[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Brattleboro, Vermont

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

downtown improvement district?

[edit]

There was a lot of information about the DID including tax rates which seemed to be a bit out of place (and unsourced). I removed it from the main article during clean-up and am pasting it here in case someone wants to find a way to fit it in more appropriately or with better formatting. The following appeared under the heading commerce.

On a daily basis over 30,000 people make a living in Brattleboro, making the town commercial hub for the entire Southeastern corner of the state.

Taxes-
The following is a description of the tax rate in Brattleboro as of 2005.
Town Res.- .9519
Non-Res.- .9519
School Res.- 1.3341
Non Res.- 1.1985

Resident Total- 2.2860
Non-Resident Total- 2.1504

DID- .1559

The DID tax rate represents the Downtown Improvement District. Encompassing a majority of the Downtown area, the DID is a specially tax zone that pays an additional tax called the DID Tax. This tax goes towards an initiative to secure grants from the State and Federal Government to improve the aethetics and economy of the Downtown District.
Jessamyn 00:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable People

[edit]

What was the basis for removing Kevin Daley and Psycho Billy from the Notable Folks of Brattleboro, where the listing of James Fisk has no correlation nor mention of Brattleboro at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peedubya (talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why those people were removed, but it may have been that they were added with no citations so that someone else could verify that they are a) notable and b) from Brattleboro, this is often why things like that go missing. If you have a good link or source that points out those two things about those people, feel free to insert them again and add the citation in some format into the edit summary box or as a citation at the bottom of the article or after their name like this: Psycho Billy [1]. When you write on the talk page, it's helpful if you sign your comments with four tildes like this ~~~~ which will automatically sign your name and the date and time. Jessamyn 20:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't know why Whoopi Goldberg keeps getting removed from the notable people's list. I know where her house is -- have actually seen her out in her yard -- and have run into her at the grocery store and at several galleries downtown. She clearly lives here and is a respected member of the town. (Scout) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.198.90.134 (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Whoopi Goldbery does not live in Brattleboro, she lives in Marlborough. I have seen her too, actually Christmas shopping in Sam's. But she is not a "member of the town".(Brent) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.10.141 (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

What is the rationale for this article being titled "Brattleboro (town), Vermont" instead of simply "Brattleboro, Vermont"? I suggest this article be renamed if there is no legitimate reason for the inclusion of "(Town)" in its title. -albrozdude 17:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say it is because other locations in Vermont are cities, villages (incorp. and unincorp.), gores, and grants. However, Brattleboro is the only town that I can find (in Vermont) that has the parenthetical distinction. Mrs. Grobe 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nude bicyclists photo

[edit]
File:BrattleboroFreeNude01.jpg

I removed this photo from the trivia section for two reasons.

One, I feel it is inappropriate to put a picture like that on a page that will be surfed by children. My students use Wikipedia for research and learning, and I do not feel the need to explain to parents why their third graders saw naked people at school.

Second (and probably more importantly), I have lived in Brattleboro all my life and do not believe this was taken any where in our town. The street lights are not what we have and the street is too long, straight, and flat to be in Brattleboro.

Thank you, Mrs. Grobe 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good catch, that picture was taken in Burlington, outside the Five Needs brew pub, it looks like. Jessamyn (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored. Alphachimp 03:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
correct, but the picture wasn't from Brattleboro which I think is why it was removed from the Wikipedia article on Brattleboro. Jessamyn (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was only responding to the first point. Alphachimp 06:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia may not be censored, but the (Wikipedia is Not) article actually says "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are ' ' 'relevant to the content' ' ' " and a photo of naked people on bicycles (or naked people in general, I suppose) is not really relevant to an article on Brattleboro in the big picture. Other articles, those on pornography, gynocology, sexual issues, body parts, all either carry warnings or can be expected to contain nudity. I have lived in Brattleboro for 30 years and do not run into naked people on a regular basis, outside my own home, so I do not believe photos of them are "relevant to the content" of the article on Brattleboro. Especially when the photograph is of people in Burlington. Mrs. Grobe 01:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Public Nudity" section is passing, and largely unimportant, news. It is not encyclopedic. I removed it. GenQuest (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Dkriegls (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Someone should remove the "Public Service Anouncement" external link. They suck and finally broke up. Bbitu 04:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Ground Date?

[edit]

OK Brattleborians (?) Common Ground was open when I worked at Sam's in summer of 1969. Or am I just getting old? Cherrywood (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes resolution

[edit]

Should there be a comment on how rediculous the resolution is that they are trying to pass re: George Bush and Dick Cheney and "War Crimes"? The way I see it, Congress and the Senate both voted in favor of the war, I believe they, if anyone at all, should be held accountable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.193.10 (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only with an equal comment on how laudable the resolution is. ;-) 82.36.26.70 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some sourced information on the petition, including both the text of the petition itself and the Town Council's NPOV statement on it. The text that someone had added earlier today was mostly wrong. It said the council was considering impeachment proceedings against Bush/Cheney. That's wrong in a couple ways. First, the council was only debating whether to put the petition on the ballot, not in taking any direct action itself. Second, the petition called for indictment, not impeachment. TJRC (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Methadone Clinic

[edit]

Can we add something about the methadone clinic on Putney road. I believe it is/ was the only/ first one in Vermont? Habit Opco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.164.35 (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

President of the United States

[edit]

Without a trial, grand jury or otherwise, Brattleboro has threatened to arrest the President of the United States. [[2]] Does this presumptive, politically motivated embarrassment deserve mention in this article? 72.196.233.224 (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever about your own opinion on the reasoning behind such a motion, it is already mentioned in the article. See Brattleboro, Vermont#Petition against Bush and Cheney. --Schcambo (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should we mention that the town has no authority to take such an action? Should we mention that the town did not allow the opportunity for defense against this "indictment"? Should we mention that this is blotch and stain forever upon the town? 72.196.233.224 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea where you come from, but generally speaking, people are indicted first and allowed to give their defense second. It's the very basis of most criminal justice systems, in fact. In any case, this article is for facts, not POV, and I'd ask you to keep that in mind before you continue using this page. --Schcambo (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, see WP:OR; no, see WP:REL; no, see WP:NPOV. TJRC (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As well, please everybody read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines — talk pages aren't supposed to be used as forums on the subject of the article. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lovecraft reference

[edit]

The article states "Brattleboro is the setting for much of H. P. Lovecraft's story The Whisperer in Darkness," but there is no reference to Brattleboro in the linked article on "The Whisperer in Darkness." Either the statement should be deleted or some mention of Brattleboro should be added to the linked article; not having read the story, I do not know whether the statement is true. Languagehat (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable concern. I can't speak for the linked article, but fortunately the story is in the public domain and available online. A "find in page" search will show Brattleboro mentioned many times as one of the settings.
http://www.dagonbytes.com/thelibrary/lovecraft/thewhispererindarkness.htm
Elmo iscariot (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

I am surprised there is no information about Brattleboro's 19th Century identity as a summer resort. I believe it was a destination for wealthy US southerners who would come to escape the southern heat and take the waters in the mineral spa that was developed. As I recall it died out with the Civil War.

I lived in Brattleboro in the 1970s near the Estey Organ Factory. As I recall it had an important role in the early 20th Century in the town's development and influx of skilled immigrants.

Isn't there a historian who can add these and other points in? (The recent nudity flap is a little overblown compared to all the history in this town!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.50.243 (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to your comment, here are some noteworthy topics that might want to be added:
The Great Fire of 1869, the rediscovered petroglyphs, Island Park and it's demise. LetDogsVote (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brattleborough borrows Brattleboro from Brattleboro', 'bro

[edit]

Try saying that one aloud.

But seriously folks. I see from my readings around, in which I incidentally came across reference to Brattleboro, that its name started out as Brattleborough, was abbreviated to Brattleboro' (sometimes by same author in same text, per my own example), and at some point in history, became Brattleboro.

And indeed, I see the original spelling already in a couple of places in this article. I thought to mention this in the lead paragraph, because while incidental, it is noteworthy for at least a couple of reasons.

Firstly, if - as in this case - an article isn't about language change in general, but nevertheless contains a specific instance, that specific instance is noteworthy, because is by such means that data accumulates for people to study.

Secondly, there will certainly be people who, upon encountering different spellings of the same name, may find it a bit confusing. What is obvious to some people is not obvious to all people, for various reasons. To those readers, we owe an explanation, which is taken care of in a single, simple sentence with citation.

As I say, I thought to create the sentence myself, and am happy to do so. However, the citation I have is an incidental one - using both spellings (Brattleborough, and Brattleboro') on the same page - rather than one specifically dealing with the nameing of Brattleboro nee Brattleborough.

