![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Thanks for uploading Image:Alliancemlas2003.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Cool! -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Just added this discussion to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies page. Any input from yourself would be greaty appreciated. Thanks. Galloglass 12:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the move of this article! ~~ Peteb16 23:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tim, I just stumbled across the very stubby article which you had created on James Pybus.
May ask you to take a look at my comments at Talk:Percy_John_Pybus#James_or_Percy? Thanks! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
At Derek Birley, you bypassed 2 redirects with possibilities diff. I have two concerns with this:
Please check the purpose of redirects before you bypass them. I have reverted your edit to Derek Birley. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 14:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that you are working hard on numerous education articles, and the above is a minor oversight. Keep it up! -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 14:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not stalking you (honest) but I disagree with this category. It requires users to load an extra page for no benefit, so I put it up for deletion. Nothing personal. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 15:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello
You seem to be an expert in such matters so perhaps you can help me clarify a point: while translating the article Donald Dewar for the French wiki, I tried to check the names of the constituencies he stood for, and could not match them with the list in the article List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies. It turns out the devolution played havoc with the list, Glasgow Garscadden, for example, totally disappearing while Glasgow Anniesland seems to be a recent creation. Apparently some (or all?) constituencies in Scotland were replaced by new ones, but for the non-British reader it is unclear whether United Kingdom parliament constituencies match Scotland's parliament constituencies or whether the two lists are different. Information exists here and there if you use the links, but you can find it only if you know about it in advance. I wish I could think of a synthetic, elegant solution to the problem, but I can't. However it seems to me that a few footnotes (by an expert) might be helpful for non-British readers. Amicalement, -- Anne97432 23:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi I just noticed your new article on the third oldest university debate via the UCL discussion. Just to say good work, I found it enlightening to get a summary of all the universities claims. I personally think UCL was the first even though it didnt get its royal charter till later. Heres a barnstar for your great contribution efforts to WP. LordHarris 13:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Recently a user on Wikipedia decribed Spartacus as a "crappy" encyclopedia that was heavily biased. Spartacus has information in it that sheds certain American agencies in a possible bad light. I have seen other sharp critisism from what it appears to be of American origin implying that we should not use the material in Spartacus unless it is supported by an American encyclopedia or government agency.
Now there seems to be a reluctance to cite Spartacus in this subject area where the English encyclopedia was criticized.
Outside of the United States, is there any reputation that Spartacus is an unreliable source and not suitable for Wikipedia?
RPJ
03:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I notice you've altered several historical references to "King's College, London" to "King's College London". This is anachronistic, since the comma was used until fairly recently. A modern corporate identity name change shouldn't be backdated. -- Necrothesp 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm very sorry but you wrote in your revert that my change from alumnus to alumnus/a was NOT discussed on the talk page. THIS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. It isn't MY fault that you are not a thorough wikipedian, my friend. I put a full two paragraph discussion of my logic on the talk page. Go look there. I think your revert was counterproductive, counterintuitive, and illogical. Please see my comments on the alumnus talk page AND see in the actual article my CITED information that i added under usage proving that this IS a correct usage. Please respond on the alumnus talk page or on mine. I did my part by clearly explaining the reasoning for the revert on the talk page and responsibly making sure there were no double redirects etc. Please do yours. Thank you very much. Nadsat 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You don’t like typographically correct apostrophes (’) and quotes (“”) or why do you remove them from articles as in [9]? Please don’t do that again. Thanks. — Richie 17:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Appologies for the delay in getting back, have been away for a while. I can't seem to find where i got the image from, and searches on google etc show nothing so it might have been from a back issue of the article on QMCUL, so it might be best to delete it and replace it with the current logo. AlexD 20:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
For work as an admin on CfD; that job I'm sure doesn't not suck. Thank you for the tedious and yet excellent work you have done. — Scouter Sig 07:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC) |
With only 5 people commenting, 2 for deletion and 3 for keeping, and there being no stated consensus of those 5 people, I think this would be better called a "No consensus (keep)". I'm concerned about this because categories such as these are clearly often deleted and the entire class of poorly populated eponymous categories is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. Personally, I inadvertantly missed the Joey discussion, and would have strongly voted to delete, as it seems pointless to keep. Considering our guidelines for categorzation, the low turn out, and the ongoing discussions, I'm wondering if I can convince you to change it to a "No consensus". Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 21:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for all of the help over there. I was away for the holidays and it looks like a significant backlog accumulated in my absence. Luckily, Cydebot is making short work of that. -- Cyde Weys 01:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
If you ever see a backup on CFD of a day or more, it is probably because I've simply forgotten about it. Just leave me a note on my talk page and I should take care of it quickly. I almost never go more than a day without checking Wikipedia. -- Cyde Weys 01:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Awarded to Timrollpickering for his work as the human side of a well-oiled category maintenance machine. -- Cyde Weys 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
I'm in Denver, snowed in ... at least the internet is up! -- ProveIt (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tim,
As I initiated
this CfD, I'm wary of closing it, so I'd be grateful if you'd consider doing so. My evaluation is that despite a few dissenting opinions, there is a consensus to rename these categories, especially as they relate to
WP:MILHIST's domain (see Kirill Lokshin's comments).
