User talk:OneGuy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Dates for people

Please include dates of birth and death, and the dates of the reigns, for the caliphs you have been adding; if you don't have time to do this, please create a single article and list all of them there. Thanks for tackling this under-treated topic... +sj+ 20:18, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anton Hein

It appears to me that User:Anton Hein is behaving badly. Would you take a moment to drop by his user page and ask him personally if he realizes what he is doing is disrespectful of other editors? Tom - Talk 17:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Islam

It's ok. I am not calling you a troll, and I'm not accusing you of ad hominem attacks. "bashing" may have been too strong a term. You were accused of "exaggerating Zora's position and then sneering at it", which is not the worst possible behaviour, just slightly annoying. I'm only asking you to take future contributions of Zora's at their face value rather than dragging out the "Atlantis case". peace, dab 13:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Good job

I appreciate your knowledgable edits. Keep up the good work. Care to vote here? --Alberuni 03:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I went there and voted yes, but on a second thought, I think the title is POV OneGuy 03:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your opinion is valuable and I can understand how you might come to that conclusion. It will be a cold day in hell when Violence against Israelis and Terrorist attack against Israelis in 2004, etc are deleted for the same reasons. Someday maybe Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2004 will be as balanced as Remember these Children --Alberuni 04:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Violence Against Palestinian would be fine but this was too POV OneGuy 08:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Jesus

Please join! You seem to have some interest in the subject, and people who can concieve of at least the possibility that Jesus actually existed (not even that he was the messiah, or rose from the dead... just existed!) would be a helpful addition to the project ;) Cheers, Sam [Spade] 02:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And an attempt by Sam at Gerrymandering. CheeseDreams 22:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Please work out compromises with 168.209.97.34 regarding the articles you are edit warring over rather than simply reverting each other endlessly. Your disputes are over small areas of the articles; they can be resolved. Edit wars are harmful. If you wish, you may request help from a Members' Advocate in resolving the disputes. --Slowking Man 09:36, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Sure but the user 168.209.97.34 sounds like an anti-Islamic vandal with an agenda of inserting negative spin to every article on Islam. He even vandalized my userpage. Now, how can you "comprise" with a vandal who is vandalizing even the userpage? OneGuy 09:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, your my sockpuppet!

Isn't that swell! Not that he should be taken seriously, but its very easy to prove identity via IP address. I'd be willing to bet we arn't even on the same continent, much less the same city ;) Sam [Spade] 16:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How do we check IP adress of other users? Is it possible? OneGuy 16:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Very possible. If their willing, just have them log out, and make an edit. If not, ask a developer. They can look if we want them to or not. Sam [Spade] 22:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas and Hizbollah

It is certainly disputed that these are terrorist groups. Many people call them terrorist orgs, but some call them charitable orgs, and some call them guerilla resistance orgs. We can't state something as fact if there is wide disagreement on it. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 14:01, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Um, I was confused. I have now reverted my reversion to your version. Sorry about that. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 14:15, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Three revert rule

Please stop the edit war on Aisha, you are in clear violation of the Three revert rule. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:21, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Well first of, I know very little about Islamic history or culture, so I am probably not most suitable to evaluate the NPOV of this article. I do know that the current dispute is not constructive, you should try to reach a consensus on the talk page, which I see you are working on, but if the discussion is not constructive you need to try to involve other skilled editors knowledged on the topic and reach a consensus with them. Then this can be implemented in the article, making further reverts by the anon vandalism. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:35, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

This page: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution could be of use to you. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:38, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, it seems you are reverting to a version which actually removes the text starting with: Sahih Bukhari vol. 5, Number Narrated 'Aisha. How does it make your version more complete? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:43, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Right I see, I did not realise the conflict was merely in the ordering of the information, I will take a renewed look at it. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:56, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I have tried to participate in the discusson at Talk:Aisha, I think the anon will not let it rest so easily, if that is so, admin intervention might be required to protect the page first. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:06, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Please see the message I left for you and 168.209.97.34 at Talk:Aisha. Thirty eight reversions in one day to the same article is entirely unacceptable. You both have reasons you believe you are "right." Please remember that your opponent is never a villain in his own eyes. He is just as sincere as you are, but you are both sincerely violating Wikipedia policy. Please abide by the Three revert rule. Continued edit warring could cause the page to be protected (and if *I* protect it, it will be protected on the version of whoever has NOT violated the Three Revert rule). Please do see the note I left on the article talk page. I listed some options there that you may want to consider. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 05:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Guillaume

Yes, that passage is in Guillaume's version of Ibn Ishaq.

