OK barnsey. If you dont read this it at your peril. Read very very carefully. You are at a school that has traditionally been a rival of guildford for probably over 50 years by now - your leaving comments on the wesley and guildford pages (and editing) makes it sound as if you have a problem. You should be very careful.
So far you have had fun finding out all the things not to do on wikipedia by doing them, and you are wandering into areas that really you should restrain yourself. You ignore that and you might find that those editors who have been patient with you so far might simply not want to support you.
You need to be reminded WP:Civility and WP:Wikiquette and your 'equality' issue with guildford lowers your status as an editor because you are showing that you take no notice of advice. If you wish to create a notable and verifiable article about aquinas chapel and junior school as separate articles - get on with it and leave editors at other schools to their work. If you do a WP:PA at the current moment in the general atmosphere - expect something big, smelly and heavy to drop from some height.
If you dont understand what I am saying - please feel free to ask me a question before wandering into other school talk pages the way you have done. Satu Suro 13:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I am hoping you to see you restore the link you removed my from comment at the Wesley talk page. I think that the reason is obvious, it makes it look like you supplied the link and me look like a drongo. This should be the first thing you do in your next session. It exceptionally bad form to edit anothers words on talk pages. - Fred 09:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay if I clean those struck comments up (i.e. delete them), or do you want it to remain as a record of the conversation? Hesperian 11:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, thanks heaps for getting back to me, and for the invite to do a peer review. I hope my review helps at all, and if you have no objections I'll get onto fixing most of the prose issues that I pointed out. Things such as photos, though, I'll have to leave up to you!
On the topic I messaged you about last week, cheers for adding the ‘Community Service’ section: it addresses those thoughts I had expressed a while back, and rounds out the ‘Student Life’ section in a balanced way.
Rob Lindsey 12:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I just thought to save you the trouble of editing the article X number of times each day, that you copy a revision to a document and edit that. Then at the end of the day you can copy it back into the article space. This would make it more convienient for you, and might make the history of the page less crowded. :) -- Ali K 21:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's also called 'Further Reading' in the main wikipedia layout guide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Further_reading
I don't imagine there'd be more than 3-5 appropriate sources in this list, but I suggested it for the sake of completeness. As the guide points out, formatting of the bibliography is the same as the formatting for the references section. Rob Lindsey 07:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Canning Bridge School. Published 2000. Summary History of Aquinas and Canning Bridge schools opened in 1936, (Canning Bridge now Manning School). Subject Manning Primary School -- History. Canning Bridge School -- History. Aquinas College (Manning, W.A.) -- History. Schools -- Western Australia -- Manning -- History. Found in Canning Bridge to Clontarf, p.27-32 Satu Suro 08:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying anything - i simply checked a source - and it has a case of florey being cited. It could be wrong. Its up to you what to do with that info. Satu Suro 08:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Satu Suro 12:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I'm willing to work with you on the referencing here - I do agree that things need references, but just not over the top. The Western Australian State Register of Heritage Places has a listing for the GGS Chapel as it's listed. By the way, here is its PDF file listing. I think this would be sufficient for some things. The Archivists Organisation has some further reading on both the Chapel and the School, while this page has some extremely useful architectural references, as well as historical. It includes a few books. If you're doing a Google search, you might want to key in other search terms, as the Chapel is known by numerous names (like The Chapel of SS. Mary and George, or The Chapel of St. Mary and St. George). The Headmaster who brought the Chapel into the school (Canon P.U. Henn) is mentioned here. I might go ahead and add them - what do you think? Aurora north Auroranorth 09:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It is very easy to put books in a school article - cite them - and show no sign of having ever actually held copies in your hands .
