User talk:WGFinley

Feel free to use this page to reach me. If you are in need of more personal, private, or immediate assistance, feel free to email me. Thanks!.

2005 & Prior Archive

Image tagging / my RFA

Thank you for your comments at my RFA, I will look at all of the images that I have uploaded and re-assess each of the fair use claims. I shall try to be more careful with this in future. --TimPope 10:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. --TimPope 14:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

um, vandalism?

what do you think you're doing? you've been registered since 2004? that means the "clueless" newbie card won't cut it. stop your vandalism

Your marking of template:User GWB for speedy, while possibly not vandalism, comes close. Please stop. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam on unrelated articles?

don't do that either, also, you made about 5 different reverts on that mess, shouldn't you be blocked by now?--63.22.76.119 06:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA request - biblical criticism

Hiya, thanks for answering.

Perhaps the first thing to point out if you are not familiar with Biblical studies is that the term "Biblical criticism" means the academic study of the bible as an historic document, and does not mean "attacking the Bible". Now onto the main problem:

There seems to be a great resistance amongst many sections of Wikipedia to including information from rigourously academic sources. Many editors, predominantly Jayjg, Jdwolff, Codex Sinaiticus, and Izak, seem to prefer articles to contain only the views of religious individuals whose theology and literalism (i.e. that the bible is fundamentally and entirely true) dictate their interpretations, rather than allowing articles to contain any reasonable measure of academic studies.

For example, a major bone of contention is the documentary hypothesis, which is a theory concerning how the torah (first 5 books of the bible) came about, and it is supported by over 90% of bible scholars. As it affects the composition of the torah intricately, so it affects each story in the torah, and has a lot to say about their original composition. However, Jdwolff and company refuse to allow it to enter articles, and are particularly resistant to allowing it to enter more obviously important subjects such as Ten Commandments.

Academic bible studies don't automatically assume the bible is 100% true, and conclude the same, that would, essentially, be defeating the point of studying it. Hence it is not uncommon that major theories are put forward in the field, often gaining majority support, which are critical of the accuracy that religious groups believe the text has. Likewise it is frequently the case that many stories demand, in academic eyes, strong re-interpretation.

This resistance to academia seems to be part of a general anti-intellectual trend in the subject throughout wikipedia;

for example User:Yoninah today caused an article (A wife confused for a sister) to be put up for deletion because in his/her view "it is based entirely on Biblical criticism", i.e. entirely based on academic treatment of the subject rather than pious guessing, which somehow Yoninah views as a situation which is bad.

Yoninah then went around several editors known for their clear and obvious pro-Jewish religious bias (Izak, Jdwolff, Jayjg) complaining that the article was based on biblical criticism, i.e. effectively tried to create a wrecking mob.

What I am after from the AMA is simply some direct support in asserting that NPOV requires academic views to be represented as well as the pious literalist religious ones. In particular, as the religious ones are predominantly (for obvious reasons) based on religious motivation, the academic views are the ones which should be regarded as the more reliable. The collective academic views are inherently NPOV as they are simply the views of people analysing the text without making pre-suppositions. Not every academic view criticises the bible, and many are apologetic.

It would be helpful if the AMA were able to somehow persuade these religiously biased editors (Izak, Jdwolff, Jayjg, Codex Sinaiticus) that the inclusion of major academic views is required in all the articles owing to the principle of NPOV.

Maybe its wishful thinking, but it would be even more helpful if the AMA were able to pursuade them to themselves find and include the academic views on the subject they are so clearly interested in, whether or not it agrees with their own personal opinion.

--User talk:FDuffy 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

Part of the problem is that they are notable, and the reason they are notable is precisely due to their editing behaviour. They have achieved notability without managing to comprehend NPOV.

Only today (the 3rd), User:Eliezer, went around the talk pages of users he felt would be sympathetic to his bias in order to round up votes to swing the balance back to his side. Each of the voters he collected voted delete immediately, stating that they might change their mind if sources were given, somehow completely neglecting to see that sources were given several times in the AFD itself, and on the article. I.e. they voted without even investigating the topic - sheep bias-based votes.

