User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

See also User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 1 and User talk:Fred Bauder

Contents

[edit] Law?

Fred, I agree with your comments on Talk:Law. Somehow that page has lost a lot of focus. It has become a dumping ground for stuff that should go in other articles. I will try and do my best to get a look at it now and then, the problem is that there are so many articles on list of legal topics now that it is hard to keep up with all the changes, some of which are good, and some that are not. BTW, do you know if there is any market/dealers for antique French legal encyclopedias and other French legal tomes? It is one of my areas of interest. Alex756 07:00, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] states and nations

I get so easily confused and distracted...

Initially I reacted against one notion of nations for states/countries in the Bush doctrine article. Then I lost my focus when I started to re-arrange the introduction... ;-<<

Nice to see that someone else cares about the distinction!
--Ruhrjung 12:55, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilegal

Wikilegal-l is a new mailing list dealing with legal issues. You can sign up for it here. Regards,-戴&#30505sv 06:35, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)


[edit] EncycloZine

Hi Fred, in case you hadn't noticed, there is a vote going on at Talk:List of encyclopedias that you may be interested in concerning the placement of EncycloZine in the article. Angela 23:55, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Main page

I have no problem with Donora, Pennsylvania being on the main page. However, when you added it, you extended the horizontal length of the text, and thus, on 800x600 screens, the first line extended into two. Please check that it fits the page before you hit submit.

If you're using windows xp (like I am), rt click on desktop, select display mode, etc. --Jiang 20:24, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

On the whole communism thing - I'm sorry, but there's nations like Laos that have implemented commumism without totalitarianism. -- Pakaran 04:56, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] =====

You seem to have removed a very good article on Truth replacing it with a rather bad one by 142.177.11.23.


dbu

[edit] Main Page

Please do not put any context-sensitive item on the Main Page without making sure the context is in that article. For example, there is no link to a recent day page on Russian Revolution. --mav 19:04, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adolph is not a misspelling. It was a very common transliteration, from the war period, which is still occasionally used today. Lirath Q. Pynnor

The sentences I added to social control were just merged from formal social control and informal social control, so you may be best to ask the original author (Nmatt) about this. The redirects do not have to stay permanently. It wasn't a decision that formal social control and informal social control can never be articles, just that at the time they were certainly not articles, and almost all the information in them (which was just a couple of lines), was already included in social control. I merged the small bit that was not already included, but as you said this may need to be removed anyway if it is not true. The content before I redirected can be found at [1] and [2]. It's just a temporary measure rather than deleting them. Angela. 14:09, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] liberal

Are you going to make liberal theology, now that you've changed the liberal link on Unitarian Universalist Association? UtherSRG 21:56, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Um.... making a blank page isn't any better. UtherSRG 22:00, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ok. Then write the article first, then fix the links. No sense leaving someone hanging with a blank article. UtherSRG 22:02, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. Liberal is a nice disambig page, with a general description of liberal. Someone surfing there from a religion page will get the notion of what liberal theology is. Once you have liberal theology written, then you can change the link. Specific is better than general, but both are better than blank!

[edit] communist government

Communist government is an oxymoron, you damned moron. Communism means the absence of any government, so how can you have a communist government? What countries do you speak of that described themselves as communist? You seem to be talking about the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. Yes, socialist, socialist, socialist, not communist. Try finding nomenclature outside of the New American.

[edit] NOTOC tag

The __NOTOC__ tag removes the table of contents. I do this whenever I see a TOC located towards the bottom half of the article, making the TOC both obstructive and mostly useless. --Jiang 22:13, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Hi, just saw Wikipedia:Matter of Theresa knott and Mr-Natural-Health - Thought you might want to add User:Snoyes/sandbox as a "see also" or for material. - snoyes 02:06, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please see my request for clarification on Wikipedia talk:Matter of Theresa knott and Mr-Natural-Health - snoyes 07:22, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fred, please don't keep reverting East Germany. If you have a problem with the article's language, please discuss it in talk. -- Infrogmation 23:14, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration: Wik, Heph, and me

Hi, I was hoping you could clarify what this arbitration is over. Am I a complaintant? I didn't know anything about this until just now. Thanks. Anthony DiPierro 18:02, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Logo license

Could you add licensing information to Image:Wikiowl.gif, please? FDL would be preferred.—Eloquence 06:42, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] organising evidence

Hi Fred, I'm not sure if there is a precedent for how to best organise the evidence I want to present in the matter of Irismeister's arbitration. I see you've started the page organised by pages he's worked on. I was planning on organising it by accusation (i.e. a few examples of rudeness, followed by a few examples of POV edits, etc). Do you mind if I shuffle your contributions around, and/or is there a particulat way to organise the page that will be most helpful to the arbitrators? Cheers, fabiform | talk 14:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC).

[edit] Colorado Mineral Belt

What do you think about the Colorado Mineral Belt? The user who created it really spread it around with great prominence. Granted I'm from Larimer County, but that term barely registers with me. Is it something you have heard a lot? -- Decumanus 15:39, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I guess I'd heard the term but only rarely, but it certainly has local currency if you're familiar with it. -- Decumanus 00:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, you've got me curious. Why is Cripple Creek not considered a part of the CMB? -- Decumanus 07:08, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] AC votes

When you have a moment, could you vote in the matter of Plautus satire? --mav

[edit] CPUSA

Could you see my question about your recent edit to this article (question is on its talk page). Assuming you agree with me that your wording is unclear, you can just clarify in the article. -- Jmabel 18:05, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

YOu seem to have a good number of sources on the CPUSA and communist parties in general, what are your sources?TDC 14:21, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you !

Fred, thank you for the considerate, fair and to-the-point vote in my "case". Probably yours is a privilege of experience and age. Highly appreciated. Whether or not I am a "nutcase" (maybe I am :O) is a matter of character. While calling me a lier in writing is a matter of fact, my insistance on matters of truth is also a matter of fact. I see in your vote and sensible, finely tuned ponderation that you are one of the happy few who still consider issues before characters. In time, the play and the playwrite become something far more interesting and lasting than the dramatis personnae, who change names, appearance, and sometimes even camps :O) - Thus spoke reason. Please rest assured I am not intimidating anyone! I cherish, want and NEED justice. I want the editing game to be fair. I want excuses from those who maintain in writing that I am a "lier". These should be addressed in writing by perpetrators of well qualified libel against a practicing medical doctor. However, they must be put in writing in front of the Wiki community - for they dishonored the spirit of truth. I don't want them for me - I am not important. Truth is. Yours, sincerely - irismeister 09:41, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)

Oh, Fred - thank you for setting the record straight. Justice, from iustitia means getting things iusti - right. Menaces are only petty substitutes, are a feeble character's substitute for right, and never get a correction, even if they intend to. Justice is reparation, is not a menace. If I said to someone stop doing unjust things or face justice, this is anything but menace. I am happy you made the difference. Really appreciated! - irismeister 17:44, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

[edit] BJAODN

Hola. You are a lawyer so you should know what to do with this: Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense and all BJAODN pages must be deleted immediatelly because it violates the GNUFDL license: When a user creates a new article or submits an edit, he owns the copyright and agrees to publish it under GFDL, which requires attribution. That's why Wikipedia has page historyes. The history of a page is the attribution which assures us that Wikipedia is in legal compliance with GNUFDL. If someone thinks the edit is nonsense, it is deleted and its contents are being transfered to Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense by copy and paste. But this is illegal! It destroyes the page history and fails to provide attribution, so badly needed by GNUFDL. At this time Wikipedia has collected a vast amount of content which IS of interest to many people (someone could write a dissertation discussing the nonsense being written in Wikipedia) and FAILS to provide proper attribution to the original author and copyright holder. For these reasons, nonsense pages must not be copied-pasted but moved into a separate namespace, keeping the page historyes. Administrator 23:08, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] You've got mail!

I have followed all the arbitrations and I believe that you wanted to ban permanently everybody. Being that you were a lawyer, that position should be expected. I once personally appealed a case to the Court of Appeals in Virginia. It took slightly over one year to do. Why do Lawyers and Judges like to yell and scream so much in court? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:29, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reformatting

Thanks for fixing my inadvertant page-widening copy-paste from Jimbo! Cheers! The Trolls of Navarone 19:28, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Communist state

I moved your section to Communism article: ths place is more logically proper (comparison of ideology vs. ideology, not ideology vs. state); and there it will have more visibility. Mikkalai 00:32, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oil for food allegations

TDC, the guy who recently asked you if you thought you would "try and suck your own dick" created a new disgusting article. I put it on vote for deletion: [3] Get-back-world-respect 00:11, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I saw you already warned TDC for suggesting someone "try and suck your own dick." Directly afterwards he answered 172 about an edit war "believe you me that you have met in TDC the biggest most stubborn prick on the face of planet earth, and I will not stop until your stomach churns with bile at the site of [TDC]." Now he addresses my concerrns about the neutrality of an article he contributed to by writing "If your hero gets a little dirty GBWR, then there is not alot I can do to soothe your bruised and enraged ego." [4] What to to with such an abuser? Get-back-world-respect 11:39, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] hu/user:bdk

I have told you to use email. user_talk won't do any good. He doesn't check wikipedia anymore, for obvious reasons. I looked up his email, it is <ballak(*)wap·hu>. Good luck. --grin 08:01, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet history

Fred,

I did not remove anything of substance when editing your addition to History of Russia and the Soviet Union (1917-1927). The article cited Cheka's liquidation of disloyal elements among the Bolsheviks, the remnants of the ancien regime, the landowners, the Cossacks, the Mensheviks, etc. during the Civil War in both your revision and in mine afterwards, which was a mere copyedit. My changes where wholly stylistic. Of course, the Bolsheviks didn't call this policy "the Red Terror." When you didn't put "Red Terror" within quotation marks it prefaced things from the vantage point of the groups who were using this term. It suggests that we're siding with the Whites, rather than objectively studying the dynamics of a multi-sided power struggle. Stylistically, your changes were fine without needed modifications for just about anything but a neutral encyclopedic entry, where we must avoid normative biases in both substance and tone.

I would've worked the term "Red Terror" into the text somehow, but I decided that it could wait since it wasn't linked to any existing article. 172 22:01, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Soviet history articles need a great deal of work overall, especially on the Russian Civil War era. I suppose that either of us will get around to the Bolsheviks' consolidation of power sooner or later. 172 22:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration notes

Wikipedia talk:Possible misuses of sysop rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Stewartadcock&diff=2371087&oldid=2368180

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-April/012170.html

[edit] Paul Vogel's Banning and Censorship

Dear Fred,

This is Steve? and his "ilk's" doing.

"From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud@...> Subject: Re: Paul Vogel's anti-Semitism Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:44:26 +0000


Believe it or not, it is best to request mediation on this matter with him, although I would vote to accept this matter for arbitration as it sits now (although I know certain other arbitrators would not).

Fred


From: "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste-GtutR9TLYbWHXe+LvDLADg <at> public.gmane.org> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA <at> public.gmane.org> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:04:58 -0400 To: wikien-l-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA <at> public.gmane.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel's anti-Semitism


Paul Vogel has been adding an anti-Semitic link to the Judaism page. I explained in detail on the talk page why I think this is inappropriate, and I deleted the link. Although some other users believe that such a link is acceptable as long as it is clearly identified, I think if Wikipedia is going to have any links to anti-Semitic material it should be on the anti-Semitism page.

In any event, after I explained why I deleted the link, Vogel responded, "Any hue and cry of "anti-semitism" or "nazism" etc. ad nauseum for such a link is not relevant, if one is being hypocritical in actually allowing similar pov and slanderous links on cosmotheism, or any other religion, within Wiki articles.-PV " -- a response that ignored my explanation entirely.

I replied, "I am not "allowing" slanderous links on the cosmotheism page. Two rights do not make a wrong. If you have a problem on another site, seek mediation -- don't take out your frustrations here."

And then Vogel made clear the anti-Semitic logic by which problems on the cosmotheism page are really "Jewish" problems: "Aren't you? Each one of those 4 slanderous POV articles and each one linked as "criticisms" on the cosmotheism page have been written by "Jews", and you have not ever protested and ever insisted upon their actual "removal" have you? The problem is on THIS SITE, WIKIPEDIA. The lying hypocrisy of your own "ilk" is responsible for this nonsense, and so it actually is YOUR OWN PROBLEM. Unfortunately, there is no effective medication for psychological projection on your and your own ilk's part, but, hope springs eternal!.-"

Do I need to explain my outrage? Vogel doesn't identify the people working on the cosmotheism as wikipedians but as "Jews." He doesn't identify me as a wikipedian but solely as a "Jew." And because I am a Jew, he holds me responsible for what other "Jews" have done on another site.

This use of "Jew" as a slur; the identification of my "ilk" as hypocrites, reeks of anti-Semitism. If this itself does not merit banning, I certainly think some strong action should be taken.

Thanks,

Steve


Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701"

You know that he has falsely tried to have me banned before, and there are ALWAYS at least TWO SIDES to every story.

It is clear that a cabal of censorous pov bigots have falsely accused me of being a "troll", "vandal", or of making "abusive comments" on some TalkPages, or of "breaking the 3-revert rule". This is psychological projection by a pov mob or ilk of lying hypocrites. I do request Sam Spade, to be my "advocate", and I also can provide evidence to demonstrate the fact that those here attempting to have me banned and to have me censored, are themselves "trolls", "vandals", and have themselves broken the 3-revert rule and have hurled "personal insults and have abused and used slanderous and false personal insults and "abusive comments" as their own stock in trade and in their own pov bigoted and biased campaign of "character assassination".-PV

[edit] Wik

Hello, you and I have something in common. We are both on Wik's list.

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion#April_28

Dmn 00:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Message

What do you want me to list under my heading-what does "request for relief" mean? GrazingshipIV 01:34, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

-Thanks for your prompt reply will do. GrazingshipIV 01:40, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Where would outside parties present evidence in support of their requests? -Tεxτurε 03:49, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Ummm why is Sam Spade adding comments to the part for "Paul Vogel" - Is not Paul supposed to enter his statement there. I do not see how we can have a true process unless the person in question makes a defense. GrazingshipIV 01:28, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User names

Thanks - I don't see any reason to block this account simply for having the word 'Troll' in it - see comments by Jimbo on this topic: Well, clearly a person might innocently and with no harmful intentions have a username which happens to contain the word 'troll', which is after all a perfectly normal word which has been hijacked by contemporary Internet slang. So clearly, a policy which says that people should be quickbanned just for that would be misguided at best. - Jimbo Wales. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 18:38, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I read the policy, and cannot see which category my username fits into - why could this possibly be offensive?


So let me understand your point. Anyone with a word in their username which a 'significant number of wikipedia users' claim is offensive, can be asked to change their name by anyone else? Aren't you kind of opening a Pandora's Box there? BTW, how many is significant? Thanks! Troll Silent, Troll Deep 20:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree - there seems to be no concensus about this. 'Troll' is clearly not an offensive word, and there is dispute about this within the admin Cabal. You can't unilaterily decide that a normal word is offensive just to facilitate your witchhunt. Distastefull, or not, from your point of view a good username, is not the same thing as offensive. Stop trolling and let people get on with writing. I am sure that you would not appreciate being asked to change your username because 'quite a few' people decided it was distasteful. Yours, Troll Silent, Troll Deep 21:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


Jimbo thought differently, and it certainly is an ordinary word, having over 12 different meanings. The fact that you have chosen to conduct a witchhunt is entirely divisive and a waste of everyones time. Please find something more productive to do - you have no mandate to decide these things, unless the Cabal has officially taken over. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 23:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Responses to User:Troll Silent, Troll Deep are on his talk page. I will consider myself bound in this matter by the decision at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JRR_Trollkien#Blocking_of_JRR_Trollkien Fred Bauder 13:34, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

There has never been a policy. A group of Admins have always behaved as if they could bully other users without consequence. When this issue (re usernames, which came to a head when Heph started banning people with names he didn't like) was raised with Jimbo, Jimbo stated that he did not believe that people should be banned for having the word 'troll' in them. You and a few of your goons started a kangaroo court to give yourselves this power despite Jimbo and many other's objections. Saying that you will be 'bound by this decision' is a little disigenous, since you are making it. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 15:28, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arb com stuff

Hi Fred, I write about the arbitration committee happenings for Wikipedia:Goings-on and I was trying to find out why you accepted "ChrisO and Levzur" on behalf of the arbitration committee when it had only got three votes in favour. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you did this without consulting the other members about what to do in the circumstances (the three recusals), and that you in fact went against policy (which requires four or more votes in favour). It's my understanding that there are 10 arbitrators, one of whom is having internet access problems. That means that a further three arbitrators could have still voted to hear or not hear the case. fabiform | talk 02:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

some fact finding is required. The only ban I know of is 172's

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paul_Vogel/Evidence#Block_log. Martin 17:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vogel

I believe 6 out of 10 have voted in favor of the ruling for Vogel, this would surpass the 50% necessary to implement the decision no? GrazingshipIV 04:28, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Right-wing"

Fred, could you please have a look at the recent edits to Right-wing politics and my comments in the talk page and maybe suggest to me how I should proceed? I really would like to dispute the recent edits, which I think are very POV, but I don't want to just start an edit war. The edits were so major -- and, in my view, so wrong -- that I don't know quite how to approach this appropriately. Should I raise a POV dispute, or what? (If you don't want to wade into this, just say so & I'll find someone else.) -- Jmabel 07:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with most of your suggestions about improving the article, and will hope to incorporate them, but my question is whether you have any ideas about how to proceed right now, especially about the deleted material, without simply having an edit war. -- Jmabel 17:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
So long as we are rid of the claim that fascism is part of the left, I'm basically OK with going from here. -- Jmabel 18:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Espionage

Fred, I wanted to get the ball rolling on something like this for quite soem time. I am talking about a series of articles divided by timeframe, and/or geography. I was wondering if you would like to help with this? TDC 14:40, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Of course, but subject to numerous other competing calls on my time. Fred Bauder 15:21, May 7, 2004 (UTC)


I will try and have something in a week or two. I would like to structure it much the same was as the History of the Soviet Union series is structured, with different time frames for different focuses (like Lenin, WW2, Early cold war etc...).
I will let you know when I have something
Cherio! TDC 17:24, May 7, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Vogel

Not sure but 66.81.66.243 may be Vogel. AndyL 16:06, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

The reason i think it might be vogel is the "POV Censorship" comment which strikes me as a Vogelism. I was hoping may administrators had access to more info other than just the IP addressAndyL 02:58, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration on JRR Trollkien

Hi. Please take a look, if you haven't recently, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien/Evidence. Also, please take a look at the discussion going on between Hephaestos, Mark Richards, and I on Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions, concerning the ban of Controlling Us. Heph and I are concerned that the Committee is currently taking the wrong approach and is missing an important opportunity to clarify current policy.

By focusing entirely on Trollkien's user name (which was never more than a peripheral issue) the Committee is missing the point, and ignoring the true nature of the complaint against him. He is not an "obvious troll" because of his name. That's merely a warning sign. He's an "obvious troll" because of edits like [5], in which he nominates a vandal account with only around 20 edits (Sayyed al afghani) for adminship. He even defended this action on the evidence page. Angela and I have put together an extensive documentation of such misbehavior there, but Heph and I worry that it is being ignored in favor of making a decision on a side issue.

I am not so much concerned about what happens to Trollkien (although I think he has earned a ban.) More importantly, we need clearer guidance on what is acceptable for admins. Controlling Us is an excellent example, having been blocked by Morwen for what I would call obvious trolling. I had thought the Quickpoll system was intended to solve these problem, but it was hijacked as an enforcement tool for the three revert rule, and has apparently been disconinued.

If the arbitration committee continues its glacial pace, and avoids the truly important questions before it, we risk a return of the vigilante justice that was occuring before the committee started.

Could you please share the concerns of Hephaestos and I with the Committee, and consider ruling 1) On whether JRR Trollkien is, in fact, a troll, and should be banned as such. and 2) on whether any of his actions constitute "obvious trolling" for which he could be blocked.

Thank you, Isomorphic 01:49, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Emergency, Mayday, Wiki Wiki

Mayday! Dear Fred, the WikiRepublic is in danger! Wikipolice make their coup d'êtat! Please add your voice and come help John here wiki wiki. Thank you ! - Yours, - irismeister 17:25, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Anti-French sentiment in the United States

There is no concensus to remove that section. I understand you are an arbitrator, and I don't want a conflict w you. On the other hand I feel you are failing to accept that their is not concensus to remove this portion, and that it is against policy to do so without such. For all I know you wrote the policy. I didn't know you were an arbitrator before coming here to your user page BTW, and will now severely limit my involvement in this in deference to your status. Sam [Spade] 19:23, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Have you reviewed Anti-American sentiment, Anti-gay slogan, List of ethnic slurs etc...? This page on france was setting no new precedents until this disagreement began. Sam [Spade] 20:23, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing debate

Please see both my comments and those of David Monniaux (sp.?) at Talk:Anti-French sentiment in the United States. I'd like to come to some agreement on how to include that information. Meelar 19:38, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/e/User_talk%7EFred_Bauder_Archive_2_7628.html"