Satu Suro 09:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you please communicate directly with auroranorth - for a whole lot of reasons I'm not interested in dealing with the ggs, ggs chapel or other issues related at the moment - I'm out - please take the conversation away from my talk page, thanks Satu Suro 10:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Great! I was heavily involved in their activites when I was in the Prep School. I honestly believe the Aquinas College, Perth article is fantastic, and all PSA schools should be just as good. Have you already created an outline for the JSHAA page? Auroranorth 10:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, just another note about making multiple edits to the same page within the same day (or minutes!). It would be a lot neater if you didnt do this, although there is no reason you cant. When it comes to your RFA, people may not count a lot of your edits because of it. Take it into consideration. -- Ali K 11:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
but never ever ever ever edit another users page that is short of instant death warrant.... look at it see how it works - and make your own and work on stuff in your userbox - you can muck around in there - and when you are ready - transfer it out. Satu Suro 12:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I archive almost daily now, so if your discussion has been moved, then just make a new one... Smbarnzy 10:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Still doing JSHAA? Aurora north 12:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Now that you have linked your page to all those other articles on your user page it is worth knowing that in 'what links here' on all those pages will in fact show your user name'. If you dont want that - you need to put : inside each item, thought you might like to know that Satu Suro 14:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You blanked the page (for the second time) and said there's a link on the talk page (which there isn't). This is discourteous to the reviewers as they cannot see what you've done to improve the article (and I see you haven't taken up all the suggestions anyway). There is no point in reviewing or offering suggestions to your articles if you're going to do this and I won't be in future. Just leave it where it was and stop creating your own non-standard archiving systems. — Moondyne 15:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You said to keep in Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_3#.5B.5BTemplate:Kendall_County.2C_Illions.5D.5D but gave no explanation. Since XfD's are not a vote, could you explain why there should be a duplicate of Template:Kendall County, Illinois with a misspelled name? —dgies t c 22:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you tagged this article as a speedy on the grounds of "nonsense". A quick reading would indicate that, in spite the bad grammar, this is a stub on an Indian town. You may or may not know (I don't know how long you've been here) that any geographic location is automatically notable, no matter how small or remote. Denni talk 04:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I've already voted, unless they've removed it... Aurora north ( WikiDesk) 09:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Re your comments, these templates are not important as has already been highlighted significantly in the TfD discussion for the templates in question. Additionally, a massive cleanup has been performed of the entities in question and the re-addition of this template negates the correct category method cleanup by re-adding redundant categories. revert to be performed and watchlisted accordingly. thewinchester 09:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!
HagermanBot 12:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Might I ask, what don't you like about the template? It just combines banners that were there anyway, namely the facfailed and peerreviews. Gimmetrow 14:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Smbarnzy: No, you cannot revert it. You don't own the article or the talk page. The template is being rolled out for all articles and amalgamates the plethora of templates currently in use as well as providing permanent links to reviewed or promoted versions. There is consensus for it being there. — Moondyne 14:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I'll get started on that now. I've nominated Percy Henn for Good Article status - what do you think? Aurora north ( WikiDesk) 10:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You've both supported and opposed this RfA. I'd suggest that you strike out one of your votes, depending on what your opinion actually is (change the # at the start to #:<s>, and write </s> at the end). -- ais523 13:59, 6 March 2007 ( U T C)
... and there it is. Don't let the red link fool you, Smbarnzy: Jeffrey O. Gustafson is a highly respected and experienced administrator. He had deleted an image incorrectly uploaded under fair use provisions, and his edit to Placebo removed the resultant red link. You reverted back to a version with a broken image link. Furthermore you reverted Jeffery like you would revert a vandal, without the courtesy of an edit summary, let along a message on the talk page or his user talk page. I've waited ten minutes to see if you would follow up on this in any way, and you have not. This is the kind of thoughtless action that starts edit wars and arguments, and generally disrupts Wikipedia. Per my previous message, I have blocked you for 24 hours. Hesperian 11:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, i have been blocked Mr hesperian. I make a request and that is, i need my sandbox - im referencing the Placebo (band) artcicle, and will need it 2morow when i come back to edit. Thanks SM BarnZy 12:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't dispute that. But Moondyne, myself and others made it very clear to you yesterday and today that you were making too many "honest mistakes" and it was disrupting Wikipedia. I think that you should remain blocked and take this as a warning. You'll be welcome back tomorrow. Hesperian 12:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
In reply to your email, your block expires at 8:54pm your time. Hesperian 11:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Why did you get blocked? I can't see... Aurora north ( WikiDesk) 12:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, im working hard on my wiki-ness :)ive realised that if me and wiki are to work, then i have to be more polite and ALWAYS be nice to people. Thanks for the help SMBarnZy 12:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I fully support the prevous block of this user. In my encounters with him he has failed to show knowledge of Wikipedia's policy and has made no effort to learn these polices despite the lenght of period he has been here. Tighten up the act there Barnzy. BTW I still play cricket, what were you on about?-- Hamedog Talk| @ 04:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensus between admins and a few 'disruptive' edits that were stopped two days before. Aurora north ( WikiDesk) 08:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You've been creating articles listing the members of the above-mentioned organisation. As you yourself note in one of the resulting AfD debates, this is a "notable category". Assuming that it is, and that sub-categories can be created, there really is no need for all of the list articles: the category suffices. I'd like to strongly encourage you to stop creating this kind of article, and encourage you to focus your energies on more productive areas.
All the best,
WMMartin 15:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. If you're interested in working on articles that have something in common with your own school, you might want to take a look at St_Thomas_Aquinas_Catholic_School, which is a bit scrappy and certainly needs work. I know you're mostly an expert on Australian topics, but when I saw this one you were the first person I thought of !
That's a good idea. There's a few major road articles done - see Category:Major roads in Perth, Western Australia. You may want to read a few to get some ideas. Try to maintain the article naming convention. i.e. Victoria Avenue, Perth. — Moondyne 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts:
Good luck — Moondyne 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
What do I think?: no, no and no. All non-notable.
Hockey club: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Aquinians Hockey Club. The article was basically nominated because of notability concerns but speedied on the basis of copyvio. Notability is still the issue and I would advise against it.
List of Alumni: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alumni of Aquinas College, Perth. There are no hard and fast rules on this, but college alumni really only deserve to be listed if they themselves are notable or deserving of their own article. If they're not notable, why list them at all - else you may as well list the entire student cohort. The current list is not too long in terms of inclusion in the article (see Marlborough College for example) but is too long as some of the names listed should not be there. Eton College and Harrow School have their own list articles but they have both been around for 500+ years. Aquinas has been around since 1937.
That's what I think. But you have to judge what you do yourself based on your own interpretation of community standards and guidelines. In particular, you need to consider that these articles have only recently been discussed at AfD. You also need to consider your current standing in the community and that if there was a future nomination of one or more of these potential new articles at AfD whether some Wikipedians may consider your creation of these was done in good faith or just to make a point. Its up to you which way you go. — Moondyne 15:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
OK barnsey. If you dont read this it at your peril. Read very very carefully. You are at a school that has traditionally been a rival of guildford for probably over 50 years by now - your leaving comments on the wesley and guildford pages (and editing) makes it sound as if you have a problem. You should be very careful.
So far you have had fun finding out all the things not to do on wikipedia by doing them, and you are wandering into areas that really you should restrain yourself. You ignore that and you might find that those editors who have been patient with you so far might simply not want to support you.
You need to be reminded WP:Civility and WP:Wikiquette and your 'equality' issue with guildford lowers your status as an editor because you are showing that you take no notice of advice. If you wish to create a notable and verifiable article about aquinas chapel and junior school as separate articles - get on with it and leave editors at other schools to their work. If you do a WP:PA at the current moment in the general atmosphere - expect something big, smelly and heavy to drop from some height.
If you dont understand what I am saying - please feel free to ask me a question before wandering into other school talk pages the way you have done. Satu Suro 13:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I am hoping you to see you restore the link you removed my from comment at the Wesley talk page. I think that the reason is obvious, it makes it look like you supplied the link and me look like a drongo. This should be the first thing you do in your next session. It exceptionally bad form to edit anothers words on talk pages. - Fred 09:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay if I clean those struck comments up (i.e. delete them), or do you want it to remain as a record of the conversation? Hesperian 11:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, thanks heaps for getting back to me, and for the invite to do a peer review. I hope my review helps at all, and if you have no objections I'll get onto fixing most of the prose issues that I pointed out. Things such as photos, though, I'll have to leave up to you!
On the topic I messaged you about last week, cheers for adding the ‘Community Service’ section: it addresses those thoughts I had expressed a while back, and rounds out the ‘Student Life’ section in a balanced way.
Rob Lindsey 12:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I just thought to save you the trouble of editing the article X number of times each day, that you copy a revision to a document and edit that. Then at the end of the day you can copy it back into the article space. This would make it more convienient for you, and might make the history of the page less crowded. :) -- Ali K 21:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's also called 'Further Reading' in the main wikipedia layout guide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Further_reading
I don't imagine there'd be more than 3-5 appropriate sources in this list, but I suggested it for the sake of completeness. As the guide points out, formatting of the bibliography is the same as the formatting for the references section. Rob Lindsey 07:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Canning Bridge School. Published 2000. Summary History of Aquinas and Canning Bridge schools opened in 1936, (Canning Bridge now Manning School). Subject Manning Primary School -- History. Canning Bridge School -- History. Aquinas College (Manning, W.A.) -- History. Schools -- Western Australia -- Manning -- History. Found in Canning Bridge to Clontarf, p.27-32 Satu Suro 08:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying anything - i simply checked a source - and it has a case of florey being cited. It could be wrong. Its up to you what to do with that info. Satu Suro 08:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Satu Suro 12:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I'm willing to work with you on the referencing here - I do agree that things need references, but just not over the top. The Western Australian State Register of Heritage Places has a listing for the GGS Chapel as it's listed. By the way, here is its PDF file listing. I think this would be sufficient for some things. The Archivists Organisation has some further reading on both the Chapel and the School, while this page has some extremely useful architectural references, as well as historical. It includes a few books. If you're doing a Google search, you might want to key in other search terms, as the Chapel is known by numerous names (like The Chapel of SS. Mary and George, or The Chapel of St. Mary and St. George). The Headmaster who brought the Chapel into the school (Canon P.U. Henn) is mentioned here. I might go ahead and add them - what do you think? Aurora north Auroranorth 09:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It is very easy to put books in a school article - cite them - and show no sign of having ever actually held copies in your hands .
Satu Suro 09:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you please communicate directly with auroranorth - for a whole lot of reasons I'm not interested in dealing with the ggs, ggs chapel or other issues related at the moment - I'm out - please take the conversation away from my talk page, thanks Satu Suro 10:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Great! I was heavily involved in their activites when I was in the Prep School. I honestly believe the Aquinas College, Perth article is fantastic, and all PSA schools should be just as good. Have you already created an outline for the JSHAA page? Auroranorth 10:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, just another note about making multiple edits to the same page within the same day (or minutes!). It would be a lot neater if you didnt do this, although there is no reason you cant. When it comes to your RFA, people may not count a lot of your edits because of it. Take it into consideration. -- Ali K 11:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
but never ever ever ever edit another users page that is short of instant death warrant.... look at it see how it works - and make your own and work on stuff in your userbox - you can muck around in there - and when you are ready - transfer it out. Satu Suro 12:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I archive almost daily now, so if your discussion has been moved, then just make a new one... Smbarnzy 10:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Still doing JSHAA? Aurora north 12:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Now that you have linked your page to all those other articles on your user page it is worth knowing that in 'what links here' on all those pages will in fact show your user name'. If you dont want that - you need to put : inside each item, thought you might like to know that Satu Suro 14:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You blanked the page (for the second time) and said there's a link on the talk page (which there isn't). This is discourteous to the reviewers as they cannot see what you've done to improve the article (and I see you haven't taken up all the suggestions anyway). There is no point in reviewing or offering suggestions to your articles if you're going to do this and I won't be in future. Just leave it where it was and stop creating your own non-standard archiving systems. — Moondyne 15:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You said to keep in Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_3#.5B.5BTemplate:Kendall_County.2C_Illions.5D.5D but gave no explanation. Since XfD's are not a vote, could you explain why there should be a duplicate of Template:Kendall County, Illinois with a misspelled name? —dgies t c 22:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you tagged this article as a speedy on the grounds of "nonsense". A quick reading would indicate that, in spite the bad grammar, this is a stub on an Indian town. You may or may not know (I don't know how long you've been here) that any geographic location is automatically notable, no matter how small or remote. Denni talk 04:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I've already voted, unless they've removed it... Aurora north ( WikiDesk) 09:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Re your comments, these templates are not important as has already been highlighted significantly in the TfD discussion for the templates in question. Additionally, a massive cleanup has been performed of the entities in question and the re-addition of this template negates the correct category method cleanup by re-adding redundant categories. revert to be performed and watchlisted accordingly. thewinchester 09:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!
