User talk:Southasianhistorian8/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Suthasianhistorian8, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

  • If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


Why can't I edit some particular pages?
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?
Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.
How do I create an article?
See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.
How do I create citations?
  1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
  2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
  3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
  4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
  5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
  6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
  7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

Archives

Hi. Discussions on talk pages are often archived and these are usually searchable. FYI. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

requested move

Hi, I just wanted to give you the heads up that I've had to remove the request you placed at requested moves because unfortunately you put it in the wrong place and it wasn't signed. You're welcome to place a request again, but may sure you copy the model line and put it in the section with all the other requests, instead of replacing the model line with your request. You can recover the text you wrote from the page's history, so you don't need to type it all again. Let me know if you need help. Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Please add edit summaries always

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → check Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Special:Diff/1056085642 is where an edit summary would have been helpful. Hemanthah (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Control copyright icon Hello Suthasianhistorian8! Your additions to Taliban have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--RegentsPark (comment) 16:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for two weeks based on your report at WP:ANEW against another user for edit-warring at Singh. Not only were you edit-warring, but in early November of this year, after I had blocked you for edit-warring at another article, you promised never to edit-war but to always seek consensus through the usual methods of dispute resolution. In addition, at ANEW you attacked the other user, accusing them of vandalism and bad English. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Bold text== Blocked for sockpuppetry ==

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suthasianhistorian8. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Southasianhistorian8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Note- originally posted on IIBxtrerII page- removed from there and posted here upon reading that the unblock request must come from the "master account", and will no longer use that account. I'm sorry for using multiple accounts, I promise to only stick to one account now, this account or whatever else account you want me to. Just one account. I definitely think I deserve to be unblocked as I have only made positive, constructive edits to the encyclopedia, I've used the talk page, used relevant dispute resolution noticeboards [1], reverted vandalism, added content sourced through incredibly high quality sources (the vast majority of the content I add is backed up by sources such as OUP, Cambridge University, Brill, Routledge). Any can go through my edits and see the content I've added and where it's sourced from. I've cleaned up hundreds of pages, and made a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. Out of the hundreds of edits I've made, the vast majority of them improved the encyclopedia, was an addition of well sourced content or removal of unsourced information, a negligible amount were infractions made against my better judgment, and none were disruptive. Over the past 6 months (December- end of May), apart from 2 incidents, one for adding self published content where I was indeed in error, and the discussion with admin Doug Weller ended very amicably- [2] and edit warring on Vaisakhi (see above, however the reverting edits were blatant vandalism- [3] and [4]), no admin has voiced concerns about my editing or the content I've added or removed or any of my editing practices. I've also read up on the Wiki policy on sockpuppetry and I will abide by it forever.Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You can take the standard offer, preferably after showing us constructive edits on another project for six months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

GeneralNotability Please assume AGF and provide me leniency similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kelownatopdog who was blocked for one week for sockpuppetry (his account posted on my talk page which is how I know). Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability:, @RoySmith:, @El C:-- could you please provide an update of some sort? I've read each and every Wikipedia editing policy, guideline as well as conduct policies. In addition to never even thinking of creating another account, I will also act on a de facto 1RR policy on every single article I edit (even in articles that have no such rule- except for cases of obvious vandalism and I have been abiding by talk page policies and disupte resolution methods for the past 6 months) which means that if another editor opposes my edits, rather than reverting any more, I will immediately go to the talk page on the very first revert, as well as strictly abiding by the first top three segements of [5] in my edit summaries and refrain from calling edits "disruptive" which I have done recently a few times and I concur that it's a bit impolite. Could you please reduce the block to one or two weeks? Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Please have patience with unblock requests; there are not admins standing by 24/7 to review them. Do not ping random admins. The blocked user does not get to choose the length of the block. In this case the indefinite nature is due to your sockpuppetry. Blocks are not a punishment, but a means to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Your block will be removed when we can be convinced that there will be no more disruption from you. You already had promised to not edit war and did, so why should we believe you won't now? 331dot (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
What about all the other accounts? (the sock puppetry was confirmed by a checkuser so ultimately only a checkuser can unblock this account) 331dot (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry 331dot, I would like to address this first (I believe you're asking about the infractions I've committed on my other accounts and not just from this account, sorry for the misunderstanding - the message I've posted above encompasses the edits I've made through all my sock accounts (includes a brief summary of all the edits I've made from all of my accounts since abandoning this account on Dec 7th- primarily my two accounts IIBxtrerII and Kamhiri which are the two accounts I was using ~90% of the time since Feb) : "You already had promised to not edit war and did, so why should we believe you won't now?" The warning I got on my talk page for edit warring on my IIBxtrerII account was just that: a warning. (the only one I got in 6 months). It didn't escalate any further, and truth be told, the edits I was reverting were imo obvious vandalism, the sentiments of which were also reiterated by another user [6] see Severestorm28's edit summary. It also seemed highly unlikely that the user I was reverting would've engaged in discussion in the talk page either way and I did ask him multiple times to go to the talk page to gain consensus. I also initiated a talk page discussion and an RFC on the talk page of Economy of Pakistan [7] during a content dispute (however the other editor in this case didn't engage in the talk page and was shortly blocked for edit warring and adding novel synthesis to the page).
Other than that, I've went to the talk page and dispute resolution noticeboards whenever a content dispute would arise during the past 6 months so there is no issue concerning my ability to use the correct means to reach consensus and deal with content disputes through dispute resolution methods. Please consult the talk page of Siege of Sirhind and this [8] RSN post. I also plan to act under a de facto 1 revert rule for any article that I edit regardless of whether 1RR is in place or not, which means that I will immediately go to the talk page once my edit has been reverted the first time without any more reverts coming from my side.
"What about all the other accounts? (the sock puppetry was confirmed by a checkuser so ultimately only a checkuser can unblock this account)" The other accounts were blocked and will remain blocked forever and I won't touch them again, this account is considered the "master" account. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
331dot, not a checkuserblock, any admin can unblock. Suthasianhistorian8 - I've received your emails. Given the recent-ish past blocks on this account, I considered the use of multiple accounts an evasion of scrutiny. If you'd abandoned this account and just gone to one other, I'd probably have let it slide, but you didn't, you used a bunch of accounts at once, which sure seems like trying to hide your activity. I just have one question - why? Why were you using twelve different accounts? GeneralNotability (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes you're correct. I was in the wrong and there's no excuse for my sockpuppetry. This is the only account I will use here on out. I can assure you that will never happen again and I stand by my commitment to work in a respectful manner and abide by every single Wikipedia policy and guideline. Apart from my sockpuppetry which I will once again say was wrong of me, I do believe however that I have made significant progress in the past 6 months regarding my use of talk page and relevant dispute noticeboards to achieve consensus, an issue I had been reprimanded for when I was very new here. If you do decide to unblock me, respectful conduct and collaborative editing will be my rule of thumb . Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
GeneralNotability After all the promises of abiding by Wikipedia policies after getting blocked twice before, Suthasianhistorian8 still went against it and further created 12 additional sock accounts where I have noticed that he used most of them simultaneously on some articles. On top of that through multiple sock accounts Suthasianhistorian8 accused other editors of vandalism. Even when I told his sock user account Kamhiri to take discussion to talk page on one of the article, he continued to edit war by reverting changes without reaching consensus. He has also used false accusations before and quite recently as well. I believe Suthasianhistorian8 was well aware of Sock Puppetry policies before and it seems quite obvious that he made all effort of evading getting caught, avoid detection and sanctions. MehmoodS (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
GeneralNotability, I intend to work collaboratively and respectfully with the user, but please note that this is somewhat of a misrepresentation of facts. He claims that I edit warred on a article, however he had done the same amount of reverts, I started a discussion on the talk page and we achieved consensus in the very same day. Please also note a while ago, he accused me of putting incorrect citation templates and that he had to constantly fix up after me, when I asked him for diffs to prove this twice, he did not provide them. As I've stated, apart from this SPI, no kind of report of edit warring or ANI or whatnot was filed against me for the past 6 months and the vast majority of my edits were constructive. Nonetheless, I plan to work constructively, and respectfully with the user above on article, ancillary talk page under a new de facto 1RR rule I will impose upon myself. Hope we can start afresh and assume good faith in one another and let past indiscretions go. I apologize to you for any of my past transgressions or if I've affronted you in any way MehmoodS. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #59183

is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Southasianhistorian8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's been 6 months since my block and I am appealing for an unblock as per the conditions of the standard offer. I've only edited the Simple Wikipedia project occasionally in the past 6 months. I was blocked for sock puppetry during the months of Dec 2021- May 2022. I admit I made a blunder and I apologize for violating Wikipedia's rules. The reason I used different accounts simultaneously was because I was being targeted relentlessly by WorldWikiAuthorOriginal/HaughtonBrit's sockpuppet MehmoodS [9] who during the entirety of my account's duration was constantly goading me and many other users into time consuming and frivolous arguments. He constantly and knowingly ignored and disregarded basic Wikipedia rules (copyvio, discerning between primary sources vs secondary sources, edit warring, discerning between reliable and unreliable sources, canvassing, the proper use of dispute resolution noticeboards etc) in an attempt to preponderately push his version of an article and push others off the platform. In fact, he is continuing to do so [10] and has been doing so for the past 2 years and even went as far as to impersonate an admin that blocked his WorldWiki account. The use of my different accounts was to avoid frivolous conflicts with this user. I certainly have committed violations myself and am not claiming to be perfect, during my first two months here (Sept-Dec 2021), I definitely had issues with my personal conduct and had a tendency to be snide to editors who challenged my version of a page. I sincerely apologize for that and I will apologize to every user whom I affronted. I look back at some of my lash outs during that period and am ashamed of my behavior and have done some serious self introspection during the past 6 months. A significant contributor to that was being goaded into frivolous conflicts and being targeted by WorldWikiAuthor's sock which impeded my judgment. I recognize that disputes and challenges on certain Wikipedia pages will be inevitable and the only way to deal with it is to respectfully present your views respectfully on the article's talk page to come to an agreement with the other party and the use of outside meditation/opinions and noticeboards. During the Dec 2021-May 2022 time period, while I was using socks, the quality of my edits had significantly improved, and the vast majority of the content I added was impeccably sourced ( ~95% of the content I added was sourced through university books and articles) , I significantly toned down my hostility, and used the talk page of articles and relevant DR noticeboards (even with HB's sock) to arrive at a consensus. In fact, no one apart from WorldWiki/Haughton Brit's sock and some editors on the page Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus had any issue with my hundreds of edits. After an editor correctly pointed out in the talk page that my edits on the page Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus had some issues, I immediately reverted it and there were no further issues. No one, no admin or regular editor apart from HB's sock had any issue with my edits nor did anyone complain about me or my hundreds of edits during that time period, and my edits significantly improved numerous, numerous pages. I plan on apologizing to every editor whom I affronted during my first 2 months here, abiding by a personal 1RR (1 revert rule) policy where if anyone reverts my edit, to immediately present my point of view/point out any issues on the talk pages/outside mediation/resolution noticeboards rather than reverting, adding, deleting content until a consensus is reached, and if a similar situation arises where I feel like I'm being targeted or harassed by another editor, to patiently and respectfully discuss with them on the talk pages of articles regardless of how uncomfortable it may get, rather than the use of subterfuge and socks. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Checkuser data shows no evidence of block evasion. Good. But your unblock request blames your actions largely on the actions of another editor. Please review WP:GAB and rewrite your request focusing only on your own actions. Yamla (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yamla- You're right, I apologize. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Southasianhistorian8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's been 6 months since my block and I am appealing for an unblock as per the conditions of the standard offer. I've only edited the Simple Wikipedia project occasionally in the past 6 months. I was blocked for sock puppetry which I did during the months of Dec 2021- May 2022. I admit I made a blunder and I apologize for violating Wikipedia's rules. The reason for my use of sockpuppets was to avoid and pre-empt time consuming conflicts with a particular editor. I recognize that conflicts and disputes will be inevitable on certain Wikipedia articles, and that the only way to deal with it is by respectfully presenting your views/point out any issues on the talk page, consider any disputing editors' arguments and concerns, and to arrive at a consensus with them even if it may be an arduous and time consuming process. During my first two months here (September-December 2021), I definitely had issues with my personal conduct and temperament. I had a tendency to be snide to other editors who challenged my version of an article and was resistant to valid concerns regarding content disputes and my handling of dispute resolutions. I look back at my behavior during this period and am ashamed of lashing out at other editors, I've done some serious self introspection during the past six months and I'm very certain that my behaviour during this period will remain a thing of the past. During Dec 2021- May 2022, while I was using socks to avoid a particular editor as much as possible, the quality of my edits had significantly improved, and the vast majority of the content I added was impeccably sourced ( ~95% of the content I added was sourced through university books and articles) , I significantly toned down my hostility, and used the talk page of articles and relevant DR noticeboards to arrive at a consensus. Apart from one regular editor, and 2 minor incidents which were resolved amicably, where some editors correctly pointed out issues in my edits whereafter I reverted them and no further escalations occurred, no one had complained about my personal conduct, handling of disputes, or the quality of my edits. I believe I significantly improved numerous articles during this period. I plan on apologizing to every editor whom I affronted during my first 2 months here, abiding by a personal 1RR (1 revert rule) policy where if anyone reverts my edit, to immediately present my point of view/point out any issues on the talk page and use outside mediation/resolution noticeboards if necessary rather than reverting, adding or deleting content until a consensus is reached. If a similar situation arises where I feel like I'm being unfairly targeted by another editor, I plan to patiently and respectfully discuss with them on the talk pages of articles regardless of how uncomfortable it may get, rather than the use of subterfuge or socks. Edit: I am asking to be unblocked as per WP:LASTCHANCE or an conditional unblock if admins deem it necessary. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:17 pm, 30 November 2022, Wednesday (29 days ago) (UTC−6)

Accept reason:

Accepting this request. signed, Rosguill talk 20:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

You emailed me to ask about the status of your unblock request. I can't review it as I have already declined a prior request. The fact that nobody else has ruled already means that your request is not sufficiently convincing. You can either wait (very, very many unblock requests have to wait substantially longer than five days) or you can choose to rewrite it. Either way is your decision. --Yamla (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: could you please review my unblock request as I am asking for a conditional unblock (with topic bans if admins deem necessary). I understand my actions on India+ religion related topics have been less than ideal, but there are unrelated pages that I would like to edit as well. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I plan on staying away from India + religion related topics for quite some time regardless of whether a topic ban is imposed or not. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Rosguill, I concur with Yamla's comment above that CU shows no evidence of block evasion in the past three months, and am fine with you (or another admin) unblocking at your discretion. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Rosguill.

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Victoria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Hall. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Re. your email

I can't assist you with this as I'm not an administrator or a checkuser. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases and WP:CheckUser#Contacting a checkuser if you wish to pursue this further. Spicy (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  • I took a look at your case and you should consider filing an SPI. While the behavioral evidence is, at best, mixed, a checkuser might tell us more since a couple of the users are active right now. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Southasianhistorian8/Archive_1&oldid=1219603306"