Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs) at 00:35, 8 February 2015 (→Figured it wouldn't be long...: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify) This editor is a Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix and Errata Sheet. This user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time. This user is a Rouge admin. This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 20 years, 4 months, and 6 days. This user has been an admin for 18 years, 11 months, and 9 days. This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

• In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
• My activity level is 53mKo (milli-Koavfs).
• Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
• My Last.fm profile
• vGuyUK on Twitter | SceptiGuy on Twitter

Obligatory disclaimer

I work for Dell Computer but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?

WP:AE

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Q.leroy - a paid WP editor

Re your request of me to comment. You were paid by Lendico to create their advertorial WP article. You are being paid by Universal Medicine to have their WP article removed or turned into a fictional puff-piece. You are requested to no longer involve yourself with either of these articles as you have a unhealthy financial interest and paid POV on these topics. Thank you for your cooperation and disengagement in such WP breaches and activities. Please also stop attacking other WP editors. 2013Ca55 (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your accusations are unfounded and in contradiction with the most basic WP rules. I will report your action to WP admins and I trust them for taking the appropriate action. Q.leroy (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a Misplaced Pages admin. I concur: you have done precisely two things in your time on Misplaced Pages: write a spam article on your own company, and argue for deletion of an article I started with absolutely no conflict of interest whatsoever. When you're don making a fool of yourself, perhaps you can leave. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, your accusation are unfounded and I find unbelievable that you are using your status of admin to push your own POV. Your attempt to erase part of an article I wrote during my study is only demonstrating your personal involvement in this issue. If you would do a research on the company, you would realize that their are not implemented in any English speaking country; and that is the main reason why I wrote this article in English. As you maybe know, English is not my mother tong and I participated in many other articles in French, Spanish and German. Now, contrary to what your are accusing me, I am not paid by Universal Medicine or any other entity to do what I do, I am doing it because I believe WP must stay POV free and a place of knowledge sharing. Your behavior is revolting and I trust the WP community to recognize it when the time comes. Q.leroy (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

My being an admin is relevant only because you threatened to report someone to the admins - and you also stated that the article was COI< but it is not, I wrote it, and I have absolutely no conflict of interest, which ten seconds of Googling shows cannot be said of you re the Lendico article. You are, on the face of it, either a sockpuppet or a spammer. I have nothing further to say to you on this. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So in top of practicing cyber bullying, you also practicing cyber stocking and assuming my identities through pseudo Google search. This is astonishing... The fact that you are consistently trying to discredit my person instead of my arguments only demonstrate your lack of arguments concerning the deletion discussion of the Universal Medicine article. Q.leroy (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You have no fucking clue, do you? I have been subject to actual harassment and cyberstalking. Googling your username and the name of the company whose article is pretty much your sole contribution to the project (other than pointless drama, of course) is not cyber-stalking, it's common sense. It's not my fault you used your own name when writing about your employer. We do not have a policy mandating naivety. Now go away. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Resurrection of long-dormant accounts

I probably missed you for the evening, but where is the best place to report (per your statement at AN)? Too old for SPI, so it would have to be behaviour. There's probably already enough currently to take action under Discretionary Sanctions, even without uncovering the full story. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Anything sockpuppetry related goes to SPI, whether CheckUser can be used or it needs to be based only on behaviour. If there's enough to take action under DS, then make a report at the arbitration enforcement notiveboard. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Callanecc. I submitted the first one at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Theobald_Tiger. If you're able to tell me if that is a well-formed report, I would appreciate it. I'll go ahead and file the others, but I'd hate to take all that time putting them together and then find out I was doing it wrong :). Thanks again, Tgeairn (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It is, however before you make the others I'd suggest waiting until discussion starts on this one (as we're going to need to decide if the extent to which they've been made "aware" meets the requirements). Once it has you can file the others, or wait to see which way this one goes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you. While there is a prominent notice on the talk page, I know that the different editors were also made aware in different ways (some by taking part in the amendment discussion, others with the template, etc.) I believe that (unfortunately) one of the participants (Cathar66) had not been notified at all other than by the talk page notice. I have notified that editor now. Thanks again, Tgeairn (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy to see this moving along, while I was dealing with a monster pluming emergency caused by a piffling small under-floor wiring job... Guy (Help!) 00:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. That does not sound even remotely entertaining. Here's hoping everything is dry in the end. Yes, the submission at WP:ARE is still there waiting for action. I guess I am hopeful that we can all get back to actual editing someday soon. :) Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Wiring can be fun (I studied to be an electrician before some lunatic suggested I take the SAT). Tinkering with mechanical stuff can be rewarding. But plumbing was invented by Satan. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

My dad was an electrical engineering lecturer at a tertiary college, I was doing wiring and plumbing long before I could drive a car. Classic problem: pipe run notched into joists. Dad so rarely did that in his house that I simply didn't check when fixing a loose board - I seriously think this is likely to be the only example in the entire house. Luckily it was a short run of hot water (so low pressure) with compression joints both ends, so I drained the water down and replaced the run of pipe. All done and dusted and nothing to show for it except a damp carpet, which is drying fast. I'm very glad I bought a shop vacuum which does wet as well as dry, sucking a couple of gallons of water out of the carpet made a huge difference. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Question about source designation

Can you help clarify what WP calls a source that is written and published by the same entity that is advocating for or reporting on the information in the source? For example,

1. a book or report authored by one or more members of a think-tank, published by that think-tank (book or report at website) would be considered.... ????
2. a book or report authored by an expert on the topic, published by their own publishing company or a pay-to-publish company would be considered....????
3. a book or report authored by faculty/staff of a university, published by that university (book or university's website) would be considered...????
4. if information contained in the book or report published by any of the above sources is proven inaccurate, (a misquote), can it still be quoted?
5. if any of the above sources has a known bias, or advocates a cause can it still be used to include contentious material and/or labels of bigotry in a BLP or any other article?

I've gotten so many different answers, and none of them seem to hold up under pressure when there's a conflicting POV. I would like to hear your perspective if you'd be kind enough to share. Atsme☯ 15:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That is a good, and therefore difficult, question. It will depend on the circumstances, the degree of peer review, and how controversial the view is.

1. A book by members of a think tank published by the think tank would normally be reliable for the views of that body, or the views of the movement of which it is part. It's better than a blog, but it's not a neutral description of anything. Such books may be well researched (e.g. some form the Centre for Policy Studies) or may be worthless (anything from the creationists, usually). I'd normally look for independent evidence of its significance, in references in other sources.
2. A book published by a university tends to be much more reliable, as long as it's a decent university. So books published by Louisiana Baptist University would be worthless as sources, but books published by Cambridge University Press are generally highly regarded. University presses are commercial organisations and most will have a Chinese wall between them and the institution, they are a favoured route for publication of the work of academics in the university but simply being on faculty does not guarantee acceptance. These essentially count as peer-reviewed sources in normal usage, unless there's evidence to the contrary.
3. A book or report authored by an expert on the topic, published by their own publishing company or a pay-to-publish company would be considered self-published and reliable only as an indication of that person's view on something, and not normally outside an article on the author.
4. If information is shown to be inaccurate? Depends on how. A retracted paper should not be quoted in an article on the topic of the paper, but may be quoted, and the retraction noted, in discussion on the development of the idea (e.g. Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent paper in the article on MMR and autism). Information that is contradicted by other sources may be a case for balanced coverage (A says X< B says Y) or may be a case where this would be false balance. We should not quote an AIDS denialist in an article on HIV, even if we then go on to show them to be wrong, but we might well cover ideas once thought to be plausible and subsequently falsified, or we may cover wilful denialism in the context of ongoing holdouts against settled science. So there's no one size fits all there, the guide should be WP:WEIGHT.
5. A source with an agenda may be a reliable source in respect of accusations of bigotry. The Southern Poverty Law Center has a good reputation for accurately identifying hate groups, whereas several religious extremists do not. If the group making the claim is significant or of substantial academic reputation then it is generally legitimate to attribute a claim to them (WP:ATT), but not to state the claim as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice. In most cases it is better by far to find a reliable independent secondary source that weighs up the competing claims, rather than weigh them ourselves.

I think I know the article in question, and I have made my views clear on the source there: it is valid in the body, but not the lede unless it is picked up more widely by substantial sources. A New York Times article which notes the accusation in the opening paragraph would be a good argument, but the mere existence of criticism is not evidence for its significance and we definitely need to attribute and ideally reference independent discussion of the accusations.

Does that help? Guy (Help!) 18:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Very well written, and yes it helps, thank you. I'm actually not referring to the article you're thinking of, but when the time comes, I hope it's ok if I ask for your guidance again? The articles that instigated my source questions are Emerson and IPT, both of which are getting quite a bit of heat right now because of Emerson's Birmingham gaffe. Emerson is PP, so the focus has turned to IPT which has already undergone substantial changes - primarily criticisms which have created UNDUE. The History section contains more criticism than it does the organization's actual history. One such criticism dates back 20+ years ago before IPT was formed, and was obviously included for the purpose of discrediting Emerson. The same criticism is also included on Emerson's BLP creating a double whammy. The sources came into play because Emerson's statement was incorrectly paraphrased by biased RS (oxymoron?) which you already noted was problematic on one of the noticeboards. I was confused over whether a source both written and published by a think-tank was considered a self-published source, (self being the entity), but I now understand that isn't the case. It is simply a "source", and in this case, a biased one which takes it out of the realm of factual into being opinion. Right? Last year, a BLPN closer confirmed that Emerson and IPT are inextricably linked, therefore WP:BLPGROUPS applies and extends BLP protection to IPT. Does that mean BLP sanctions would also apply to IPT ? I tried to get the two articles merged last year, but was met with great resistance, and now we're seeing the repercussions of a double whammy on a single BLP. I think maybe our BLP policy needs a new section for clarity. A couple of other editors mentioned it as well. Atsme☯ 20:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, but take care: Emerson is an ideologue and it's normal for ideologues to be subject to criticism, some of which is unjustified and some is not. These are among the most difficult articles for neutrality. Allegations can be made in polemical sources which are rejected by mainstream sources, and other allegations in the same polemical sources can be found to be entirely justified. Most editors will also have a strong opinion on the article subject. Truly neutral editors are few and far between. Always be ready to check your own biases, and recheck them over time, because repeated resistance to POV-pushing actually drives you towards pathological belief or pathological skepticism. So, handle with care and ask for specific advice and review.

I don't have an opinion on Emerson myself, but as you say I did find issues with the proposed source. Separate articles? Hmmm. If the sources about Emerson are mainly about IPT then there is a great reason to merge. If IPT is Emerson, then merge the other way. Otherwise evaluate the sources: if they are substantial and about the article subject (rather than mentioning it in passing) then it's fine. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are some extremely level-headed and astute answers, JzG. (Well, except maybe response number 3, which would be a 100% accurate response if the question was about self-published sources rather than published by a University academic publisher.) In fact, your responses show such a high degree of comprehension that I am finding it difficult to believe that the same person also wrote:

in this case the claim relies on some rather obscure and obviously pro-Islamic sources that make an allegation of islamophobia

and

The source is scarecely without an agenda, either, since it's written by academics on Islamic studies. So instead of nit-picking, how about finding a robust, independent source that actually supports the sentence, or modifying the sentence to something actually supported by the sources? He has been accused of islamophobia by islamists, would be entirely uncontroversial.

If I understand those comments correctly, you were calling the sources "pro-Islamic" and "islamists" (is that a thing?) and driven by an "agenda" — is this true? May I ask you to clarify your reasoning behind those statements? Is Adam Taylor of the Washington Post "pro-Islamic"? How about the authors (Sylvia Chan-Malik, R. David Coolidge, Edward E. Curtis IV, Nabil Echchaibi, Kambiz GhaneaBassiri, Zareena A. Grewal, Julie Hammer, Rosemary R. Hicks, Sally Howell, Amaney Jawal, Akel Ismail Kahera, Michael Muhammad Knight, Karen Leonard, Debra Majeed, Kathleen M. Moore, Amid Safi, Richard Brent Turner, Gisela Webb, Timur R. Yuskaev) of the scholarly work on Islam published by the Cambridge University Press? Perhaps you were referring to Carl W. Ernst's book? Isn't he the Religious Studies professor quoted as saying, "The study of religion is an extremely important field in the United States; it’s one of the key ways we deal with diversity. I feel my professional activity is designed to encourage the notion that you can deeply understand another person’s religious or spiritual trajectory without having to join in. We have to retrain academics to write in a less specialized way, to reach a wider, popular readership. And that’s one of my goals." I'm of the opinion that the sources being examined are neither "obscure" nor "obviously pro-Islamic", and I'm left bewildered at your comments. May I press you for a little more explanation? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You left out important parts of what Guy actually stated - The text the source purports to support is: "Some of Emerson's statements and networks have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia". It does not mention fomenting, and I don't see any such mention in the others either. The source is scarecely without an agenda, either, since it's written by academics on Islamic studies. So instead of nit-picking, how about finding a robust, independent source that actually supports the sentence, or modifying the sentence to something actually supported by the sources? He has been accused of islamophobia by islamists, would be entirely uncontroversial. You seem determined to go much further. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources in question are

References

1. Hammer, Julie; Safi, Amid (2013). The Cambridge Companion to American Islam. Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 9781107002418. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Islamophobe Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh)
2. "9 questions about Birmingham that Fox News was too embarrassed to ask". Washington Post. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past.
3. Ernst, Carl W. (2013). Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 86. ISBN 9781137290083.
4. Yazdiha, Haj (2014). "Law as movement strategy: How the Islamophobia movement institutionalizes fear through legislation" (PDF). Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Critical and Political Protest. 13 (2). Taylor and Francis. doi:10.1080/14742837.2013.807730. Retrieved 23 January 2015. "funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism

• The Cambridge Companion to American Islam had passing mention, a very bigoted one at that - ...cited Islmophobes Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh) and the equally notorious Daniel Pipes as his sources.
• The Washington Post included one short statement - However, Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past.
• Carl Ernst's Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance, also passing mention in a chapter titled "Women as Producers of Islamophobic Discourse" - Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Newt Ginrich, Steven Emerson, Glenn Beck, Frank Gaffney - many of the most prominent producers of Islamophobic discourse are male.
• Law as movement strategy: How the Islamophobia movement institutionalizes fear through legislation - ...funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

All but one source represents an allegation, none of which are backed up by anything but biased opinion. Co-authors Safi and Hammer who wrote the Cambridge published book are the only ones who actually called Emerson an Islamophobe, and then cited a Think Progress article which incorrectly paraphrased an evaluation made by Emerson during a CBS interview 20 years ago, an evaluation that was supported by law enforcement. Emerson called it "a Middle Eastern trait" with no mention whatsoever of the word Muslim. WP should not be the forum for such unfounded allegations and echoing the bigotry shown by scholars of Islamic studies. Editors should be striving for accuracy and verifiability. If the criticism by Safi and Hammer are included, they don't belong in the lead, rather they belong in the section about the Murrah Bldg. The phrases were clearly cherrypicked to give readers the impression Emerson is "fomenting Islamophobia". Smells a lot like WP:SYNTH. Regardless, this discussion belongs on BLPN, rather than as a critical distraction to my RS questions to Guy. Atsme☯ 00:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Atsme! No, I didn't "fail to include Guy's complete sentence", as you claim in your edit summary. I intentionally only quoted the portion I wished to discuss with JzG, as I completely agreed with all the rest of his comment. I didn't come here to clutter his Talk page with a full debate on the reliability of the sources. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, X - just wanted to mention that Guy responded to my questions by paraphrasing them in his lead (which editors love to see in post production). My interpretation was that he simply transposed his answers to questions 2 & 3. Atsme☯ 01:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you appear to be correct - thank you very much. I've struck that sentence accordingly. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

—As it says, purely informational. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I'm already aware. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Policy

Confusion on G. Edward Griffin edits

I am confused by your edits concerning Griffin. On the AN you said "close, there is nothing to fix" which seems to support the RFC closure (which determined to remove the conspiracy theory stuff). But then you actually edited the article to add the CT stuff. In any event there is a new discussion about a proposed lede which will include CT jargon, only with less prominence. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Per the closer's comments, we don't call him a conspiracy theorist (I disagree, but will abide by consensus), but we talk about what he does. He is known, as per the infobox, for promotion of conspiracy theories. X is a conspiracy theorist: tricky. X is an author known for promoting conspiracy theories: unarguably correct. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Query

• The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends Transcendental Meditation for lowering blood pressure. According to PMID 23608661, "TM may be considered in clinical practice to lower BP". Is the AHA part of the SCAM industry?

• The American Neurological Association (ANA) recommends cannabis for managing multiple sclerosis. According to PMID 24663230, "Clinicians might offer oral cannabis extract for spasticity symptoms and pain". Is the ANA engaging in quackery?

• The U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recommends meditation for improving psychological stress. According to PMID 24395196, "Clinicians should be aware that meditation programs can result in small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress." Is the AHRQ a lunatic charlatan?

• The American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) has included acupuncture as a treatment option for allergic rhinitis. According to PMID 25644617, "Clinicians may offer acupuncture, or refer to a clinician who can offer acupuncture, for patients with AR who are interested in nonpharmacologic therapy." Is the AAO-HNS an advocate of acupuncture?

More importantly, are the doctors following the guidelines of AHA, ANA, AHQR, and AAO-NHS believers in the SCAM industry and therefore enemies of the Declaraiton of Helsinki? -A1candidate 00:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Your determination to validate the invalid is truly impressive. Feel free to point out the studies that show TM to have an effect distinct from non-spiritual relaxation therapy. Meditation is a form of relaxation therapy and is not alternative, nor is it exclusive to "ancient wisdom" from any particular part of the world. The evidence on acupuncture shows that there are no such things as meridians, no such thing as qi, that it doesn't matter where you put the needles, and it doesn't seem to matter if you even put the needles in. And that is my last word on the matter until the evidence changes. We don't change the universe by changing Misplaced Pages, we do things the other way round, so when compelling evidence arises that changes the scientific consensus view on the nonsensical nature of the core claims of acupuncture, then we will follow that evidence. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: That was not an invitation to continue your wall-of-text quackery apologia. Very obviously not, but of course you missed that, just as every SCAM apologist always misses anything that conflicts with their beliefs. And that's why it's alternative, as in, unproven or disproven. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Figured it wouldn't be long...

Congratulations on being the next person targeted. It's exactly what I said the playbook was, and yes, that's exactly why the ArbCom decision was so poisonous. Perhaps one day the project will wake up and realize what a mistake it made. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators