User talk:Shadow1/Mar2007
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] can you teach shadowbot this trick?
heya shad. i was curious after this if it is possible to have shadowbot revert any link that looks like this [http://www.spam-whatever.com ,]. Essentially to remove any link that is only going to appear as a period, comma, colon, semi-colon, or any other punctuation (uh, !@#$%^&*()+=-,.?/<>"':;~`\|*). I can't think of any legit reason whatsoever these kind of links should be added, and I've solely seen them used for spamming. JoeSmack Talk 16:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Perlwikipedia again
Hi Shadow. I am getting to like your Perlwikipedia package more and more (the current one I am using, WWW::MediaWiki::Client, has some bugs and things I don't quite like). I wonder if I could join the developer team, that is, if I could get access to the google code page. About my expertise, I've been running mathbot, a Perl bot, for around a year and nine months now (it has around 50,000 edits I think). If you let me in, I'd first focus on improving the documentation, then once you upload the updated code I'll see if I can contribute with anything. Anyway, wonder what you think. Thanks. You can reply here. (PS: My google account is oleg.alexandrov). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 9 | 26 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Moving pages
I only moved the page so that I would get the original credit for creating it, as I began it and some other guy made a new page and just turned mine into a redirect! That's not really fair, so I was just getting back what I created in the first place. -- SilvaStorm
- An admin would have to check since the page history was deleted, but I believe "the other guy" created his page first...not only that, the page you "created" seemed to be an exact copy/paste of the original page, which already had a contribution history from multiple editors. Please don't do it again. Shadow, thanks for looking into this. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedians don't own articles, they collaborate on them. Creating articles isn't supposed to be something you can show off to your friends, it's to contribute to the encyclopedia. In about 100 edits down the road, no one will remember you anyway (no offense), unless you're an active contributor to it. Shadow1 (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My Dream Job revert
[1] This revert is not needed. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 00:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your edit introduced "example.com" into the article. Remove that from your edit and Shadowbot will leave you alone. Shadow1 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Using Perlwikipedia
Is there any way to go through every single page on Wikipedia using perlwikipedia? And, how do you retrieve a listing of all pages in a category? - PoliticalJunkie 16:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unless you somehow manage to grab a list of all pages from one of the dumps, I doubt it. And to get a list of all pages in a category, use the get_all_pages_in_category($category_name) function. Note that this function will only go to a depth of one subcategory, if I remember correctly. Shadow1 (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shadowbot Reverted me! Fix it!
Regarding edits made to Rudolf Steiner. Thanks Lkleinjans 23:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 10 | 5 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] example.com reverts are too broad
I'm trying to revert some vandalism from URL, but your bot reverts my revert [2], since the underlying article contains "example.com". However, documenting the syntax of a URL is *exactly* the sort of thing that "example.com" is supposed to be used for. Tmaher 08:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Shadowbot is currently in calm mode, it should only revert once (sometimes links are OK). When you reapply the edit shadowbot will leave you to it (if shadowbot is in angry mode he will re-revert and give another warning, in that case it is better to wait until shadowbot is again in calm mode). I have now reverted shadowbot, page is fine now. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] TinyURL
I was getting no response on ShadowBot's Talk page, so I'll past what I said here.
There is an example link on the TinyURL article, it leads to a random TinyURL page with directions for Atlanta. I tried to replace it with http://tinyu.rl.com/2unsh (Links to Wiki's Main Page)(Sans the first period). ShadowBot reverted my edits. I decided to mention this on the Talk page and tried replacing it again. ShadowBot replaced my again. Rather than stacking up reverts and clogging up TinyURL's history page, I just decided to leave a message on here. --Scorpios 04:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The reverts can be found here and here.
On an unrelated note, one thing I also noticed just now, while looking at the History page, is that Shadowbot's edits lack the b usually associated with bot edits. Anyways, hopefully I'll get a response now. Cheers. --Scorpios 03:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually working on some new code for Shadowbot that will allow me to exempt tinyurl reversions from TinyURL. As for Shadowbot's editing, it is not marked as a bot; neither is AntiVandalBot. Shadow1 (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shadowbot.
No offense, but your bot is a real pain when you are dealing with new pages and reverting removed SD tags. 1. (Happened two or three times in the past hour, don't remember where though). ~ | twsx | talkcont | 03:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- That would be because when you added the CSD tag, you also inserted an Imageshack link, which Shadowbot reverts. Shadow1 (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Meaning of a "meat puppet"
I am not a native speaker and I am wondering what a term a "meat puppet" actually means. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=meat+puppets claims it is a penis, http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/1623/attack-of-the-meat-puppets claims: "The “meat puppet” is a peculiar inhabitant of the digital world—a fictional character that passes for a real person online." Any idea? -- Zacheus 14:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- A "meat puppet," as defined in the chronicle.com article, is a fictional character that passes for a real person. I would be extremely wary of citing urbandictionary.com sources, as it's extremely unverified and often contains nonsense or slanderous entries. Shadow1 (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I won't use it as a source anymore. I'll add the chronicle.com meaning. What do you think about the meaning "penis" indenpendently on urbandictionary.com? Maybe it was the source for Meat Puppets. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions 12:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest, I'm of the opinion that Urban Dictionary entries are, for the most part, complete and utter nonsense. Shadow1 (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I consider the idea a "meat puppet" is a "penis" as unproven. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions 09:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shadowbot reverted me
See my talk page for the reference. I reverted the bot reference, as I realize it reverts anything from Angelfire and then another editor reverted my revert saying Angelfire is on a black list. I assure you the information on this Angelfire webpage is good and should be included as a reference to the Assault rifle article. Do you have a suggestion ? EnviroGranny 23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I do. Please read the reliable sources policy; the link has no assertion of authority or expertise in the area. Shadow1 (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, I agree with your assertion; however, there are many external links at Wikipedia that use similiar webpages as references. It seems to be more the quality of the content, than whether a person claims to have a Ph.D. pls see Essjay controversy. EnviroGranny 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Is the source a reliable source. Please remember we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. IN either case, why don't you try to add some citations. Thanks. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 11 | 12 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Yay!
 |
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
| For being such a damned pessimist and still deleting all this stuff, I'll give you another star for your admin work. ST47Talk 19:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] angelfire link reverted
I recently added an angelfire link to the Children of God article and it was reverted by ShadowBot. See [3]. Looking at Wikipedia's external links policy, it's not clear to me whether this link falls into the "links to be avoided" list or not. I believe that the link is relevant as the referenced page provides a series of essays by an ex-member of the CoG providing her viewpoint on growing up within the CoG. I would appreciate your comments. --PeterJeremy 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I have repeatedly inserted a link to an angelfire page, had it removed, and inserted it again. It is not vandalism (though I understand why angelfire might have that reputation). The site in question offers reviews of server-based correspondence chess sites. There is nothing else like it on the web for its objective assessments of the merits of the leading chess servers.JStripes 20:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Werdnabot archiving service
Your archive service, Werdnabot, is not longer functioning, so you may need to use a different archiving bot (such as MiszaBot III. Cheers. zero 03:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shadowbot on Beaner
I reverted some vandalism here, and Shadowbot attributed a link on that revision to me. I'm not too bothered about it, but its something which you may want to iron out, i dont know Jonomacdrones 22:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] splatterhouse.classicgaming.gamespy.com blacklisted?
Why is splatterhouse.classicgaming.gamespy.com considered an inappropriate link? It is a fan site for Splatterhouse, and the gng extension is the archive of a fansite for the Ghosts 'N Goblins series. I have read through the provided external links policy, but could not find anything that would consider either site "inappropriate". Please clarify this for me. -- User:68.211.95.66
- It's a fansite, not an official site of the game. Shadow1 (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- To further explain, Shadowbot's blacklist is created based on a particularly stringent interpretation of the policy on external links. Because it is automated, the bot is able to exert a very large influence on behalf of that interpretation and its defenders routinely stifle the efforts of others to argue for a more lenient view. If you truly disagree with the bot in this matter, you're only options are to discuss the issue at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy or to lobby for more precise wording at Wikipedia talk:External links. Be warned, however, that the trend in discussions of the policy is toward the more stringent and exclusionist interpretation used by the creators of Shadowbot's blacklist. --Dystopos 19:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't wish to argue with you, Dystopos, but I'm really getting quite tired of you making comments about myself, Shadowbot, and the other anti-spam editors without any sort of provocation. Unless you have useful things to contribute to a discussion, please stay out of it. Shadow1 (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- My provocation is the same as yours - to protect Wikipedia from detrimental activity. It is my considered opinion that Shadowbot's activity, while doing much good, also comes into conflict with the ideals of the project with respect to fostering openness and community. I also consider my contributions to this discussion to be both relevant and useful. If you disagree, there are many options open to you with regard to conflicts. --Dystopos 22:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't wish to argue with you, Dystopos, but I'm really getting quite tired of you making comments about myself, Shadowbot, and the other anti-spam editors without any sort of provocation. Unless you have useful things to contribute to a discussion, please stay out of it. Shadow1 (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- To further explain, Shadowbot's blacklist is created based on a particularly stringent interpretation of the policy on external links. Because it is automated, the bot is able to exert a very large influence on behalf of that interpretation and its defenders routinely stifle the efforts of others to argue for a more lenient view. If you truly disagree with the bot in this matter, you're only options are to discuss the issue at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy or to lobby for more precise wording at Wikipedia talk:External links. Be warned, however, that the trend in discussions of the policy is toward the more stringent and exclusionist interpretation used by the creators of Shadowbot's blacklist. --Dystopos 19:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- To further extend this case, you were actually spamming the link to a number of articles. The link itself may very well be appropriate but this guideline states: #
- 12 Shadowbot.
Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.
- So indeed, the link may be appropriate, but it got blacklisted because it was spammed. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- In fairness to the anonymous user, the accusation of spamming is not black and white, and the user was most likely adding it in good faith. It is believable that if the link were useful, it would be useful to the each of the small group of related articles. --Dystopos 21:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless it is a pattern of spam. Imagine if you allowed 10 similar fansites? Eventually we would turn into a link farm, which we are not. To clarify, the addition of that link to one or two articles as a source is ok, but when it is added to multiple articles, it comes across as an attempt to promote that site. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm seeing that User:68.211.95.66 made edits to 6 articles; Ghosts 'n Goblins, Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts, Ultimate Ghosts 'n Goblins, Demon's Crest, Gargoyle's Quest, and Gargoyle's Quest II. You're telling me that a link made to 2 of those might be ok, but all six is some kind of clear-cut spam assault? I'm not saying the link is necessarily the most useful thing to have added, but for Shadowbot to have been able to accurately evaluate this as improper behavior seems a bit harsh. It would be far better if this user could have been more gently introduced to the relevant guidelines rather than stifled and punished for what seems to have been a reasonable first attempt at making a contribution to Wikipedia. --Dystopos 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- A human would have had to blacklist the site. The bot does not figure that out on its own. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm seeing that User:68.211.95.66 made edits to 6 articles; Ghosts 'n Goblins, Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts, Ultimate Ghosts 'n Goblins, Demon's Crest, Gargoyle's Quest, and Gargoyle's Quest II. You're telling me that a link made to 2 of those might be ok, but all six is some kind of clear-cut spam assault? I'm not saying the link is necessarily the most useful thing to have added, but for Shadowbot to have been able to accurately evaluate this as improper behavior seems a bit harsh. It would be far better if this user could have been more gently introduced to the relevant guidelines rather than stifled and punished for what seems to have been a reasonable first attempt at making a contribution to Wikipedia. --Dystopos 22:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Regardless it is a pattern of spam. Imagine if you allowed 10 similar fansites? Eventually we would turn into a link farm, which we are not. To clarify, the addition of that link to one or two articles as a source is ok, but when it is added to multiple articles, it comes across as an attempt to promote that site. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- In fairness to the anonymous user, the accusation of spamming is not black and white, and the user was most likely adding it in good faith. It is believable that if the link were useful, it would be useful to the each of the small group of related articles. --Dystopos 21:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Let me make one thing clear. The bot isn't sentient. It can't distinguish someone's intent the way that you or I can; it relies solely upon information it receives from the IRC feed and from its owner. If you want it to do so, then I might as well do the reverting myself. Shadow1 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
Thank you for your input. I will say that I was not trying to spam Wikipedia by including those links; I'm just a fan of the series and was a fan of the site before it got shut down. Now that its back, I felt it should be included in the external links for those games because its been the only site to date to actually cover all the games in the series. The reason I said it was blacklisted is because of what was posted originally by the bot: "but note that the link you added, matching rule splatterhouse\.classicgaming\.gamespy\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia." I don't understand that part. Now if you all feel that it shouldn't be included, there's not much I can do about that. However, if "It's a fansite, not an official site of the game." was the reason, then you guys had better get busy and start taking down ALL the links to fansites on Wikipedia, because there are plenty of them. Why exclude one fansite and leave the rest up? - Alan
- Because it was a fansite AND it was being spammed. That, and I'm not too keen on pruning over 1 million articles for fansite links. Shadow1 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, if that's the way you feel about it, although I still think that "it's a fansite" reason, if that's Wikipedia's official stance, should merit the removal of all fansite links, regardless of how many pages exist on Wikipedia with fansite links. But my original question still stands: why is the domain itself listed on the "list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia"? Why is the overall site being targeted for removal from Wikipedia? Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean that the website owner should be punished. - Alan
- The website owner isn't being "punished." Links are added to Shadowbot's blacklist to prevent them from being spammed, not because I'm angry at their owner. The site was being spammed, it was added to the blacklist to prevent further additions. Shadow1 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay then if I leave and not edit anything again, will the domain be removed from that list? - Alan
- That's a bit drastic, but since it's really not being spammed anymore, I'll remove it from the blacklist. I would encourage you to stay on Wikipedia and help write articles, Alan, don't be put off by one bot! Shadow1 (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, that sounds fair. I'm sorry for the trouble I caused. Thank you. - Alan
[edit] Shadowbot III
