Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:09, 25 October 2007

Archived discussions:

Johnny Berlin

Hey, you deleted Johnny Berlin because in your opinion it was not important enough. This band is a wellknown band from Belgium. They had succes in Holland. With their next album they are targetting the European and british market. I hope you realise they are not so unimportant, you just don't know them (yet).

kind regards, Bobbyjohn

Green Owl

OK, I translet: I (G.O.) dont'do vandalism. It was my brother. Can you sblocked Green Owl, please (If you block it, block for an hour-an day), ok? --Zan Biedro 08:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you transfer all contributions of Green Owl to Zan Biedro and block Green Owl?--Zan Biedro 10:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Could article Inchies be reinstated since deletion was while editing and citations in progress?

Howdy there! I submitted an article on Inchies, and questions were made as to whether it was an actual art format and/or form since no "real" articles were written on it. I was in the process of editing the article when - upon reviewing it - I noticed you had gone ahead and deleted it for being "spam." Would you please reconsider allowing its posting and/or reversing the deletion? I have two recent magazine articles to cite in my backing of it, and while I'm new to adding Misplaced Pages articles, but I truly believe that my article "inchies" would be a valuable resource for other artists.

Thanks so much :-)

Lisa Marie 12:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Lisamarie123

I understand your concern, we are working to correct the problem

Regarding the "Gmod Network" post

This is the first time we've posted on Misplaced Pages and didn't fully understand how articles ought to be written. Upon reviewing our post - we see that there were indeed elements of advrtisment and are working to rewrite the article. We will continue to edit the post until it complies with Misplaced Pages's standards. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.210.153 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi

Why did you remove Tobias's reply? He may be banned, but I think he has the right to reply on his talk page to his "farewell message" at least, as long as he doesn't attack anyone. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 22:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Shane Van Gisbergen

Hello, Im going to re create the Shane Van Gisbergen article, but I'll do it in my own words this time.

Muitint78 09:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have recreated the page, i hope it is better

Shane Van Gisbergen

Thank You for not deleting the Shane Van Gisbergen article. Maybe some body else can expand it, this is my first time on Wiki, and im not shore on how to use every thing.

User talk:象棋高手 (TOR node)

Hi, I see you unblocked User:66.199.184.254 (the TOR exit node) per WP:TOR. Apparently there was a change in the page 2 days ago to add the softblock part. Personally I'm a bit concerned that unblocking a tor node is exactly like unblocking an open proxy, since in both cases we are allowing legit users and vandals to edit completely anonymously (our WP:RFCU regulars use both). Do you know if there happened to be a change in the concensus or a discussion to refer myself to? If we all start to wheel-war about that, this is going to be a rough day :p -- lucasbfr 10:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I somehow forgot to try and check Misplaced Pages talk:No open proxies when I was trying to find an answer. -- lucasbfr 11:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Strigi webpage

Hi Mike, should we sync efforts, instead of making conflicting edits? IRC? egonw at irc.freenode.net --EgonWillighagen 09:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC) In particular, how did you do that move? How should I have done that instead of the stupid copy/paste I did? Sorry for being a bit of a novice here... --EgonWillighagen 09:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Martin Chretien

I added a speedy delete attack tag to this article that you put up for AfD. I believe that, due to the nature of the article, it should be immediately deleted. If you disagree, I ask that you delete the edit history prior to my last edit, under WP:BLP. Thank you. KP Botany 21:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Just spotted another VWG sock from March

Alfa-alibista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - performed the same vandalism that Nový nýmand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did to Ron Dellums back in March but has yet to be blocked.

In addition, there's another account Chce se mi spát (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that is blocked but not yet listed on your vandal descripton page. I also suggest that you modify the third specialty description to something like "Vandalism of African-American related pages (such as Mumia Abu-Jamal and Portal:African American/Intro), replacing the subject's image with that of a gorilla.", since the March episode shows that he has clearly moved beyond MAJ to other African-American subjects as well. 68.161.106.223 20:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe CheckUser will yield any meaningful results on Alfa-alibista, as this sock made only two edits, all back in March (which is more than one month before today), so I suggest that you withdraw the CU request on this one. 68.161.106.223 17:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

