Talk:Donkey punch/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Comments

I saw the previous incarnation of this page created by an anonymous wikier speedily deleted within 10 minutes of its creation. The speedy deletion was somewhat valid, as it was a horribly written page. I've attempted to rewrite it, giving not only a definition but some cultural background. I guarantee that this is not a candidate for speedy deletion any longer.

If anyone thinks that a page about the collection of these "Urban legend" sex moves/sex jokes/whatever would be better, I'd agree, but I just created this one now, because of how quickly it was speedy deleted.

Lastly, check out this google search of "Donkey Punch" sex, to see how common this phrase is, and why it actually is encyclopedic.

—siroχo 10:07, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Though I fail to see the point of punching your partner in the head when you're shagging them from behind; I'm sure there are other ways of making them clench their valuables... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:24, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no place to spread misogynist bullshit. It does not matter how many less than convincing references you supply to push the misanthropic product of some mentally challenged porn producers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:58.77.35.141 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 22 June 2006

Regardless of your opinion, the article certainly is not patent nonsense, and so I have removed your tag. You could go through AfD again, but is is almost certain to be kept, as per the last 3 times. Kevin 11:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with User:58.77.35.141 xoxo This wiki entry about some misanthropic fantasy called "donkey punch" cites a perfect example of what Wikipedia has largely devolved into, a reservoir for lowlife nerds who have lost touch with reality. Oh, and it is not only patent nonsense it is complete and utter bullshit. How can the despicable needs of some benighted wankers be a justification for harming women? It is against Wikipedias own ethics to promote disrespect, slander and violence against women. Therefore the article has to go. There is no informational value in stating examples of pure misogyny. Amazona
Note: Amazona is a non-existent account, and contrary to the (apparently) forged signature, the above comment was actually made by anonymous user 211.194.18.60. Fourohfour 08:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately for Wikipedia articles are not removed simply because one person thinks it "has to go." Wikipedia contains lots of articles on things that are not necessarrily nice. Wikipedia has articles on Rape and Incest, this does not mean that Wikipedia promotes rape or incest. What you are talking about is censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored. — Linnwood 04:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This article promotes disrespect, hate speech and violence against women and therefore violates the wiki TOS. Keep your links to child pornography, woman abuse, rape and violent pornography to yourself.

My favorite line: "sometimes it is said to cause the muscles around the vagina or anus to contract around the penis, giving enhanced pleasure to the active partner. In one exaggerated telling[1] this phenomenon is of such great force as to result in the inversion of the rectum (which may then be described as a "pink sock")." When I read this fictional stuff I really wonder about your age? Go see a shrink dude. --Sara Anderson 20:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I don't doubt that the act itself (fictitious or not) is probably misogynistic in nature. I also agree that some of the "facts" in the article may be of dubious provenance.
The first is *not* in itself a reason to delete the article, any more than it is reason to delete an article on rape. Nor is the second; it's a reason to trim or rewrite the article better, provide citations and/or note the (un-)reliability of the facts. If and *only* if it is inherently not reasonably possible (or likely) to get a neutral article for a given subject/title should it be deleted.
But this assumes that the article was inherently biased to begin with. Which bits of
In reality, punching someone in the back of the head (rabbit punching) can damage the brain stem, causing death or permanent injury. It is illegal in professional boxing for this reason. The donkey punch may also be prosecutable as assault or sexual assault, in some jurisdictions even if consent is given.
promote "disrespect, hate speech and violence against women"?
I assume you were replying to Linnwood (lack of indentation makes it unclear). If so, your statement "keep your links to child pornography, woman abuse, rape and violent pornography to yourself" was a cheap smear on someone simply because they disagreed with your dubious argument for deletion.
That's not to say that I'm happy with the article as it stands, or even that it deserves to be an article in its own right. However, your arguments do *not* provide a basis for deletion. You clearly did not read the TOS which state that Wikipedia is not censored.
Fourohfour 15:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Additional; okay, more fool me. A short while after writing the above, I realised I'd probably been talking with a sockpuppet...
  • Two comments only? Check.
  • First instinct is to delete article because (apparently) it offends user's sensibilities? Check.
    • ....implied assumption (or smear) that anyone that doesn't want the article immediately deleted condones the act described within (as well as "child pornography")? Check.
  • Familiar-sounding language? Check.
  • Reply was to user she (or rather, he) had had serious disagreements with in the past? Check.
  • User known to use sock puppets? Check.
Not that sockpuppets are against the rules, and there are perfectly legitimate reasons for their use. However, I shouldn't have associated the credibility of a new and separate voice with this one when it was just an old "friend" in new clothes. Let's not even get onto the fact that "Amazona" who took part in this discussion isn't even a real account. Make of that what you will. Fourohfour 09:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Is it really necessary to put a mention of every two-bit web reference to this? I wouldn't be surprised if some of it was put there by somebody trying to promote something. I don't know. I remember this all as an internet fad a few years ago (around the time of "All Your Base") and Wikipedia covering internet fads is not my favorite thing on this site... Goatse has its own page, it seems like Wikipedia needs to try and cut down on these message board types who invent their own fads and add them to Wikipedia. As I said with all the references on this page, it seems like Wikipedia isn't the best at monitoring submissions for promotional value or notoriety. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zaphekiel (talk • contribs) 03:22, 11 June 2006.