Thanks for creating the new bot. I know a lot of users (myself included) are really appreciative. Is there any chance of marking edits as minor (minor bot edits don't trigger the you have new messages banner)? Thanks! alphachimp 15:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm currently working on that. I switched the Werdnabot code to use perlwikipedia so that I can better maintain and change it, I just need to update the editing functions to tell it to always mark edits as minor. Shadow1 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes. Thank you, thank you. I can't live without my archive bot. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shadowbot3
Please mark edits as minor so as to not cause the "new messages" popup to appear. If you are concerned that users will not be expecting this, how about allowing an additional option to the archival comment to permit this? --Random832 18:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I stated above, I am aware of the problem and working on fixing it. Shadow1 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I was signed up for Werdnabot on my talk page, and I'm wondering if you could help me set Shadowbot3 to take over? —dgiestc 23:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing you need to do. Shadowbot3, for the time being, is set to archive pages using the Werdnabot syntax. It should archive automatically. Shadow1 (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] So
I was not harassing anyone. The message left by Zim on my talk page made it seem he was the one deleting them, since it was a warning from him, so I went there. And how can I calm down when I am being unfairly treated? First, someone is rude enough to call my site "unimportant" then another person tries to claim it is against the guidelines somehow. I read those guidelines. It said the site could not be personal and had to be informative. My site is NOT personal and it is extremely informative. so why is it being removed? I don't mean to sound harsh, but this whole issue is extremely upsetting for me.
- Did you read the conflict of interest guidelines like I said? Your site is exactly that--yours. Your point of view in this issue is going to be biased towards inserting the link. I've reviewed the site and it seems like a great deal of the analysis is written by you. It's not an all-knowing guide, it's just your opinion. Shadow1 (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It may be mine, but even the official site belongs to someone. A personal site is just info about a person, a blog, resume, or something for a business, which mine is not. And many things written on Wikipedia could be considered people's opinions. The stuff on my fansite was not only the work of me but a great deal of the members of my Rule of Rose forum. It is only an opinion when stated so, which is rarely. 67.163.193.239 18:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shadowbot not signed in
Currently it is contributing as 75.117.234.53 (talk · contribs). -- ReyBrujo 11:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Rebooted. That shouldn't happen, but I'll take a look at it. Shadow1 (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cyberman Page Link
I attempted to insert a valid link to an image that would improve the quality of the particular entry on the Cyberman page. Your bot reverted it when it should have not. Please rectify the situation. Thanks!! --Promus Kaa 05:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Blacklisted ?
This edit here has been reverted, why is it classed as spam when it is a genuine link relevant to the subject ?
I have seen other links to fansites on Wikipedia, why are some allowed and some not ? 80.7.52.206 01:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just because a web site is related to the subject of the article doesn't mean it's necessary. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. The fact that it's a forum makes it even less relevant, as most of the content is unverified, unsourced, opinionated discussion. Shadow1 (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, I have found some great links through Wikipedia including a link to the official messageboard for Val Kilmer, unfortunately that board doesn't seem to be active in accepting new members which is why I put a link for an alternative forum. 80.7.52.206 11:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Amajada
Editing of page rejected. Please be more specific as to what I need to fix.Ganesh face 22:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shadowbot3
Hello. It seems like Shadowbot3 is not following the "dounreplied" instructions if it is set to "no" in Werdnabot tags. I have set it to "no" on my bot's talk page at User talk:NW557Bot in order to make sure I see and reply to all comments left regarding my bot, however Shadowbot3 has recently archived a section that only had one timestamp anyway. Thanks, Nick—Contact/Contribs 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- The original bot (Werdnabot), which Shadowbot3 is a clone of, didn't do this either. I don't believe the problem was ever fixed. — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 05:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 12 | 20 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
| WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream" | News and notes: Bad sin, milestones |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] freewebs.com
This edit [4] is not spam, it is about a PDF file with an analysis of another work. Maybe reconsider your criteria... e.g. that *.pdf are allowed. --Tilman 18:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of roads in Kuala Lumpur
It's reasonable that the bot decides to undo my edit because of copyright concerns, but why does it needs to undo an earlier string of edits by me (all the way back to March 3) that had nothing to do with it? Please accept my apologies for my rash edit summary, but that was the first thing that came into my mind when it happened. This is a serious bug. Any article which is editted by a single editor could suffer the same problem. - Two hundred percent 08:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of former child actors
Hi, your bot reverted my adding of an url to this page. I think this url (http://members.aol.com/jonmerrill/louannepage.htm) is a valuable source of information about the actress Louanne Sirota who hasn't have a page on wikipedia yet. Thanks for your time. Ik.pas.aan 21:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
