Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 →

Contents

Newspaper articles - and especially Tabloid Newspaper articles.

What happend to Avoid weasel words?

"Wikipedia properly considers the long term historical notability"

Define long term (also in violation of "wikipedia is not a crystal ball"). We don't and cannot know who will be remebered in 100 years. Most MPs will be largely forgotten but it appears villians are remembered longer (see Herostratus).

"of persons and events with a eye towards care for the harm our work might cause"

Groovy now possible to get wikipedia articles removed through threats. Information is dangerous. This section could be used to justify high levels of censorship. Plenty of bits of history can cause harm in being remembered ("your country attacked us a few centuries ago therefore our attack is justified").

Or there is infomation of a more technical type:

Gun-type_fission_weapon

We cause harm to magicians by saying how some of their tricks are done. Now normally we sidestep the issues by taking the approach that is popular in certain areas of science that true information is not intrinsically good or evil and it is not our place to judge. Moving away from that position creates far more problems than can be solved by doing so.

Geni 00:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the information itself is inherently good or evil, there are ethical considerations intrinsic in the act of making specific information widely and easily available now and for posterity. We can and must take into account those ethical considerations when publishing any article and especially when dealing with the biographies of living persons.
While revealing magicians' tricks and methods may potentially negatively affect some people, it in no way is directly comparable to the specific harm in extending the fifteen minutes of embarrassing fame to an immortality of shame in an encyclopedia. To argue otherwise is disingenuous. Comparing these two things is like saying that American Express account numbers often have 15 digits is as harmful as publishing specific account numbers with personal details in a way that enables identify theft. Lkinkade 00:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Which ethical considerations and under which ethical system? There are ethical systems that would say our article on homeosexuality is wrong since it doesn't explain that all those who commit homeosexual acts are going to hell.Geni 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
As written, the new guidelines contradict WP:NOTE, which states that notability does not expire. In other words, if the subject of an article gets widespread press coverage over a short period of time (the so-called "15 minutes of fame") they pass the notability test for Wikipedia. -- MisterHand 01:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If by WP:NOTE you mean the Wikipedia:Notability guideline, it's okay for this official policy to contradict guidelines. The trick is to interpret the guidelines in the light of policy, and modify them where they are irreconcilable. While it's true that (at least in principle) notability does not expire, notions of what is notable change from age to age. In the eighteenth century, for instance, the late seventeenth century civil servant and politician Samuel Pepys was just a footnote in history, except for his bequest of his library to Magdelene College. In the early nineteenth century, his private diaries were decoded and his notability as a citable source on major events of his era became more apparent. Cases of notability going in the other direction. My personal reaction to this is to avoid using the term "notable" and to evaluate articles on a case-by-case basis, with help from the so-called notability guidelines where they can help. There are other strategies and I don't decry them although I don't use them myself.

If you're saying that being in a lot of newspapers worldwide guarantees someone an everlasting article in Wikipedia, well what I and Jimmy Wales and lots of other people are saying is a firm no. --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that's what this encyclopedia's notability guidelines say. If that's not the case, then those guidelines need to change as well. -- MisterHand 03:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside - Gun-type fission weapon doesn't contain enough information to help someone design a nuclear weapon and is not dangerous. The Nuclear Weapons FAQ does, but please note that essentially none of the "how-to" or design analysis math or techniques info there is anywhere here. This is a subject near to my heart - I have worked with the NWFAQ author on and off for about 15 years on this topic - and unfortunately the subject of great paranoia at times by those who aren't technically informed and aware. Fear not. Wikipedia is very harmless on this point. Georgewilliamherbert 04:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Attempt at rewording

The closest I can get to something that is consistant with policy is:

Wikipedia does not allow for articles that exist with the aim to disparage the subject of the article. This is required by NPOV and Verifiability in that there must be enough information from Reliable sources to write a NPOV about the subject. With regards to people this means that there must have been wider coverage of their lives beyond a single event.

