User talk:MdeBohun

Welcome!

Hello, MdeBohun, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Msrasnw (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MdeBohun, I just wanted to ask you whether you are sure you want the extra things you have added to Dr Lipscomb's page. My feeling is that adding titles (Dr) , school and degree details is nice perhaps when one has a more substantial biography with a longer career. But in a case like this of relatively new academic I feel this somehow weakens the case for having an article. This is just my view and I raise it with you just to ask you to have another think. I won't revert or anything. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hi - I've again removed your sig. from Dr Lipscomb's article. I think we should only sign things on talk and user pages. Hope this is OK Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Dear MdeBohun, would you know if Dr Lipscomb has left UEA and/or started at the NCotH yet? Our article seems a bit ambiguous and she seems to be on both their websites. I can't imagine she is getting two salaries but perhaps! Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Msrasnw. Suzannah commenced a two-year sabbatical from UEA at the end of September to join NCH: so she is currently employed by NCH, but is still a member of academic staff at UEA, and also a consultant to Historic Royal Palaces and an External Advisory Member on their Research Strategy Board. ^[1] MdeBohun (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that has cleared that up - I can't think how if at all to put it in and I may be the only one confused by people appearing to be at more than one place at a time. I get easily confused. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

In response to your feedback

For better or for worse, Wikipedia has a strict policy in the images it can use. Basically, if it's not released under a license that releases control of it, Wikipedia can be sued in some circumstances as the provider of the image.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded another photo that belongs to Dr. Suzannah Lipscomb, should the previous one submitted is to be deleted. She doesn't care which one, but she would like one of these two photos on her Wiki page. She owns the photos. The picture on there now is the same as the one on her Twitter page @sixteenthCgirl, If you cannot use one of these two photos uploaded, and that she wishes to be displayed on her page, please use the one that you are already using to show a picture of her when one searches her name Suzannah Lipscomb wiki and the picture of her in a red dress that comes up, which is her previous Twitter avatar.

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dr. Suzannah Lipscomb.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Dr. Suzannah Lipscomb.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Hello, MdeBohun. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Suzannah Lipscomb, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Hi, I just wanted you to get a heads up that your edit history is as a WP:SPA, and you have also blanked another users page User:Watsonfairmaner which was also another WP:SPA, presumably your old account. As you disclosed (in your edit summary there) that you are somehow linked with Suzannah, I hope you don't mind me pointing out this link WP:COI so you know how to contribute. Thanks, Widefox; talk 23:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MdeBohun (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Changes have been made and I would be grateful if the banner at the top was now removed. MdeBohun (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Suzannah Lipscomb may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suzannah Lipscomb marriage information

Hi, it seems you are a fellow fan of Suzie Lipscomb! Please take some more care with the references you use, many do not contain the information they are supposed to support, also companycheck can in no way be classed as suitable as per WP:BLPSOURCES and copyvio links on WP:YOUTUBE are never to be used. If a good source can be found for the marriage details, then it should be added, but my-wedding-concierge.com is also totally unusable in a wp:BLP so I agree with it's removal for the time being. best 94.194.24.46 (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The marriage is over and as such the perpetual reference to it is distressing to the subject. If TheRedPenOfDoom is indeed a fan, he or she should respect the subject's wishes and not keep reinserting it. Wiki editors have added the message and if the reference keep reappearing further steps will be taken to involve Wiki to do as they say and block this person.MdeBohun (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you are going to have to get the troll RedPenOfDoom blocked as they keep adding in marriage information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lw1982 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as an encyclopedia, we do not focus on presenting the current promotional face that the subject may wish to display for their fans. We provide a coverage that includes current and past aspects of the subject, whether the subject likes them or approves of them or not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, MdeBohun. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Suzannah Lipscomb, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Katieh5584 (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

I have edited hundreds of articles, following the policies to make better encyclopedia . You have edited one article, consistently removing facts to satisfy the desires of the subject. Who is "obsessed"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Suzannah Lipscomb shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Suzannah Lipscomb again. Thank you. Woodroar (talk)

