quoted as saying Barak Obama is a racist, could we then say in the Obama article that he is racist? Or would we need maybe an expert/reliable source on the topic, or does anything go? As to the call in show article, again, same quote from Westerman, and the second use of the word in the article comes from a caller, so again the same person on the street as a reliable source. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Outdent. Sorry, I remain unconvinced that naming the intern lends anything positive to the article, and that's what we're here for. They were a teenager when the actual sex was going on and yes, a gay sex scandal, sadly, is still even more sensationalistic than a heterosexual one. I'm certainly open that the situation could change but I think the sensible thing is to leave it out for now. There just seems to be no gain for including it presently. -- Banjeboi 02:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC) I agree that adding his name adds very, very little, except a very slight increase in perceived article credibility. More troubling is that having his name present puts the reader in a somewhat uncomfortable position knowing more than is really needed to describe the incident, and possibly tainting future potential employers, romantic partners, etc. Suppose there were sources giving a list of sex acts they performed with dates and locations: should that be included? No. The essential—and NPOV—balance is easily presented without naming him. A look at the references will quickly reveal his name, if a reader is so inclined. —EncMstr (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Comment: Wikipedia's "BLP" policy calls for: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability No original research In this case, we can verify with "no original research" that the person's name is Beau Breedlove. Beau has done multiple interviews and has been featured in more than 85 news stories. He has chosen to be out about this. Comments such as Benjiboi's above indicate anti-gay bias as behind withholding the name ("still even more sensationalistic than a heterosexual"). What we have here is NOT persons following Wiki policy, but persons projecting their own standards of moral prudery. Further, Beau Breedlove has stated that he does not feel like he is a "victim." Given that, writing the article from the standpoint of "Beau as victim" is once again a biased POV. Usually names are withheld in the media if the person involved chooses to remain anonymous, but this is not the case here.Ryoung122 07:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) The sensitive part of the story is not about what the other party is doing now. It is that the relationship began before the young man reached the age of majority. Other minors who are being groomed for sexual intimacy after their 18th birthday by powerful older men or women should be able to trust that their name won't appear on wikipedia. We can't control whether names appear elsewhere. We can exercise editorial judgment and control whether they appear in our encyclopedia. David in DC (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Beau Breedlove has granted two interviews on national television programs. How is this in any way controversial? There is no "harm" in including his name. (I'm not sure whether the name needs to be included, from an article quality standpoint, but there's certainly no policy-based reason why we can't include it.) -Pete (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Interestinger and interestinger. Won't it be awkward if Mr. Breedlove succeeds in climbing the ladder of notability, but we still can't name the first rung of the ladder? -Pete (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC) This is totally mad. Beau Breedlove has done all kinds of press, print and television, and is now even doing a nude photo shoot. He's not a teen, and is participating with the publicity of his name. It's POV to keep calling him "the intern" and "the young man", rather. And how is this discussion supposed to build consensus, anyway? No one's put it through the channels. And collapsing it like this so people visiting the talk page miss it is pretty annoying. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC) These are reasons to justify building a Beau Breedlove article not for adding tabloid content to this article. Really we aren't here to promote Breedlove in any way, if he wants to launch a career then he can do so without our help. -- Banjeboi 10:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC) My contributions to this article (made because I didn't spot this collapsed discussion) were mostly to be more neutral, and refer to the man's well-known name instead of repeatedly pound in that he was a "young man" and an "intern", terms that have a lot of baggage attached to them when it comes to politcal sex scandals. Also, it wasn't stated that Breedlove was now 21 and not still a teen, in fact this discussion started on the premise that Breedlove needed protecting because he is a teen. And then I thought it was important to the context of the scandal against this article's subject by reporting that Breedlove habitually dates older men and has no regrets about his relationship with Adams. I think it's a pretty important biographical fact about this scandal that the so-called victim doesn't make the claim of being victimized. -- AvatarMN (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC) I agree entirely with Avatar. Banje, I admire the reasons that prompted you to bring up this issue to begin with, but as time goes on I am less and less convinced that suppressing Breedlove's name is a good idea. Our primary purpose here is to present a record of recorded knowledge. Breedlove's name is amply recorded, and the reliable sources we have used to substantiate this article use his name without hesitation. We should simply follow suit. If that leads to increased publicity for him, that's not something we should concern ourselves with. People who do both good and ill in the world enjoy greater name recognition as a result of being mentioned in Wikipedia; that's just how it works. Also, there is a much lower threshold for including a name in an article, than the notability standard required for writing a separate article. There are innumerable people mentioned by name in Wikipedia who don't meet the notability criterion; this is as it should be. I don't know whether Breedlove meets the notability criterion now or will in the future, but that really has no bearing on whether he is named in this article. My bottom line: Breedlove's name should be included in the article, though it needn't be emphasized. And Banje should be commended for keeping our attention on the effects of our coverage, even if we don't agree in the final evaluation. -Pete (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Back when Benje took initiative to suppress Breedlove's name, it was less widely sourced, and the man himself hadn't done the press he's done now. So Benje acted in good faith and with sound rationale, but the situation has changed. Now, we need to be concerned about the actual subject of this article and report that Breedlove is not a teen and has no regrets, and call him by his name instead of the loaded "young man" or "intern". -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC) The protection is not for this young man. It's for every underage boy or girl being groomed by a powerful man or woman. They should be able to count on it that, regardless of the result of the relationship, Wikipedia will not out their name. And the notion that there's a lower standard for naming a person in an article than in creating an article about them is, to use a technical term, poppycock. David in DC (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Beau Breedlove is not underage, is not and never was subordinate to Sam Adams, and the scandal is not about grooming. Which is an activity that is not in and of itself scandalous. Pete didn't say that there was a lower WP:BIO standard for naming a person in an article rather than giving them an article, he said there was a lower standard of notability for mentioning them in an article than there is for giving them than giving them their own article. And I never said that Breedlove should be named because he doesn't allege that he was harmed, I said that he should be named because his name is not a secret, in fact he's exploited his notability for profit and fame, and because choosing euphamisms to refer to him avoid his name creates a BIO/POV issue against the actual subject of the article. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC) He was underage at the time and is still pretty young. That he decides to exploit the scandal is his business, we don't need to be complicit in this. Amongst the issues the strongest, IMHO, is that the article and our readers are not compromised by knowing the interns name was Beau or Johnny or anything else. The salient points were his age, the lies regarding the relationship, that he was also male and that he supports Adams version of the events. The rest is tabloid fodder which we should, and I believe do refer to, that the scandal has been exploited. But we don't dive deep into Breedlove's sex life, his modeling or anything else. We also have to be careful of recentism. Give the whole episode time to pan out. Perhaps Breedlove will become a minor celebrity or have a scandal with another politician, then we'd have to relook and see what's appropriate then. -- Banjeboi 02:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This ongoing debate is collapsed because it is about whether to add a name to the article. To participate, please start by clicking "show" on the right side of the collapse bar. David in DC (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI the discussion above is under discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Sam Adams (politician). -98.246.111.103 (Pete) 06:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI the BLP/N discission referred to above, is now archived. It never came to consensus. The discussion in the collapsed thread above is ongoing. Please await consensus there before inserting matters still under discussion. There's no hurry. That's what's so cool about creating an encyclopedia. Have a cup of tea. David in DC (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A cup of tea, if you've now read the essay, requires an act of good faith. Please accept mine. David in DC (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'd like to summarize my thoughts on this. Maybe this will qualify as an "act of good faith." (I'm not sure we're truly in conflict, so I'm not sure why we need to demonstrate good faith. But that's neither here nor there.)