however this doesn't work because it would require the deletion of articles on things like Olympic athletes.Geni 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. If an athlete wins Olympic gold, we get a hole biography appearing in reliable sources. When a person becomes a bit player in an incident, all we get is newspaper reports of one incident. That a baby was 'switched at birth' does not allow us to write a biography - although if the incident attracted enough attention, we could write an article on the incident.--Docg 00:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe in a Darwinistic approach -- we can have the articles, then when time passes by and there really is no significance to an event, we can go on ahead and delete the article. If the event still has significance after a period of time, then the article is kept. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Unacceptable. In the meantime we are highlighting something that's unimportant - and giving it google juice. If it is just an incident report - then it isn't a biography and we should not have what we cannot write.--Docg 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
We have to take the longer term view with BLPs. We have the ability to affect an entire life by making a rash decision and publicizing unnecessarily some stupid mistake that someone might have made. Better to wait to see how and whether reliable sources develop the issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
so you support the deletion of articles on olympic athletes? If not how do you square that with your position.Geni 02:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
nah plenty of minor events where such coverage will not exist Olympic Trap shooting for example.Geni 00:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
If having been involved in Olympic Trap Shooting ever becomes a serious liability to former contestants, the articles that include such trivia will probably be subject to heavy editing. We make the internet not suck, and we need to live up to that. --Tony Sidaway 01:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No that is what I'm trying to work around since your suggestion would put us as the arbiters of what is good and evil and that just doesn't work. Trap Shooting may be harmless but what about say Eurovision (answer depends on where you are) or say someone who was briefly a major homosexual activist? No these are not judgments that it is wikipedia's place to make.Geni 02:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It's our encyclopedia. Who's to say the judgements aren't ours to make? Who else would make them but us ourselves? --Tony Sidaway 02:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
generaly our readers. anythign else would be presenting a POV.Geni 02:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I'm not sure (as the discussion above seems to indicate) that we should attempt to discriminate much based on the type of news coverage, as how 'embarrassing' a story is, and how much the person in question contributed to their own publicity, are often quite debatable. The way, the truth, and the light 02:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes which is the problem my suggested wording tries to get around however that has the problem of 1)seriously alturing our noteability standards (not that I would have a problem with that) and requireing the deletion of some widely accepted articles.Geni 02:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The wording as it now stands does not mention any such standards, so I don't think that's a problem. I agree that this seems to conflict with notability standards. The way, the truth, and the light 02:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It's policy, not guideline. Going into nitpicking detail is inappropriate. This is just a statement that we don't think much of the fact that some unfortunate bozo happened to be in a newpaper. If we decide we don't much like his article being on the encyclopedia, for whatever reason (but particularly for reasons related to our wish to be an ethical source of information rather than an aggregator of whatever scandals the news media can publish) we delete it unless there is a particularly good reason not to.
As for the notability guidelines, they're always to be interpreted in the light of policy. So no problem with apparent conflicts. Policy takes precedence. --Tony Sidaway 02:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This new section is horribly written and, at least the way it is phrased now, completely ill-conceived. Can we get (or can someone point to a pre-existing piece if one exists) some comments from Jimbo on exactly what it is he is trying to accomplish so this can be reworded to something sane and rational, because as it stands now it just opens the door for people to ask for all sorts of notable articles to be deleted for less than encyclopedic reasons. DreamGuy 02:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tabloid

From my limited understanding of what people are arguing here, it's not so much the newspaper article part that Wikipedia is not, but the tabloid part. The rewording has taken out the tabloid mention, however, which suddenly makes the statement sound a lot more broad than I think (or maybe just hope) was intended. Perhaps if it specified tabloid newspaper instead of just newspaper. DreamGuy 02:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree; "Wikipedia is not a Tabloid" captures it well without being controversial. — brighterorange (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The controversial articles are about subjects that were covered in non-tabloid, respectable news sources. So I think 'Wikipedia is not a tabloid' would just be confusing. The way, the truth, and the light 03:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I meant that the policy change would not be (as) controversial. — brighterorange (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This is probably better language. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What Jimbo was getting at is this: there is a difference between a newspaper reporting a major event, and sensationalist reporting of the cause celebre du jour. If, for example, the press report a massive new public project, that is probably pretty uncontroversial. If, on the other hand, they are covering a court case which has no lasting societal impact but has some feature that will sell newspapers, we should recognise that as just that: sensationalism to sell papers. How we finally word it I still don't know, but the reason for the qualifier, as I understand it was to allow for inclusion of news which is actually encyclopaedic, and more importantly to draw a distinction between the types of news which might be, and the types which are probably not. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • it was almost certian writen in the context of the Crystal Gail Mangum case. Problem is that almost certianly will have a long term social impact in that geniune rape cases are less likely to be belived in that area for at least a period of time.Geni 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think my original wording was fine

I think my original wording was fine, subject of course to some tweaks and smoothings of grammar and style.

And I invite Geni to be a bit less hysterical about objections. I am happy to discuss it in detail, and to make changes as necessary, but the core point is critical, and I am unwavering about it.