May 2014

Hello, I'm Katieh5584. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Suzannah Lipscomb without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Katieh5584 (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a policy at WP:OUTING that states that you should not post information about another editor on Wikipedia unless they have already done so themselves. You did so in this edit, and I have redacted that information. Please do not repeat the claim again anywhere on Wikipedia. If he wishes to self-disclose his identity, let him do so. It does not matter if the information is true or false, if you know it for certain or are just guessing, to mention it is a violation of privacy and against policy. Thank you. -- Atama頭 21:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Suzannah Lipscomb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

communications with the subject

In cases of marginal notability such as this case if the subject does not want an article, many of the people expressing opinions will take that into consideration. If Lipscomb wishes, she can contact the WP:OTRS and have her wish to remain off Wikipedia known and verified. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. I'd be very happy to work on the article if the AFD discussion decides we should keep it, although I'll need to read up about her first. I'm not entirely sure why the information is being removed. Generally we tend to rely on third party sources such as newspapers and magazines, but I personally think the university is reliable enough as a reference, and it's not like we don't have anything else. As she's a historian, newspaper articles discussing her work also seem fine to me, so I'm not sure what the issue is there. The AFD discussion seems to be highlighting several reliable sources, so perhaps RedPenOfDoom will turn their attention elsewhere once we've established notability. If the disagreement over content continues then you could try asking for a third opinion or even a dispute resolution. I think WP:OTRS would consider deleting the article if that were requested, but hopefully this problem can be resolved.

The only way the sort of activity you mention could be stopped would be to fully protect the page, which means nobody but an admin could edit it, but that only tends to happen in extreme cases where the nature of the subject is highly controversial and attracts a lot of disagreements and edit warring. Alternatively, if someone is making disruptive edits to a particular article they could be banned from editing that page either permanently or for an agreed period (six months for example). Again that tends to happen in extreme cases. The issue here seems to be that content is disputed, so I think getting a third opinion then asking for a dispute resolution would be the way forward. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions and I'll do my best to answer them. This is Paul (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the nationality thing is pretty self evident. The default for anyone born in the UK is British, unless they state otherwise (eg, someone like Alex Salmond who identifies himself as Scottish). I think the page would only be permanently protected if the vandalism was taking place regularly and over a sustained period of time, say a few months. People are always adding incorrect information to articles, with some very notable instances and all we can do is find and remove it. Conflict of interest is always a difficult one to call, but I don't think having a personal or professional connection is necessarily a major problem as your edits haven't been detrimental to the article. This is Paul (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources that state Suzannah Lipscomb was born in the UK? (Lw1982 (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

This has now become silly! Leave the page alone. Dr. Lipscomb was obviously born in the UK Thewho515 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source that says that suzannah lipscomb was born in the UK, so it is not obvious. (Lw1982 (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

(talk) This is Paul I suppose the subject's mother's word that she was born in the UK isn't insufficient? Because she was born in the UK, in Surrey. I would also like to point out that any edits I may have made previously were clearly not designed to be vandalism (as some have alleged) - my intention was to keep it up-to-date and true. I realise now I made mistakes in referencing and have learnt to ask on the subject's Talk page for any changes.MdeBohun (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think your edits were fine and didn't do anything detrimental to the article, and it's not like you added anything controversial. The nationality thing seems to have been blown out of proportion, and I think some people seem to have lost sight of common sense. Looks like we're still trying to decide whether Library of Congress is a primary or secondary source. I'm leaning towards secondary, but as others didn't seem to agree and Suzannah Lipscome herself doesn't want it included, I decided to remove it. It's back now though, restored by an anonymous user but hopefully we can bring this unfortunate saga to an end by finding a conclusion that everyone's happy with. This is Paul (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.82.18.156.67 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LIpscomb Articles