• I disagree with Banje and David that we should be prohibited from using B.B.'s name in the article. I think that Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia guidelines, common decency, and ethical behavior all permit us to use the name.

• However, I'm not convinced that we're required to use the name, in order to write a high-quality article about Sam Adams. I think there are probably ways to write a quality article either using, or not using, the name.

• Avatar raises a point that I find compelling: under the current article structure, the repeated use of phrases like "the intern" and "the young man," in order to mask the name, come across as rather stilted, and (whatever the intent may be) seem to emphasize B.B.'s age more strongly than is necessary. This pushes us out of the realm of a neutral point of view.

• Avatar's first attempt to restore NPOV to the article (which was made in good faith, and with an understandable lack of knowledge of this collapsed discussion) was to restore B.B.'s name to the article.

• There are probably other ways to restore NPOV, without including the name. I think it would be best to explore those right now; I think that way we can satisfy everybody's most extreme concerns, without needing to totally resolve the issue of whether or not we need to include the name.

• Then, if people like, we can continue to discuss the name issue, without the air of urgency.

-Pete (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think it's pretty silly for us to try to "protect" someone who's not underage and states he's not been harmed, and who is in fact milking his 15 mintues? Benje says it's tabloid fodder and recentism, but I'm concerned about BIO and POV issues that come up with not only calling him "the young man" and "the intern" over and over, but by not saying that B.B. refutes claims that he was harmed... I don't want to say B.B.'s name in order to promote him, but just to be able to not call him by loaded phrases, and to say that he's not underage, and to be able to include that he thinks the outrage on his behalf isn't called for. -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, isn't it pointless for us not to mention the name in the body of the article, when it's mentioned in most of the sources we use? In fact, it's in the headline of one of the source aricles so the name appears in this article in that capacity. Incidently, it also appears in the articles for Savage Love and Willamette Week. -- AvatarMN (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried a couple of edits in line with Pete's sugestions. I think the fears about undue weight attaching to the words "intern" and "young" are red herrings. But I've taken most of them out. It's sufficient to say they met when he was an intern, kissed before the age of consent and became sexually involved after age 18.

Avatar, yet again: the protection is for future minors, not for this former intern. They should know Wikipedia will not "out" them. Nothing requires us to. There's sound, policy-based, editorial reason not to.

It's not pointless. Our editorial policy is different from that of headline writers and newspapers. Thank heavens. We're creating an encyclopedia whose policy counsels caution and conservatism when dealing with the names and lives of living people. This name adds nothing to the story. It risks harm others. It should stay out of the article. As you note, it's in the sources and the footnotes. That's what the name is, a footnote. Not a story. David in DC (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't out someone's name if their name is already widespread. And I don't understand how we're not "outing" him by linking to sources that name him (even naming his name in the references section on the page here at Wikipedia). Why not protect people on a case by case basis? I don't understand why mentioning the name of this individual who seeks press has anything to do with whether or not we'd mention the name of someone who doesn't. You think we have better editorial oversight and ethics than the New York Times? Wow...

But, whatever. I guess "the man" is acceptable, as a replacement for all the "young man" and "intern" references. I still think it's vitally important to upholding our editorial policy toward the actual subject of this biography of a living person (remember him?) to say that He Who Must Not Be Named rejects claims that he's been in any way harmed. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I agree with everything Avatar said. The one thing I would add is that I don't think we're damaging the article by excluding B.B.'s name. But I do agree with Avatar, in the sense that I think we're engaged in a rather pointless exercise, in talking about whether we must exclude it. -Pete (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I hear you but it sounds like their is rough consensus its simply not needed. Perhaps the intern will become notable enough on their own so naming them here is no biggee. Until then it would seem this is their only claim to fame on the world's encyclopedia is being the other man. That they are just of legal age still flies in the spirit of why we generally leave such mentions out. Let them earn an article and have their own BLP, this one needs to stay focussed on it's subject. -- Banjeboi 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Portland Aerial Tram

The paragraph about the tram is pretty overly POV in favor of Adams, emphasizing that he "inherited" the problems. While I think there's a great deal of truth to that, it's inappropriate to address the issue of blame, but neglect to mention that he was Katz's chief of staff during the phase where the problems developed.

It should either be rewritten to reduce the blame issue overall, or both "sides" should be given fair coverage. As it stands, I believe this paragraph fails our policy on a neutral point of view pretty badly. -Pete (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

“ As part of managing PDOT, he inherited the responsibility to oversee development of the Portland Aerial Tram, one of the world's few urban aerial trams. It links the South Waterfront district to the upper campus of Oregon Health & Science University. During its development, the project was plagued with controversy due to poor cost estimates. When Adams assumed responsibility for PDOT and, consequently, control of the project, he replaced the external consultants responsible for the poor cost estimates with in-house expertise. The project was completed on time and revised budget, and is fully operational. ”

The above is the content that should be sourced and rewritten a bit, it does seem a little POV but not over the top. -- Banjeboi 01:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we on the right track with the revisions? If not, what still needs work? We need sources to "place blame" as well if that is needed. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it will take a pretty substantial rewrite. In my view, the news coverage of this issue has tended to the extremes; either the cost overruns are entirely Adams' fault, or they are something he entirely inherited. To achieve an NPOV will require some careful research and careful writing. I don't personally have the time to do that any time soon -- I note it more as a general goal for the future, or in the hopes that somebody gets to it before I do. Make sense? -Pete (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I hear what your stating. You may want to start at the tram article instead and have it clarified there who was responsible. -- Banjeboi 02:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A very good point. Thanks. -Pete (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sam Adams (Oregon politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081208051107/http://www.basicrights.org:80/?page_id=26 to http://www.basicrights.org/?page_id=26

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Archiving past discussions

I attempted to archive some of the past discussions, but I'm not an expert at it and somehow the 2nd archive isn't showing up. MB298 (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. MB298 (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)