![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
See this book review, where the reviewer easily discredits the so-called scholarly nature of propagandist Daniele Ganser's work.
I tagged Roland Rance with a db-bio, but someone removed it. I am considering an AfD. The subject just does not seem notable. He chaired a meeting that looks like it was attended by a couple dozen souls at best, another source doesn't seem to exist anymore, and one source is an online petition. He has had a collection of his pamphlets published. I don't think this qualifies for the CT board, or I would have posted on the talk page there. What do you think? If he is truly notable, it isn't established in the article. Crockspot 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Tom Harrison Talk 14:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[2] Whats up Monty? The President of a country where a thing happens says something interesting on that topic and you call that "undue weight". Its one sentence. Do you think that the President of Pakistan is a 'conspiracy theorist'? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan. Tom Harrison Talk 20:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
How did you do that thing with the title of your talk page, I must learn. Miltopia 22:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I started a topic in the Keith Olbermann discussion about the recent edit war. I invite you to contribute. Thanks, CalebNoble 09:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
What needs deleting. See here. [3] This one may take some off-wiki work, but I'm sure you'll manage to get her scrubbed anyway. Cheers. 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.2.85 ( talk • contribs)
Hey guy. I saw where "stone" censored your questioning his accusations. I was thinking of confronting him about it myself, but he doesn’t look to friendly. I’ll just let his comments at the RfC suffice to let everyone see his "good faith". I didn’t know I was part of a cabal. I didn’t know someone could make accusations like that and get away with it. JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 20:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe your recent edit of History of Soviet espionage in the United States was proper given the unresolved conflict in the Discussion page. The fact that you have edited that talk page indicates you are aware the dispute was unresolved. Please revert your edit until the unresolved citation dispute is resolved via mediation or by the addition of requested citations. Abe Froman 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Morton. I know this is kind of off-topic and not directly involved to Wikipedia, but considering our many contributions to the encyclopedia, I'm sure they can expend us a few bits of data.
I wonder if you are willing to take a pledge?
If you ever find yourself in the situation were you find yourself believing that the USA government actually did or allowed 911 to happen, then you will inform openly to everyone you know about your strong efforts to destroy as many articles as possible that represented that point of view on Wikipedia, in contrast to hiding your current and previous actions. Deal?
It should not be any problem for you to make such a pledge, since you believe that you will never find yourself in such situation, right? In fact, don't even answer me, just make up your mind about the pledge, and make it a firm pledge, if you choose to do so.
Peace. -- Striver 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I have opened a case of arbitration at Requests for arbitration:Seabhcan-- MONGO 07:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Who did I call a clown? I used the word, but I didn't call anyone a clown. You're all starting to take everything said as if it's a p ersonal attack. I would suggest a short break from Wikipedia when the feelings start to overcome you. -- Cplot 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109 Talk 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I wish to announce that our efforts to promote the scientific theories of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth have been successful. The Official Organ proclaims that the movement has been rightfully cleansed of the heretical teachings of Truth-Professor Steven E. Jones. And let this be a lesson to all of you who dare question that space-beams were involved in the controlled demolition of the towers!
Your user page design is excellent and by far the best I have seen on Wikipedia. Congratulations!. Edison 16:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The Swedes earlier charged that I was some sort of Disinformation Agent on Wikipedia. Apparently, now it's been confirmed [4] [5] [6] [7]. United States E'xecutive Branch Agents Controlled Article (USEBACA) indeed. Get it right, I'm the with the United Network Command for Law and Enforcement. And now, the official Wikipedia/CIA working policy. Morton devonshire 22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Crockspot, you can't want it for the money. You'll never get in on the deal. You have to want it for the Presidential semen. -- GenericClownTaunt 19:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm in a special counter-disinformation division: Counter Tactical World Indoctrination Team. I have to revert a lot of people. It's my job. -- Tbeatty 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I propose a new codename for our ongoing eevil activities: Mean Americans Clearing Away Crappy Articles. MACACA. Crockspot 00:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
How about F.A.A.F.A.? Featured Articles Always Favor America. -- Tbeatty 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
F.A.A.F.A.
08:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I have a problem with the logic of the use of the name USEBACA. Since the executive branch of the US govt. is the only branch that is authorized to have "agents", are not all US "agents" controlled by the executive branch? Why not just call it USA - United States Agents? And where is that extra "A" coming from? Shouldn't it be USEBCA? Inquiring minds want to know. - Crockspot 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Crockspot, you need to bone up on the US Constitution some more. You misunderstand so much about it. -- Novus Ordo Seculorum 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Morton, I've cleaned up the "schism" section you introduced, but I still think it should go. Please make your case for it over at Talk:Steven E. Jones over the next couple of days.-- Thomas Basboll 20:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
What did I say? -- Novus Ordo Seculorum 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It's only a matter of time before you are disposed of by the Admins. Morton devonshire 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
59 of your sockpuppets have been blocked. Given up yet? Morton devonshire 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Morton.
You wrote "G, This is a serious question: Then why do you tolerate the ridiculously rude behavior out of Seabhcan?"
I criticised Seabhcan quite severely in his RFC; I thought that some of the way he approached other editors was indeed rude. As with MONGO however, I would distinguish between occasional loss of civility in a well-intentioned editor (I have definitely criticised MONGO too in the past for this), and the subject matter, the content they are arguing about. While it is tempting to see loss of temper in those we are arguing with as evidence of the weakness of their arguments, and this can sometimes be true, as I have said before the biggest tragedy of the conflicts there have been is the loss of value to the encyclopedia. Conflicts like this lead to articles being poorer than they should be and to good editors like MONGO and Seabhcan suffering undue stress.
This was the reason I took out the comment in User talk:MONGO. I don't think using a sad event like MONGO's departure to score points over the other side in the debate is appropriate. I don't think either that any one "side" of this has had a monopoly on rudeness.
I am very keen to focus on bringing this matter to a better state; all sides in a dispute have to remember to treat each other collegially. As you know I was criticised in my RfA for forgetting this on occasion in the past. I have tried extra hard ever since to treat those I disagree with, especially on controversial issues like this one, extra politely. This has included people I greatly respect like MONGO, Tom Harrison and Durin.
I humbly contend that you can help reduce the stress for everybody by following my example and remembering to disagree patiently with good faith editors. Every editor should be considered a good faith editor, unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The consequences of forgetting this include the loss of good people as we have seen here.
Very best wishes, -- Guinnog 19:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. For misuse of his administrative tools, as well as disruptive conduct in edit warring and incivility, Seabhcan is desysopped. Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
For the Arbitration Committee -- Srikeit 08:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Why dont we focus on identifying individual points of objection at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Why_dont_the_Oppose_and_Agree_camps.3F instead of having long winded debates that cover 2 or 3 subjects The we we know everyones objections either way, we can work out a compromise on each point with a view to reaching a consensus. " Snorkel | Talk" 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
All right. E-mail enabled. Thanks. It's obvious that the sock puppet allegation is being used solely as a vehicle for interrogation and harassment. It's been ten days now, and no CheckUser request has been made. -- BryanFromPalatine 03:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Per your addition of blogs to Notability exclusions: "The "independence" qualification excludes all self-publicity, self-published web pages ("blogs"), advertising by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias." Just to clarify: Joes'self published blog is excluded as a source to show Joe's notability. What about Sam's self-published blog to show notability of Joe, assuming Joe and Sam do not have a "vested interest or bias"? Would you exclude all blogs, period (except as sources about the selfsame blogs)? Drudge? Wonkette? Edison 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Kind of ironic, listing the MfD notice within the page that will delete itself. If it were to be deleted, would it create a black hole or do something like divide by zero? ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
While I find the attention, um, interesting, he is not me. Tracking back through my edits to find the first article I edited and conclude that person is me and posting such information (even if wrong) is clear WP:HARASS and a violation of WP:BLP when it comes to Neil Cicierega. Restore it and we go to AN/I. -- *Spark* 17:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
If you have time, please take a look at the 911 External Timeline individual passage discussion [8] and comment/contribute. Abe Froman 18:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I have now totally revamped/stubified this article in order to deal with the POV issues. Please take a look at the new version if you like. Thanks, Bwithh 08:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
An homage to the debate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd):
From The Princess Bride.
Morton Devonshire
Yo
20:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Those that support me? MONGO? Tom Harrison? I cannot choose "sides" if sides do not exist. In the Cold War we did not just aim missles at Russia, but everyone that sided with Russia, innocent countries had nukes aimed at them because the country they sided with decided to attack another country. Interesting how politics work, lucky their is no sides here. If there was, someone may say you are one of those small countries and your larger allies pointed missles in the wrong direction. --
Nuclear
Zer0
21:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Have all the fun you'd like!
Did you know that some on the far-right suspected the US Gov of the Murrah Building Bombing and blamed their own gov for a terrorist attack? (those who didn't welcome it!)
[www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae09bb25c23.htm The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Reichstag Fire from Free Republic]
[www.freerepublic.com/~actionnewsbill/links?U=%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2Fbrowse More Tin Foil Hattery from Free Republic]
Everything old is new again ! ;-) Cheers - F.A.A.F.A. 04:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
hey man, just a heads up, seeing as you seem to get fairly involved in rather heated issues with some regularity, you might want to re-think having an image in your sig lest someone replace it with goatse or some such thing, eh? – Fʀijølɛ ( tɐlk • ¢ʘɴ†ʀiβs ) 20:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
See this book review, where the reviewer easily discredits the so-called scholarly nature of propagandist Daniele Ganser's work.
I tagged Roland Rance with a db-bio, but someone removed it. I am considering an AfD. The subject just does not seem notable. He chaired a meeting that looks like it was attended by a couple dozen souls at best, another source doesn't seem to exist anymore, and one source is an online petition. He has had a collection of his pamphlets published. I don't think this qualifies for the CT board, or I would have posted on the talk page there. What do you think? If he is truly notable, it isn't established in the article. Crockspot 21:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Tom Harrison Talk 14:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[2] Whats up Monty? The President of a country where a thing happens says something interesting on that topic and you call that "undue weight". Its one sentence. Do you think that the President of Pakistan is a 'conspiracy theorist'? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan. Tom Harrison Talk 20:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
How did you do that thing with the title of your talk page, I must learn. Miltopia 22:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I started a topic in the Keith Olbermann discussion about the recent edit war. I invite you to contribute. Thanks, CalebNoble 09:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
What needs deleting. See here. [3] This one may take some off-wiki work, but I'm sure you'll manage to get her scrubbed anyway. Cheers. 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.2.85 ( talk • contribs)
Hey guy. I saw where "stone" censored your questioning his accusations. I was thinking of confronting him about it myself, but he doesn’t look to friendly. I’ll just let his comments at the RfC suffice to let everyone see his "good faith". I didn’t know I was part of a cabal. I didn’t know someone could make accusations like that and get away with it. JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 20:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe your recent edit of History of Soviet espionage in the United States was proper given the unresolved conflict in the Discussion page. The fact that you have edited that talk page indicates you are aware the dispute was unresolved. Please revert your edit until the unresolved citation dispute is resolved via mediation or by the addition of requested citations. Abe Froman 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Morton. I know this is kind of off-topic and not directly involved to Wikipedia, but considering our many contributions to the encyclopedia, I'm sure they can expend us a few bits of data.
I wonder if you are willing to take a pledge?
If you ever find yourself in the situation were you find yourself believing that the USA government actually did or allowed 911 to happen, then you will inform openly to everyone you know about your strong efforts to destroy as many articles as possible that represented that point of view on Wikipedia, in contrast to hiding your current and previous actions. Deal?
It should not be any problem for you to make such a pledge, since you believe that you will never find yourself in such situation, right? In fact, don't even answer me, just make up your mind about the pledge, and make it a firm pledge, if you choose to do so.
Peace. -- Striver 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I have opened a case of arbitration at Requests for arbitration:Seabhcan-- MONGO 07:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Who did I call a clown? I used the word, but I didn't call anyone a clown. You're all starting to take everything said as if it's a p ersonal attack. I would suggest a short break from Wikipedia when the feelings start to overcome you. -- Cplot 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109 Talk 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I wish to announce that our efforts to promote the scientific theories of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth have been successful. The Official Organ proclaims that the movement has been rightfully cleansed of the heretical teachings of Truth-Professor Steven E. Jones. And let this be a lesson to all of you who dare question that space-beams were involved in the controlled demolition of the towers!
Your user page design is excellent and by far the best I have seen on Wikipedia. Congratulations!. Edison 16:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The Swedes earlier charged that I was some sort of Disinformation Agent on Wikipedia. Apparently, now it's been confirmed [4] [5] [6] [7]. United States E'xecutive Branch Agents Controlled Article (USEBACA) indeed. Get it right, I'm the with the United Network Command for Law and Enforcement. And now, the official Wikipedia/CIA working policy. Morton devonshire 22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Crockspot, you can't want it for the money. You'll never get in on the deal. You have to want it for the Presidential semen. -- GenericClownTaunt 19:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm in a special counter-disinformation division: Counter Tactical World Indoctrination Team. I have to revert a lot of people. It's my job. -- Tbeatty 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I propose a new codename for our ongoing eevil activities: Mean Americans Clearing Away Crappy Articles. MACACA. Crockspot 00:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
How about F.A.A.F.A.? Featured Articles Always Favor America. -- Tbeatty 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
F.A.A.F.A.
08:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I have a problem with the logic of the use of the name USEBACA. Since the executive branch of the US govt. is the only branch that is authorized to have "agents", are not all US "agents" controlled by the executive branch? Why not just call it USA - United States Agents? And where is that extra "A" coming from? Shouldn't it be USEBCA? Inquiring minds want to know. - Crockspot 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Crockspot, you need to bone up on the US Constitution some more. You misunderstand so much about it. -- Novus Ordo Seculorum 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Morton, I've cleaned up the "schism" section you introduced, but I still think it should go. Please make your case for it over at Talk:Steven E. Jones over the next couple of days.-- Thomas Basboll 20:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
What did I say? -- Novus Ordo Seculorum 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It's only a matter of time before you are disposed of by the Admins. Morton devonshire 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
59 of your sockpuppets have been blocked. Given up yet? Morton devonshire 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Morton.
