User talk:H/Archive 17

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Thanks for comments in the UB article discussions and my user page. I did have a question for you, actually, since you're someone who both has an understanding about the book and is well-versed and very active in the larger wikipedia world. As I said on the article discussion page, I have an inclination toward making the "Cosmology" and "History and future of the world" sections articles in their own right. I think it's justified for reasons of organization of the material and making the main article more manageable to digest for the average reader. Do you think expansion into a series of articles is warranted at this time and in line with "notability" considerations?

The few ancillary TUB-related articles like Thought Adjuster and The Fifth Epochal Revelation don't seem to gather much editor attention and TA had to survive an AfD, while FER is tagged as being not so great an article right now. (Personally, I don't intend to improve FER though I've edited it in the past, as I don't think it's really justified as a topic. The phrase to me should really just be a redirect to the main TUB page, like how "The Urantia Papers" is, since FER is essentially only a slang phrase and not so much a topic. An alternate idea I had was to rename the article to be "Revelation (The Urantia Book)" and have it be a more generalized article on the concept of "revelation" per the book, eg. go into "autorevelation" vs "epochal", but haven't mustered the time and interest quite.)

So, anyhow, I'd be interested in your opinion on whether you think expansion to additional articles is justifiable for the overall TUB topic. Thanks. Wazronk 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone familiar with The Urantia Book would know that a wealth of content exists. What is needed is third party reliable sources. I would say that any article that can be more than just a stub with verifiable material is justified. The existing article is large enough to justify branching articles. Eventually the article can become a summery style article where each section refers to it's own article. See Canada for an example.

The second challenge is not one of acceptance, but one of practicality. It may be hard to find editors for branching subjects. However, critics are bound to show up, and they are useful in articles that get no other attention if only to keep the few active editors honest.

When a new article is created that is a split of an existing article, there is often a movement to merge the information into the original article. To avoid this it is best to start a new article with a reasonable amount of well sourced information. Not just a stub, you can start in your userspace by gathering sources for the specific subject like this: User:HighInBC/Hempology 101 - notes. Once it is at the point where it is a respectable article the Move command can be used to bring it into the article space. This is a big task, and I will help. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance for your assistance, I appreciate it. I'll likely piece together a "Cosmology" article and follow your advice about making use of my userspace to draft it. When I wrote the glossary I did it offline on my own since there weren't as many editors around but it makes sense to do drafts online if others can then assist. I'll let you know when I have something reasonable fleshed out. All the best. Wazronk 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you have a start page, and begin with sources, I can read those and help bring out content. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating the article online not only allows for collaberation, but provides a very valuable edit history for the future. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (mathematician) as "no consensus". Could you please explain why you did this? By the way, I'm also an admin so I know the policies, I'm just interested in how you applied them in this case. Thanks in advance for your explanation. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the arguments on both side seemed compatable with policy. That seeking to delete were claiming a lack of notability, while that claiming to keep were claiming notability. The major difference of opinion was if the sources in the article qualified the subject as notable.

This seemed very close to delete to me, but there was not a clear majority in my eye. Straight number counting gives about 61% for delete. I attempted to going through an remove votes that were not based in reason and policy, but the percent remained the same.

This was one of the first batch of AfD's I closed, and while I am more confident with the decision No consensus than I would be with Delete(the choice I was leaning too), I am certainly open to an constructive critisisms on the closing. I am always looking for friendly advice. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's understandable. I also thought it was close, but I thought it should have been a delete, not no consensus. Perhaps we counted differently, but once you eliminate the keep votes based on ideas of "debunking", etc., I thought there was a clear majority (although not overwhelming) for delete. --C S (Talk) 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are right, I almost decided delete. I am sure my judgement will improve as my experience grows. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my opinion is along Chan-Ho's lines: I'd probably have closed it as a delete, but it is a close call, and I can understand that you went the other way. If I may make one suggestion to you, HighInBC, add a short explanation of how you came to your decision if an AfD is close. But I like it that you don't shrink from the tough calls. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he did the right thing. It should have been moved and then kept, and that is what ended up happening. Mathmo ^Talk 21:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That IP is an open proxy, accessable through irage.us. Also, thanks for reverting that vandalism. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that Cannabis (drug) has improved, and is worthy of a second go for FAC. I'm quite inexperienced, so I thought I'd ask you if you felt the same way. So, what are your thoughts? --Jmax- 06:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is defenetly above the common article in quality. However they are very picky about FAC. May I suggest you post the article at Wikipedia:Peer review stating your interest in making it featured. They will find the smallest of problems and point them out.

