User talk:John Wallace Rich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please add comments here.

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 23:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history 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 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history 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 22:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history 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 20:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KIA article

Hey John, look I'm not trying to vandalize any articles. Please try to address the problems with the KIA article that I have brought up on the KIA talk page. Right now, virtually none of the article is in line with Wikipedia standards. I would suggest recreating the article from scratch, but if you can salvage what's there, be my guest. Kaldari 22:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Kaldari, it's easy for you to talk about starting from scratch as you didn't work on it. How would you like it if I removed all your work? Anyway, it makes me numb, but I improved the article anyway, kind of like too much labor though. Try to make improvements easier. John Wallace Rich 06:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
(As I said here), please stop reverting the changes made to the article. Your edits do not comply with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style in terms of bold lettering and the external links section as well as your improper method of referring to external texts, and you are basically undoing the grammatical improvements that have been made thus far. Please come discuss your changes instead of continuing as you are close to breaking the three revert rule. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 01:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? I reverted once today so far, and it was after you. I'd like a better time on Wikipedia, and hopefully I'll hear back and establish a good relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation tomorrow. I'm kind of tired now though. Bye for now. John Wallace Rich 06:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Please address the problems with the article that I have listed on the KIA talk page rather than simply reverting the article. Thanks! Kaldari 08:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
John, you don't own the killed in action article. There are many others that can contribute equally well to it, particularly in terms of bringing it into line with the manual of style; try to listen to them and come to a compromise with them rather than just reverting to the last version by yourself. Otherwise your input may be totally disregarded, and that would be a great shame; you're clearly knowledgeable on this subject. --Scott Wilson 22:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

John, my deepest respects to you for the brevity you pay to your grandfather. I admire and respect you for that! I also have lost family member to war that were killed in action, so I feel I can identify with your feelings and understand where you are coming from. I do feel that several sections I removed were not pertinent to the article as a whole and actually took away from it. The sections removed were bias toward information drawing the topic off course and into another area. I "do", think that you have a very good idea for another page where that information would be more advantages. I would like to hear your thoughts. Mystar 23:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mystar, thanks for the comment. Edit wars have made me revert to working mainly on that article lately. Wikipedia needs to do more so that articles evolve rather than devolve and so that it's a better process. The Memorial Day article provides a good example where little unverified stuff gets put in and good stuff edited out.
Which sections in the Killed in Action (KIA) article do you mean? We do also use the talk page there a lot. John Wallace Rich 18:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for disruptive editing and violating the three revert rule per the discussion at WP:ANI#Killed_in_action. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Cowman109Talk 01:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well he emailed me, but as he pretty clearly violated 3RR with this username, I won't be lifting the initial block. As for the IP's he claims it is an office mate, however our policy is to treat meatpuppets the same as one person. I see no reason the subsequent block should be lifted or shortened. pschemp | talk 03:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
My problem as the main punchingbag for the past two weeks is if WP:CONSENSUS really has been understood in just a few hours of the block. Given the last edits a few hours before the block were to put an article RfC for Talk:Killed_in_action#Request_for_Comment with a rather non-neutral assessment (IMHO), I think not. It's bemusing as we gave him so many clues on what to look out for. Ttiotsw 03:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

