Talk:Global Defense Initiative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Global Defense Initiative article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article is supported by the Command & Conquer task force.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Southern Cross

Given that "Southern Cross" automatically assumed control when the space station Philedelphia could not be reached is it possible that this base is GDI’s former headquaters? TomStar81 06:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That would probably be something appropriate for discussion forums, but it is not canonical so it is probably less appropriate for the wiki entry Forgottenlord 18:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GDI Seals & Emblems

Someone should upload the GDI emblem as shown in Tiberian sun, as well as the 'Hammer & Wrench' seal featured in the loading screens of Tiberian Sun's GDI campaign as well as the multiplayer games.

We could also use a few select pictures of the Battle Walker technology such as the Titan or Wolverine units featured in Tiberian Sun, as they tend to indirectly stand symbol for the Global Defense Initiative. 80.201.169.202 07:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shepherd vs Sheppard

According to the original 1995 manual of Command & Conquer, the name of GDI's first supreme commander is 'Shepherd' and not 'Sheppard' by the way. Directly from the manual: 'Brigadier General Mark Jamison Shepherd, Chief of Staff, United Nations Military Command'. 80.201.169.202 08:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: My interest renewed by reading through these C&C related Wikipedia articles, I've been browsing through the old manual a little bit more. Take a look at this, both are literally taken from the original 1995 manual of Command & Conquer:
Page 3, Global Defence Initiative History - Current Head of State: Brigadier General Mark Jamison Shepherd, Chief of Staff, United Nations Military Command.
Page 92, Cast Credits - General Sheppard: Eric Martin
Apparently, an oversight of Westwood themselves. Either way, it doesn't make it hard to see where the confusion regarding this character's name originates from. I'd opt to use 'Shepherd' here on Wikipedia's Command & Conquer pages though, since it does seem to have been the intended name for the character. 80.201.169.202 08:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it's the other way around actually. Take a look at this YouTube video of the GDI ending in Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELpqg3ECzk4
You'll see that in the casting credits, it mentions the character's name as "Sheppard". Looks like "Shepherd" is in fact the typo after all, and "Sheppard" the name that was originally intended. 84.192.113.201 10:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GDI and civilian targets

I think it should be added somewhere in the article that GDI are far from perfect bringers of truth and justice. If I remember correctly a Nod mission from Tiberium Dawn centres around you protecting a civilian village from a GDI attack. Where would it fit? Rim-Fire 10:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous, though. GDI is described as "harassing" a village that supports Nod, and "escalating a civil war" between two villages. It could be argued that it is Nod propaganda.  -- Run!  11:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember GDI soldier actualy shooting the civilians. Although, of course it has been a while since I have played the game. --159.134.51.247 14:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember any GDI soldiers shooting civilians in the cutscenes, but there are bugs in the game which make GDI units recognise civilians as the enemy and automatically shoot them.  -- Run!  16:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to in-game. How do you know whether it's a glitch or intentional anyway? --Rim-Fire 17:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it only happens in some missions. I can't think of any reason why they'd disable shooting at civilians in some missions if not for the "GDI is the good guy" concept-thingy. To be honest, I don't [i]know[/i] for sure, but I can present a fairly good argument for it being the case.  -- Run!  17:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree --Rim-Fire 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • THere is a whole article on I belive CNNZ on wether or not the good guys are the good guys the article brought in evidence on GDI being evil and basicly not much better than Nod and what happened to the UN in TIberian Sun it's like they were not even there where is they had quite a bit of power in TD I think GDI got rid of them and Kane was right.
I would like to point out that GDI originated a black ops group and they handled situations that the UN cant be seen doing, so it isn’t too unlikely that they would be doing things like hurting civilians if they had proper reasons like suspicion that the civilian is working with NOD

[edit] UNGDI vs UNGDA ?

I'm not entirely sure, but isn't the act upon which the GDI is founded called UNGDA (United Nations Global Defence Act)... But i don't think that GDI ever is called UNGDI. I think there is some misunderstanding between United Nations Global Defence Act and Global Defence Initiative. GDI is based upon UNGDA.

I could be mistaken, however.