Most slippery slope arguments in this area are just nonsense. What if someone wants to nominate Gun-type fission weapon for deletion? Well, I would imagine that they will be laughed at. Saying that we properly "consider" long term historical notability and the harm we might cause is not dispositive in any particular case. We consider it. Sometimes we think it worthwhile to proceed despite that. Many times, and in particular in the kinds of cases we are all concerned about, we think it not worthwhile. We are Wikipedians. We discuss, we debate, we think.

We do not and can not know what will be important 100 years from now. True. We will let those Wikipedians of the future decide for themselves. We live here and now, and having total fucking crap (have I ever cursed on Wikipedia before?) in Wikipedia today, on the theory that the people of 100 years hence might want to write an article about it then, strikes me as unwise.--Jimbo Wales 03:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'd say it's identically unwise to make knee-jerk reactions in the other direction. Of course, since we write from sources, the addition really lacks anything anyway, as it's wholly subjective and will undoubtedly only be abused, rather than used in any proper manner, if there is a proper manner. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
What's the knee-jerk reaction here (aside from leaping to the conclusion that this "will undoubtedly only be abused")? It's an attempt to maintain coherence between our guidelines and our practices, while addressing issues that have been the subject of concerned discussion for some time now. --Michael Snow 04:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to address anything regrding guidelines or practices, really. If you think it does, then it's even more toothless than perhaps I originally thought. And it's certainly not a leap to consider this easily abused - have you not been paying attention the last couple weeks? --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, considering that the page is tagged as "official policy" (for what those labels are worth), why you say it doesn't address guidelines or practices is beyond me. I can see you've already softened your stance from will "only be abused" to "easily abused". From past observation I know I'm not ready to adopt your definition of abuse, so care to keep moving further in the direction of a middle ground? --Michael Snow 04:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, considering that the section added doesn't reflect any of that, and is at least giving the appearance of a "Jimbo wants it" support (never a good sign), I fail to see how this actually reflects practice, guideline, policy, or consensus. I see no middle ground, and I'm not really changing my opnion on the abuse - Wikipedia writes from sources in a neutral manner, that's all we must concern ourselves with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The inability to see possible common ground with people of divergent opinions does not speak well of your capacity for working on a collaborative project like Wikipedia. --Michael Snow 04:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent defense of your position. I assume you have no argument, since you instead felt the need to go after me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Or rather, I have decided not to argue further with someone who rejects any possibility of compromise by his own statements. All you've done is essentially rehashed the same position on your side, so I don't know what my position needs to be defended against other than argument by assertion. --Michael Snow 04:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
And I'm fine with that. You'll note that I can agree to that without making a trite comment about one's capabilities. You do, however, seem to have an issue demonstrating how this actually jives with what you claim is "an attempt to maintain coherence." It may be worth your while to do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia writes from sources in a neutral manner, that's all we must concern ourselves with." No. Wikipedia is too big, too influential, too widely linked to, too often the first thing returned in a Google searhc for that to be all. We must also be ethical. We must also refrain from causing needless harm or anguish. We must also refrain from needlessly increasing notoriety of those who are only victims of circumstance. I think the majority of the community believes that. I think the wider world believes we have such a duty as well, and I think Jimbo's changes reflect that consensus, rather than being something imposed by fiat. IMHO, it has come to Jimbo taking this stand personally in part because there is a minority of people, including yourself, Jeff, who apparently do not get this, and it is important enough that Jimbo himself felt that, since you apparently do not get this, his direct contribution to the debate might possibly serve to influence you to reconsider your position, to reconsider spurning ethicality, and to do what is right, not just what is allowed by policy. Please reconsider your position and your opposition. ++Lar: t/c 11:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Which ethical system? "needless harm or anguish" define what need do we have and where are you drawing the line?Geni 12:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
We are an encyclopedia, not an ethical experiment. I do get what you're saying - I reject it wholeheartedly, and without reservation. Jimbo may have other reasons that come into play - he's not sharing them, and, truly, he hasn't been an editor in a very long time, and that certainly bears noting. Unless he's acting as God King here, I see no reason to treat his opinion as greater than anyone else's at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
We are not an ethical experiment. We are a project with an opportunity to act ethically, or instead to stand on process. It's too bad that you reject what I believe is consensus "wholeheartedly and without reservation", because I choose to act ethically, not to stand on process, as do I think most other people. As for weight of opinions, I think you'll find that WP is at least in part a meritocracy and Jimbo has demonstrated more merit than most, and thus his opinions rightly carry more weight (at least with some of us) than some other folks opinions do. ++Lar: t/c 12:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I choose to act ethically as well. See the problem? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed I do. Restating it... if my ethics lead me logically to the conclusion that we should not do needless harm to victims by publicising them more than necessary, and your ethics lead you logically to the conclusion that doing so is OK, at least one of our ethical systems has a logical contradiction or a moral failing. Perhaps both, of course, and perhaps instead, one or both of our derivations is not sound. But.. if I'm in fact logically contradicted or if my conclusion is fallaciously derived, then I'm in pretty good company, company I'm proud to keep. For the most part, I think it's a good idea to structure things in a way that we don't have to use ethics to make decisions, as much as possible. But sometimes we do. These sorts of cases are the sort where we do have to be informed by ethics, and your apparent viewpoint in this matter about what is right and what is ethical is, I think, in a small minority. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has an issue with the statement that it might be considered. But having that statement be part of policy implies that things that violate it are likely to be deleted, not just that it will be considered as a factor. If you support deleting these types of articles, that's reasonable, but significantly different from just saying "we consider it". -Amarkov moo! 04:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
not a slippery slope argument just a logical extrapolation. If we are going to start worrying about harm that is the direction we should logicaly go in. We cannot decide if information is going to cause harm without first decideing if information is good or evil and that is a POV judgement that we should not be makeing.Geni 12:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not justification for speedy deletion

