User talk:Ungtss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crazy Eddie debate | General notes | Guidelines

Contents

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Creationism2. Thank you. — Xiong熊talk* 10:08, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:FeloniousMonk#creation_science

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum / don't let the bastards grind you down

Sam Spade 19:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, man -- they can't beat what they can't understand:). Ungtss 21:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
A warning — Do not call me a bastard again. That is, unless you enjoy finding yourself explaining to the powers that be how your doing so does not violate WP:Civility. FeloniousMonk 07:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism and evolution

Have you talked to anyone about the Creationism and Evoultion NPOV Society? I really haven't. I just posted links on two people's talk pages (User:Salva31 and User:Barnaby dawson). Can't say I've done much lately. I have been busy. What about you? Mred64 01:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

not much ... things have been quiet on creationism pages lately ... i think most people are doing finals for school. either that or they're out enjoying life:). Ungtss 01:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Haha. I saw someone else post that. However, I can do a lot in a few weeks though. Mred64 03:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] creation science revision talk page

I have added a page to discuss the proposed changes to creationist science. The link i sin the Creation Science talk page.


[edit] theory of everything

(moved from Talk:Intelligent design, because it was too big --DavidCary 07:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) )

As to the ToE (which certainly WOULD gain ID some credibility:) -- what do you think of the Spinning ring model for subatomic particles -- i.e. protons + electrons [1] -- some creationists are arguing that it's a ToE, but i don't know enough about physics to properly evaluate their claims -- is this junk science? Ungtss 15:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In one word, Yes. Its stuff I (as an engineering student) can expirementally disprove. Also, I'm not really sure that it is at all relevent to this article.TheAT 16:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

definitely not relevent to this article ... i was just wondering if someone might have some insight into WHY it's wrong? if not here, at my talkpage, if you're interested at all:). thanks:). Ungtss 16:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's not relevant to that article. I'm curious as to how one would disprove this theory ? The first thing that comes to my mind is that it seems to predict that protons in the nucleus of an atom would come flying apart, which clearly doesn't happen in real life. (Or did I miss something?) --DavidCary 07:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


As for the physics article you linked to, it's very bad. I'll try to be brief, but to answer their points in order: 1)There are deep questions about the mutual resolution of general relativity with quantum mechanics, but the article oversimplifies them. String theory is one proposed resolution of the conflict. It and a few competitors are being seriously considered by physicists, but the mathematics necessary for the theory are extremely complex, and experimental tests stretch modern technology. Simple tests have been done, and string theory passes these without trouble. More sophisticated tests are gradually coming within our reach, such as the search for the Higgs boson, but full-bore experiments to test predictions about the gray area between gravity (a theory about big things) and quantum mechanics (a theory about small things) is likely to be beyond our capabilities for a few decades at least. 2) The article includes the line "Our approach integrates a deformable physical model with its self-field." That's not revolutionary, or even informative. Every theory of gravity or quantum currently available does that. 3) The article says Maxwell's electromagnetic theory led to computers, among other things. Yes, but only in conjunction with quantum mechanics. Transistors use quantum effects. 4) The "Principle of Unity" section is reasonable, although there are some slight oversimplifications. 5) The article calls Einstein's description of space as a physical entity a bad idea and derides his assumption that inertial mass equals gravitational mass. The two ideas are linked, and have been tested numerous times via the Cavendish torsion bar experiment and modern analogues, observations of Mercury's orbit, deflections of starlight by solar gravity, and the operation of the GPS satellites. 6) The article says quantum theory assumes fundamental discreteness. This isn't right. Quantum particles are distributed probabilistic wave functions. 7) The article also says "In Einstein's Relativity, space is passive; but in Quantum Theory, space and Nature are actively creating and controlling" various processes. The distincition between active and passive forces / particles isn't normally made in physics. If something exists, it has effects on other objects. Moreover, Einstein's spacetime pushes objects around (that's gravity), so it seems misleading to call it passive. 8) "The Discrete and the Continuous" is misleading, oversimplified, and wrong. Resolving quantum with gravity is expected to be difficult - possibly beyond human comprehension, but not fundamentally impossible. 9) The article next uses its fallacious conflation of quantum mechanics with point particles to say quantum is incompatible with a host of observed phenomena. The actual quantum theory is compatible with all of the items listed, but a detailed accounting of the mathematics involved requires a graduate course in physics, (a course which I've taken, by the way.) 10) Halfway through the article, the author introduces a miniature wire loop as a model for an electron. The model has numerous problems, since it doesn't provide a good explanation for observed tunnelling, quantum teleportation, or the observed successes of relativity. I could go on (I only made it halway through), but... that's more than enough for rambling on talk::inteligent designSMesser 17:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks:). Ungtss 18:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Hi Ungtss. I am up for adminship. Since we have not had the best of interactions, I feel it only right that I let you know in case you want to oppose my nomination. Guettarda 16:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monotheism

Hi, Ungtss I made some changes to the monotheism article and its expression in Hinduism.

Please take a look. Raj2004 09:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)==Talk== I moved User_talk;_Ungtss/Rapid_bending_granite (article namespace) to User_talk:Ungtss/Rapid_bending_granite (user talk namespace) and deleted the resulting redirect. -- User:Docu

[edit] Creationism and Evolution

Hey. I know we haven't talked in a while, but I realized something. I can't find any articles on Creationism or evolution that need a lot of help, particularly with POV. Or at least I haven't seen any templates popping up. So what should we do with our little group? I mean, its wonderful when people work it out, but our group has no purpose now. Should we still tell people we think would do good, so we can be ready in case nasty edit wars and POV pushing starts to happen? Just wondering. Thanks. Mred64 04:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

i think you're right ... things have improved a great deal lately:). perhaps the little group should be put on the back burner until such time as it becomes necessary (and may we all hope it never does:). Peace:). Ungtss 00:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 00:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Science

Scientists have gone on record saying their most important objective in the creation-evolution debate is to not allow a redefinition of the word "science". ANY theory relying on redefining science is a psudo-science and should be labeled so. If you wish to argue that creationism isn't a psudo-science, Science is the place to have (and lose) that argument. Personally, I think most of the arguments between the two camps are are epistemological (nature of knowledge) arguments that science is a process that does not lead to creationist ideas versus ontological (belief or knowledge of existence) arguments trying to justify redefining the axioms of science to include an additional axiom such that the existence of God beomes a conclusion of this newly defined concept of science. The two sides talk past each other mostly. Scientists (real ones) who believe in God typically understand that things can exist without also being scientifically justifyable. I am an atheist myself (used to be a Christian) but science is by definition objective, and does not even pretend to encompass subjective truths that lack objective verification. The subjective experience of conciousness for example can only be dealt with scientifically with objectively verifyab;e correlates (Who claims to be concious and when. What brain activity occurs at the times. and so on.) Noone knows what data is left out of science due to its self defined limits, but to the extent that data is ever able to generate useable predictions, that data becomes part of science itself. Science is therefore the sum of verified objectively useful data. Other nonscientific beliefs such as belief in God can be and are subjectively useful. How real that makes the belief is debateable. 4.250.201.166 8 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)

i respectfully dissent:). the question of whether the recorded events of creation occurred is distinct from the question of whether their study is "scientific." if they happened, then our definition of science must be expanded to allow for the study of those events. if they did not happen, then science is responsible to both explain why they did not happen, and what happened instead. but to exclude creation as "unscientific" from the get go is a fundamentally anti-scientific attitude, because it excludes the theoretical possibility of creation on the basis that it conflicts with the dogmas of atheistic religion:). i oppose dogmatism in all its forms, particularly when it attempts to hijack science. evolution in the hands of the ignorant is precisely one of those dogmas. i am not opposed to those who ascribe to evolution, nor to those who study it and earnestly believe it to be true. i am opposed to those who through absurd rhetoric and political games seek to exclude their ideological opponents on the basis of arbitrary philosophical assumptions -- particularly the assumption of materialism. Ungtss 02:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Personal attacks? Where?

rv erroneous edit by an editor who would be in danger of rfc for his personal insults in edit summaries but her his popular ideology. not all scholars hold that view, despite wishes to the contrary.

hokay, where do you see the personal insult in this? Also, I don't hold a "popular ideology". Science is not an ideology. Project2501a 01:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
your edit comments, sir, are a string of cutesy comments about telling creationists "thanks for playing but please go home and read some gould." it's unnecessary, sarcastic, and insulting. your refusal to acknowledge your ideology (thinking it Truth) is characteristic of ideologues, i'm afraid. i have no beef with you. i'm just tired of thought control and sarcastic and insulting remarks against creationists in edit comments. please stop. thanks. Ungtss 03:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious persecution by...