John, if you have comments to make on any subject, you may make them here so people can read them. Needing to make comments is not a valid reason to unblock someone. You should have thought of that before you broke 3RR and used sockpuppet IPs. pschemp | talk 04:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pschemp, Wikipedia's responsible for this libel, both here and in the discussion about it. I don't see what I want about it either. How a self-claimed, previously threatening, 18-year-old senior in high school can block a 42 y/o CEO of a fellow 501(c)(3) who's completed a graduate-level class in generative syntax (linguistics) and done a lot of work on an "article" is beyond me. Jaranda even has a run-on sentence on his user page and very poor spelling all over the place, including there. Whereas I got "As" and "Bs" in all 4-year-college English requirements for graduation with a 4-year degree, I have to get "bullied" here to share ideas by someone with much less education and authority, not to mention get falsely accused of things. My work brought the article up to a "Start-Class" on the Wikipedia quality scale, and I'm the only one arguing who even claims to be a member of the Military history WikiProject, let alone a candidate for coordinator there.
I do feel defensive, and granted, Military history WikiProject coordinator would still not provide me with any executive powers. However, it provides another reason for administrators to not want to block my account like they have, making false accusations, not even providing a warning, overstepping their authority, bullying. It appears to be one of the many flaws on Wikipedia, flaws whose effects need much better mitigation or repair. Hopefully, we'll manage it well, but we aren't right now; that's for sure! John Wallace Rich 11:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This is the same kind of snide personal attacks that the rest if us have had to endure for the past few weeks. People's user pages do not have to make perfect grammatical sense and the talk pages can have errors in them especially given the international nature of Wikipedia (British v. US spelling and usage and especially the many non-Native English writers). It is truly WP:DICKish behaviour to rub people's noses in their lack of education or poor English skills unless you know precisely what their personal background is. I can't say I know anyone personally on Wikipedia. We tolerate the split infinitives, the it's v. its the s' v. 's the their v. there and the passive v. active voice because we care about what they mean and who they cite not how they say it. Lighten up with the libel claim and learn to play by the community rules. Ttiotsw 14:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Speak for yourself! I'm sure that set ad hominem, WP:DICK on Wikipedia, should only be used as a "justified ad hominem," if at all - and if someone has used one on you, and since you've used at least one on me now, you have a lot of vulnerability in your arguments, though they already seemed to have it. I guess you're on Wikipedia just to fight with people, and I admit it bothers me a lot. It again shows there's something wrong with Wikipedia besides, as people can be singled out like in a witch hunt by some jealous, illiterate editor. Go hide behind some classes instead if you're so upset, and keep your sniveling drivel off of my user talk page! John Wallace Rich 23:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Ad hominem aside, do you think that your educational background and social standing entitles your opinions to have more clout in discussions? Please note that this is a serious question and is not intended to be sarcastic. UnfriendlyFire 01:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It depends on the idea. I suppose a professor of history's argument would have more authority than a janitor's, but that doesn't necessarily make them better. Moreover, I try to value content more than style. Actually, I don't have enough education, but I do also work in the field, and for profits even get to put their logos on Wikipedia articles about them.
I'm defensive, attacked by adminstrators who use ad hominems besides. Come on, "Bzzt" and "stop your whining" attack plain and simple, but I try citing authority to have a good ethos. That's what they teach you to do in public speaking courses. John Wallace Rich 01:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, seeing as how this issue is what brought us here in the first place, what about the case of Killed in Action? Is your background and family history relevent to the topic at hand? Can you say that your contributions to the article were objective and adhered to WP:NPOV? UnfriendlyFire 02:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Bzzt. Using your talk page to make uncivil personal attacks. Blocked extended by one week. There seems to be a history here. Now you are blocked by me, and I have a master's degree + so I suggest you stop your whining. pschemp | talk 14:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been complaining at the federal level since 1992 about sex discrimination, and my great