Does a more appropriate citation - dealing specifically with the naming - exist? I don't know, but I do expect so, as it is definitely impossible that I'm the first to notice. So if anyone can find and add such a citation, I reckon it would be handy.Wotnow (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow[reply]

 Done Added citation from those already listed.Wotnow (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow[reply]
P.s. I've now corrected my misspelling of Brattleboro. Wotnow (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removed to here

[edit]

The following may perhaps belong in some political article somewhere, but not in the town/city article. GenQuest (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petition against Bush and Cheney On January 25, 2008, the town council by a 3-2 vote approved a petition to be placed on a March 4 ballot, calling for the indictment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for crimes against the United States Constitution. The petition reads: "Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities and shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?"[1]

The town council issued a statement on the petition, which the town voted on as a town meeting article on March 4, and passed.[2]

References

  1. ^ Vermont Anti-Bush Petition Sparks Anger, Associated Press, January 30, 2008.
  2. ^ Reuters (March 5, 2008). "Vermont Towns vote to arrest Bush and Cheney". Retrieved March 6, 2008. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)
[edit]

We seem to have a difference of opinion here about what belongs in the External links section of this article. It contained 8 items. After User:Student7 trimmed it back to include only 4 items (the official town website, the Open Directory category for Brattleboro, the Brattleboro Historical Society, and the Brattleboro entry in The New Student's Reference Work), User:Beyond My Ken restored the 4 links to the Chamber of Commerce, iBrattleboro.com, the newspaper, and the library, calling them "legit ELs". Student7's reasoning for the removals was: "[News]paper already in article. Library WP:UNDUE as discussed elsewhere. Rm online "newspaper" as WP:SPAM. WP:ELNO. Like any other news site, not that useful to the article. Encyclopedia, not a list of city websites."

It seems to me that Student7 was correctly interpreting WP:External links in the removal of those 4 links. Eight links seems like "too many". WP:NOTLINK urges us not to make Wikipedia look like a web directory, and [{WP:ELMAYBE]] suggests linking to the Open Directory to help resist the urge to create link farms. The first directive under WP:ELNO is "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." The four ELs in dispute are legitimate websites (not scams or commercial ads), but that's not enough to justify including them. I don't seem them supplementing the encyclopedic information content in the article. They provide useful information about Brattleboro, but the Open Directory link should satisfy that need.

I propose re-removing these four links. (I would have done so, except that doing so would look remarkably like an edit war.) I also confess to doubts about the Brattleboro Historical Society link, but I think that the photos there may be sufficient to make it a "unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Any objections to my re-removing those links? --Orlady (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in with a third opinion. I concur. Student7 (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I do not. Eight links do not constitute a link farm, and all of the links are legitimate connections to further sources of information, both official and semi-official. To interpret WP:NOTLINK in this manner appears to me to be straying into WP:BURO territory. Our aim should always be to do what's best for our readers, and not to "edit to the checklist". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is related to the specific guidelines of WP:External links in addition to the broader policy of WP:NOTLINK. Sorry that you find guidelines to be bureaucratic, but guidelines like that one help maintain the integrity of content. --Orlady (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are just that, a guide to editors. They are not policy, and are not required to be followed strictly with no deviation. To do that entirely erases the distinction between guidelines and policy -- if the community wanted to make our guidelines into policy, they would have done so, and there would be no deviation from them. They have no done so, which means that they remain a guide to editing, and not a requirement.

If there is nothing inherently wrong with these links -- and there isn't -- then removing them simply because of what a guideline says is being overly bureacratic. We don't edit to the guideline, we edit to the benefit of our readers. Since nothing negative has been brought forward about these specific links, they should stay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have a consensus, about as much as we're going to get. For the record, I did not WP:CANVASS Orlady for comments. She is a highly respected (and most importantly) neutral editor. I suggest researching her qualifications (and neutrality) before taking further action. At this point, without unsolicited support for the WP:ELNO and other links that appear superfluous, they must be removed without reversion. Please adhere to guidelines in this matter, at least. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I beleive you are mistaken, there is no determination of consensus based on the small sample size here. I've reverted back to the status quo ante until an actual consensus is established. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, I believe you may be confusing guidelines with essays in your above comments. As Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states, policies set out the basic standards, and guidelines outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Guidelines have been established by consensus and are broadly applicable; we should not have to have discussions to reach local consensus on whether the guidelines apply to a particular article. The first item under WP:ELNO (the one that says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article") has been in the WP:EL guideline since before I knew even that guideline existed. Your argument that the news sites and the websites for the Chamber of Commerce and library are legitimate websites does not provide anything close to a compelling reason for ignoring a long-standing consensus-based Wikipedia guideline. Accordingly, I am reverting your edit. --Orlady (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your belief about my "confusion" is incorrect, and your understanding of the difference between guidelines and policies is faulty. Guidelines have indeed been agreed to by consensus, but to be exactly what their name says they are, a guide to editing. Despite your claim otherwise, they are quite clearly and obviously non-mandatory, while policies are mandatory. Your misguided desire to interpret a guideline as mandatory turns it into a policy. If you want that to be the case, I suggest that you start a discussion on WP:VPP. In the meantime, guidelines are, and remain, guidelines, and are not to be construed as mandatory. As an admin, you might want to have a better handle on stuff like this, since your misunderstanding could conceivably lead to faulty administrative decisions on your part.

In this specific case, all the links satisfy the requirement of WP:ELNO, so I am restoring them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you suppose that Wikipedians would have bothered to go though the process of reaching consensus on guidelines -- and even having guidelines -- if contributors treat them as optional? (And what is it that makes you insist that your position is right even when no one else agrees with it?)
Rather than let you drag me into an edit war, I've posted at WP:External links noticeboard to get additional attention to this page. --Orlady (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded there. Editors reach a consensus on guidelines to make them guidelines, not policies. It's much harder to get approval for a policy - just look at WP:BRD, which is an essay which is as close to a de facto policy as we've got, yet it's never passed the policy-approval process. If you want a guideline to be made mandatory, start that policy-approval process for it, it cannot make it mandatory by fiat.

I've taken this article off my watchlist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who routinely removes inappropriate external links from articles on various cities, I have to say I cannot imagine there being a problem with links to a public library, a newspaper (as long as it's a recognized, established news source and not a start-up tabloid or something), or a local historical society. In fact, the only way such links would be inappropriate would be if they included no useful content that was beyond the proper scope of the article. The chamber of commerce link is a tougher call; I'd be inclined not to include it but I suppose a case could be made. Unless there's something I'm missing, I believe Beyond My Ken is correct on both the general matter of guidelines versus policies and the specific way WP:EL should be applied here. Rivertorch (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After viewing the sites in question, I think the library and the newspaper definitely belong in the article. The library site contains some useful information, as well as explanation of the useful information available by visiting the library or requesting an interlibrary loan. As a Vermonter, I can tell you stories from the Brattleboro Reformer are frequently quoted and discussed by other Vermont newspapers, Vermont Public Television, and Vermont Public Radio. The iBrattleboro.com cite seems to depend on user contributions, and I don't know if any fact-checking is performed on these contributions, so I'd be inclined to leave that one out. I've never heard iBrattleboro.com mentioned in any other media. The web sites of chamber of commerce and historical society seem to have a marginal amount of information, although if one were to contact either of these organizations I imagine they would have useful information to offer, so I'm undecided about those two sites. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That "useful information" reasoning is appropriate logic for creating a web directory -- like the Open Directory, which has 207 useful links for Brattleboro. This is an encyclopedia, though. The Brattleboro Reformer newspaper is the subject of a separate article, which is appropriately linked in this article, and which has an external link to the newspaper website. There should be no particular need to list it as an external link in this article, too. Information about library hours, location, and interlibrary loan services does not impress me as information that belongs in an encyclopedia (see WP:NOT); this article could include some information about the local public library (it might even be separately notable), in which case its website could be cited as a reference. Similarly, I see that this article has at least 11 external links outside the EL section; most probably relate to topics that would belong in an FA-class article about Brattleboro, but the websites should be cited references, not ELs. --Orlady (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that links are not necessary in article for reasons Orlady discusses. Have seen much worse external links but these are still not needed here. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest town in Vermont?

[edit]

The page refers to Brattleboro as the oldest town in the state with a charter dating to 1853. I just happened to notice the page for Westminster lists it as the oldest town with a charter dating to 1835. Maybe there is some dispute as to what constitutes a town or a charter to which I am not privy, but the inconsistency cannot stand as is. Westminster claims an older charter and has citations backing it up, so I am removing the claim to Brattleboro on this page. If I am wrong to have done so please correct me with a citation that at the least raises a factual debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nj27 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your change since no citation was provided to show Brattleboro is the oldest. However, it was chartered in 1753, not 1853. I will add a citation to the date in the infobox. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Typo on my part. But Westminster likewise is 1735, so the point remains the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nj27 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brattleboro, Vermont. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brattleboro, Vermont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Brattleboro, Vermont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brattleboro,_Vermont&oldid=1220452753"