UNGDA is the act UNGDI operates upon. In theory, both UNGDI and GDI are acceptable, compare UNSC. UNGDI should be used when you want to imply a deeper connection between the UN and GDI.--CommandoSR 20:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Additional emblem pictures requested

The page could certainly also use pictures of the GDI emblem as it appears/appeared in Tiberian Sun and Tiberium Wars, respectively. 80.201.99.220 12:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. User:Green01 11:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fate of Earth at TW2 end

"The alternate ending shows Kane's ICBM launchers eliminating the "Philadelphia", allowing him to launch a world-altering Tiberium missile unhindered and transforming the entire planet into a sea of Tiberium, destroying all native life and all of human civilization." The Second Tiberium War (Tiberian Sun)" - The Second Tiberium War (Tiberian Sun)

Where is the proof of this? I'd say rather that humans a mutated by the Tiberium spread. User:Green01 1:06 8 April 2006 (UTC).

Did you ever see the ending video of the Nod campaign in Tiberian Sun? It's not very reasonable to assume anything would be able to survive an explosion of that magnitude -- it literally stripped the skin off of every continent. 84.192.125.204 21:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GDI Adminstration

From the Tiberium Wars cutscenes, it's quite obvius that GDI has it's own civilian admintaration. After North Carolina, Granger tries to contact the Directors, but they're on the Phelidelphia. During the cutscene of the W3N newsprort before the acttack, we hear of adminstrators, as well as a director. And after the attack, Boyle, GDI's treasuer becomes director of GDI. --Eldarone 04:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article intro section disputes

I basically began by adding the relatively new take of EA on GDI's origins based on info present in the intelligence database entries of Tiberium Wars. At this point a fellow anonymous contributor reverted the majority of that, and replaced it with strictly the old take of Westwood Studios. Here's the problem with this approach -- as far as I know, Wikipedia guidelines stipulate that when summarizing a story or an element of a story which spans multiple entries (a category the Tiberium universe obviously would fall under), you need to use its latest canonical installment wherever applicable.

E.g.: it's actually required by Wiki guidelines that we use the GDI symbol from Tiberium Wars on the top of the page, and not the one of any of the previous games featuring GDI. In that same vein, we'll have to build out the intro based on the info shown in Tiberium Wars (and a few months from now, Kane's Wrath). That's what I meant with the first editor's content being "outdated" -- from a Wiki point of view it kind of is, since Tiberian Sun Firestorm is no longer the most recent chapter of the Tiberium universe -- Tiberium Wars is instead. As for the (many) errors EA made, they don't really seem to affect the content we're working on in this intro so the point is kinda moot. At least in this particular topic.

Lastly, the reason I reverted the edit of The Secret Weapon was because its factual accuracy is actually more debatable than the previous version was; GDI was formed by the G8 (then G7) nations, under the United Nations umbrella. This makes stating that they were downright created by the UN a bit more questionable than stating GDI originated from a secret military alliance between the world's advanced nations (taken directly from the intel database entry on GDI in Tiberium Wars), to be sanctioned by the United Nations at a later date to become etc.

I mean seriously, I'm not on any ego trip with this, but thus far my version seems to be the best. 84.192.119.41 05:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention -- the reason I think the reference to Black Ops 9 is best left out of the intro is because it represents one of the historical details of the GDI, and as such tends to belong in the more dedicated parts of the main article body, rather than in a briefly summarizing introduction. 84.192.119.41 05:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is where I get my storyline info from: http://planetcnc.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Encyclopedia.Detail&id=7#gdibefore

Firstly, I said it was formed by the United Nations because IT WAS, according to Westwood. I know that info's outdated, so I'll let that one go, but at least I am right about that particular one, as far as the fans are concerned, we generally (I can't speak for everyone) regard GDI as formed by the UN. Ask on Planet CNC, CNCDEN, CNCNZ, or other highly established fan site if you want, but I still know what I believe. I know what Wikipedia's guidelines are (thoroughly idiot though they often are; goodbye RickK) and I know you have to follow them so I'll drop this.

Secondly, you're being completely hypocritical. If you say it was a secret G7 (and it was G7, please note that) military alliance then fine, go with that. But OGE:BO9 was formed by the United Nations, and the United Nations alone. A secret military ALLIANCE is a very different thing to a covert ops organisation. EA are clearly intending to scrap the whole UN/OGEBO9 stuff. So scrap that stuff. And the fact sheet- that's REALLY dodgy. I think that might have to be scrapped.

Oh, and would you please let me delete that "bluish background" thing. That's only in certain artwork on the EA site. This is the most common form of the logo- it's even in the fan site kit! http://www.cncu.de/data/Image/gdi_logo.jpg

I suggest we get to work scrapping all the outdated stuff EA never once have mentioned the UNGDI. It's always been G7 Alliance to GDI army. That's it. No UN. I think we might have to scrap that. I prefer Westwood's story, but Wiki has strict rules like you say and consistency is one of them. I'll get to work immediately.

The Secret Weapon | Discuss Deployments 20:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There we go. I've rewritten the opening paragraph as a taster of what's to come, and to allow you a chance to give feedback. Here's my source:

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/commandconquer3/news.html?sid=6155386

No mention of the UN whatsoever. Check any of the preview around the E3 era when EA were discussing GDI's past, and you'll find much the same. They think the UN was not involved. Please provide proof they were or I'm going to make a stub out of this article- it's completely wrong, and I've only just realised.

I don't want us to argue. I try to AGF, and I am doing it right now :) but you've raised a good point. Personally, I would rather we compromise between UNGDI and G8GDI, but it seems impossible. They have completely screwed over this storyline.

The Secret Weapon | Discuss Deployments 21:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So wait, let me see if I understand this correctly for a moment -- you are stating that the more proper source for us editors to go base GDI's background and descriptions on should mainly come from fan-fiction material rather than from the actual game, and thus its storyline, intelligence database and in-game graphical art? Also, the Gamespot article you quoted is a brief preview of the GDI faction by OP Mike Verdu, from prior to the release of the game -- there have since been other "white papers" that go in more detail on the subject, most notably those within the game itself. And these do explicitely mention the link with the United Nations.
Read; "The Global Defense Initiative", Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, GDI campaign intel database, "GDI Archives" section.
I do want us to argue, actually. It's a good way to ensure we get rid of any nonsense in the long run, and end up with something decent to show for it in the article. This is a good example already; we should not base ourselves on fan-fiction like PlanetCnC's "encyclopedia", but rather on what is shown, mentioned and portrayed in the most recent installment of the series. At present, that most recent installment is Tiberium Wars. And Tiberium Wars most certainly mentions a connection between the UN and the GDI, and frequently portrays the GDI emblem against a bluish background. Because of all this, I've had to revert your most recent edits as they ended up removing both factually correct and relevant information from the intro. 84.192.119.41 06:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Firstly, I strongly recommend you create an account- you've demonstrated remarkable adhereance to Wikipedia's guidelines but your credibility is weakened by the fact you are anon. It seems unfitting for an anon to be talking down on a registered user, but this has no relevance to the conversation and I myself am newly registered so it's hypocritical for me to press this forward. I'll leave it there.

Secondly, I'd rather you DROP the whole background thing. That link WAS official EA art, and I can provide numerous links to it. But what really matters is that the colour of the background really doesn't matter. Why is this worth the arguement? No random visitor to this article (which is who you are preparing it for) would possibly care if it's a blue, green or silver background on their logo. For Christ's sake the logo on the page doesn't even have a background. I won't press the background issue if you don't. We should delete that line. It's not of any use.

I am not saying we should base this article on fan info. I realised that's wrong a few edits back. I've been trying to get you to agree to a major rewrite. The OGENBO9 was a UN organisation that evolved into according to Westwood evolved into GDI. If you say it was a G7 secret military alliance then for God's sake please update the origins and backstory section to be consistent. That's all I want right now. At one place you're insisting it's G7 then you suddenly say it was OGEBO9 below. Hell, seeing as you refuse to take a look at the article I'll get some quotes from it myself.

"The Global Defense Initiative, or GDI, initially was a covert multinational special forces group operating under the designation of Operations Group Echo: Black Ops 9."

Uh oh, that's not a secret military alliance of G7 nations. But perhaps EA mean it was? Well...

"was in the aftermath of these wars jointly founded by the members of the Security Council to become a specialized, peace enforcing unit with a mandate to operate worldwide"

...it looks like it was a UN organisation after all according to this line. But also, this says it was created to be a peacekeeping force, not specifically fight Tiberium and Nod which you say in the intro.

" Eventually, the overseeing Security Council came to the decision that transparency and limited disclosure were the best response to the international media's speculations on the nature and the purpose of the secret unit."

Once again, we've got the UN deciding to transform a secret UN group. You keep insisting the UN didn't create it, but right here it says they basically did!

" The final proverbial straw for this would come when an operation in which the attempted assassination upon Saddam Hussein, in a covert effort to prevent the outbreak of the Persian Gulf War, failed miserably and resulted in the death of a large number of agents. "

Now I don't think this was a point of contention, but in game Nod says THEY unconvered GDI as a secret org. The article directly contradicts this.

Look man, the intro is great. It fits with the game fine. But the rest of the article is all Westwood's old stuff. The quotes listed above directly contradict the whole "secret G7 military alliance later given the UN stamp of approval" thing that we have to write about now. Can't you see how contradictory the main history section is?

The Secret Weapon | Discuss Deployments 23:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've had a look through the game files and it says GDI WAS created by the UN:

"The Global Defence Initiative began as a secret military alliance of the most advanced nations under the United Nations umbrella". While this neither confirms nor denies the existence of OGEBO9 it does make things very complicated. The game is the ultimate source, and it specifically says it was a UN organisation. I think the intro should be updated to reflect that.

Saying it was sanctioned by the UN to become the international response to Tiberium/Nod is delibately implying the UN did NOT create GDI but instead merely nods it's head in agreement with it after it's exposed. The game clearly denies this.

Source: C&C3 Intel Database GDI Archives "The Global Defence Initiative"

[edit] Article Intro section disputes, Part II

First of all, my friend, stop being so personally offended by this whole dispute. If you come to edit on Wikipedia you essentially agree to expose yourself to the risk of having your edits relentlessly altered, deleted, contested, disputed and so forth from time to time. It happens to me as much as it happens to you and the next person. Just take a deep breath, and take your apparently bruised ego out of the equation already. Secondly, I am here to contribute on those topics I have both knowledge and interest in and not to be part of a "community". In closure, I find the notion that a registered nickname on this website provides or should provide its owner with some sense of "stature" to be a little bit odd, to be honest. The internet is anonimity incarnate to a substantial degree; I don't see where the actual difference between a randomly chosen nickname and a number is to be found.

That said, let's move on to the proper discussion. From what I understand of your views, as you layed them out above, I'd say you're struggling with a large misconception. I'll explain;

The fifth mission briefing cutscene of Red Alert's Allies campaign showed us that GDI's beginnings are, indeed, to be found in the United Nations Security Council, more specifically during the aftermath of the alternate second world war which the story of Red Alert portrayed. On the other hand, GDI did not come to exist until the year 1995, which is almost 40 years later. What this actually signifies is that Black Ops 9 and GDI are simply not quite the same organization; one is the precursor to the other, yet the two had different goals and means defining them. Black Ops 9 was a secret special forces group formed by the members of the Security Council, and given the task to (ironically enough) ensure that no third world war would ever have a chance to erupt. Its very existence however was always denied by the UN. GDI by comparison was openly founded by the nations of the then Group of Seven out of the (far smaller) infrastructure of Black Ops 9, to be officially sanctioned by the UN to become a collective response to the threats of the modern ages (namely, the rise of Nod and the spread of Tiberium). As such, GDI has a different mission, different means, a different identity, a vastly expanded infrastructure, and lastly far more participants, fundraisers and founders than Black Ops 9 did. It's just that both groups equally were created by making use of the channels of international cooporation which the UN symbolizes and embodies, and that GDI's foundations were build out of the already existing infrastructure of Black Ops 9.

As a result, what the intro and the history section do at current is simply account for the fact Black Ops 9 and GDI are not the same organization. There really is no contradiction here; Black Ops 9 and the UNGDI are not the same group under two different names, as you seem to believe. GDI was build out of the foundations of the other by using those same supranational channels and principles which were used to found Black Ops 9 40 years earlier, yet outside of that the two organizations are vastly different from one another in many ways. 84.192.116.216 09:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

One other thing. Would you agree that the statements "operating under the United Nations umbrella." and "Sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council to become" is essentially saying the same thing twice? If so, we should perhaps drop the "operating under the United Nations umbrella" part, as the sentence which directly follows describes the very same thing. 84.192.116.216 09:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting offended, personally or otherwise, I just got angry with the stalemate we seemed to have going on there. If anything, I wasn't offended, just extremely aggressive as I wanted to drive my point through if we were to have any chance of moving this discussion further.

About the username thing, it really doesn't matter that much, and I said I won't press it further too. It's just that if you choose to register it shows you've made just that little bit of effort to be recognised. Like I say, it doesn't really bother me, but if you plan on getting in more arguements then it's better to have a username because you can find some very snobbish admins on Wikipedia who take anons the wrong way. Not me though, I don't mind. Let's move on.

Secondly, BO9 was previously described by Westwood as being the direct predecessor of GDI- a vastly different organisation that was restructed and expanded to become GDI. It WAS different, but they are also the same because BO9 was directly before GDI. The thing is, it would appear that EA have decided to drop this direct connection in favour of the one you talk about- indirect succession.

Unfortunately for us, it's still extremely ambigious and not clear enough to get a solid, certain article on. Chances are it isn't the direct successor, but it would be nicer to have a direct statement from EA. My issue arises with the implications that it wasn't a UN org, but a secret G7 military alliance. No doubt they WERE the founding/most important nations in GDI at the start, but to imply GDI was anything other than a United Nations force would be incorrect- at all time of it's existence as "GDI" it was a UN org. I wanted to stray from suggesting it was a military arm of the then G7 nations.

"operating under the United Nations umbrella." is therefore a quote I would really like to keep. It's directly from the intel database, meaning it's absolute bullet proof canon, indisputable, and it removes any implications that it was an arm of the G7 which later was given the UN's approval, which I thought the article was suggesting.

Finally, my only remaining issue now is the statement about it being

"Sanctioned by the United Nations to become the international community's collective response to the proliferation of the Tiberium substance and the influence of the Brotherhood of Nod society"

I would prefer it say something like:

"Sanctioned by the UN to become the international community's collective response to international terrorism, specifically the Brotherhood of Nod society, and to stem the proliferation of the lethal Tiberium substance."

I would prefer this because it allows you to minimalise the repetition of UN between that and the sentence before it (which I want to keep), and also because it clarifies GDI's purpose somewhat- not as a direct response to Nod specifically, but all of terrorism, including Nod.

However, you might not like that so I'll agree to refrain from adding it if you agree to keep the "operating under the United Nations umbrella" sentence in. I really feel that sentence clarified the article for me and it's direct canon. I understand there is a slight bit of repetition in it, so I can see why you want to get rid of it, but I think it's too important.

You could even reword it to say:

"Sanctioned to become the international community's collective response to the proliferation of the Tiberium substance and the influence of the Brotherhood of Nod society by the United Nations, the GDI..."

That way I get to keep the sentence and you get to minimalise repetition. It's your call.

So for now, I will not make any changes to the article. I can live with it as it is. But, as ever, feel free to discuss. I'd like a reply to my idea to reword the "Sanctioned..." sentence in particular.

The Secret Weapon | Discuss Deployments 11:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I can easily understand why you feel things are ambigious at the moment, because I frankly feel much the same about it. The good news is that as long as EA does not put out any intel files or "white papers" which directly contradict or alter the canon previously established by Westwood Studios, we are completely at liberty to use this old(er) Westwood-based material for our articles in the meantime. It's just a matter of tying the loose ends together properly. The good news is that we can help make the Westwood material grow deeper roots by using it in this fashion, perhaps making EA less prone to make any drastic changes to it in the future.
But to be more on-topic;
1) I agree on the "Sanctioned by the United Nations" changes that you're proposing, and also, I agree that the "UN umbrella" part taken from the intel database had best stay in. That would make the ideal sentence we've been looking for something along the lines of:
Sanctioned to become the international community's collective response to the proliferation of the Tiberium substance and the influence of the Brotherhood of Nod society by the United Nations, the GDI was rendered the executive branch of the United Nations Security Council.
2) The reference to multinational/international terrorism you're proposing does seem redundant to me however. Nod unified and ultimately represented all this globalized terrorism, and the in-game storylines of every Tiberium game to date made this readily apparent right from the start of each of their campaigns.
Either way, as a concession, I'll leave the final editing of the intro up to you. 84.192.116.216 12:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There we go, I added your updated version of the "Sanctioned..." sentence. That works fine.

And yes, I understand that Nod represents terrorism, and it ultimately unified it- with the backing of many terrorist groups, it's likely it everntually absorbed many under its banner.

However, GDI was formed to stop terrorism, in any of it's forms. That the Brotherhood would come to be the sole/main form of terrorism in the world might not be clear to a non-C&C fan, and I was just considering clarifying that they fight "international terrorism, specifically the Brotherhood of Nod society" because a non-C&C fan might believe GDI was formed to fight Nod, not threats to world peace.

However, that might be getting too picky and I doubt many non-C&C fans visit this article so if you want to leave it as it is then I won't mind.

Thanks for all the arguement/debate/discussion anyway! :D I think it's time we started to focus on cleaning up the rest of the article- it's been tagged for being too "in-universe". Might have to restructure a bit.

The Secret Weapon | Discuss Deployments 19:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. The "fighting armed extremism & terrorism in all its forms" part does seem a bit too picky for the intro. On the other hand, it might be worth including it somewhere in the main article body, where we are free to go into more extensive detail. 84.192.116.216 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't ruin the Military Doctrine

Please leave the GDI Military Doctrine alone. Its not fair If Nod gets a Military Doctrine and GDI does not have one.(TougHHead 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

Its only fair if GDI And Nod gets a military Doctrine.

Also the Scrin gets a military section and a technology section.(TougHHead 23:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Philadelphia (C&C).jpg

Image:Philadelphia (C&C).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)