grandmother, Dr. Beatrice Gelber's, probably one of the women you "admire," a famous psychologist. This really contributes to the bad experience of Wikipedia, something I have felt quite often here. John Wallace Rich 17:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Though I did get honors on my second Associate's degree in Spanish from De Anza College, I have not taken my bachelor's yet, which I could from UMASS/Boston, but the GPA would be w/o honors, unlike everyone else in my family, including my younger siblings. It would be in Spanish, but I've also reapplied for school in the fall, San Jose State, and my faculty advisor, a Stanford graduate like my father, who also designed the first cost-effective semiconductor memory. John Wallace Rich 18:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No one on Wikipedia cares what your educational level is (or mine for that matter). It is a basic tenant that all may contribute no matter what their background. However, making derogatory remarks about others is not allowed. pschemp | talk 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You know Orwell said the police messed up the republic in Spain during the Spanish Civil War. He said police had a policy of arresting fighters in his book, Homage to Catalonia, a fight where he participated. Likewise, I would say poor administrator decisions affect Wikipedia negatively.
Your entries have made quite a few false accusations and continue to do so. We do plan to proceed on the matter because there's also a vested interest: a link from Wikipedia, though we also gave it to other 501(c)(3)s that do similar work to be fair, provide a NPOV. "Bzzt" is probably an ad hominem, and where have I used name calling or made "derogatory remarks"? There's also a pro-British slant to all of this whereas the article began using U.S. English. So far I don't see what I want about having completely followed the rules as far as I can see, though I'm accused otherwise. John Wallace Rich 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Intersting slant. How does breaking 3RR "completely" follow the rules? pschemp | talk 18:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I certainly have not intentionally broken any 3RR rules, and I would argue that I haven't. You accuse me of having multiple accounts whereas I only have one account, and this account only made 3 edits or less in a day, though I do admit I noticed the 24-hour rule does not mean a calendar day but any 24-hour period and had concern. I have not tried circumventing the rules, and typically, from my understanding, a warning would be in order even if I did violate the 3RR rule for a first time in years of reading and over a year of valid editing on Wikipedia, not blocked a week. John Wallace Rich 19:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You have missed the point yet again. You violated 3RR with this account, and this account only. And you were only blocked for 24 hours. It was your subsequent behaviour that increased the block. You may keep claiming you completely followed the rules, but your edits show differently. Not to mention WP:CIVIL, which you broke rather violently up there. pschemp | talk 20:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You can say anything you want, hypocritical, twisted, awkward, or not, but actions speak even louder than words, and your actions show some sort of strange bias and arrogance even more than your twisted words. Already, I'm defensive, but sharing someone's private E-mail would be flame warfare on the USENET even.
Hopefully, we'll manage it well. Mr. Bradford Patrick, Wikimedia Foundaton's former "interim executive director" and current general counsel said he'd refer my E-mail further when I spoke with him earlier today, and our secretary-treasurer said I handled the conversation well. However, others in the nonprofit industry seem to have a similar problem with Wikipedia, and one major nonprofit industry group(the SFBA_members group), has a lot of activity about a "Wikipedia Defects" topic. The most recent post complained about the "3-rollback blocking policy," the encyclopedia's working with PR and (for-profit) corporations, and asked for a nonprofits working together to hold Wikipedia accountable basically. John Wallace Rich 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Who is "we" and are you threatening legal action action against wikipedia? pschemp | talk 21:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Why would you be afraid of a conversation with Bradford Patrick and other Wikimedia Foundation leaders? John Wallace Rich 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not. Where did I say I was? pschemp | talk 05:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok "jealous, illiterate editor. Go hide behind some classes instead if you're so upset, and keep your sniveling drivel off of my user talk page! " That's attack of incivility #2, just on this page. Your block is extended by a week, and I'm now protecting your page against yourself since you can't seem to learn not to make attacks. pschemp | talk 05:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock reviewed

I have reviewed your unblock request to the unblock list and declined for reasons I outlined in that message. Please note that you have an evident conflict of interest in respect of the article Killed In Action and should restrict yourself to proposing changes on the Talk page of that article. You should also refrain from linking your site, per our external links guidleines. It would help if, when your block expires, you apologise to those messengers you shot in the above exchanges. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's polices need more thinking. Like the term "meat puppet," the situation turns Wikipedia's COI into a neologism or over-the-top stupid because it turns interest in an article into a violation of COI. Why not call it "arbitrary censorship"? I don't get paid by anyone to edit on here, do it for my own interests and truth.John Wallace Rich 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/John Wallace Rich for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Scott Wilson 17:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The box on my user page also does not function properly. The suspected and confirmed account boxes are in red, and the rules say that if there's no properly formatted evidence page, you may remove the box. John Wallace Rich 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case - PocklingtonDan

Your accusation of me being a sockpuppet was judged by others to be baseless harassment and has been removed [1]. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny, the reason I didn't bring the matter to the Arbitration Committee was because I felt it was WP:POINT. I've already brought matters to other areas, including the Mediation Cabal on 1-23, AMA on the same day, an WP:RfP on February 5, and two RfCs on February 7. I even got blocked by Pschemp right in the middle of a lot of work and lost it, responding to UnfriendlyFire, higher mind, research and links stuff. I use critical thinking, get ad hominems, including WP:DICK from others, and I get the double standard of being accused of being uncivil and now further double-standard accusations. I filed a legitimate complaint here, stemming from an election where I couldn't even participate besides, and you snubbed it out. Again, it's also unfair because I actively tried not to illustrate a point by not bringing it to the Arbitration Committee as soon as I got unblocked, and I didn't know the process of filing a complaint about a suspected "sock puppet." John Wallace Rich 22:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If you are the person who put the sock puppet notice on my talk page, claiming I am a sock puppet of Pocklington Dan - it was done by a numbered IP address instead of a named account - then I don't appreciate the harrassment, especially since it lacked any evidence whatsoever. If it is not you, then I apologize. But I suspect it is you, since you seem to be the only person attacking Pocklington Dan at the moment, plus, the editing history of this numbered account is virtually a mirror of yours. If you attack me again for no reason, I will ask for a suspension from wikipedia for you. This kind of game is not appreciated and detracts from people trying to do serious work. Stillstudying 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I may have forgotten to sign in, and yes, I suspect you of being a sock puppet of PocklingtonDan. He edited your user page after you gave a strange response totally agreeing with him for an election. Under the circumstances of my being in the SUVCW, active and an officer in my camp even with KIA in the family and a number of ancestors who actually served in the Civil War, I find it rather strange for you to support him so much when you say it's your favorite topic.
Why do you call it "the American civil war"? That's a rather strange designation for someone who really studied it. Though this makes me defensive and could be over-the-top stupid like the witch hunt against me, you also act rather naive when it suits you, not when otherwise. It would disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point for you to complain, but I am down, and it would also show your less naive side, part of what makes me suspect you of being a "sock puppet." John Wallace Rich 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
John Wallace Rich First of all, are you aware you are the second person to call me a sock puppet? When I first arrived on wikipedia, I was accused of being oldwindybear. That was dismissed for no evidence. That was a year ago, and no one has made that idiotic claim since. Now you claim I am Pocklington Dan. And with no evidence except that he corrected a link on my user page - which is normal here on wikipedia, as I recall, that was the sole "evidence" that I was oldwindybear, he left a note on my user page! - and that I applauded his election to the military coordinators. Oh, I forgot - you claim the fact I call the Civil War the Civil War to be "evidence." I prefer the term to the "War between the States" or the "War of the Southern Succession." John, you have fallen and tapped your head if you truly believe that any of this constitutes grounds for accusing someone of being a sock puppet. If you apologize, I will drop this. Otherwise, please comply with wikipedia policy, and ask for an IP address check to confirm that Pocklington Dan and I are the same person. It will prove I am not, and hopefully, they will suspend you. By the way, do you have a degree in history, specializing in the Civil War? If so, what university? And I note all the costumes you wear - did you ever serve during wartime? Just curious...Stillstudying 12:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's something strange. Besides, you haven't taken critical thinking or something because you change the subject for one. Classes in upper-division reasoning skills teach the lack of sound and/or valid arguments make claims weak and arguments vulnerable.
The accusation of your being a "sock puppet" didn't involve any congratulations of PocklingtonDan. It involved your complete concurrence with PoclkingtonDan during an election where you said, "This editor would be a terrible choice for assistant coordinator." [2] You also claim to love the "American civil war" but don't act like it. Your user page still does not even call it the "Civil War" but the "American civil war," something a foreigner would likely call it. [3]
Your response here twists things a lot and seems rather vindictive. It would be libelous to falsely accuse someoone of having "fallen on [his] head." Moreover, I'm the one who reveals his real name here, not you. However, you talk about "trying to do serious work" previously in the conversation here.
I'm also talking about a topic that I care about, as my family members were killed in action. It's I who takes it seriously or finds it meaningful and should. It's also my kin who fought in the Civil War. It's more reasonable for me to ask you if you think wars really have happened and what you imply? After all, besides it being my relatives, at least some of the organizations I also talk about on my user page are educational organizations. John Wallace Rich 02:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
John Wallace Rich John, you are getting paranoid. First, I also lost family members in the wars this nation has fought. I lost my uncle in Vietnam. I lost relatives in the Civil War, though being from Texas originally, my family fought for the CSA. Your reasoning that my calling the American Civil War means that I am from another country is strange, frankly. I thought you were a poor choice for assistant military coordinator because of exactly this type of controversy. You make too much too personal. As for language, it is NOT "libelous," (sic) defamatory, to say someone fell on their head. That simply does not rise to the standard of attacking a person in the public arena's character or ethics sufficiently to allow them to file for defamation. (Check the model penal code, or law in California, where you reside!) You have made yourself a public person by your advertising yourself and your life on the net. You no longer have the protections a private individual has. John, if you want people to take your issues, such as the KIA article, seriously, you have got to start acting responsibly. Accusing people of being sock puppets with no proof whatsoever will only act to get you suspended or banned. I don't think you want that, and frankly, I don't want it for you or anyone else who is serious about wikipedia. But you must learn the rules, and abide by them. By the way John, you are always bragging about your education - give that a rest too. I have a Master's degree and am finishing a JD. So you are far from the only well-educated wikipedian. Seriously, calm down, and you will be a lot happier here.Stillstudying 12:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

As you used a sock puppet account to dodge your previous block, as established at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/John Wallace Rich it has been reset. Please do not use sock puppet accounts or engage in other disruptive behavior. The duration of the block, as before, is for three weeks. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history 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 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history 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 14:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:USAKIA Pres5.jpg

Hello, John Wallace Rich. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:USAKIA Pres5.jpg) was found at the following location: User:John Wallace Rich. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 10:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:VHBinCivWarUniform.JPG

Hello, John Wallace Rich. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:VHBinCivWarUniform.JPG) was found at the following location: User:John Wallace Rich. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CEM

I have posted a question here, as you are available, please respond at your next available opportunity. Thanks, Navou 21:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history 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 15:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history 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 14:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history 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 09:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history 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 09:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history 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 14:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)