Things like the {{NPOV-section}} tag need to be addressed and fixed of course, some of the images can be retaken(I can help there), and new ones could be helpfull. I will look further into it later. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please see User talk:Srkris

bye Pluto.2006 10:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NetHack&diff=94582664&oldid=94582205

Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit (I was that anonymous IP address). Before I undo the revert, I'd like to make sure it was a misunderstanding.

I added those words :-p From the edit comments, it looks like you thought that I removed them. So I'm about to revert unless you disagree. --Dragontamer 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, my mistake. Thanks I reverted myself. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, just as a minor point of correction, you said in this [1] edit summary, "fair use images cannot be used outside of their articles, per copyright law". As a minor point of correction, it's Wikipedia policy, not copyright law, that sets that restriction. I point it out not to disagree with you (obviously, you are 100% correct to remove the images and the reason I went to the page was to make sure they had been removed), but just so that you will know and won't have to endure someone angrily adding them back, accusing you of making legal threats, and doing other annoying things people sometimes do when you take their images away from them. BigDT 01:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well technically it would not fall under fair use on his talk page unless we was discussing the subject in question. So while not all fair use images on talk pages are copyright violations, his were(unless I am still wrong hehe). A small point, but an important one. I don't think it could be seen as a legal threat because I made no threat, and pointing out when something is contrary to copyright law is normal.

I should have qualified the statement as In this situation.... But it is not my job to enforce law(thank god), only policy, so valid point there. Thanks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

quizzical expression similar to Captain Haddock and question 'just the CCM image right?'--John Zdralek 02:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. Only Fair use images are not allowed to be shown on userpages, all other licenses are. The reason being that the fair use images are copyrighted in a way incompatible with use, except that they qualify under Fair use when used in certain articles.

On the image page there should be detailed fair use rational showing how it meets the fair use policy of Wikipedia for each article it is on. However, our policy only allows it in articles that meet these criteria, not userpages.

I see you have been very helpful to Wikipedia, and I hope you continue to be. Thanks for discussing this, if you have anymore questions just ask me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you created those images, I have sent you a note on your talk page as to how to release them to a compatible copyright so you can use them here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yep mis-licensed, i'm as far as finding a Wikipedia format for easily plugging and unplugging copyright tags into. Including an image of a building design linked to an institution with brochure cover photography and page-layout art...

• Big example template removed. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

now I'll try and read through what a Cc-by-2.0 is and plug it in.--John Zdralek 04:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It must be free for anyone to use for any purpose, Wikipedia only is not enough for our project. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if it is a scan of a brochure then it is fair use afterall. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Zdralek has re-uploaded the image in question under his own copyright claim and has re-added it to his User page. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acutally, there are at least two directors of the organization. The user in question has refused to answer questions about his legal name. Thus I sincerely believe this to be a privacy violation. I've updated WP:ANI with the correct link. See also the complaint for User:Paul Pigman further up the page. I thoguht privacy was highly protected on WP. Seems to me that one ought to err on the side of caution and delete questionable material. Unless they can't point to where the user posted his legal name, speculating about what it might be is innappropriate. —Hanuman Das 16:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giving diffs to things other people have said is not a privacy violation. If anything the person who originally post the information may be violating privacy, but not simple quoting somebody. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:131.104.218.46 is constantly personally attacking myself and others, I have asked him to stop numerous times but he keeps on doing it. perhaps a warning from an admin may make him think about what he is doing. here is an example of his personal attacks: here, here, here and of course on his usertalk page where he states things such as "I found also that you statements are provocative for others and actually you hate Poles. My question is why?" which is of course a lie aimed at me and tries to force me into answering a loaded question. I am asking for your help and input, if you can't help for whatever reason, please bring it to the attention of another admin. thank you

--Jadger 19:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into this, in the future, you can use WP:AIV for this sort of thing. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the statement about that you hate Poles, which you have already warned the user about, I don't see any other personal attacks. Just content dispute. Please point out if I have missed something. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note for you at AN. While blocking Harikw is no great loss for Wikipedia, IMO, you should do a checkuser if you are going for an indef. I have some (not so good) experience with Harikw from more than a year back and have seen Srikris a lot recently. They don't have much in common except that they edited the same article. Tintin (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am not completely sure I have unblocked the user and apologized. Thanks for the info. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, thanks for unblocking me. Tintin1107, Please let me know the bad experience you had from me. I never had a dispute with you or we never contacted ever on wikipedia. Also, please refrain from underestimating someone by saying that blocking a user is not a loss for wikipedia, coz wikipedia is a collborative environment and each and everyone is important. I have no idea who Srikris is or what he is doing. if you can prove by any chance that I am the same person, I am ready to close the account and stop the wikipedia usage. The only article I edited again and again(reverted back to an old version) was bcoz a user was forcibly taking off an image of a very important artist from the carnatic music page. I understand that I should had this discussed over the discussion page before doing frequent reverts. other than that I have not acted against wikipedia policies. couple times I tried to upload images and I got warnings because of copyright information. This was either because I selected the wrong copyright information or because I was unaware of the wikipedia policies on fair usage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harikw (talk • contribs) 15:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

No problem, sorry about the hassle, I am still not sure but that is okay. Also, my name isn't Randy hehe. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake reporting BloodOnADagger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - sorry about that! --SunStar Net^talk 12:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not a problem, that is why we have an RFC for usernames, for when it is not clear cut. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think you may have been just what your name implies when you blocked Srkris recently [2] ;) If I was wrong in fixing it, let me know. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already realized my block was in error and I attempted to undo my extension to the block. Was specifying a specific moment like December 24 2006 15:49 not the correct way to give a specific ending point? It seems that a 7 day block should be about the same as December 24 2006 15:49, I read up on the time module's syntax and that should be valid, not sure. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I see what I did, wrong textboxes hehe... no I wasn't high, I wish, I just woke up. It really should have given me an error. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to dispute your claim of "no outside sources, questionable notability" on this AfD. Number one, there are outside sources listed under references. In particular, he was one of the subjects of RE/Search magazine special edition on Modern Pagans: an Investigation of Contemporary Ritual (Re/Search) by V. Vale & John Sulak. This is a litmus test for notablity in the neopagan community. Most of the other interviewees have articles on Wikipedia. Notability is not an issue, regardless of what other issues there may be. This is not to belittle the problem of his posting the article himself, but if someone else had written it, there would be no question in my mind that it should be kept. Pagan typically avoid usual local newpaper and other media coverage, as it can lead to harassment in primarily Christian neighborhoods, especially if they have children in school. But RE/Search doesn't write articles on people they don't think are notable in some way. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the AfD is to talk about it there, I disagree that this constitutes notability, and another I nominated it was because it was written by the subject. If you have note already make these points in the AfD. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This conversation is in reference to [3] HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

---

I provided a third opinion. Do not ever remove a valid dispute again. I provide third opinions often and there is nothing on the page that merits removing disputes just because you disagree with the editor. KazakhPol 19:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained my reasoning on the talk page, please abide by the instructions when using third opinion. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have removed that discussion from your talk page, this does not change the fact that you need to follow the rules. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. I wasnt aware you were allowed to make up the rules as you go along. I'll keep that in mind in the future. KazakhPol 19:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are clearly posted at WP:3O, so I am not sure what you mean when you say make up the rules as you go along. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you not edit other users' comments on my talkpage, however much you would like to, as you did here [4]. Thanks, KazakhPol 19:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with fixing an incorrectly formatted link. The fact that is was on your talk page is irrelevant. Don't worry about it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think it is better to stay civil in disputes, if for no other reason than others who are not familiar with a dispute will take a civil person more seriously. Watching some of the 3O disputes is a good lesson in this—there are people who are probably right yet cannot behave civilly, and it makes it more difficult to take their side. Grouse 00:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This conversation is in reference to [5] HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

---

Thank you thank you thank you thank you! You're the best. Does your name let on what I'm pretty sure I think it does? I've always wanted to relax in BC with some BigBud/Blueberry AC 15:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes it does, it of course refers to my enjoyment of hiking in the mountains and valleys of BC! As for BigBud/Blueberry, I like that too. Let me know if you need any help, I will come by your talk page and give you some info on editing. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My page, "we've always been at war with Eurasia," was marked for deletion. I made a statement about it on its talk page. You deleted it without responding to my input. Can I at least get a response, so I know why my page was deleted? Please email me at tsukatu@gmail.com. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsukatu (talk • contribs) 18:09, December 18, 2006