HagermanBot 12:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Might I ask, what don't you like about the template? It just combines banners that were there anyway, namely the facfailed and peerreviews. Gimmetrow 14:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Smbarnzy: No, you cannot revert it. You don't own the article or the talk page. The template is being rolled out for all articles and amalgamates the plethora of templates currently in use as well as providing permanent links to reviewed or promoted versions. There is consensus for it being there. — Moondyne 14:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I'll get started on that now. I've nominated Percy Henn for Good Article status - what do you think? Aurora north ( WikiDesk) 10:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You've both supported and opposed this RfA. I'd suggest that you strike out one of your votes, depending on what your opinion actually is (change the # at the start to #:<s>, and write </s> at the end). -- ais523 13:59, 6 March 2007 ( U T C)
... and there it is. Don't let the red link fool you, Smbarnzy: Jeffrey O. Gustafson is a highly respected and experienced administrator. He had deleted an image incorrectly uploaded under fair use provisions, and his edit to Placebo removed the resultant red link. You reverted back to a version with a broken image link. Furthermore you reverted Jeffery like you would revert a vandal, without the courtesy of an edit summary, let along a message on the talk page or his user talk page. I've waited ten minutes to see if you would follow up on this in any way, and you have not. This is the kind of thoughtless action that starts edit wars and arguments, and generally disrupts Wikipedia. Per my previous message, I have blocked you for 24 hours. Hesperian 11:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, i have been blocked Mr hesperian. I make a request and that is, i need my sandbox - im referencing the Placebo (band) artcicle, and will need it 2morow when i come back to edit. Thanks SM BarnZy 12:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't dispute that. But Moondyne, myself and others made it very clear to you yesterday and today that you were making too many "honest mistakes" and it was disrupting Wikipedia. I think that you should remain blocked and take this as a warning. You'll be welcome back tomorrow. Hesperian 12:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
In reply to your email, your block expires at 8:54pm your time. Hesperian 11:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Why did you get blocked? I can't see... Aurora north ( WikiDesk) 12:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, im working hard on my wiki-ness :)ive realised that if me and wiki are to work, then i have to be more polite and ALWAYS be nice to people. Thanks for the help SMBarnZy 12:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I fully support the prevous block of this user. In my encounters with him he has failed to show knowledge of Wikipedia's policy and has made no effort to learn these polices despite the lenght of period he has been here. Tighten up the act there Barnzy. BTW I still play cricket, what were you on about?-- Hamedog Talk| @ 04:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensus between admins and a few 'disruptive' edits that were stopped two days before. Aurora north ( WikiDesk) 08:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You've been creating articles listing the members of the above-mentioned organisation. As you yourself note in one of the resulting AfD debates, this is a "notable category". Assuming that it is, and that sub-categories can be created, there really is no need for all of the list articles: the category suffices. I'd like to strongly encourage you to stop creating this kind of article, and encourage you to focus your energies on more productive areas.
All the best,
WMMartin 15:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. If you're interested in working on articles that have something in common with your own school, you might want to take a look at St_Thomas_Aquinas_Catholic_School, which is a bit scrappy and certainly needs work. I know you're mostly an expert on Australian topics, but when I saw this one you were the first person I thought of !
That's a good idea. There's a few major road articles done - see Category:Major roads in Perth, Western Australia. You may want to read a few to get some ideas. Try to maintain the article naming convention. i.e. Victoria Avenue, Perth. — Moondyne 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts:
Good luck — Moondyne 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
What do I think?: no, no and no. All non-notable.
Hockey club: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Aquinians Hockey Club. The article was basically nominated because of notability concerns but speedied on the basis of copyvio. Notability is still the issue and I would advise against it.
List of Alumni: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alumni of Aquinas College, Perth. There are no hard and fast rules on this, but college alumni really only deserve to be listed if they themselves are notable or deserving of their own article. If they're not notable, why list them at all - else you may as well list the entire student cohort. The current list is not too long in terms of inclusion in the article (see Marlborough College for example) but is too long as some of the names listed should not be there. Eton College and Harrow School have their own list articles but they have both been around for 500+ years. Aquinas has been around since 1937.
That's what I think. But you have to judge what you do yourself based on your own interpretation of community standards and guidelines. In particular, you need to consider that these articles have only recently been discussed at AfD. You also need to consider your current standing in the community and that if there was a future nomination of one or more of these potential new articles at AfD whether some Wikipedians may consider your creation of these was done in good faith or just to make a point. Its up to you which way you go. — Moondyne 15:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)