My current inclination is to let the papers be for a time -- a week or two -- in the hope that the article will settle and peace will break out. There's no deadline, and I don't think the article is deceptive as it stands. We'll get the papers back into place presently. Let me know if you think this is mistaken. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein I'm inclined to agree with you, because I trust you. I'm not asking for much, just that the subject's life is discussed with respect - thank you for being one who does that.MdeBohun (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal, if I may ask, concerning the subject's middle names and birth date? Is there some non-obvious reason these are matters of controversy and contention? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein There's no deal, she just expressed her feelings to me that she felt violated by every detail about her being made known so publicly. Yes, if one searches these details can be found out, but who does search except Wiki editors. She doesn't use her middle names, she would prefer her date of birth not be made available to anybody and everybody in the world who chooses to look. I just wrote a note to this effect (a bit less emphatically) on her Talk page, but I'm not sure it saved as I now cannot find it. I was just about to write it again. If it is Wiki policy to do so, so be it, but as there seems to be some dispute over whether or not it is, she would like her views taken into account. Thank you.MdeBohun (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find this a little difficult to comprehend. After all, Prof. Lipscomb has not been shy of the attention of the general public, and this sort of personal scrutiny is not really more invasive, I think, that the routine queries a colleague might undertake for a conference introduction or an after-dinner speech. This is precisely the sort of information one expects in an encyclopedia, after all. Place yourself in the shoes of someone consulting an encyclopedia about a historian with whom one is not very familiar: Russell Meiggs, say, our Maurice Bowra. Were they contemporaries? Was one a student of the other? One of my own first questions about Prof. Lipscomb when I came across this article was, "could Suzannah Lipscomb the historian be related in some way to William Lipscomb, the chemist? " MarkBernstein (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein It is nothing to do with being shy, although surely you will appreciate that her dob is private as it is the sort of thing banks use for security purposes. She doesn't use her middle names and for her not to want them used doesn't have to be understood by anybody, just accepted. You asked why and I told you. Surely if there is no clear policy to say they must be used, it should be her choice! As already stated, if there is a Wiki policy she will abide by it, but that does not appear to be the case as there is so much discussion about it.

How would knowing her names help you to know if she were related to William Lipscomb. She is not, btw, a professor. A professor is someone who's quality and quantity of journal articles meets the requirements to be called a professor, whereas a Dr. is a title awarded for one in-depth academic thesis. I know professors who are not Drs.MdeBohun (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)MdeBohun (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing her date of birth does suggest that she's not Bill Lipscomb's daughter, for example. It also clarifies whom her contemporaries were at school, who might have been her teacher, and so forth. Finally, if one encounters to historians with similar names -- Donald and Frederick Kagan, say -- date of birth helps one know which is which. (There are two computer scientists named Mark Bernstein, and a third is named Mark Burstein).

With respect to the courtesy titles, American and British usage are different, and my habit is to keep to American usage in contexts where I might be misunderstood. Americans apply the title "Professor" to all who hold teaching posts in institutions of higher learning, and this title takes precedence over Dr. For example, imagine young A.B. Clump who has just taken up a tenure track post at a state university after receiving her doctorate. In the US, she is called Professor Clump; she was Dr. Clump in the interval between receiving her degree and taking up her post. In Britain, she is Dr. Clump; Professor is the title of the head of her department. In Germany, she is Prof. Dr. Dr. Clump; it Italy, I believe she is Professora Dott. Clump.

Had I adopted British usage above, and were you to assume I was following American convention, I might seem to be depriving the subject of an honor. By adopting American usage, the worst misunderstanding is that I am dressing the subject in borrowed robes; that's better when the atmosphere is fraught. To further compound the confusion, I'm a graduate of Swarthmore, an institution with Quaker roots and which mistrusts all such titles and tends to prefer plain old "A. B. Clump". MarkBernstein (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein I'm sorry, I don't wish to be argumentative, but why would I assume you were following American convention when the subject is British, and how am I to know a) your nationality, or b) your normal usage. Illogical.--MdeBohun (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's easy to Google my name, and my spelling might be a reasonable clue :) MarkBernstein (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein Yeah, like I know the country of origin of every editor who talks about this article! I'd be looking up useless information all day. It is surely common courtesy to apply rules for the subject relating to their country, not yours, otherwise things would change every time someone from a different country made a comment.--MdeBohun (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTRS regarding Suzannah Lipscomb Date of Birth and middle names

Hi,

In this edit [1] to Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb you stated:
"two middle names could be removed on WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds if someone clearly representing the subject of the article complained." So I am complaining. This is supported by User:ianmacm who says "it would be helpful to have a direct complaint from the subject". I am not the subject, but I represent her.
.
To reiterate what I and others have stated at Talk:Suzannah_Lipscomb#Name_2 and Talk:Suzannah_Lipscomb#Age_controversy, please use the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team (also known as WP:OTRS) to effect this change. If you can show that you do indeed represent Suzannah Lipscomb then your contact should suffice, otherwise the subject will have to make said contact themselves. See Wikipedia:Contact_us_-_Subjects for details on how to do so.

Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JoeSperrazza Thank you for pointing me in the direction of the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. I have made contact.MdeBohun (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you requested have been made (see [2]). I'm sorry some editors were a bit of a pain in the process. For future reference (hopefully, not needed), the best way to get help in a situation like this is via WP:OTRS, as you did. Even for articles for which you have no relationship, often the best approach to editing (should you care to bother) is to leave a note on the article's talk page and then leave it for a while. Eventually, voices of reason usually show up and set things right. Attempting to argue with some editors is not usually useful. I'm glad things worked out. Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Apology

Dear MdeBohun, I am very sorry about all the trouble you have had with the article on Dr Lipscomb. It seemed to get very complicated and heated but in the end, and thanks in large part to your perseverance, rationality seems to have prevailed. I think most, but not all, editors were trying to act in the interest of producing a neutral article, even if it did not appear so. There is often a knee jerk response where some conflict of interest is perceived and this rudeness is seen to be a way of defending Wikipedia's neutrality or objectivity. This is unfortunately normal here. Sometimes this is useful to avoid overblown claims and over promotion - but sometimes, as I think in this case, it was not useful. There was some other stuff which seemed clearly more problematic here and which looked more malicious. My own approach is normally to try to wait until things have quietened down. Anyway I just wanted to say sorry for all the stress and for the part I had in it (by way of having started the page) and to offer advice or help if you think you might need any with any further issues. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Dear MdeBohun, in reply to you note on my user page (which might have been better on my talk page) my interest in Dr Lipscomb was sparked by Prof Grayling's New College and was just following up from there. I have also been at UEA and had seen her on the telly. I see someone else has helped with the job title which seems fine. As for the information about her other awards and her membership of the 'Royal Historical Society' as a 'Marshall Research Fellow at the Institute of Historical Research', shown on her personal website my feeling is that there might allready be a bit too much on the page which makes it look somehow promotional. I think this might be my own, what might be an old fashioned. bias. If you would really like them adding and would not like to do it your self - which I can see might well lead to problems, let me know and I will have a go. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Fair enough, I accept your recommendation.MdeBohun (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Suzannah Lipscomb. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong (talk) How dare you! It's seems to be OK for Wiki editors to be rude and sneer about subjects but a COI is told not to 'attack'. I think you will find that any attack comes mostly from those who are making the derogatory comments in response to a perfectly polite request. If the answer is no, say no, but talk such as 'making a fuss about adding baubles' or some other such pejorative comment is appallingly rude in response to adding a Master's degree. It was a simple request, if the answer is no, fine, the additional derision is not necessary. So how dare you tell me what I can and cannot say when you don't speak to the perpetrators of the rudeness! I've put up with months of desparaging, sneering drivel.MdeBohun (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://suzannahlipscomb.com/about

[1] ttp://suzannahlipscomb.com/about

[1]