WP:NOT is explicitly listed as one of the things that is not a speedy criterion. So if you think that this section justifies any speedy deletion, you are wrong. Those will continue to stand on their own merits, supported by no policy (except maybe some interpretations of BLP). -Amarkov moo! 04:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I think we'll have a lot less need for speedies in a short while. Stay tuned. --Tony Sidaway 05:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
What did this mean?--P4k 22:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

notable->encyclopedic

I've restored Jimbo's wording in the newspaper articles item to emphasize the word "encyclopedic". Our notability guidelines are rules of thumb and do not guarantee an article in an encyclopedia. The stronger standard applies: "should this item have an encyclopedia article in this encyclopedia?" In answering that question we consider every relevant factor. In particular, this policy overrides theg guidelines. --Tony Sidaway 05:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like using the word 'encyclopedic' here as it's circular: 'encyclopedic' in this context means 'suitable for the encyclopedia'. So saying that we shouldn't have unencyclopedic articles is a tautology. It seems that my wording with 'notable' is better, because that really is the only standard that we can use. The way, the truth, and the light 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You remain my favourite Wikipedian, Tony, for your ability to write stuff like that with a straight face. Your standard is utter bollocks, of course. It basically says you'll decide what should be in an encyclopaedia by deciding what should be in an encyclopaedia. Which would be fine if there weren't dozens of opinions on what encyclopaedias should contain, which are drearily rehearsed in various forums here. It's not that I don't appreciate your desire to allow editors you consider to have a "clue" to be arbiters of what should be in and what should be out -- it's a bit self-selecting but so long as you include yourself in the "clueful", what's the harm? -- but you can see why some find it a bit unsatisfactory? Of course, I think we should have stuck with the original bold vision and not settled for aiming at being a poor man's Britannica, but I'm not as influential in the backchannels as yourself. Grace Note 05:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm really starting to hate Wikipedia. It's getting too complicated and convoluted to edit, people are in constant disagreement, and there really are no guiding editors or moderators at the top. The main problem is that since there can be millions of articles and entries, there's no way to control it all. The other problem, that I admit is subjective, is that even though this is a site anyone in the world can contribute to, I really can't stand the use of British-only terms such as "bollocks". It's a bad word (I don't mean because a curse word, it's just an awful word), it needn't be used in the United Kingdom, and certainly doesn't need to be used here. I'm sure somewhere buried in the Wiki vaults is a usage book on language usage, that would explain why using "British English" is acceptable, but I would not subscribe to it, anymore than strictly "American" words or terms should wind up in British encyclopedias or usage guides. I know, I know, now that statement is going to cause outrage from some or another editor!71.125.227.129 02:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is American spelling any better than British spelling? Melsaran 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Attempt at rewording #2

I've been bold and reworded it slightly. I should probably outline my position in greater detail here:

While i'm mainly in agreement with BLP and this policy addition, I still feel it requires further clarification to avoid loose interpretations. I'm not sure whether every article on a living person needs to be viewed as a full 'Biography' - if their notability is restricted to one particular incident or event. I'm also concerned at the potential for 'sanitising' wikipedia that BLP seems to offer - if negative information is both relevant and verifiable, it should be included. The Crystal Gail Magnum case is a clear example of the line where the article becomes unnecessary - not enough verifiable information for a full biography (which is not necessarily a problem) or for an article (which is). Since there was a larger article on the incident which contained the relevant information, I supported the redirect. However, I'm sure there are articles that have been speedied where there *was* enough relevant information for an article, and where there hasn't been coverage of this information within another article.

In short, I'm in agreement with thois policy, with the proviso that people should tread lightly when approaching this type of article: rather than speedying, it would be preferable to blank dubious content (not whole articles), protect, and send to one of the many fora for resolving content disputes. Some of what's been happening with DRV etc has served to divide the community, rather than to encourage co-operation. Which path do we want to take? --DrumCarton 13:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think it's divisive to talk about policy overriding guidlines - BLP and Notability are perfectly capable of working together, as long as people try to make them do so. If a subject is clearly notable, we can't censor it from the encyclopedia, even if the verifiable information is predominantly negative. Likewise, if an article is negative without adding anything to the encyclopedia, it shouldn't need to be here. Example of the type of story that does not merit an article: [1]. However, there are many that do. DrumCarton 13:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

More minor tweaks

I've made another tweak back towards Jimbo's original language. I can see where "Newspaper articles" stands out from "News Reports" which is a term used in WP:NOT#OR. --InkSplotch 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

More comments and changes

Wow, I'm away for a long weekend and look what I miss - Jimbo himself somewhat unilaterally adds a new section to WP:NOT#IINFO out of the blue. So it looks like I've come back to a bit of excitement. Anyway, while I think Jimbo's heart is probably in the right place, I have a couple of comments and changes for the new section.

  • The name of the section, "News reports", unfortunately duplicates the name of the "News reports" section of WP:NOT#OR. They talk about different problems, though (one is about first-hand reporting, while the other discusses remaining neutral and on-topic). Ideally one of both of these sections should be renamed to make them more distinct. I'm not sure what name to use off-hand, but if someone has a good idea feel free to suggest it or make the change.
  • I think the new section significantly overlaps WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. WP:BLP for example already says very similar things, such as in the "Presumption in favor of privacy" section. I think the new section can probably be shortened by a sentence or two, mainly referring readers to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV for guidance on what is or isn't suitable for biographical articles. Then leave those policies as the one that delve into greater detail on what exactly Wikipedia is looking for in terms of keeping bios on topic and neutral, etc. To that end I'll take a stab at making the section a little more concise.
  • My only disagreement with the spirit of the new section would be that, in my opinion, we should be mainly concerned with whether or not information is objective, verifiable and worth mentioning in a detailed encyclopedic treatment of the subject. I believe that while "possible harm" should be a reasonable secondary consideration, it should in the end be trumped by "accuracy and significance". That is possibly embarassing information which is verifiable and non-trivial in an encyclopedic discussion on the topic should still be included. Unimportant information which is potentially embarassing should be removed, but important information should not. I think the current wording leans a little too much away from accuracy in favor of avoiding embarassment. On the upside, if I shorten the section to refer to WP:BLP then that would eliminate my concern by shifting details on the definitions to that policy instead of this one. Dugwiki 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but I reverted you, for two reasons - the previous wording started at a fairly uncontroversial premise and logically argued it to a conclusion, imo. Also, this debate's also caused quite a lot of friction, so it may be wise to specify fairly clearly here the ground rules for this particular problem. DrumCarton 11:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, no big deal there one way or another. I did make one more minor change, though. I didn't like the phrase "In many cases it will be impossible..." because it sounds a bit too much like a weasel word. I replaced it with a hopefully logical correlation that the briefer the news coverage of a person the less likely a sufficiently comprehensive encyclopedic article can be constructed. This tries to explain the relationship between brief news coverage without quantifying whether there are "many" or "some" or "a few" cases where biographies can be constructed. (It's not important exactly how many such cases exist, but only how to recognize when they occur.)
P.S. I like the new title "Journalism" for the other related section of policy. Thanks to whoever came up with that. :) Dugwiki 15:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We need more discussion on this

I completely agree with the addition, however there seems to be major disagreement to how this is supposed to be applied. I don't suggest removing the entry, but agree with it or not, it's way too new for people to be using it in such unclear situations. -- Ned Scott 00:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)