You wrote "G, This is a serious question: Then why do you tolerate the ridiculously rude behavior out of Seabhcan?"
I criticised Seabhcan quite severely in his RFC; I thought that some of the way he approached other editors was indeed rude. As with MONGO however, I would distinguish between occasional loss of civility in a well-intentioned editor (I have definitely criticised MONGO too in the past for this), and the subject matter, the content they are arguing about. While it is tempting to see loss of temper in those we are arguing with as evidence of the weakness of their arguments, and this can sometimes be true, as I have said before the biggest tragedy of the conflicts there have been is the loss of value to the encyclopedia. Conflicts like this lead to articles being poorer than they should be and to good editors like MONGO and Seabhcan suffering undue stress.
This was the reason I took out the comment in User talk:MONGO. I don't think using a sad event like MONGO's departure to score points over the other side in the debate is appropriate. I don't think either that any one "side" of this has had a monopoly on rudeness.
I am very keen to focus on bringing this matter to a better state; all sides in a dispute have to remember to treat each other collegially. As you know I was criticised in my RfA for forgetting this on occasion in the past. I have tried extra hard ever since to treat those I disagree with, especially on controversial issues like this one, extra politely. This has included people I greatly respect like MONGO, Tom Harrison and Durin.
I humbly contend that you can help reduce the stress for everybody by following my example and remembering to disagree patiently with good faith editors. Every editor should be considered a good faith editor, unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The consequences of forgetting this include the loss of good people as we have seen here.
Very best wishes, -- Guinnog 19:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. For misuse of his administrative tools, as well as disruptive conduct in edit warring and incivility, Seabhcan is desysopped. Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
For the Arbitration Committee -- Srikeit 08:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Why dont we focus on identifying individual points of objection at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Why_dont_the_Oppose_and_Agree_camps.3F instead of having long winded debates that cover 2 or 3 subjects The we we know everyones objections either way, we can work out a compromise on each point with a view to reaching a consensus. " Snorkel | Talk" 09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
All right. E-mail enabled. Thanks. It's obvious that the sock puppet allegation is being used solely as a vehicle for interrogation and harassment. It's been ten days now, and no CheckUser request has been made. -- BryanFromPalatine 03:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Per your addition of blogs to Notability exclusions: "The "independence" qualification excludes all self-publicity, self-published web pages ("blogs"), advertising by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias." Just to clarify: Joes'self published blog is excluded as a source to show Joe's notability. What about Sam's self-published blog to show notability of Joe, assuming Joe and Sam do not have a "vested interest or bias"? Would you exclude all blogs, period (except as sources about the selfsame blogs)? Drudge? Wonkette? Edison 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Kind of ironic, listing the MfD notice within the page that will delete itself. If it were to be deleted, would it create a black hole or do something like divide by zero? ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
While I find the attention, um, interesting, he is not me. Tracking back through my edits to find the first article I edited and conclude that person is me and posting such information (even if wrong) is clear WP:HARASS and a violation of WP:BLP when it comes to Neil Cicierega. Restore it and we go to AN/I. -- *Spark* 17:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
If you have time, please take a look at the 911 External Timeline individual passage discussion [8] and comment/contribute. Abe Froman 18:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I have now totally revamped/stubified this article in order to deal with the POV issues. Please take a look at the new version if you like. Thanks, Bwithh 08:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
An homage to the debate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd):
From The Princess Bride.
Morton Devonshire
Yo
20:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Those that support me? MONGO? Tom Harrison? I cannot choose "sides" if sides do not exist. In the Cold War we did not just aim missles at Russia, but everyone that sided with Russia, innocent countries had nukes aimed at them because the country they sided with decided to attack another country. Interesting how politics work, lucky their is no sides here. If there was, someone may say you are one of those small countries and your larger allies pointed missles in the wrong direction. --
Nuclear
Zer0
21:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Have all the fun you'd like!
Did you know that some on the far-right suspected the US Gov of the Murrah Building Bombing and blamed their own gov for a terrorist attack? (those who didn't welcome it!)
[www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae09bb25c23.htm The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Reichstag Fire from Free Republic]
[www.freerepublic.com/~actionnewsbill/links?U=%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2Fbrowse More Tin Foil Hattery from Free Republic]
Everything old is new again ! ;-) Cheers - F.A.A.F.A. 04:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
hey man, just a heads up, seeing as you seem to get fairly involved in rather heated issues with some regularity, you might want to re-think having an image in your sig lest someone replace it with goatse or some such thing, eh? – Fʀijølɛ ( tɐlk • ¢ʘɴ†ʀiβs ) 20:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |