Talk:Honor Harrington/Archive 1

New name
I suggest making Honorverse the main page for this section. It seems like the closest thing to an official title for the whole oeuvre. And " Name " can be used for disambiguation. --wwoods 17:13, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Not necessarily a bad idea. There are a whole bunch of character pages as well - maybe combine a few of them?

Hmmm, there is also the Honor Harrington series, but I think Honorverse is better. Feel free to do it :)

I did the redirect entries so at least the search options points to somewhere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:09, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Graphics
About the graphics. This is my site: Honorverse Art Gallery. The graphics were made by other ppl, but they have either agreed that I can host it or I was unable to localize them (and I have several times asked about them on official forums). So I am *pretty* sure we could use some of those pics here, but as I am fairly new to the wiki thing, I will leave it up to more experienced ppl to decide that. In my case, I grant everybody right to use any part of my site however they chose for the wiki project. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:23, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Piotrus,


 * The image policy is, more or less, that the image must be in the public domain. Meaning it's been explicitly released to the public domain by the creator (or owner) or has been released with one of the 'almost equivalent to public domain' copyright licenses... It's a bit of mess because images are far harder to 'paraphrase' than copyrighted text. The best I can suggest is to post a note at the village pump here asking for clarification...


 * Thanks for the comment about the edits at treecat.


 * Finally, you might choose to mark comments on talk pages with Piotrus so folks can know who made the comment. An easy way to do this is to put 4 '~' in a row as I have below. Or 3 as that leaves your name but not the date.


 * Right, it was long time ago when I was just starting at Wiki. As for the images from my page - we can use all book covers, since it is considered fair use, as far as I know. :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:23, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair use is a perilous thing to rely on, as the specifics of it vary from country to country. I am pretty sure that any use of book covers on Wikipedia is not covered by the equivalents of fair use in Finland; and other countries have their own rules. AJK 21:46, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * ww 18:56, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC), <-- 4, or 3 --> ww
 * All the covers have been released on the Honoverse CD-ROM, so investigating the licence on that might be helpful. --Phil | Talk 08:14, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Honor Harrington in Other Media
I hope that anyone who does screenplays for this series has David Weber review (and approve) them. This character has a lot of history, and it would be easy to lose continuity. --Markjacobs8 23:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be very much suprised if any screenplays were carried out without specific consent from David Weber. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. Hollywood has a long tradition of paying big bux for the rights to material which they then proceed to transmogrify (remember Calvin's transmogrifier?) into non recognizability. Lots of egos out there. Remember Fitzgerald and Faulkner and ...


 * I think in this instance, they'd be ill advised to do so as there is a large legion of fans who will avoid in droves if they muck around too much. Look at the large changes made in O'Brian's Master and Commander and in the telescoping of the Peck movie about Horatio Hornblower (folding three novels into one). I am hopeful, but pessimistically so (expect nothing good so as to enjoy the surprise if soemthing actually works out well). 141.149.42.218 21:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced speculation from this section and properly cited two statements for which I could find reliable sources. Anyone who wants to restore any of the deleted material should first find such sources (which don't include fan websites and discussion forums, per WP policy). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2066377/bio. Heres another source.Corustar 00:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

List of postings
Okay: why put "Admiral of the Fleet" in the list of postings? That is not her posting, her posting is Commander of Home Fleet. Admiral of the Fleet is her rank. The postings do not list her rank, except for the case of "Midshipwoman", which is a posting reserved for a specific rank.

Her rank of Admiral of the Fleet is listed under her current title, as is the fact that it is an acting rank. Magidin 03:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My impression is that Admiral of the Fleet is one of those ex officio ranks or titles or some such. Anyone who is commander of Home Fleet is also Admiral of the Fleet, but upon moving on from that command will no longer be Admiral of the Fleet. The US Navy used to (still?) have a similar arrangement for the commander of the Pacific Fleet (eg, Adm Husband Kimmel just before Pearl Harbor). Sometimes this stuff gets confusing. ww 18:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the cover of At All Costs, her shoulder boards and collar insignia are those of the Admiral of the Fleet. The book says that this is an acting rank for her, but for all intents it will be her actual rank for some time. They are not going to leave her in a posting so far from the actual front when more ships become available. With Home Fleet gone, Eight Fleet became Home Fleet and ceased to exist until it is reactivated as a new command. With the scarcity of ships to begin with and that fact that any new fleet guarding the Manticore home system with have to be equipped with the new weapons systems, i.e. Apollo and Mistletoe. When she eventually moves to a new posting she won't be Admiral of the Fleet any longer, but just a Fleet Admiral. The rank should be included in any list because it is tied to that particular posting. And, do commanders of Home Fleet retire or are they rotated to other duties? If they retire then, it's their final rank, unless it takes an Act of Parliament like it takes and act of Congress for three stars and above to retain rank. Harrington is obviously not going to retire from that position. PrimeNemesis 22 August 2006 21:51 UTC


 * Actualy "new home fleet" is probably surviving elements of 8th fleet as it's core - units previously detached at Trevor's Star plus most of the units just captured from Haven. 3rd fleet itself was also wiped out (also excepting units previously detached at Trevor's Star) and so needs replaced as well, a good size chuck of the captured Haven ships seems to be the best source of that as well given that it needs to happen before word of their victory gets back to Haven. The Talbott forces probably arrived in home system on schelude but probably need to be sent right back. Commanders of Home Fleet appear to be rotated like other senior personal, early in the series there is a note about needing to rotate the senior personal around due to prolong. Jon 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

inspirations
Perhaps Don Quixote from Man of La Mancha should be mentioned. Honor and others state it themselves during War of Honor. Jon 20:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Book cover images?
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread...

I added infoboxes to the articles for each of the eleven books in the main series. If anyone objects, please post here,and we can revert all of them. Note that I use a template, so we can also fine-tune the infoboxes as a group by editing the template.

but I did not create images for the book covers because I am not clear about copyright. If someone has resolved this or can resolve it, please let me know, or even better, just update the articles. Thanks. Arch dude 20:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Book covers can be uploaded under bookcover as part of fair use.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I uploaded them under fair use and linked the book articles. - Arch dude 01:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Physical Characteristics?
Seems there's a lot missing on this page.

While father and mother was mentioned, there's nothing about her being a genie, with modified metabolism and faster than normal strength and reflexes, plus superb kinesthesia. (Spoiler) Indeed, she outshot a dedicated duelist-for-hire, and do coup-de-vitesse at a level that matches Sgt. Tausig (who placed 2nd in fleet championship) in just her midshipman years!

No mention of her looks (ugly duckling) and voice (soprano) either.

--Kschang77 06:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC) (Honorverse fan)


 * She is listed under Category:Fictional telepaths; is she telepathic? Noclevername 21:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not exactly, she has a bond (which is never really well understood even within the books) with Nimitz, her Treecat. Nimitz, like other Treecats, is telepathic and empathic, and can sense the emotions of humans around him.  Since Honor can sense Nimitz's emotions, and some of his thoughts, later on, she can sense through him the emotions of those around her (at least in the later books).  Short answer?  No, she's not particularly telepathic, except with Nimitz, but she is more sensitive to that sort of thing than most humans.--Raguleader 00:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:Fictional empaths would be better :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:30, 29 July 2007


 * Starting with In Enemy Hands, her empathic sense becomes independent of her link with Nimitz, so yes, she certainly qualifies as an empath, and since the categories aren't that narrowly defined, she belongs in the fictional telepath category Leon Stauffer (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)(UTC)

Chronology
I reorganized the Career section, and added subsection headings to make future edits easier. I also had to spend quite some time removing in-universe style. Don't forget that events in books are reported in present tense!

I also noticed that there is nothing between her time as a Commander, and her capture by Ransom as a flag officer. It's been too long since I read the books, but someone should fill in a brief summary of that time, especially mentioning more stuff on her stay on Grayson. Mdotley 03:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Two Stars of Grayson?
I'm re-reading all the books, no mention of a second Star of Grayson but she did have the Crossed Swords appended to the Star after the battle in "Flag in Exile".

As the only living holder of the Star of Grayson, she's automatically the Protector's Champion, weilder of the Sword of Grayson, which is what prompted her to learn Grayson style swordfighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 11:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As is specified in the books, the Crossed Swords are the way in which an award of a second Star of Grayson is indicated. In other words, getting the Crossed Swords is the same as getting a second award of the Star of Grayson. Magidin 13:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Honor Among Enemies.jpg
Image:Honor Among Enemies.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Honorverse characters nominated for deletion
Interested users may want to comment at Articles for deletion/List of Honorverse characters.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Honor Among Enemies.jpg
Image:Honor Among Enemies.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Honor Among Enemies.jpg
Image:Honor Among Enemies.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

two entities inhabiting the same body
Does this have an equivalent is real life? Any historical or present examples? Does this phenomenon have a name? Debresser (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Under mexican law, with some strict separation of Church and State, the President cannot be part of religious ceremonies "in the person of his office" (that is, as The President). However, the person who is the president can participate as a private individual. Also, during the controversies surrounding the awarding of the Longitude Prize, the Prince of Wales offered to testify in favor of Harrison before Parliament. Since he could not do so as the Prince of Wales, he offered to appear before Parliament as one of his lesser titles, in essence becoming the "other person" for legal purposes. The Roman Emperors, from time to time, did similarly. Magidin (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. Would this have a name in law? Debresser (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

List of books?
Is there such a list? I've been trying to avoid spoilers but don't see one. I'd like to know which order to get them in. 87.115.31.184 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes; see the article on the Honorverse. Magidin (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe people ought not have to dig into the discussion section in order to find that out. Seriously, is it too hard for somebody who has an investment in these pages to make them easier to navigate for people new to the topic? 108.214.192.16 (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur. Maybe there needs to be a disambiguation link at the top of the page. By typing in the name of the main character in a series of novels, I would expect to at least go to a page on the character that had a prominent disambiguation link at the top of the page. The assumption that a typical Wikipedia user who is not already a fan of a book series is going to search for information on said series by using an esoteric fan-made name ("Honorverse") is ludicrous, and people new to the topic shouldn't have to dig into the meat and bones of the article to find that link. One would think that, this being a fictional character, that entering a search for "Honor Harrington" would first go to an article on the book series, with a disambiguation link for the character under the title on that page (e.g., "Honor Harrington (fictional character)" or whatever).


 * That being said, this article is a mess. It's excessively long for a fictional character biography. Just browsing over it, and it reeks of fanboy authorship. If I want that, I'll read a wiki dedicated to the subject. Being that I was actually motivated by the unacceptable quality of this article so far as to actually log into my Wikipedia account to leave a comment on the talk page for the article (something I do perhaps twice a year) should speak volumes for how bad this article is to a Wikipedia user who is not an obsessive fan of the Honor Harrington series.
 * AntarcticFox (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Speaking about a mess. Do you image what a mess articles about fiction would be if we would add a disambiguation note to all the main characters? Debresser (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference to fan's musical composition
A month ago a new editor added a reference to a musical composition – the Harrington Suite – self-published by the "American composer[,] Matthew Fossa": diff. The editor mufoboe is almost certainly the composer himself. The reference was supported by a link to the composer's personal web site, here.

There is almost nothing available online discussing this composition: Google search. The only relevant hits are Wikipedia mirrors, save for a single page from the Mobile Symphony. That page presents Fossa's (presumably self-authored) biographical sketch, wherein it notes that the Harrington Suite's first (and very likely only) public performance was by a high school wind ensemble &mdash; and then, only two of the five movements.

At this point, I don't believe that reference to this composition is warranted in our article. Fan fiction – even orchestrally-composed fan fiction – needs to garner some appreciable third-party recongition before it should be presented in Wikipedia. At the moment (and until evidence of third-party interest is put forward), the reference and external link seem to serve primarily as vehicles to promote the composer, rather than to usefully inform our readers. I have removed the reference, but been reverted twice by Debresser. Third opinions are welcomed and encouraged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Although TenOfAllTrades has convinced me that information about this musical composition is not as important for the article as I originally thought it was, I definitely think he should refrain from making assumptions such as "The editor mufoboe is almost certainly the composer himself". That is ugly lawering. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Lawyering? No, just simple observation.  When people add content promoting things that have not already been covered in other sources, they are getting their information from somewhere- personal experience is a likely bet.  Also note the similarities in usernames.  Friday (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Comment from an uninvolved party. I was informed of this discussion through a post on the Help desk.) The information about the music should be removed. There is no way to know if any of the added information is true, because there is no way to verify it with reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Something a person directly related to a subject says or does should (for the most part) never be taken directly as fact, especially if it is not reported by third-party sources, as is the case here. If the music appears in any third-party sources, then and only then can it be added to the article (assuming the sources are reliable and properly cited, of course.) Xenon54 / talk / 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, personal websites are almost invariably not acceptable reliable sources (see also WP:SELFPUB). It seems to me that this is the case here: the only link is to the personal website of the composer. As such, although "sourced", it is not reliably sourced. As such, the argument put forth in the edit summary about relevance is completely immaterial: this is not reliably sourced information, it should not be there. Magidin (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Before editor start spilling more inkt on this... I have undone my revert, because - as I said above - I have been convinced to have been wrong. I still resent making assumptions, though. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