In the case of the absurd "pink sock" reference it is clearly not a reliable source. But then, most of the article is fundamentally nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 09:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe he meant "cultural references" specifically. I'm not sure about these; some may serve to bolster the credibility of the article itself. For example, the Donkey Punch's use as a CSI plot point suggests that it's at least *known* about in the wider world and isn't solely an obscure web reference solely discussed by 13-year-old boys.
On the other hand, I agree entirely that the inclusion of every minor pop culture reference along the lines of "in episode #379 of Fanboy's Favourite Cartoon, one of the characters mentioned DP which some believe to be a reference to the Donkey Punch" is not really defensible. Fourohfour 10:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


my opinion is that this article should remain where it is. i strongly feel this way. i read the article and upon reading the scientific analysis of the risks of the act, think this is the most prominent reason for leaving the article in tact ... the information serves as a warning to not actually attempt such an act —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.251.54.178 (talk • contribs).

Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey punch (5th nomination). Thanks. --Dhartung | Talk 15:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Small Problem

Tried to edit the cultural references to include the song by Avenue D and somehow it ends up showing up in the wrong area, not quite sure why but... Sixthcrusifix 05:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Neutral treatment & language

As an encyclopedia article, the job of this article is to deal with this cultural phenomenon in a responsible way, however, I think going so far as to explicitly condemn it or argue with vulgar and chauvanistic pop culture moves beyond our goal of neutral point of view. Note that even the article on nazism is a normal NPOV article.

I'm concerned about the following 4 additions:

  • "Note: Wikipedia is not a how-to guide"

I think pointing out that the act, were to be actually practiced, would be sexual abuse and could be prosecutable, is adequate, and we don't need to include this kind of warning label (I've never seen any; does Wikipedia have warning labels for any other articles?).

  • "The assailant could also potentially be a female using a sex toy."

The alleged reason the actor would iniate the act would be the contracting of muscles around his penis, which would allegedly increase the actor's pleasure enough to motivate him toward this act (this logic is so weak it seems to me almost certain this act has never actually been done outside of porn). Someone using a sex toy would not experience pleasure from the contracting of muscles around the sex toy. IMHO this reference is too speculative for inclusion.

  • "Donkey punch is a slang term for a violent sexual assault, euphamistically called a "sex move""
  • "The attack abuses a person during consensual sex and involves the male punching the female..."

IMHO these (bolded) additions may go beyond neutrality in the terms used. The supposed act is non-consensual abuse occurring within consensual sex. Because of this, and because the motivation is sexual, it seems it may linguistically be primarily sexual abuse, and secondarily battery. If the strike were executed with enough force to cause bodily harm, battery or assault would be more applicable. Additionally, the article doesn't need to emphasize that the act is abusive every time the act is mentioned. --Nectarflowed 22:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. The Donkey punch is mostly a misogynist joke, and a cultural reference. While it would be awful, and a crime, for anyone to actually do this to someone, I find the tone of the previous edits to be not NPOV.
— Linnwood 17:44, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Nectarflowed

Some clarification: your first two points are references to additions I made.

  1. The "note" was added because I'm fairly sure I saw a similar note on another article. I know it's redundant but I just wanted to cover my bases because it seemed like a lot of people were getting really upset, like User:Silverback (see my talk page and VfD page).
  2. I added the second point because, hey, it's POSSIBLE. I know it would defeat the purpose to use a strap-on, but I've seen videos where women simulate oral sex on a strap-on, and that doesn't make sense either, but they do it...

--Smooth Henry 22:23, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

from Vfd

On 17 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Donkey punch for a record of the discussion.

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's recent edits

The principal change is to move the article from one category to another. There is no documented evidence that this hypothetical activity has been carried out. There is not even (yet) any documented reference to this activity in published fiction, whether plays, films or books. Thus I've moved it to the class of sexual urban legends.

The term "sex move" when used to describe this activity is not very useful--it's like describing a blow to the head as a "conversational gambit". If this activity ever took place, it would be extremely unlikely to be consensual, so the argument that it's a sex move because "it takes place in consensual sex" doesn't wash. This is distinct from BDSM activities for which there generally does exist a consensual subculture of dominants and submissives. Let's not misclassify this misogynist fantasy as a "sex move" because of the pretensions of those who promote it. It's a hypothetical physical assault with a putatively sexual motive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think fundamentally we're in agreement, Tony. As a concern about terms, though, it is a supposed sexual maneuver employed for sexual reasons. It is merely 'supposed' because, as you point out, elements of it 'don't wash.' We can't change what it is 'supposed' to be, but we can include that the supposed maneuver would be abusive and potentially qualifies legally as assault, as well as that the description itself is misogynistic. To change the description, excising the supposed sexual reasons goes beyond the purview of an encyclopedia article, and IMO is redundant when we already point out that the sexual reasons are only supposed.
And finally, compare this to an abusive marriage, where the terms used to describe it don't shift so drastically that it is no longer termed a marriage --Nectarflowed 22:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that's an unfair analogy. For an abusive marriage, while painful, is still a marriage. The act of abusing your spouse doesn't nullify the marriage, itself. A Donkey punch, however, is different. It's more comparable to calling date rape a "sexual act". But, in no description of date rape do you see it categorized as such.Ingres77 14:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Abusive marriages exist. If the Donkey Punch can be established to have been part of some consensual sexual intercourse, we then have a data point establishing it as a sex move. Until then, I think my "conversational gambit" comparison holds.

Suppose there were a word "XYZZY" which I said, and numerous people agreed with this, described the act of stuffing a primed hand grenade down your partner's pants while you were both eating a meal in a restaurant. I might even go on Howard Stern and talk about my word. I contend that, unless this act is something that has actually been done, or widely published in fiction, in the context of dining etiquette, then it is inappropriate to describe XYZZY as an element of dining etiquette. It would of course be appropriate to describe XYZZY as a bit of slang for the aforesaid hypothetical act.

Equally, the fact that nobody can come up with a credible reference, even fictional, describing Donkey Punch as anything other than some fantasy of misogynistic guys, makes it inappropriate to describe it as a sex move. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Re:Without evidence that it's actually practiced, it is "inappropriate to describe it as a sex move."
We're discussing whether ot not it can be described as a supposed sex move, i.e. a rumoured sex move. Is it supposed as a sex move or as a sex "activity?" It's clear when browsing through the 13,000 google hits for "donkey punch" and 'sex' that people regard it as a supposed sex move. It doesn't matter if it seems too violent to be a real sex move. The sentence in question is only describing how it is supposed, and the answer to that is clear.--Nectarflowed 02:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Where does this logic end? If I come up with an idea of cutting off my partner's head in the middle of sex, is that a "sex move"? Just because something is done during sex doesn't inherently make it a sex move. I can't think of any other "sex moves" remotely comparable to this. BDSM, for instance, is inherently different from this, because of consent. This is abuse, and a misogynist fantasy. It's no more a sex act than date rape.

Cat listings

should it be listed as Donkey Punch or as Punch, Donkey? --Smooth Henry 06:11, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

"which would be an inclination of homosexual activity."

I removed this, as if a man was having anal sex with another man, that in-itself would be an indication of homosexual activity, not the donkey punch Linnwood 05:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

accounts

http://www.livejournal.com/community/bad_sex/1481185.html --Smooth Henry 22:21, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


This part:

"It seems most unlikely, but I have no idea if it's true. . . . I can see it going something like this: Guy punches girl in the back of the head during butt-sex. Girl pulls away, turns and punches guy in the face, gets dressed, and leaves. [1]"

is superfluous pandering, and it is not NPOV. The act is dangerous and illegal, and I think the article has a responsibility to point that out, however this retaliatory anecdote is just stupid.

Tony Danza

The Tony Danza section suggested that The Tony Danza was not related to the donkey punch, though it generally is considered to be. I also cleaned up the poor gender-specific wording, cleared up the explanation of the Danza Slap, and added that the term comes from the title of the television show. --Stevemcl 16:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

After googling it it appears to me that the "Tony Danza" is most often not considered to be related to the donkey punch. In some definitions the passive partner is hit in front of the face, and the term "donkey punch" is only occasionally mentioned. If nobody objects, I will remove that section and create a new article on the Tony Danza. Sammy1339 03:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

John Romero

Well, I suppose that's got to go, but that should really wind up somewhere, because, god damn, that was funny as hell. Harsh, yes, but funny.


-Deleted, mostly out of respect for the person. Tony Danza's bad enough.

no name, no city

Image my joy and delight upon finding this article in the encyclopedia. Oh, brave new world that holds such wonders! Herostratus 06:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This has to be the most ridiculous article I've ever read in Wikipedia, because it sounds like a how-to on a form of sexual violence, and because I've only heard ONCE of anybody actually doing it. I had a friend who was addicted to opiates, and he described doing it one time when he was having rear-entry sex with his girlfriend. He said he was so high on heroin that he couldn't reach orgasm, so in his frustration he decided to repeatedly punch his girlfriend in the back. He admitted to me that he'd done far more objectionable things than this, and most important of all, he didn't call it a "donkey punch," so I actually believe him.BrianGCrawfordMA 23:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It is complete bollocks from beginning to end, a hypothetical "sex move" never known to have been used. It's not even sexcruft, it is sophomoric idiocy. But attempts to remove it have thus far failed.

a joke

I am Assuming that the person or persons involved in adding "Donkey Punch" to WIKIPEDIA listings meant it as a joke and didn't or don't expect any one reading the article to actually perform this act esspecially with the infamous "victorious battle cry of 'DONKEY PUNCH'". Lighten up, it is probably for people to find out what the word refers to when used is conversations of stupid sex stories that never happened.

67.170.126.243 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)ADFri

'performed...by a female with a strap on dildo'

I removed the phrase "and also by a female with a strap on dildo" from the first paragraph. If the "alleged purpose is to cause the muscles around the vagina or anus to contract around the penis or dildo, creating a supposedly enhanced orgasm" then it is not possible for dilo to feel contraction and hence enhance orgasm. The purpose would simply be the enjoyment of violence on your sexual partner, some thing other than the Donky Punch. — Linnwood 00:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Brian G. Crawford

User Brian G. Crawford has already blanked this article once and has a history of simply removing pages that he is offened persoanlly by. He brags about pages he has nominated for deletion on his user page, saying that his quest to impose his own morals on Wikipedia are "an ongoing battle against fandom, cruft, vanity, and crap article." (see his talk page for more) Any attempts by this user to remove this article, in whole or in part, will be considered vandalism. — Linnwood 20:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been following Wikipedia policy, and will continue to do so. You, on the other hand, left a message on my talk page after I explicitly told you not to. I didn't blank the page, I performed a merge and redirect. Anyone can do this. If you don't want your writing mercilessly edited by others, don't submit it. I don't know why you're so concerned with my morals, but I haven't made my morals public on Wikipedia. You misrepresent me. My reasons for thinking this article should be deleted have nothing to do with morals. Brian G. Crawford 22:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If he (in good faith) believes that this warrants a warning, he's perfectly within his rights to put it on your talk page. You absolutely do not have the right to tell people that they cannot do this.
Note that he did *not* include more than the bare minimum necessary in his warning.
If you genuinely believe that he is misusing this privilege or acting in bad faith, I suggest you take the matter up through the appropriate channels. Fourohfour 22:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Brian G. Crawford is now leaving threats in his edit summaries. Yet more evidence that he has some secondary motive in his continued vandalism of this article. — Linnwood 09:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Using the word "vandalism" in such cases is often a matter of opinion. If you wish to use the word in edit summaries for cases good faith is not *blatantly* breached, it may be helpful to link to the talk page for a fuller explanation of why you consider it vandalism. There just isn't enough space in the edit summaries for to-ing and fro-ing of conversations.

Either way however, I agree entirely that the tone of the comment in Brian's edit summary,

Reverting for reasons discussed in my previous edit summary. Call my edit vandalism again, and I guarantee I'll do something about it.

is threatening and antisocial. Either do something about it, state clearly what you intend doing (in unemotive language) or don't mention it at all. Fourohfour 14:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If Mr. Crawford would like to help find sources to cite for the the things in the article that would be welcome. But simply removing most of the article is vandalism in my opinion. The cultural referances surely can be cited, but slang is much more diffficult to cite. — Linnwood 01:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This page lacks merit, and in its longer form it more blatantly lacked more merit worse. I think on this particular topic there is no need for someone looking it up to find it in an encyclopaedia, and there is no need for WP to be the first encyclopaedia in which the search would be successful. Most of it also looks like WP:BALLS. Midgley 23:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether you "think on this particular topic there is no need for someone looking it up to find it in an encyclopaedia" is neither here nor there. This article has survived a vote for deletion, and the result was a Keep. It also has gone through many edits to reach a consensus that was stable until Mr. Crawford found the article and attempted to remove it due to it offended him. With other editors I always attempt to assume good faith, but his attempts to simply blank the page, and his laundry list of pages that he brags about removing on his user page I can only assume that his intent not to improve Wikipedia but to censor it. — Linnwood 01:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

Per WP:CITE:

When there is a factual dispute
Disputed edits can be removed immediately and placed on the talk page for discussion, or where the edit is harmless but you dispute it and feel a citation is appropriate, you can place {{citation needed}} after the relevant passage.

Please do no simply remove text from the article. — Linnwood 22:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove whatever I see fit to remove. Sometimes the best edits involve removing text. The AfD discussion was not a referendum on codifying the article in one form and deleting any future edits, which is what you seem to believe. All this stuff needs verification, and I'm not talking about that ridiculous list of trivia. I'm talking about sourcing the definition, and especially sourcing the musings on ridiculous things like the "pink sock." If you think (wrongly) that punching somebody in the back will cause their rectum to prolapse, then find a source. Otherwise, quit putting that stuff back. This page is a very attractive magnet to the wrong sort of people. Today, this little gem was put in:

"The most unique and hilarious variation, however, is the one where it is said that immediately upon being punched, the partner taking it up the ass contracts so forcefully, the active partner's penis is ejected three winks prior to ejaculation. At this critical juncture, a delicate BABY is also evacuated, and it immediately begins to eS the Dee of the repudiated partner to finish him off. If the baby is a good girl, she will swallow. Male babies never never nerver swallow. Good luck to everyone!"

I'm taking it out, of course, along with all the other unsourced information and the irrelevant trivia. If you want to revert me, bear in mind that I will report you as soon as you break the 3RR. You've been nothing but rude to me, and I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. Next time you leave your nasty little comments on my page, I'll just report you. Maybe I should report you for continually adding back unsourced and probably untrue information. Stop putting in unverifiable and unsourced information! Brian G. Crawford 20:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You can go ahead and "report" me all you like. 3RR does not apply to vandalism, nor is it any violation to leave messages on a person's Talk page. If you are uncomfortable dealing with other people maybe you should find a different hobby. — Linnwood 19:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

this article is

WP:CB Midgley 20:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

So is tagging articles AfD with out checking out the history of it. — Linnwood 05:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual Disputes

I have now for the third time reverted Brian G. Crawford's disputed tag, because it seems to me that he has not actually disputed anything apart from the mere existence of this article. I believe that this article is properly sourced, in part due to his harassment of it. If there is any particular fact that he would like to dispute, I hope he will bring it to our attention so that the hypothetical dispute can be resolved. Sammy1339 18:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I also do not see the reason for the dispute tag, having reviewed the comments above and the AfD discussions, as suggested in Brian's edit summary. I don't particularly like this article either, but it deserves to be in here. If there is a dispute, then let's hear the specific reasons for it. Otherwise, take off the tag and do not replace it unless it has a substantive purpose. Badgerpatrol 23:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Stollery

Excuse me User:Linnwood but please address the concerns made in the edit summaries PLUS add the citations missing before reverting

Well you can excuse yourself. Your concerns have been addressed in the past on this talk page, the attempts to deleted this article (linked above) and many many edit summaries. The items you removed from the "Cultural references" list are, shockingly, cultural references to the "Donkey Punch." The fact that they are not used aways in a sexaul conotation does not make them not a reference in pop culture. Regarding the {{fact}} tage, that is just silly. This article is about slang. This article has been nominated for deletion three times, and all three times the result of the discussion was keep. This article has gone through many many revisions and in a stable state. You may not like this article, but that really has nothing to do with it being on Wikipedia. — Linnwood 05:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
You may not like the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy my friend but you, I, and everyone else must adhere to it. You are taking this a little too personally. It's not my concern whether the issues have been addressed in the talk pages, the citations need to be added to the article. Readers shouldn't have to sort through talk pages to find references to claims laid in articles. If you're suggesting that because it's an article on slang usage that any unverifibale claim can be added? That's ridiculous. And " it is said to cause the muscles around the vagina or anus to contract around the penis, giving enhanced pleasure to the active partner" is not a claim about the word but a claim about the human body. If the references are so easy to find on this page (I can't find them) then add them to the article! In the meantime I am reverting and you need to watch your WR:3RR - Glen TC (Stollery) 06:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, you are the one who is making it personal with your snide edit summary. I am well aware of WP:VERIFY, and you are not talking about verifiability. You want a source to prove that anal or vaginal contraction during sexual intercorse is pleasurable? Perhaps you are spending a bit too much time in front of the computer. You also need a cite to prove that punching your sexual partner "may also be prosecutable as assault or sexual assault, in some jurisdictions even if consent is given"? Are you being serious? I am going to revert to the Revision as of 23:39, 8 June 2006 as your edits are Patent nonsense — Linnwood 06:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.