User talk:James Kemp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

If you leave a comment here, I will reply to it here. You may wish to watch this page

Contents

[edit] Red Link indications

hey Jim. Just to let you know, a red link indicates that the page it links to doesn't exist. Z3da 9.2 02:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trident etc.

Varlagas 12:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Hi Jim. Just above the list it reads "The fifteen judges asked to give their advisory opinion regarding the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons were:" You had the Registar's details correct indeed, however the Registar was not one of the 15 judges, the list is supposed to contain. Aquilar Mawdsley (Venezuela) was the 15th judge, but he passed away 6 days before the hearings (see footnotes of Weeramantry's Dissenting Opinion). That is why we had an even number of judges (14), and a 7-7 split vote on point 2E of the dispositif necessitating the resorting to Bedjaoui's casting vote.

Varlagas: that's brilliant! Glad someone who knows what they're doing is editing the article. I was doign my best, and learning fast, but would have completely missed this detail - and probably others! --Jim (Talk) 12:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jim. I've left a comment at Talk:Trident missile -- actually two distinct points, sorry for making it overly complicated.

On another point, I removed one of the arguments for illegality at British replacement of the Trident system, specifically "The UN Charter, 1945, because the use of nuclear weapons would not be proportionate". My thinking is it doesn't make sense. Yes if the UK used nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state who had not used weapons of mass destruction, that would be disproportionate. However my understanding is that UK policy is only to use nuclear weapons (in either a full strategic attack or a tactical strike) only when a state has used or is threatening the use of weapons of mass destruction against UK interests, i.e. when it is a proportionate reponse. Any thoughts? Mark83 17:29, 21 December 2006

Well I didn't know about it either, but I thought to myself, surely legality is discussed on Nuclear weapons? It is not, but I found the link at the bottom of the page. Regarding WP:BB. I think you shouldn't worry. In my experience controversial edits implemented along the line of WP:BB only present a problem when someone is bold but is then totally intransigent to any changes of their contributions and/or is unwilling to engage in discussion and debate. From the way you've gone about discussing your proposed edits I really can't see a problem. And sorry for not signing the above. Mark83 19:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

James, I think this whole section is going to be out of place if you keep putting it on specific nation or system or weapon articles. It has its place in the general nuclear weapons article, certainly, but it's not relevant to the more specific ones. Applying it as a template to those articles is a mistake.

I intend to remove it from the United Kingdom WMD article, but will wait to give a chance for discussion prior to doing so. Georgewilliamherbert 18:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi George. The reason I've put it only on specific nation/weapon systems articles is to test the water. I felt that adding the template to all of the nuclear weapon articles would generate a huge amount of debate in one go, which would be difficult to deal with; I therefore added it to a few articles which I was most familiar with: because I'm based in the UK, these were mainly UK-based articles or articles that had a relationship with the UK such as Trident missile.
I fully intend(ed) to add the template to all of the nuclear weapons articles, as long as there were no substantial objections, as the ICJ Advisory Opinion applies to all nuclear weapons and I feel that the legality of these weapons is extremely notable. May I ask why you don't think the template is relevant to "more specific" nuclear weapons articles? Perhaps it is too long and gives too much detail; but I do think that some note of the legality of nuclear weapons should be placed on every article relating to a nuclear weapon. --Jim (Talk) 19:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jim. I see you added the template. I see you included the point about "The UN Charter, 1945, because the use of nuclear weapons would not be proportionate;". Do you disagree with my statement above (17:29, 21 December 2006) that I don't see how (the UK in this example) using nuclear weapons on a country which has used weapons of mass destruction on the UK is disproportionate? i.e. Is the use of nuclear weapons a catastrophe in any circumstance? Of course. Is it disproportinate? Absolutley not. Is it possible that in 1945 the UN saw it as disproportionate for the world's only nuclear power to use weapons on the rest of the world who had none?
Regarding the template in general. Having seen the result of your hard work I've come to the conclusion that I think a better discussion of illegality or otherwise would be good at nuclear weapon. My logic -- bare with me -- is that there are many articles on Wikipedia about cars. However only car describes the very general workings, practicalities and other issues in general. Whereas Ford Mondeo dispenses with generality and focuses on the specific workings, functions and attributes of that product. i.e. The sub-article does not discuss the general effect cars have had on society. Likewise I don't think every single nuclear weapon subarticle (of which there are many) should discuss the complex international legal arguments. Mark83 22:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mark. First things first: the rule of proportionality and the UN Charter. I didn't deliberately remove your removal of the UN Charter argument per se; I just replaced what had been written with Template:NuclearLegality. I intend the template to be followed by various caveats and explanations which detail the specific application of international law to a specific nuclear weapon (I stated this as a <!--comment--> in the main template page, but I guess that's not entirely obvious). Once I had added the template I had a little look for the UK government documents which relate to the use of Trident, but I couldn't find them. If you could point me in their direction then I will happily add information from them to the Trident article.
I should point out that the ICJ ruling was made in 1996 and only made reference to the UN Charter, which was admittedly written at a time when Russia had not yet carried out a test explosion of a nuclear weapon. I should also point out that the ICJ ruling makes reference not just to the use of nuclear weapons, but also to the threat of nuclear weapons. One relevant passage of the advisroy opinion is as follows:
“ These provisions do not refer to specific weapons. They apply to any use of force, regardless of the weapons employed. The Charter neither expressly prohibits, nor permits, the use of any specific weapon, including nuclear weapons.