April 2010
Shouldn't the article also mention that the opponents always find some way to mess up and grant victory to the Manticore (Honor's) side? While I enjoyed reading the many books in the series, they do have this "inexorable" feel to them that Honor and Manticore must win, so if the article is to be fair, it should mention something about that aspect. The Wikipedia articles about this series should be written from a neutral perspective and NOT from a loving fans' perspective.AnimeJanai (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I find the comment somewhat disingenous. Honor Harrington is the hero of the novels, so naturally she (and her side) are portrayed in a positive light. Should the Harry Potter articles mention that they are written so as to portray Harry's side as better than the other side, or that they have a feeling that he will win in the end? The very fact that Honor is the hero is already telling you this. Magidin (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Honor and Manticore don't always win. They have both suffered many great losses. And Magidin is right on the hero point: Heroes are usually the ones who win in the end. Besides, we haven't read the end of the serices, so we don't really know how "inexorable" a positive outcome for Honor or Manticore is. - BilCat (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with BilCat. Also, not all of the opponents mess up; in particular, the "good Havenites" tend to be excellent commanders but fall into Manties new technological advantages. Lastly, do note that there are occasional battles Manticore loses. All that said, yes, Honor usually wins - but isn't this what we expect from a protagonist? Still, if anybody has a suggestion how to clarify this in the article/lead, go ahead and try it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we can not follow your suggestion because of Wikipedia's original research policies. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A valid point. But then... how many reliable sources are there for any HH articles? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is more about the fact that direct literary analysis constitutes original research. We are not supposed to include material that is original on the grounds that we cannot find it in a verifiable source. If it cannot be found in a reliable/verifiable source, then it cannot be included. In the case of fiction, as here, original literary analysis is one of the things that must be guarded against. Magidin (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To Piotrus. That is correct, but at least those are simple plot elements that are straightforward in the book, and do not involve original research. Which I think is the same point made by Magidin. Debresser (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it would be more acceptable to cite Honorverse wiki rather then the primary source books? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. Wiki's are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Cleanup?
I have recently started reading this series, so I have limited understanding of this topic. It seems that this article could use some cleanup. The intro is very long, with what appears to be OR, but maybe just lack of citations.

There doesn't seem to be much activity lately, but I just wanted to check before I start making changes. If someone has strong feelings about the article, let me know. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 16:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You have my blessing, for what it is worth :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's see. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Guys, I don't do reverts, but any article with a long running set of complaint tags I'd maintain would have me be ashamed to be associated with it. One jumped up self-important rules mechanic complained for me fixing the lead so the lay reader had an this universe anchor point, so someone maintaining these articles should reincorporate my prose. It was pretty much just what was needed to set up the rest of the pseudo-biography in out universe style. see this diff; See this diff for all his anal mumbo-jumbo. With people like that, it's a wonder anyone ever tries to improve things here. // Fra nkB 20:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Since you did not understand and continue to both engage in unwarranted personal attacks, and in false statements and misrepresentations, I will simply note that not only did I thank you for your work and explicitly said the stuff you added would belong elsewhere in the article, my main point was that the banner you removed (with an edit summary that engaged in incorrect personal attacks) included more than one problem and even by your lights you had only addressed one of them. Magidin (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "Overly long intro" comment, since it is much shorter than it was.

There are still issues with the article - too much detail and an in-world slant. As I said before, I have recently discovered this series, so I don't know a lot about it, so I am hesitant about doing any major revisions.

Perhaps much of the text can be moved to articles about the individual books or topics (e.g., Treecats)? I think the article could also be improved by more citations. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 05:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A treecats article used to exist, I think, until it was deleted. The reason is that in articles fiction, many fictional elements are not in and of themselves notable, and therefore we can not have articles about them. As a result, as main series' article usually includes these subjects. Debresser (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could create a main article about the series, and include some of these sections there. This article could then be listed under the "See Also" label.


 * I would love to help with cleanup, except for two (at least) reasons:
 * I am only familiar with the first few books. (I am currently in "In Enemy Hands")
 * The article appears to have a lot of spoilers. Just glancing through the article, I have already learned some things that I wish I could forget. :-(
 * Once a new (spoiler free) article is created, I would be glad to edit and add sections. wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 05:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles contain spoilers, and should contain spoilers. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As noted above under the Spoilers heading, Wikipedia's policies and manual of styles explicitly address the issue of spoilers, and the consensus is that there is no issue: in other words, spoilers should not be purposely avoided, and they should not be explicitly marked. Caveat lector ("reader, beware") I guess. As for a main article on the series, I believe that's the function of the Honorverse page. Magidin (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That is fine, but I still don't want to read any article containing spoilers if I am still reading the series. As a result, I will not be contributing to this article until I am done reading, even though I feel that the article could use some major trimming and clean up.  wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

lovers/husbands/family/kids
I will love to have this info here, after all, it is part of her life too :). and you can add some info from later books to spoiler opened tab :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.102.84.189 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Broken reference link keeps getting added
Twice now I deleted an addition of an "archive link" in the Other media section. It's now been added a third time. It is being added by an anonymous editor using different URLs, with the comment "fixed ref". Following the link leads to an error message saying "Four Oh! Four Snap! Page not found". There is no possibility of communicating with the anonymous editor, and I would not get to the 3 revert rule if I try to delete it again. It's a broken link, it needs to be deleted, and the anonymous editor needs to stop adding it. Magidin (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This? Seems to work for me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * this does not, which is linked to under "the original". I thought this is what was being added. Magidin (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)