Muslims who complain that the text doesn't match their version of Ibn Hisham haven't read the introduction, where Guillaume says that he intends to reconstruct the "lost" book of Ibn Ishaq by re-assembling the pieces of it found in other works. On page xxxi G. lists 12 later authors who quoted chunks of Ibn Ishaq. I think he may have MARKED only the bits from Tabari, and the other bits aren't marked. If so, that may not have been a good procedure.

This may be a novel method for Muslim scholars, but it's absolutely standard for scholars of Greek and Roman literature. There are several Greek poets (Sappho, for instance) whom we know only from poems and bits of poems quoted by other people.

Guillaume also points out that Ibn Ishaq doesn't necessarily vouch for the truth of everything he collected. He'll assemble some conflicting stories and then say "God only knows". This is most apt to happen with the war stories that make up most of the book.

It's a fascinating book, because it is SO raw and unedited, and because it does give glimpses of the period that are quite unflattering to the Muslims. It's interesting that they are left, because Ibn Hisham said that he was leaving out the nasty and therefore false stories about Muhammad.

There's also the possibility that the complaining Muslims are reading texts that have been edited to remove even more of the un-flattering bits. Before trusting that THEIR Arabic version is correct, you'd have to do some investigating.

Ancient history IS like a detective story ... Zora 17:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um, yes, you're right, the bits in the brackets and the parentheses seem to be editorial interpolations by Guillaume, to give some smoothness to the narrative. He also says in the introduction that he has omitted several recurring formulas, because they don't add anything to the story. So this is not a word-by-word translation. Zora 21:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] That guy is insane with Hate

Can you imagine what hell would break loose if anyone tried that stunt on an Judaism-related page? His POV is over the top but he obviously won't listen to reason. He thinks his hate sites are all truth he needs. The article need to be reverted to about 11/8/04 and start over, in my opinion. --Alberuni 07:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, he has inserted a lot of nonsense in the article, especially the timeline and POW. OneGuy 07:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on Pename

As Pename has been attacking both Alberuni, myself, yourself and RickK, I was wondering if you would like to certify Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pename? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History of Islam

Could you please see my question at Talk:History of Islam? Thanks in advance. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:20, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Some questions for you to consider

on Talk:Muhammad. I'm surprised that you would restore the unattributed criticisms without discussing in Talk or even bothering to write an edit summary. I expected that from others. --Alberuni 02:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 :)) The paragraph deleted were not that anti-Islamic. It just stated that some anti-Islamic critic criticize Muhammad on certain issues. By the way, Jesus article does have such criticism, i.e. the part that some historians doubt Jesus existed, etc. OneGuy 02:16, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pename

Pename was certainly uncivil and rude, and I hope that he will either change his behavior or leave Wikipedia. But a permanent ban can only be applied by the Arbitration Committee or by Jimbo Wales. Usually, this would happen if a person is continuously abusive for a long period of time, and is not responsive to mediation. Regards, – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 08:54, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid we admins aren't supposed to ban anyone for longer than a day or two on our own. Sorry. By the way, thanks for doing so much great work on the Calif pages! There's a real lack of Arab history on the English Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 09:09, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I've had my runins with Pename, back when he was an anon. He has always been offensive, but I'd rather not be the one to block him since I've had some problems with him. You should probably find somebody else to block him. Sorry. RickK 20:52, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Islam in Sudan

You are right, there is no copyright issue here. Please feel free to remove my mistaken tag. [[PaulinSaudi 12:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)]]

[edit] Frivolous Arbitration Request by OneGuy

Once again you have shot yourself in the foot by trying to force your apologistic slant on all the Islamic related articles. It seems the arbitrators have come to the conclusion that you should stop contributing to the said articles. If you persist in doing so, it will be in violation of the arbitrators decision. 168.209.97.34 08:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, you obviously can't comprehend english (as well as spell, mr "rivert" guy). Two of them have clearly stated that they wish for BOTH of us to stop contributing to Islamic related articles. By continuing to contribute to Islamic related articles you are in clear violation of their wishes. I can only assume that that ruling (as well as the 3 revert rule) does not apply to you. I look forward to seeing you banned from further editing. 168.209.97.34 08:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The above is nonsense until a decision is made. Fred Bauder 18:23, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34 and 168.209.97.34's countercomplaint. It is up to him, or others who might wish to weigh in, to provide evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34/Evidence. If evidence is supplied, it will be seriously considered. If not much is produced it will be passed over, although should the Arbitrators in the course of investigating 168.209.97.34 turn up substantial evidence which relates to you it would also be considered. Fred Bauder 17:08, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Form of evidence

Here is a diff, the form the Arbitration Committee requests you to use in presenting evidence. [1]. As it is much easy to see who did what when, if you use the proper form it is much more likely that your evidence will be looked at and considered. Fred Bauder 18:23, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

What you put on my page is not a diff. This is a diff [2] Fred Bauder 19:04, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please fix your evidence in that form, occasionally some other form, for example, with respect to your user page a link to the edit history is illustrative of the problem, but just use that as a supplement to illustrate. Fred Bauder 19:26, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I have just started looking at evidence in your matter, I found a few things but have drawn no particular conclusions. Fred Bauder 19:44, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jabra

I hope that you won't object to me deleting this entry, but the person subject of discussion doesn't want this to be on the net. Thanks for understanding.