The entitlement to resort to self-defence under Article 51 is subject to the conditions of necessity and proportionality. As the Court stated in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 94, para. 176): "there is a specific rule whereby self-defence would warrant only measures which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it, a rule well established in customary international law".

The proportionality principle may thus not in itself exclude the use of nuclear weapons in self-defence in all circumstances. But at the same time, a use of force that is proportionate under the law of self-defence, must, in order to be lawful, also meet the requirements of the law applicable in armed conflict which comprise in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. And the Court notes that the very nature of all nuclear weapons and the profound risks associated therewith are further considerations to be borne in mind by States believing they can exercise a nuclear response in self-defence in accordance with the requirements of proportionality.		 ”
It seems to me that the ICJ are referring to precisely what you are referring to; that technically nuclear weapons could be used in a retaliatory strike in such a way that the use would be proportional. So this would need to be added in the case of Trident (something along the lines of "the United Kingdom government has stated that it would only use Trident in response to an initial nuclear strike"). I do feel, however, that the UN Charter line should be kept in the template, since it is part of the ICJ advisory opinion. Also, the fact remains that the UK have (I think) used Trident as a threat against non-nuclear states such as Iraq in 1998 - I will look up the reference if you like. I think I also have some references which indicate that the UK government has stated it would consider use of Trident against non-nuclear states in certain situations - the defense of "strategic interests", for example.
As for your other point, regarding the use of the template, I agree in general (I do think the way the template is used at the moment is a little heavy-handed) but in terms of specifics I would take a different line. I don't think your analogy regarding cars is particularly helpful. Your analogy is helpful in the sense that to have a detailed explanation of the mechanics of Trident when the information exists already in the Nuclear weapon article would be overkill - although a section which gave some details about how Trident works, as a specific type of nuclear weapon, would be useful. However, there are two points I would like to raise as to whether specific nuclear weapons articles should contain information about their legality: firstly, a general reader of Wikipedia would probably not know about the ICJ advisory opinion, so if they read only the Trident missile article they would be none the wiser and would probably not refer to the general Nuclear weapon article to get the legal information. I think Wikipedia has a duty to make sure that people know about the legal situation with regards to all nuclear weapons. With reference to your car analogy, the general reader would be aware that mechanical information would be found in the nuclear weapon article, and would go there for it. Secondly, although the legality of all nuclear weapons are covered by the ICJ advisory opinion, the legality of specific nuclear weapons has received further attention from different courts. For example, Trident has come up in Scots Law both in Greenock Sherrif Court and in the High Court in a Lord Advocate's Reference. It has also come up in a more recent case in England. Furthermore, the United Kingdom government has entered into various communications regarding the legality of Trident. I would guess the situation is the same for other nuclear weapons, but Trident is what I know most about.
In summary, I would argue as follows: the nuclear weapon article should provide over-arching information about the ICJ Advisory Opinion and make specific mention of other elements of both national and international law which relate to nuclear weapons. Each article relating to a specific nuclear weapon should, as we kind of agreed on Talk:Trident missile, have some mention of the legality of that specific nuclear weapon, including mention of the ICJ advisory opinion and any other legal findings relating more specifically to that nuclear weapon. Perhaps Template:NuclearLegality is too much to have on every article relating to a specific nuclear weapon, but I think we should certainly have something. One way to go forward would be to use the current template, but to deploy it with a "sectstub" template so people are aware it's not the full story. Also, it should be made clear that we are looking to add information that is more specific to that particular nuclear weapon. --Jim (Talk) 13:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for a very full answer. Regarding the car analogy being "unhelpful" -- I hope you don't think I was being sarcastic or rude, that was just the best way I could think of to describe my point of view.
I take your point about the legality of Trident specifically. However it is my opinion that it is not the missile itself which should be deemed legal/illegal -- the missile is just part of the system. It is the question of whether a country wants to hold nuclear weapons or not. What particular delivery method(s) they choose is irrelevant to some extent. i.e. would CND be happy if Trident was scrapped? Not if it was simply with some other delivery system.
And back to the proportionality question -- My understanding of UK nuclear weapons usage policy is this. It provides a deterrent, i.e. dissuades another power from launching an all out offensive; it provides a response if that deterrent fails, i.e. retaliatory nuclear strikes; and (you referred to this) a "sub-strategic" use in envisaged - I think the example I read is where another power threatens the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against British troops, a single warhead, low yield nuclear bomb could be fired at a "remote part of a desert" to demonstate resolve. Or it could be used to destroy NBC stocks or facilities. I'll try and find a reference, though I'm nearly sure it was on Trident Ploughshares. I fail to see what disproportinate, it is always to be used against threatended or actual use of weapons of mass destruction. If the line stays I think it needs this caveat attached. 15:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mark - first things first, I wasn't being snidey when I described the analogy as "unhelpful". I think this is a general problem with email/messageboards/other forms of internet communication; it seems so immediate that one often assumes that the person you are communicating with is in the same room and will more easily be able to gauge intended meaning from body language/tone of voice, etc. But this isn't the case! I can be a bit of a shit on WP, but only when I feel that I'm in an unnecessary debate (see the talk page of the Pele article for a few examples); I really welcome all of your comments on this and I certainly wouldn't call the debate unnecessary.
Yes, the missile is just part of the system (by system here, do you mean the Trident system or the over-arching system of nuclear weapons?). I completely agree that we are not discussing here whether Trident, specifically, is illegal or not - according to the ICJ it certainly seems to be, in my opinion. But I do think that the Trident article should make a note of its legality - as should the articles for every other nuclear weapon/deployment systems (Ohio-class subs, Vanguard-class subs). We're just back to the question of how best to do this. What do you reckon? I don't want to add Template:NuclearLegality to any more "specific" articles until we've sorted out exactly what the template should contain - I am guessing a very brief summary of the "Legality" section of Nuclear weapon, plus any caveats as discussed before.
And yes, the stated aim of UK nuclear weapons policy is for it to act as a "deterrent". I do think the line regarding proportionality needs to stay because it is what the ICJ said, but I completely agree that your comments and arguments regarding deterrence should be added. I am guessing these will be available on www.tridentploughshares.org. I'll also have a look at Angie Zelter's book Trident on Trial, which offers a good narrative of the legal arguments with relation to the UK from the ICJ advisory opinion through the 2000 (?) Lord Advocate's Reference.
I'd like to get something added to all nuclear weapon articles reasonably soon, but I don't want to be particularly gung-ho about this until the points we've raised here are sorted out. Maybe we could come up with some sort of policy for adding "Legality" sections to nuclear weapon articles? So far the concensus seems to be just about saying that this should be done; it's just a matter of working out how we should do it. --Jim (Talk) 17:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right about the problem of email/messageboards etc, I know you weren't being snide and I wasn't being over-sensitive, I was just making sure you didn't think I was being sarcastic etc. Well the Trident missiles are part of the Trident system (in UK terms often used to describe the missiles and Vanguard subs as a whole system). But to make myself clear I mean that any delivery system itself is not inherently legal or illegal, it's the nuclear weapons (warheads) themselves, whether they be fitted to a missile, held in reserve or under construction etc. Like I said it was Trident Ploughshares' website, but I'm talking back in 1998-ish. I'll try and dig something up as well.
Regarding the wider implementation. I don't have a problem with the template in articles per-se. It's just the duplication both between sub-articles and parent article(s), and also on so many sub-articles that I think will raise objections.Mark83 23:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I've found the text I was referring to. http://www.tridentploughshares.org/section61#p64:
Sub-strategic:
  • "reply to enemy nuclear strikes"
  • "reply to enemy use of weapons of mass destruction, such as bacteriological or chemical weapons" which UK does not possess.
  • "in a demonstrative role: i.e. aimed at a non-critical, possibly uninhabited area, with the message that if the country concerned pursued its present course of action, nuclear weapons would be aimed at a high-priority target."
  • "punitive role" - when a country has been threatened with nuclear weapons to dissuade it from a course of action but ignored the threat.
The first two seem to be proportional to me. I think it's the last two seem to be disproportionate (unless the course of action the UK was dissuading the country from was something unimaginable). Note this seems to be "International Defence Review"'s interpretation. An MOD document would be better. Mark83 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Well found! Regarding your other points, I will modify Template:Nuclear Legality when I get a moment, so that it isn't so "in your face"; I intend it to merely point to the legality section of Nuclear Weapon. As for your point regarding deployment systems and their possible legality, I'd like to add this 2nd draft of the template to these pages if only because Trident, Vanguard, Ohio-class are at the moment only used to deploy nuclear missiles, even if they could feasibly be used to deploy something else. As far as I see it the Legality sections should contain (1) A sectstub template to indicate that more work needs to be done; (2) the boilerplate text which directs the reader to both Nuclear weapon#legality and the article on the ICJ ruling; (3) how these rulings apply specifically to the article in question - in the case of Trident missile this section should indicate that it's the nuclear warhead that's illegal, not the system per se.
The MOD did actually moot the idea of using conventional warheads in a Vanuguard-class sub, as a way of complying with the Non-proliferation treaty, but Vladimir Putin made remarks along the line of "if one of those things was heading towards Russia we would have no way of telling whether it was nuclear or not, and would have to assume that it was nuclear". It's a mad world we live in.
Finally, what do you think about moving Trident missile to Trident missile system? Are the missiles themselves actually called Trident at all?? --Jim (Talk) 11:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark: what about this?

The "why is this section a stub" bit will offer a condensation of what we've been discussing here: basically that all nuclear weapons are illegal under international law, but that different weapons have been discussed in different national courts which have made different findings, and that this information needs to be added to the articles in question.

--Jim (Talk) 12:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well personally I would say a big no-no to renaming the article Trident missile system. The convention is to name missile articles "X missile". Also MOS says keep titles as simple as possible. Yes the missiles are part of a "system", launch systems, guidance systems etc. However not much different from a Tomahawk missile. And yes "Trident" is the name of the missiles, officially they are "UGM-133 Trident IIs". About "conventional Trident", I'm nearly sure that was a US idea for their Ohios, around the time they were developing the SSGN concept?
I can't fault your idea to "point to the legality section of Nuclear Weapon." Though is adding a stub notice not just inviting people to expand the template? which will place a massive legality section in each article rather than a pointer to the main legality section of nuclear weapon? Mark83 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I take your point on renaming the article. With regards to the special {{sectstub}}, I'll try to prevent people editing the template itself with what I say in the page linked to by "Why is this a stub"; I'll also put something in the actual template to suggest that people don't edit it; or at least that they don't add loads of stuff to it. I'll dry-run the sectstub and a new, cut-down version of NuclearLegality in the next couple of days once Christmas has stopped taking up so much time!! --Jim (Talk) 20:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I can see I'm wading into a lot of text here, but I noticed the template on the nuclear weapons page, which seemed very out of place. I'm not opposed to having a section which discusses international rulings and agreements, but as it is I can't see how the section improves things or one's knowledge of what nuclear weapons are. I'm thinking of changing it into a general section about what sorts of international agreements and rules govern such weapons, focusing mostly on things like the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, since they, unlike the UN court's decision, seem to actually have had effects on the behavior of proliferators and nuclear states. If you had any thoughts on that, please let me know on the article's talk page. I have to admit that my first impression of the "legality" section is, "here is something inserted as a polemic against nuclear weapons, not something which really contributes to the article or to understanding it." I'm trying to assume good faith but I just wanted to let you know how it looks from my side of things (I am not pro-nuclear in any way, but I think that the article should contain what would be most useful to readers, and I don't see the UN court decision as being very useful or important). --Fastfission 16:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I second this. I read the talk above. A specific point I disagree with is the comment, I think Wikipedia has a duty to make sure that people know about the legal situation with regards to all nuclear weapons. I don't believe Wikipedia editors have any such duty. Editors have a duty to not mislead and not obscure. Wikipedia, as I understand it, does not exist to make sure people know things. It exists to help people know the things they want to know about. - Crosbiesmith 16:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually read the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons article now. It makes no mention of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, the Martens Clause, or the Geneva Conventions, despite this being the main article referred to. If you are going to create a section template, it should be a summary of existing information, not new and unsourced information. I shall probably add this comment to the template talk itself. At some point soon, I shall probably start removing the template from articles. This is all new information, it is not a summary. - Crosbiesmith 17:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

For convenience, the template page is Template:NuclearLegality - Crosbiesmith 17:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys: again, I'm pushed for time, but I thought I should make a couple of points that seemed quite urgent. (1) I do think that the nuclear weapon article should contain a section on the legality, or otherwise, of nuclear weapons. They are illegal under international law, and some of this international law has entered into UK law (the area I'm most familiar with - it might have entered into US law). Although the UN is unable to enforce the ICJ's Advisory Opinions, surely it's notable enough to have on the Nuclear weapon article? Even though it's supposedly "toothless", it does highlight a fact: that nuclear weapons are illegal under international law. (2) I am keen that each article about a specific nuclear weapon contains a discussion of that weapon's legality. If this isn't done for the reason of highlighting a very valid point that readers of the encyclopedia might not otherwise be aware of, then surely it's possible to do it, in the case of Trident, by noting the ICJ advisory opinion and then the UK government's response to this? (3) With regards to the accuracy of the template, I would have to look up some references but as far as I know: The St Petersburg Declaration gives us the rule of proportionality; the Martens Clause is part of the Geneva Conventions (I think specifically to do with making sure neutral nations can retain their neutrality); the Geneva Conventions, in this case, are to do with unnecessary suffering. If these facts aren't mentioned specifically in the ICJ advisory opinion as per the reference I gave, they were mentioned as part of the proceedings of the court.
The thing I'd really like to get settled is precisely what text people are happy with appearing on the Nuclear weapon article, to do with the legality of nuclear weapons. We can then move on to the more controversial topic of what appears on each specific nuclear weapon's page. What do you all reckon? --Jim (Talk) 18:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The legality of a class of weapons in international law is pretty germane to articles about the weapons. Keep up your good work. --Guinnog 18:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
In an effort to tidy up all this nuclear legality stuff, I've done the following:
  1. Started a debate at Talk:Nuclear weapon to see what the consensus is about whether Nuclear weapon should have a legality section, and what that section should contain.
  2. Gone through Template:NuclearLegality and added references to specific paragraphs of the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. I no longer intend to use this template as boilerplate text for each article about a specific nuclear weapon, but I thought it was a useful place to sort out Crosbiesmith's objections. I think it's a good summary, and will change the ICJ advisory opinion article to fit in with it if no-one minds this obvious reverse-engineering!

So we don't drown under a huge debate, I'd suggest that for the time being comments are not put here but in the debate at Talk:Nuclear weapon. Once the legality section is in place there (if, indeed, it ever is) we can then see what the opinion is about having legality sections for specific nuclear weapons. In the meantime I'll start researching the UK Government's various positions with regards to Trident and the 1996 ICJ AO. --Jim (Talk) 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006

The January 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edinburgh photos

Jim, I saw your comment at the Article Improvement Drive page, re your girlfriend being a prof photographer. Are you aware of this cat?

Cheers, --Mais oui! 10:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I wasn't aware of the category. I've emailed my girlfriend about it, as well as a few friends who are very good amateur photogs: with any luck they'll be able to provide some images. They've got loads of good stuff on flickr so I'll see how they feel about releasing those images to WP. --Jim (Talk) 12:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Peloponnesian War as this week's WP:AID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Peloponnesian War was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Wall Street Crash of 1929 as this week's WP:ACID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Wall Street Crash of 1929 was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Trident comment

Hi Jim. I see you addressed your comments only to me. To be honest my comment was a defence of you. The other user was suggesting you were adding pure POV to the article. My point was that all of your edits were based on an aim for consensus. While I recognised you are anti-nuclear I have never doubted your motives to add anything but balanced fact and commentary to the article(s). Best regards, Mark83 22:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel really bad now! I didn't mean to have a go at you, just to lay my cards on the table!! For the record your support on that article is greatly appreciated. Please reply here when you get a chance just so I know you know I wasn't having a go! I have a feeling we've spoken before about the problems of discerning writers' intentions on the internet... --Jim (Talk) 22:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
No. I wasn't offended at all. I just thought you might have misunderstood some of my comments. Like I said, the other user had suggested you were POV-pushing which I object to. As you are (declared) anti-nuclear and open to discussion about legality and as I am (declared) pro-nuclear and open to discuss legality, I think the fact that we have yet to disagree/have a row/whatever you want to describe it as, can only be a good thing for the subject in question. Best regards, Mark83 23:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAID 4 February - 11 February

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Hillsborough disaster has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

[edit] Novels newsletter : Issue IX - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Rwandan Genocide as this week's WP:ACID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Rwandan Genocide was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 23:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/m/User_talk%7EJames_Kemp_4cf0.html"