One of them stated that it was based on outdated 19th century research, completely neglecting the fact that 1992, 1983, and 2002 (the dates of 4 of the major references) are nowhere near 19th century, and that the references are from extremely well respected scholars (Richard Elliott Friedman, Robin Lane Fox, Israel Finkelstein). --User talk:FDuffy 02:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Greetings, Wgfinley! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. While you voted oppose, I still hope you'll be content with the way I use my newly granted WikiPowers. If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi Guy, I've left a question for you on your nomination page: bottom of the page in case you don't see it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Don't worry: the wrangling over images hasn't crept into it at all. In fact, I had posted my query to you before I saw you had posted to the image page. But anyway, I don't shift goalposts. I'm minded to ask you another question to try to pin you down a bit more, but I don't want to overdo it, so I may not. Will give it some more thought. Thank you very much for your response so far. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Hello Guy. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. Good luck on yours. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Can I e-mail you please regarding an AMA matter? my e-mail is ChazzWiki@aol.com

Thanks

Many thanks for your support on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. And thanks for checking every edit ;) you must know how bad my typing is sometimes now ;) --Alf ^melmac 10:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Pgk's RFA

Thanks for your contribution to my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments. I hope that I can prove myself worthy of the Admin facilities and your concerns as to my suitability dissipate, however if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk^(talk) 12:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a sysop!

Hi, WGFinley, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=

Please also add your name to WP:LA =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Congrats!

Congratulations on your shiny new buttons! Use them boldly and use them with pride! Kelly Martin (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Tan (Deleted image

Yes, I know it had to go, but it was a pity--a very nice image. :D Justin Eiler 08:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Article ban

Thanks for taking the action. I sincerely hope that more editors will pay their attention to the matter, and contribute their views and ideas. This is not the first time I explicitly request for it. :-\ — Insta ntnood 18:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative AMA proposal

Hey Guy, long time no see. Would you do me a favor and check out the alternative proposal I left on the AMA talk page? It'd be great to know what you think. Wally 19:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake

I'd just made some improvements to char siu, but I'd promptly reverted myself when I discovered [1]. I thought I'd be automatically blocked from editing the articles on the restriction list, and I didn't recognise, at the time of the edits to char siu, that there's no such automatic block. I hope you'll take my apology into consideration, but I'll fully respect your ultimate decision. Thanks for your attention. — Insta ntnood 19:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand that you've to do so in your position, and I do appreciate your efforts in helping Wikipedia to get the trouble settled. :-D — Instantnood 20:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A 2nd opinion

Wgfinley, with respect, I think your instant block for the above offense is a bit rough. Certainly IN's attitude seems ok - the edit was inadvertant and he cleaned it up of his own accord. I think that hitting him with a 24th block is a bit unneccessary - he knows to check the talk page now and having a block like this seems very punitive (but for what purpose?). My 2 cents. novacatz 01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Additional ban

Thank you. Please take a look at my response at WP:AN/I. — Instantnood 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 04:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of cities in China

Thank you. As I've already said, it's more important to appeal to the community and request for their involvements. Merely banning wouldn't help much. :-\ — Insta ntnood 20:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbecue pork with rice

I noticed your ban of only Huaiwei from that article and went to take a look. In the last week, Huaiwei has only edited the talk page of that article. Based on only that, no matter what he's said on the talk page (which is tl;dr and full of the same crap as everything else), his actions on the article can't be inappropriate and worthy of a probationary ban.

However, if you look back even two weeks or three an incredible 40%!! of the edits are Instantnood reverting. If there is to be a ban on the page it shouldn't be one sided, but indeed, Huaiwei's non-action for the last week on the actual page shows restraint - even if he may have intended to revert, he hasn't.

The last week has been Instantnood and Alanmak. Instantnood has been playing the revert games just as equally with him as he does with Huaiwei across dozens of articles.

I'm not arguing for either of them to be banned, but the basis you've given for banning Huaiwei on that page doesn't hold up. SchmuckyTheCat 07:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language mis-understanding

I think there may be a case of language mis-understanding between you and Huaiwei that is escalating the issue a little. When he says "your advocacy" he means "your client", Instantnood. Not "your advocacy" meaning the job you did/do. On these edits [2], I don't think he meant for you to take it personally. I'm going to ask him to assume you misunderstood his unclear language, just as I'd ask you to assume he didn't mean for you to take it personally.

He's trying to tell you that Instantnood is going to articles purposefully to make contentious edits and start fights. Which is true and well documented. On any days of his reverts, most are of recent vintage, but then he'll go back several months and reignite a revert war he previously lost. There does need to be a solution to that. Appeals to the community have failed, partly because Instantnood is just too prolific and blatantly partisan edits DO need to be countered. SchmuckyTheCat 10:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think you're being one-sided, except in that one article. If Huaiwei has stayed away from editing the article itself talk page comments just can't be considered disruptive.

And I've tried to stay out of it with Instantnood. I have reverted some of the more egregious problems where I know that nobody else is going to do it or after several days where nobody else has. In those cases I have been very specific on talk pages what I'm doing and the reason for doing it. I don't believe "the community" is enough to reign him in. He makes too many edits in a day, and he has a documented will to start edit fights in the first place.

I'd hope Huaiwei can learn to stay out of it a little bit more, document more, and wait a little longer before jumping in. I think he does see it the way that I do though, that relying strictly on the community at large isn't enough. Historically, Huaiwei also was the first to encounter Instantnood when he still edited as an IP address. There is a strong tradition there of 'nood making POV changes that Huaiwei sees first - and 'nood making the edits despite any concensus by others to the contrary. He does have a point that there isn't any check and balance to 'nood without him. SchmuckyTheCat 19:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queensway

You banned 'nood from editing the Queensway dab page. I am making you aware of some edits I did to the pages related to that, and that Instantnood is reverting them.

I went through the HK related ones and performed a merge. The Queensway, Hong Kong article consisted of a one sentence stub. That road is part of a larger road Queen's Road, so I moved the sentence there and made sure the location of that section of the road was clear. I then redirected the other article, and fixed redirects in other articles. I was very clear in all edit summaries.

Instantnood is systematically undoing those edits. I am going to revert him, and I'm letting you know before doing so if you wish to pay attention for edit warring. SchmuckyTheCat 21:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Also, I would caution you from getting in a revert war with Alanmak on Queensway," I'm not even editing that article with Alanmak, did you mean somewhere else? He and I often agree - at least where we edit in common, so this would surprise me. SchmuckyTheCat 02:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As expected.

[3] revert, no edit summary. no talk.
[4], revert, recycled edit summary, no talk. SchmuckyTheCat 08:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_airlines

Would you have a look at the behaviour of Instantnood + Huaiwei on the above page to see if it warrants action. I think they are warring again. novacatz 01:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops - another one Lists_of_country-related_topics looks like it is their next target. The edit summary history reads pretty funny already...... novacatz 06:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection

Hi there, I noticed you unprotected BBQ pork with rice but did not update the list of [pages]. Would you kindly do so in the future. novacatz 07:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Transportation in China

Hello, Wgfinley. Thank you for your effort on solving the edit dispute. I was not intending to accuse you of making comments on whether that was the right version. The comment that I made about "some anti-China Wikipedians are pushing their POV" is not pointing to you. I pointed that out in the edit summary, just because some Wikipedians from Hong Kong have been demonstrating their high degree of anti-China sentiments in their edits, and have been trying their best to separate Hong Kong from all articles about China. In some situations, I agree that Hong Kong should have a separate article from the same topic for China. But this practice is not really necessary in ALL situation. Again, Thank you for your effort on solving the edit dispute. - Alanmak 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't making any comments on whether that was the right version, all I know is that Instantnood was stirring up an old debate with that edit. I reverted the edit and banned him from editing that category. What is done from there is up to people who are not on probation. --Wgfinley 19:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Arbitration Notice

I am contemplating joining you to the arbcom case as well, considering your open display of vested interests in the disputes at hand, and your unwillingness in accepting your biasness in handling this dispute.--Huaiwei 02:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Far be it for me to stop you from appearing ridiculous. --Wgfinley 03:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

medcabal

Hi there -- I saw that you were listed as a medcabal member; as a fellow medcabalist, I thought I'd drop you a line to say that there are a number of new cases that have been added recently and there seem to be too many for the "regulars" to handle. I suggest giving it a shot! (If you forgot you signed up for the cabal, and want off, sorry to bother you!) Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 19:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

I hope you understand that I truley think that AMA is sorely in need of repair. If you are, in fact, interested in doing that repair, then my actions today have been mostly wasted, as I would strongly support someone who wants to solve the wikilawyering problem and has a history with the institution over someone who just wants to solve the problem. I just can't tell what you think on the issue, however. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medcab

Hello. As a co-founder of the mediation cabal, I need your help. Please contact me per irc ASAP. Kim Bruning 00:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Blocked unnecessarily.

Hi! I am a fairly new contributer to Wikipedia. However, I do not understand why I am being blocked again (not the first time) when I did not vandalise any pages! My IP address changes sometimes and my current IP address is 165.21.154.112. It seems that this address is being blocked until 31 January 2006 20:26. This address is also shared by Huaiwei. I feel that it is unfair that I am being blocked together with this user. I hope that you will rectify this problem soon. I hope to hear from you as soon as possible. This is not the first time!One with Her 13:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Protecting the Kelly Martin election talk page

Hello, please don't take this the wrong way, but I feel that your action in protecting this page is not only unnecessary and somewhat heavyhanded, but also inappropriate. As I understand, talk pages should only be protected in the case of extreme vandalism. It could be said that the most recent comments were a bit off-topic, and that perhaps it was acceptable to delete them (although, personally, I disagree strongly with that alone), but protecting the page seems to be going a bit too far, as you effectively silence any discussion regarding the topic at all, including possible opposition to your own actions. It does not really matter that the election is over; relevant discussion has no time limit that I'm aware of. Please note that my only involvement on the talk page is regarding a wholly unrelated topic a long while back when the election was ongoing. My concern is based on a desire for fairness. Cheers. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 08:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel war?

I noticed the issue on WP:AN where some people expressed concern with how this was done. Thus, there has been consideration. While those comments are indeed inappropriate or at least pointless, it only aggravates the situation to remove them. With the possible exception of WP:RPA, we should not remove comments from talk pages, especially if they're at least tangentially related. If people want to talk about it, they will. R adiant _>|< 13:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lame is not an attack, but refers to Lame Edit Wars, of which Kelly's RFC talk is now an example. Consideration refers to the fact that I thought about the issue and weighed the possibilities before acting, which I'm sure you did too, and since we're both considering the issue this is not a wheel war. I generally assume admins read the admin noticeboard, and I generally find it more convenient to discuss issues in a central place than in several places. R adiant _>|< 13:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Again!

Hello again! I am being blocked again unnecessarily. This time my IP addresss is 165.21.154.113. I believe I am experiencing an autoblock again. I hope you can solve this problem soon. Thank You!One with Her 14:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image for deletion

Thanks for the notification. I have replaced it with these two images Image:Noordin Mohammed Top.jpg and Image:Azahari Husin.jpg. These came from a government source for finding wanted people. (Actually the Indonesian government distributed thousands of copies over Jakarta and Bali.) These should qualify for fairuse if not public domain. The ifd-tagged Image:Azahari Husin and Noordin Mohammed Top.jpg can be deleted, I guess. --Vsion 08:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please stop it. Whose copyright interests are you protecting? --Vsion 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has the policy changed recently regarding fairuse? I'm not aware of it, can you provide me a pointer? Also .... good luck with all the fairuse images in Category:Fair use in... images --Vsion 08:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, is there a change in policy I'm not aware of? --Vsion 08:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to let you know. I brought up this issue before in Wikipedia talk:Fair use. You can find that discussion at [5]. If you feel that a clarification is necessary, I would suggest you bring this up in Wikipedia talk:Fair use again. --Vsion 08:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ViP additions

I notice you are adding notes to ViP noting you have blocked. Since this is a page for assisting users unable to block could you consider adding directly to archive or something, as I am currently moving a few there uncommented. Thanks! Ian¹³_ID:540053 17:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand it to also be that. But I think we are trying to prevent a backlog, and that the archive is used for such purposes, thanks! Ian¹³_ID:540053 18:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm

I'm looking at User:Hipocrite/AMAs, and pondering.

Kim Bruning 04:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Again!

Hello! I am being blocked again unnecessarily. This time my IP address is 165.21.154.117. I believe I am experiencing an autoblock again. I hope you can solve this problem soon. By the way, thank you for helping me out on two previous occasions regarding the same problem.One with Her 05:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR

Yeah, I think it needs to be in there somewhere, purely because of the risk of idiots doing whatever they like and then screaming 'IAR! IAR!'. Definitely agree that the shorter version is so much better. --Nick Boalch^?!? 19:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case against Instantnood

Are there any repercussions for me if I make a third party comment on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3? I've been following the saga of Instantnood and Huaiwei for a while and I would like to say a couple of things. enochlau (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Again

Hello! I am being blocked again. This time my IP address is 165.21.154.113. I am experiencing an autoblock again. I hope you can solve this problem soon. Thank You. One with Her 13:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeMolay logo

Are you sure we can use it? The download page explicitly stated "no commercial use", and my emails to the DeMolay webmaster were ignored.--Sar e kOfVulcan 22:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair 'nuff. Don't suppose you'd like to replace it with the downloadable emblem instead of the logo? :-)--Sar e kOfVulcan 01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link in Instantnood RFAr

Hi, FYI - in your evidence section there is a broken link for this section --

Huaiweii goes to the July way-back machine to revisit another "mainland China" to "PRC" debate in this 11 Dec edit [42]

the supplied link doesn't work on my browser (Firefox 1.5) -- perhaps you should have a look? Thanks, novacatz 07:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood

Not that I am bothered about "wikistalking" your former client as you claimed, but a recent edit appearing on my watchlist is certainly rather disturbing. In Universitas 21, he has again ignited an old debate and continued to do revert edits [6], fresh out of a 7-day ban. I am not going to check through the rest of his editing history, but I would just like to know if you have anything to say about this behavior, and if you are going to consider acting on it?--Huaiwei 08:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a narrow reading of the probation order at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Remedies, a ban should not be imposed on Instantnood regarding Universitas 21, because it is not an article-related to China. However much I personally disagree with the edit, I would just like to say I think would be inappropriate for an admin to ban/block over this edit. Cheers. enochlau (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]