TOR proxies

I understand that you have been converting hard blocks on TOR proxies into soft blocks. I'd like to urge you not to do so. The problem is that pretty much all the long-term vandals know about using TOR to continue editing. They are able to use these proxies to continue their abusive sockpuppeteering. Many end up being blocked as the result of checkuser requests. I freely admit that there is no firm consensus one way or another. However, I am involved with tracking down and blocking a few long-term vandals and so I fall firmly in the hard-block-TOR-proxies camp. I am not trying to dictate to you here; if you disagree, I'd love to briefly discuss. --Yamla 20:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Mike Rosoft/Vandal with a grudge

The page has been protected and all, so I couldn't do it, shouldn't you add Category:Long term abuse to the page? Just a suggestion. Cheers, JetLover 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Best Moot Court Programs

Yes, bestmootcourtprograms.com is a web site. But it is also the authority on how American moot court programs stack up against one another. Two law schools have cited to it. In fact, it is/was cited as an authority on University of California, Hastings College of Law's wikipedia article. Just because the authority is a web site doesn't mean it's not the authority. I plan to continue adding it to the External Links portion of the "moot court" article. I hope wikipedia takes a second look at bestmootcourtprograms.com, and thinks twice about straw arguments such as "the ranker of the programs has no credentials." (how does one have credentials in moot court? a phD in mootcourtology? no. brian koppen, the ranker, was regional champion, regional best brief winner and national semifinalist of the moot court competition sponsored by whom? that's right: american bar association.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimdugan (talk • contribs).

I believe you're confusing competence at participation with competence at ranking. I won't try to argue that Brian isn't a skilled participant, but that does not mean he is reputable enough to rank other participants. Also, asserting that the site is reputable because it was cited in two Misplaced Pages articles is highly dubious. First of all, you added those citations. Second, if that was the standard, then we're in a catch-22: something must be reliable to be cited on Misplaced Pages; however, citation alone makes something reliable. As to your phd in mootcourtolgy, I understand your frustration, but frustration does not overcome my point. How about law professors, esteemed judges, etc? If Brian Koppen is qualified to rank programs, than so is every single person that achieved his success before him (which, by definition, is four semifinalists a year). Aeh5a2 18:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Someone else added bestmootcourtprograms.com as a footnote to the UC-Hastings article. (I don't know how to add footnotes.) Second, two law schools cited to bestmootcourtprograms.com on their own - outside of wikipedia. Law professors? Wouldn't they fall into your "affiliation" argument? How could a professor employed by a law school also pass judgment on his and other law schools? Also, esteemed judges are usually lawyers, all of whom went to law school and are trapped by "affiliation." Brian Koppen is not the one ranking participants. The moot court judges do that. Brian Koppen is simply adding together the finishes. Have you been deleting bestmootcourtprograms.com as an external link under "moot court"? It better not be per some wikipedia policy. At the same time, the deleter of my external link is leaving another external link which seems to be promoting a moot court comp. ("The FIAC International Student Moot Court is the first international student competition focussing on investment protection.") The deleter should know that most comps charge steep fees for participation, and if the FIAC competition is the same way, the deleter is leaving undeleted a link that is promoting a business. If it is some chump deleting the thing because his program does not rank well in the bestmootcourtprograms.com, I'll keep adding it as an external link to "moot court." However, if it is you, and if you have some sort of administrator power here, you might think about (a) deleting FIAC as an external link to "moot court", or (b) leaving bestmootcourtprograms.com as an external link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimdugan (talk • contribs).

Groundwork Trust

I'm interested in creating this article. However, how do you think an article should be created without it sounding like an advertisement? I feel it possibly deserves an article as it is a nationwide charity. Simply south 23:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved comment for User:Astronaut

Hi,

Thanks for moving Zaslsv's comment from my user page to my talk page. I'm curious though why you saw fit to move the comment rather than leave it for me to find it where Zaslav originally put it? Astronaut 02:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for all the Badger's backside reverts

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for sorting out all the problems with the Badger's backside on mine and many other people's talk pages. Woodym555 11:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I know you already have one but for your dedication i though you should have another one!!! Thanks again. Woodym555 11:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Quebec article

Hi. We had a consensus before Soulscanner came and edit without considering it. T Y Pgsylv 18:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Dear Mike Rosoft,

I write here just to inform you that User:Green Owl (whom you briefly blocked) is a sockpuppet of an infamous wikipest accostumed to stalk wikiprojects with multiple accounts - Here is known also as User:Flavio.brandani and User:succhiacazzo). His modus operandi shown here ("it was my brother") is an old trick of his - another one is a blatant melodramatic selfaccusation and promise of repentance. Obviously you don't have to blindly believe me, on it.wiki our GoodFaith created such damage that we are monitoring his recurrent reincarnations, and more than a year after his infinite ban we collected suspect and evidence which led to this. This user (one month ago we proved that User:Flavio.brandani and Utente:leopardo planante Leopardo were the same user) has currently the following list of sockpuppets around the wikiworld.

Just for your awareness... - εΔω (but in case of doubt ask to Jollyroger too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrbiliusMagister (talk • contribs) 08:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I did not upload this picture

You left a note that Image:DiasPages.png, uplopaded by me is listed for deletion. I did not upload this picture. Where did you find my name associated with it?--Pinaki ghosh 09:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Will DOT.TUNES always be considered spam?

In my first attempt at creating an entry for DOT.TUNES I realized that I erred greatly in listing numerous links in the Reference section, and probably by listing the various feature of the most recent iteration of the application.

In my second attempt, I tried to refrain from listing any extraneous information, or information that would not necessarily be considered neutral or objective, while still attempting to capture the essence of the thing I was describing.

Since I do not want to engage in a repetitive endeavor, and since this will likely be the last attempt at getting it right, I wondered if the application (as an encyclopedic entry in and of itself) is sufficiently notable to warrant an entry into Misplaced Pages.

In my writing, I was trying to describe it with sufficient detail, without "selling" it per se.

From what I observed over the internet and various locations on the internet, DOT.TUNES has emerged as an application of some note, having been discussed widely. Moreover, since the application was developed by a developer in Australia, with a history of developing applications used widely (and this particular application has been around for some time), I thought that it might pass encyclopedic muster.

If this is not the case, please advise.

If you believe that this can be written in such a way to eliminate any of its "spammish" nature, but in a fashion to simply and accurately describe it and its function, also please advise.

Thank you.

Schukumba 20:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Thank you for your note about the syntax for redirects; just a typing error on my part. Janggeom 08:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hymn to Liberty

I went further behind your revert, because these other edits were vandalism to destroy the formatting of the article. If your decision bases on better knowledge, please revert my change. --Thw1309 09:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Attack accounts

You are absolutely right. I discovered to late that, while I searched for the right template, the accounts already were blocked. Next time I will take care of this. I´m sorry about the work, you had to do to remove my mistake.--Thw1309 13:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by 208.108.223.182

Dear Mike: An individual at this shared address has been vandalising after being warned by Mufka about this-his targets were Mufka's user and talk pages. Please take a look at their histories. I recommend that this account be blocked. Regards.--Lyricmac 18:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--Lyricmac 21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On abusive DL

Hello Mike! When you tag an article with DB, you might first read the article, second politely ask its creator about its notability. Rue 89 is of course notable. If you had taken the time to read first before clicking on your mouse, you would have seen, first, that it was founded by former journalists of Libération — I'm sure you're not familiar with the context of France, but this is, by itself, an event. Second, less than a week after its opening, it already published a scoop on the kind of censorship going on in France right now. Third, it is the translation of a French Wiki article. Fourth, it recently published another scoop concerning a false interview of Barrack Obama signed by Alexis Debat, a so-called "expert" famous in Washington DC. I hope this clears your mind, cheers! Tazmaniacs 11:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Irish Stew of Sindidun

Hi, you've speed-deleted an article on a Serbian band Irish Stew of Sindidun. While I realise they aren't "significant" compared to bands that are world-wide famous, I have to say they are quite significant in local terms (not local as in one city, but local as in the whole Balcan peninsula). They are one of the most famous alternative Serbian bands right now, very important for the alternative music scene in Serbia. They have released one album, which was quite successful, and the second album will be out in a couple of months. Their fanbase is largish, they've toured all over the country, played on festivals, and they've won two prises. I took a look at the 'Serbian musical groups category - and I saw a number of bands I haven't even heard of (and I'm kinda into music and kinda follow the local scene quite intently). Those articles were allowed to stay. Yet, everyone around here knows of Irish Stew, and their article has been deleted.

I do realise they aren't known outside the region, really (except to a few enthusiasts... like, say, folk on the Paddy Rock Radio). But in the more local terms, they are well-known (and well loved). Could you please reconsider the decision about the deletion?

I'm not a member of the band, and this is not self-promotion. I just admire their work and think they deserve an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieda (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieda (talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for catching the vandalism on my user page (before I did!) --barneca (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Order of T. G. Masaryk

I would just like to thank You for all the work on Order of T. G. Masaryk. --Kriplozoik 22:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And here we go again...

I put in a RFPP, but it hasn't been reviewed. Might be worth you stepping in to close that and protect the pages Diana, Princess of Wales and Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, as this person does not seem willing to stop. Newest account: Largeextra 12:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So quick! Thank you so much for your help Mike, should I remove my RFPP submission or could you just close it as complete? 12:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Learntruck

I'll let you decide if you want to up his block based on Whenlaugh. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Moshpit Tragedy Records

Hello, I am wondering how I may have the dispute over Moshpit Tragedy Records settled. Interview snippets, references, quotes, even an mp3 segment from a radio show talking about the labels free downloads have been included. I am hoping we can have the deletion tag removed now that notability has been more clearly established. Thank you. Moshpit tragedy 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Have added over 12 reviews of the label's releases and many other references from reliable independent news sources. There is more coming. Can we please take the deletion notice off or end the discussion? Thanks for your work.Moshpit tragedy 17:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ralingerie

Seeing as you already took care of the issue, could you please close the discussion at MFD? Thanks! - Mtmelendez 13:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

some hints

, , , (...odporuje to v mych očích i zvyklostem z jiných domén jako en.wiki, kde skutečnost, že s někým je vedena arbitráž, vede k tomu, že dokonce i smazání uživatelských a diskusních stránek takového uživatele je výslovně odmítnuto... - I saw it somewhere) - thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by -jkb- (talk • contribs) 14:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into things

Thanks for looking into the whole Yell&Ice/The ted issue. For the article I just wanted a second set of eyes to look into it to see if it met notability criteria or not. I thought that the (now deleted) "db-song" template was policy. As for "The ted," I wanted someone to look into what he might have done, since he had clearly violated policy twice and had possibly done so again in a worse way, but I didn't quite know where to report it. I'll use WP:ANI next time. Thanks again.  :-) -- HiEv 19:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Beasts of Satan

I recreated it with two references from the Guardian and the BBC, I wasn't finished, and hadn't added them when you deleted it. Arkalochori 08:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing User talk:Catherine de Burgh/Catherine de Burgh

Would you please explain why correspondence addressed implicitly to me, and in my user space has been deleted from the above page, before I have had the opportunity to reply to it. Kindly reinstate it before I am forced to take the matter to your superiors. Please be aware I am a dear and personal friend of Mr. Wales. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) 08:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agile product management

You star, very quick off the mark. Poor editor thinks duplication is acceptable and no-one will notice the spam links *grin* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blowdart (talk • contribs) 13:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The CLARION cognitive architecture page

M. Rosoft,

Please reconsider your decision of deleting the CLARION cognitive architecture wikipedia page. CLARION is a valid model in psychology and artificial intelligence that has been the subject of roughly 50 publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. It is also mentioned in the SOAR cognitive architecture page on wikipedia. You can also look at the CLARION project page () or the creator of CLARION's webpage (). Professor Ron Sun, who created the CLARION model, will be awarded the Hebb award by the International Neural Networks Society next year for this important contribution ().

Thank you veru much.

Sebastien Helie, Ph.D. Rensselaer Polytechinic Institute

128.113.101.189 14:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nick Tyndall

Apologies, I was merely demonstrating to a member at a forum how to start a new page on Misplaced Pages. I've never heard of the sandbox though, any further details so I do not make the same mistake again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mittens2317 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting article on medicinal cannabis treatments: Bedrocan

Hello Mark , The items below were deleted by you this evening: 21:34, 3 October 2007 Mike Rosoft (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Bedrocan" ‎ (Article has been deleted) 21:34, 3 October 2007 Mike Rosoft (Talk | contribs) deleted "Bedrocan" ‎ (Spam)

I can see that you marked the article Bedrocan as (SPAM), and would like a more elaborate explaination, if that's possible. In the article "Talk:Bedrocan" I offered a detailed response to the initial addition of the article to the candidate for speedy deletion list. It was subsequently suggested by another user that 'notability is the question here'. REgardless, all of the text is now gone. Could you explain this to me please? thanks

Noel McCullagh Multiple Sclerosis patient Barentsz 21:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Bedrocan

Yes, I was looking up the notability pages after it was cited as a potential candidate for notability by Cobaltbluetony. There was indeed a suggested tag for candidacy for speedy deletion. However, I complied with that tag by requesting a "holdon" notice and starting a talk page.

My talk page included this text, wouldn't that normally deserve a response or notice to update the work before removal? Barentsz 22:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

and, I read the guidelines for sysops when deleting : (sysops ) Simply deleting a page does not automatically delete its talk page (or any subpages). If you wish to delete these as well, do them first, and then the main page.

In the log, you deleted the main page first, and afterward, you deleted the talk page later. Why did you do this in a manner contrary to that specified in your sysop guidelines?

Thank you, Barentsz 22:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for posting the text on bedrocan.

In the guidelines I found tips on how it may be adapted to either other articles or a re-formulation / retitling of the original article. It should have been named Cannabis Flos, and was better suited to an existing page.

Barentsz 17:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

vandalism problem

How do I report an IP address or username? Just discovered two vandalizing pages. 1)149.4.115.5 2)username Briangleven

thanks for any assistance Enigmaman 21:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked the account history, and there's a pattern there. I'm not talking about just one instance of vandalism. Enigmaman 21:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack Chick

Hello,

I read that you stated that Jimmy Akin has given his permission for using his drawing of Chick. Did you ask him personnally ? I'ma asking because I've been thinking about emailing Akin for his permission so the drawing won't be deleted. Thanks, Wedineinheck 09:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake

Hey Mike, sorry about that , I was on my way to reverting to Gurch's revision and you beat me to it. Thats 4 reverts, 1 deletion and a block you've beaten me to in the last 20 min or so. Nice work, once again sorry about the confusion on that article. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 08:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ultraconservatism

Why did you delete ultraconservatism? The whole point of it was to lay down a page in wikipedia that deals with a political ideology in between conservatism and fascism that doesn't exist inside wikipedia now. As far as such an ideology of that sort existing you should check out the Libertarian Nationalist Socialist Green Party. I left some space for additional comments on this subject by other people. You could have at least edited it instead of deleting it. Their was reasonable proof that this ideology exists on some posts on the websites in the bibliography.An editor has asked for a deletion review of ultraconservatism. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 68.13.250.38 03:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statist0 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Child Support Policy articles

Mike - you erred in redirecting the Child Support Policy articles to child support articles. There has been lengthy discussion on the child support talk page about merging all the content of that page to other articles and deleting that article. You should note the tags already in place on the child support page. The concept of a new article entitled Child Support Policy (and Child Support Policy in the United States) has also been discussed - which will not be repetations of existing articles. I will attempt to undo your redirects. If this takes special admin. procedures, please go back and undo the redirects. Rogerfgay 13:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike: Are you intentionally vandalizing the Child Support Policy pages? As I explained, editors have discussed deletion of child support and determined that a new article should be written that is not based on the current content of child support. It has been determined that the contents of child support can be merged with other articles. I note that you have not participated in the discussions. Rogerfgay 07:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Rogerfgay. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Child Support Policy have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Repeated disruptive editing, redirecting, changes, delete tags Hello, I'm Rogerfgay. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Child Support Policy in the United States have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Repeated disruptive editing, redirecting, changes, delete tags

Thegathering2009

I would like some advice in regards to this editor. I noticed his name on my watchlist because he had added an external link to the Scottish clan article---an external link for the event to which his name refers. In fact, all of his edits have been additions of links for said event. He also created an article for the event, but it was speedied. His name would seem to violate the username policy that bans names of a "promotional" nature. At the same time, his intent does not seem to be to promote a product or a service from which he gains profit, but rather to promote an event. What should be done in this case? I would like to know your opinion. Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)