You might want to check these out. crazyeddie 17:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD pollution

Ril enlisted Persecution by Muslims for VfD again, just 24 hours after the article withstood the first VfD. You might be interested to watch it. [2] --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Bensaccount

Go ahead with the RFC and send me the link when you're done. You can use his most recent edits on Creation science as further evidence. Specifically, [3] and more damningly, [4]. -- BRIAN0918  15:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what an RFC is, but if it reprimands rogue editors, I'm all for it! I would also call editors who describe another as a dumbass rogues. RossNixon 20:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Serious, serious issues. -- BRIAN0918  21:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support on this one:). i'm going to make a few last efforts to resolve the dispute with him ... see how he responds ... if positively, we can skip it. if negatively as expected, we can move forward:). Ungtss 14:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#FeloniousMonk. --goethean ॐ 17:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] reverted

Sorry. I just reverted your edit on the ontology/methodology page. supernaturalism refers to material/nonmaterial. how it is understood is a function of methodology. whetehr it exists is a function of ontology. I would like to keep the distinction natural/supernatural separate from ontologocal and methodological. I think what you were talking about would be the two possbilities of methodlogical supernaturalism versus ontologocical supernaturalism. maybe you could put it there? or down in the quote section? FuelWagon 15:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Karma in Hinduism

Ungtss, I made more changes to Karma in Hinduism. Please take a look.

Thanks,

Raj2004

I made more changes.

Raj2004 23:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the acknowledgement. FuelWagon 21:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Omnipotence and Mormonism

There is no Mormon reference that thoroughly describes omnipotence. So, I do not have a reference that Mormonism implies omnipotence in the sense that it is described in the omnipotence article. That is why I stated that it may be "implied" from Mormonism...based on my comprehensive familiarity of Mormon theology. At most I could round up several Mormon references that allude to omnipotence and then delineate the reason(s) why Mormonism implies omnipotence in such a way, but I don't have any interest in doing that at this point. —B|Talk 22:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the {twoversions} template is up for TfD again

FYI, the {twoversions} template is up for deletion again: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Twoversions. zen master T 19:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV - Got your back

Got your back... I got the same problem with the same user at Sons of Noah that he unilaterally renamed to a different subject and filled with similar POV, unfortunately it is now locked on his version, pending discussion of the facts...! ፈቃደ 20:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

And now he's just messed up the article Tabal... He has absolutely no citation for claiming that the Tabali were known as "Jubal" but keeps reverting... ፈቃደ 20:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

it never ends with them, does it? adam is a fiction, but lilith is a fact:(. Ungtss 20:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

A few points

  • The citation for Tabal is a 3000yo stone inscription in the Luwian alphabet and language, in an anatolian village (commonly referred to as "information you would rather didn't exist, and choose to ignore").
  • Lilith is recorded in babylonian and Akkadian texts predating the bible. Adam isnt.
  • I was under the impression that stalking another users behaviour was inappropriate behaviour.