[edit] Sarnarkand

Sure, I could delete it for you. But are you sure you want me to? Right now it's a redirect to the correctly spelled article. That could be useful, if someone else were to misspell the name. I'll delete it if you still want me to – just let me know. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 12:23, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History of Middle East

If you feel that "Middle East" isn't POV, talk with User:Adam Carr about it. WhisperToMe 02:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gmail

Hi, sending you a gmail wouldn't solve it because you'd still have to take my word for it that it wasn't my IP address, and wasn't even in the range. Ideally, you need to receive one from someone whose IP address you definitely know (like your own) so you can see they aren't the same. Slim 22:16, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 68.107.102.129

I have blocked him for 48 hours, both for repeated vandalism and for personal attacks against you. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 22:50, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- |Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Islam in Bulgaria

With regard to the article - could you please change the past tense of the verbs in present tense when they regard the current state of affairs? VMORO


[edit] Foundation Issues

Sorry to be late with this, but have you checked the foundation issues for wikipedia yet?

I think I recently saw a policy proposal by you that contradicts #2.

When making policy proposals, try to stick with the foundation issues, you'll likely be more successful with any proposal.

Hope this at least helps in future :-) Kim Bruning 18:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] LinkBot

I can definitely run it against Timeline of Islamic history (should be done now). With the spelling differences, the biggest problem with running a bot is making people like it (or at least not dislike it enough to call for it to be banned). So the pressure is really on to make sure that it's acceptable, and one of the criteria for that was being fussy about links (must have exact spelling). The best suggestion I can make is that when there are different spellings, to add redirects that point to the main article. (That way LinkBot will then suggest those links). It's the same thing, just even more so, when it comes to making the links. Basically if a bot modifies an article and gets anything more than 0.01 % wrong (which would definitely be the case), then it will annoy people no end, and they won't hold back in their calls for it to be banned. So I understand where you're coming from, but I just can't do it - sorry :-( All the best, -- Nickj 00:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bektashi

Bektashi is the most common form by far, have a look at google. Dori | Talk 18:56, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Islam in Albania, first I am amazed that you wrote this much in such a short span. Had you been preparing that. Second, would it perhaps be better to put it under Religion in Albania as it doesn't seem to be about Islam but rather religion in general (which includes Islam)? Dori | Talk 00:09, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't look at the reference section for some reason... I wouldn't remove information as it would detract from the article. I just thought that it might be a better title that's all. Dori | Talk 00:22, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Placing the Picture of the Prophet's Mosque (Medina)

Hi. You seem to want to place the picture on the right below the {{Islam}} which, I believe, unnecessarily elongates the page when there is a plethora of open space on the left before {{Islam}} ends. I realize that it does make the text wrap around the image where I placed it in my last edit but it is still better than the elongation of the page. If you prefer I think you could put it below the "See also" section and still have it look nice and more even. I have tested this on my native 1280x1026 and on 1026x768 with all different text sizes and in each case the image does not extend much below {{Islam}}. I'd just like to hear your opinion on this. gren

[edit] Anon/Pename POV pusher

If you wanted to, you could request arbitration on this guy. I would fully support you if you decided to go that far. It's getting beyond a joke. I just don't have the time to do anything about it, as I'll be working on other articles and doing a seemingly ever-increasing amount of admin work. Also, how serious are you about the Jihad article? I want to know how far you would be prepared to go in terms of research. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FYI, see User:134.22.70.189 and talk -- Chris 73 Talk 12:42, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 134.22.7x.xxx all blocked.

FYI, 134.22.70.189, 134.22.68.75, 134.22.71.117 and 134.22.70.98 are all blocked for a week for violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I gave them all a warning on the 25 December, 2004. I told them that this is their last warning. I meant it. Any queries about the block, please direct this to User talk:Ta bu shi da yu. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] PDFs

Why do you think a link that just provides PDFs is inappropriate? Did you have another reason for removing the link at Islam?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:46, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good Job

Good Job, one guy. I'm sory in my grave mistake in China. But are you sure Laos is 75% Buddhist? Follow: [3], but the Buddhist population is only 60%. Are you sure about 75%?