I will take a look at it, and respond here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted it and sent it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We've Always Been At War With Eurasia where a discussion will happen regarding if it should be deleted. I'm sorry I didn't notice your arguments on the talk page. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need a Canadian! I was drawn into the Marc Lepine situation weeks ago by a new user asking for help. However, it and École Polytechnique massacre have edit war potential and I'm in the process of trying to figure out if it's one user or several, etc. My question is pretty simple: Is this a really contentious event? I'll be honest, and admit I've never heard of it before. To put it in American terms, is it like, I dunno, an O.J. Simpson thing where the disagreement somewhat represents a social schism and needs to be dealt with that way, or is it more of a, (again hard to think of examples but I'll try) Lyndon Larouche sort of thing, where there's a fringe group that advocates hard for one POV but its not something that most people take seriously. Tell me if this is an insanely complicated question and I need to just go read something. Cheers. Dina 02:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have followed you here from your revert at Marc Lepine which I entirely agree with. Thank you. I am Canadian so I will venture to comment and then listen to whatever HighInBC might add. My feeling it that it is more like your Lyndon Larouche analogy. I have never heard the arguments advanced by the editors involved from anybody else, and certainly not in any media. The edits represent, in my opinion, a rather disturbing fringe view. Hope you don't mind me adding my 2 cents but I am quite disturbed by the additions, and would like to know how best to deal with it too! --Slp1 04:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I have only heard of this a couple times growing up, outside of Wikipedia I have not seen much attention relating to this(recently). I saw some edit warring going on a while back regarding if the attacks were a retaliation to woman's liberation, I personally think that claim would involve some original research, and is not directly supported by citation. However I could be wrong.

My advice is do not fear controversy, be bold and be ready to apologize if you screw up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have taken a look at the history, it seems that you are working towards a less bias version of the article. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was of age when the massacre actually happenned and live nearby, I will just clarify that I don't think there is any question that ML saw the killings as a way of getting revenge on women and on feminism for perceived personal injustices received. What I find disturbing about the additions from some users is the idea that this is reasonable and even laudable (ML 'day'). As well as the minimization of ML's acts (killed -> died). It is these that are, I believe, a fringe opinion. Thankfully!! Slp1 12:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I'd keep a permanent softblock on this IP, cause this is a HUGE school and there are quite a few computer labs, people are always surfing wikipedia and anonymous editing should be avoided...

Just a suggestion ... ? AC 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible, but blocking the account for a month, once a month is the more common practice. We don't block IP's forever usually becuase Wikipedia wants to last forever and there is not garuntee your school will own that IP forever. Vandalism is very easily reversed. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you just unblocked the banned user Snle/Edipedia by unblocking this IP. He then promptly created four more sockpuppets. If you have any questions about CheckUser blocks in the future, could you ask the blocker instead, unless you are absolutely sure. Account creation was blocked for a reason. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, sorry. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I look into it, there was no block shown for that user[6], I checked the logs and there was no mention of a block. I unblocked because the user insisted he was blocked. I suppose it was a range block that was effecting this user. How do I find and read the reasoning for a rangeblock applied to a specific IP? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most range blocks are in the /24 or /16 form, so you could always just look up the possible blocks in the block log. The only real way is to have the blocked user tell you the message they get when they try to edit, since (as far as I know) it will say the range that the blocking admin blocked and why. Dmcdevit·t 22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, not so simple then, thanks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article I found seems to somewhat disprove the lethal dose section of the Marijuana article. [7] I don't have much of a proffesional opinion in this area, though you seem to. So I thought I'd give you a heads and, up if the claims in this article turn out to be true, your more in the possision to make changes to the cannabis article than I am. To lazy to make changes myself ^Talk 06:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles seem to agree that the lethal dose cannot be consumed practically. I don't see the disparity. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Drug Library article states that the consumption of 3000 mg/kg of body weight for both the dog and monkey was non-fatal. That's more than twice the LD50 listed in the Cannabis (drug) article. Also, the 92 mg/kg intravenous non lethal dose of THC (I assume undiluted) administrated in the drug library article is twice as high as the 42 mg/kg LD50 listed in wikipedia. And the Wikipedia statistic was for 15% cannabis which, I need not explain, is far less potent than pure THC (I assume). Yes, both articles show that for an oral lethal dose the amount of cannabis needed is impossibly high, but the statistics are drastically higher in the Drug Library article than Wikipedia and, in my opinion, more relevant. ^TalkBeefJeaunt 19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I were you I would look at the citation, if any, that is currently supporting the facts, and compare it's age, and any peer review, methodology etc... and decide which should be used. You should bring this up on the article's talk page. Thanks for the research. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will also look into this myself. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after reading the main article the dates do seem a little old, though the article's results for the LD50 of rats are very similar to the stats in Wikipedia (which I assume are more up to date). Actually, what really struck me about this article (and others I've read) is the claim that a lethal dose affects and kills rats (or other rodents) in a different way than in higher mammals, which would make the stats listed in the Wikipedia article somewhat obsolete. Anyways, it would be a good idea if you looked into this more than I, because the Christmas Holidays are coming up and I'm doing schoolwork 24/7. And, like I said, you're more in the possision to make changes than me. Thanks for Your Time & Patience, BeefJeaunt 21:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, not sure when, but will do. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.