--User talk:FDuffy 21:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

1) you don't know what predates the bible, because you don't know when the bible was written.
2) stalking another user's behavior may be inappropriate, but stalking inappropriate behavior is always appropriate.
3) i know nothing about tabal, but i know that when views collide, npov requires all views to be presented. Ungtss 21:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
1) Yes we do because the bible is written in a language that didn't even exist when some Sumerian texts were written. Additionally, even if Moses did write the bible, this would place it at 1700BC at the earliest. Some Sumerian texts date to circa 3000BC.
2) is a partial oxymoron.
3) Indeed, so both views should be present.
--User talk:FDuffy
1) first, you don't know when hebrew originated. the bible could have been written in hebrew long before sumerian texts. second, it is entirely possible that the bible was translated into hebrew from some earlier language, just as it was translated from hebrew into other languages later on. that doesn't mean the substance of it did not originate earlier;
2) i'm aware of no oxymoron there. if one's interest is in preventing inappropriate edits, one is not stalking a person, but inappropriate edits;
3) good. then we're agreed. Ungtss 21:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
1) No it could not. One reason is that it cannot possibly have contained an account of Joseph, Moses, and the flight from Egypt, before it had actually happened. Even the earliest estimates do not put these events before most Sumerian texts.
You're assuming that Genesis was not based on the compilation of earlier, historical accounts. You don't know that. Genesis as we have it was obviously written after Joseph, but it could well have been a summary of more ancient written accounts. you simply don't know.
Secondly, the bible contains several Jewish puns (X shall call him Y because Z where Z is an etymology for Y), such as the names of individuals - Israel for one.
I'm afraid I don't see how this means anything. If I say, "You will call your daughter Faith because she will be a woman of great faith," that doesn't mean it was written at one time or anyother.
These simply do not work except in certain languages at certain stages in the history of the language. For example, any jokes or stories connecting the word Bridegroom to horses or grooming will obviously be from after the norman conquest, since the word actually is Bride-man with groom being a corruption of an archaic word for man that only appeared, as a folk etymology, once the original word had dropped out of the language at some point no earlier than 1066AD.
And can you provide an instance of these "later appearing folk etymologies" occuring in biblical Hebrew?
Similarly if X is named Y because Z involves Z as an etymology for Y that works in language A but not language B, you can be fairly certain that language A is more likely the original.
Is there an instance of this in Biblial Hebrew to support your argument?
This is one of the reasons that we know, for example, that most of the bible was not simply translated word for word from Akkadian. Conversely, it is the reason that people have suggested that the story of Eve being created from Adam's rib was originally derived from the Sumerian story involving Ninti and the rib of Enki (rather than vice-versa) - Ninti means both lady of living, partly the same meaning as Eve has in Hebrew, and lady of the rib - a pun that works only in Sumerian as the Hebrew word for rib is entirely different.
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here. Can you clarify? Ungtss 05:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
2) If you don't like someone's edits you can view them as inappropriate and thus stalk them as inappropriate edits. This contradicts not stalking people's edits.
Again, if one editor's edits are consistently inappropriate (and i'm not saying whether or not yours are), then there is no way to distinguish between "stalking an editor" and "stalking bad edits" beause you are simply "stalking an editor's bad edits." Ungtss 05:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
--User talk:FDuffy 23:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

To Francis Duffy:

1) If your citation for Tabal is the stone itself, it's interesting that you can't come up with a valid citation in any book to support your view (this probably should not be discussed here)
2) Your ideas about when the Bible was written are pure POV
3) Who is stalking whom? I haven't seen any stalking, but Adam and Eve has been on my watchlist for a long time. ፈቃደ 21:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Noah's flood in chinese.JPG

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Noah's flood in chinese.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Tabor 19:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Corrected -- thank you. Ungtss 05:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acharya S

If you want a laugh, you might want to check out Acharya S. I'm trying to smooth the waters there. I wouldn't advise actually joining in. The pro-Acharyans are so paranoid and bigoted against Christians that I'm having troubles convincing them that I'm not part of the "Christ Conspiracy". Not sure what they do if an actual Young Earth Creationist joined in. I just now figured out what Acharya's thesis was - the dispute has been so heated that nobody has actually got around to it till now. I haven't updated the article, but you can read what I found out here: Talk:Acharya_S#Finished_reading_the_criticisms crazyeddie 18:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow -- thanks for the tip:). That's quite a thesis they've got going there, and they're certainly ... um ... passionate about their beliefs:). I think you're right, tho, I'll stay out of it. Good efforts trying to calm things down! Ungtss 04:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
And glad tidings to thee, sir. --Rednblu 06:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

  1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
  2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
  3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BDAbramson T 02:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calvinistic theodicy

Hi, I noticed you were the first user to merge in the section 'Calvinistic theodicy' from 'the problem of evil' article, so I have a question. Where does the analogy about the boy being held down by a man (who turns out to be his father) and having metal pieces put in his eyes originally come from?

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CreationWiki

As a contributor to the page CreationWiki, I feel it fair to warn you that it has been nominated for deletion. Please make your opinion known. PrometheusX303 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Sandstone_plume.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Sandstone_plume.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Liger.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Liger.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject FACTS/FAQ

Just for your information, any page which claims to be a WikiProject must meet two criteria to qualify as active and/or not be at least eligible for deletion. They must have had some project-related activity in the past 3 months, and they must have at least one active member. Right now, the page specified above has no members. You might want to add your name. Badbilltucker 19:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject FACTS/FAQ

This is to advise you that the above referenced project page is currently being considered for deletion in accord with wikipedia policy. Please feel free to follow the links on the project page to participate in the discussion. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ohchildren.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ohchildren.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Columbian tumbaga ornament.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Columbian tumbaga ornament.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 05:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Createdkinds.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Createdkinds.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 05:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/g/User_talk%7EUngtss_7624.html"