(Please do not look foward to only one source)

  • Do you think dual adherents of Shinto and Buddhist should be added? If Shinto-Buddhist combines, 94% will follow Shinto and 74% will follow Buddhist. Do you want to follow your personal gazetter?
  • Once again, thanks for the trouble in Laos. I have noticed, that you put Buddhism in Japan at 50%.
  • Like the Chinese, the Japanese practice a syncretism of religions. However, unlike the Chinese, who strictly follow to the rule that they declare themselves as either Taoist or Buddhist, the Japanese have a tendency to declare both Buddhism and Shintoism as their religions. For me, I do not oppose to 50%, but many sources cited at 74%, 84%, etc, all inclusive of Shinto and Buddhist in the CIA world factbook. I calculated, from the number of Buddhist in [4] against the total Japanese population stated in this Buddhism by country, and that calculate to 71%. To me, I don't know. I cannot gurantee whether my format is accurate or not. But for now, what do you think?

Thanks. Mr Tan, 19:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith

So far, you are losing my g.f. in Israeli violence against Palestinian children edit war. Both with your POV edits and masquerading reverts. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Viriditas | Talk 10:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I checked the edit history. You reverted four times and are subject to a block. --Viriditas | Talk 10:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You reverted four times in 24 hours, and you reverted a fourth time after you had been warned. Evidence is here: [5] [6] [7] [8] --Viriditas | Talk 10:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The rule is quite clear. You reverted four times in 24 hours, regardless of any agreement or compromise. --Viriditas | Talk 10:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rules are clear. You unjustifiably blamed me for 4 reverts when the fourth edit above is not a revert OneGuy 10:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi OneGuy, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:OneGuy_at_Israeli_violence_against_Palestinian_children. I was going to block you, but it seems you have a point. I am not entirely sure I get the complete picture here. Please refrain from touching that part of the article for another 24h, these revert-wars are fruitless anyway. dab (ᛏ) 11:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying it's ok to revert an article four times in 24 hours? Because those four edits are four reverts. Please explain.--Viriditas | Talk 11:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What is so hard to understand here? The fourth edit is not a revert. It keeps all the quotes that my revert opponent asked me on the talk page to keep. You are the one who reverted the article twice to a previous version with a bogus reason given that the article is only about IDF OneGuy 11:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I"m not sure why you can't understand Wikipedia policy. The fourth edit that you made is quite clearly a revert, and it is defined as a revert. It doesn't matter what anyone asked you to do or what your opinion of my reasonsing is or isn't. --Viriditas | Talk 11:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, it's not a revert because it keeps all the quotes from the previous version OneGuy 11:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy, when this is happening and you are simply being ganged up on, do consider pinging me, or perhaps dropping a note in a talk page of the project on Countering Systemic Bias, rather than going over the 3-revert limit as an individual. The latter just diverts attention from the real issues at hand. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:43, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OneGuy, you are not a sysop/moderator/etc

So stop pretending you are one. Wow, the nerve of you actually telling Maveric149 how to do his job! I know you want to be a sysop, but you are not one and hopefully will never be one. 168.209.97.34 09:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry. I don't want to be a sysop OneGuy 09:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 168.209.97.34

you just gave me a broken link (and didn't sign). this IP cannot be blocked permanently, since it is a South African proxy, see User:168.209.97.34. Obviously, anons posting from this are not elegible to vote. dab (ᛏ) 10:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Well, he may have to be blocked after all, it's up to the arbcom. Until he is, just ignore his attacks. dab (ᛏ) 10:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zain

Assallam-o-Allaikum, I have seen your edits they are quite informative. I'll like to remain in touch with you through email.

Zain 20:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't talk via e-mail, nor do I have time OneGuy 20:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok how about checking Claims of hate speech or hate acts against holocaust deniers

Under deletion here [9]

Zain 23:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what to think of that, yet. Can you explain why, instead of having a separate article, that should not be part of Holocaust denial instead? OneGuy 00:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then Please vote for merge. I created a seperate article because I thought there will be plenty of people like him. So we can add to it slowly. Currently it is a stub. so please vote for merge.

01:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Can you think why it would be that someone would not wish to post under their real name on a contentious issue as Palestinian terrorism? I think you should think more carefully before you shoot off your very, very large mouth. What's your real name? Razalah 03:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Hey, OneGuy, how are you? Take care in your battles on what we could call "Israel-issue" pages. The POV pushers you are in conflict with represent the majority view here and I think you're best advised to stay strictly within the policies. They won't hesitate to pursue administrative action against you rather than stick to discussion. If you get yourself blocked you can't work to NPOV the articles and as I say those editors that want to see NPOV are already in a (dwindling) minority on this issue. Dr Zen 00:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)