If for any reason you'd rather not make the decision, I'll happily ask another of the CfD regulars. Yours,
David Kernow
(talk)
09:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Just spotted your closing the above, so my thanks for that as well as for your generous barnstar! (I guess you've been talking with the End-of-Year Bunny...?) Chuckle, David ( talk) 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar :) Secretlondon 18:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, a veritable orgasm of barnstars! Hopefully, we all had fun :-P Cyde Weys 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
..for the barnstar. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 01:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tim,
Done; have left some notes there indicating the variations from a simple rename all per nom. Happy New Arbitrary Time-Point, David ( talk) 10:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for the barnstar - I've displayed it on my user page. Warofdreams talk 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your views. I agree as far as using not photos for the top image goes (although I like it on the Oxford colleges). User:Freakofnurture, who disagreed with me over this in the first place, is also a keen deletionist of unsourced fair-use images. I did suggest to him that sources are easy to find in the case of University logos, but some of these have gone the way of all flesh already. This has happened to a few articles, not least those bearing images which were mis-tagged by a "clueless" user. These include Exeter, where a tooled up editor has already hoovered up the redlink. — mholland 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject guide might be helpful here. Briefly: the main problem I see with the project is that it doesn't actually do anything internally; hence, there's little reason for people to hang around the project pages. Setting up assessment & peer review programs would probably help with this (as would more agressive recruitment). Kirill Lokshin 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:US State Related Ships just went through the cfd, one day after the cfd was removed, somebody put it back. They should a certin amount of time before that can be done. I request you remove the current cfd, based on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_27#Category:US_State_Related_Ships discussion that already took place. -- 71Demon 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:FieldTurf installations. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this category, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lovelac7 09:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
...for the barnstar! very much appreciated. sorry for the lateness of this reply - I've been on holiday without the internet for the last few weeks. very nice surprise upon return though, thanks again. all the best, DJR ( T) 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, it made me laugh. :)-- §hanel 04:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
When you close a keep, or no consensus, you need to remove the CfD template from the category. See Category:Shopping malls in Saskatchewan for one that I just had to cleanup. Vegaswikian 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Timrollpickering,
I think you were mistaken on your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 1#Category:Palestine, as if I understood the comments correctly, most of the opposes were only for the renaming of one of the bloc Category:Political parties in Palestine. It seems most people did not oppose the others. Let me know, Tewfik Talk 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: "Category:Family Guy actors, Category:The X-Files actors, Category:Murder, She Wrote actors" - since 90% of the cat content is one-time actors, it'd probably be easiest if a bot was used to depopulate them, then it'd be easy to refill the bit that's necessary from the relevant "list of characters in <foo>" articles. The other way around is a lot more work actualy. >Radiant< 10:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you created the template for WP Universities, and it works quite well. I'm have soem serious trouble creating a template for my WikiProject, WikiProject Big Ten ( WP:BIGTEN). I have no idea how to add in the category at all, hopefully you can help. -- Wizardman 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion you have made a serious error of judgement in closing the discussion in Category:Military brats as "no consensus". This discussion was subjected to the most blatant piece of vote stacking. I was about to revisit the discussion to point this out to the person closing the discussion (though I scarcely thought it would be necessary). Taking out the effect of the vote stacking I have rarely seen a category so emphatically rejected. Osomec 15:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I came here to complain about a string of poor judgements and incorrect descriptions you have made when closing discussions on Wikipedia:categories for discussion, and the first thing I see is that you are unrepentent about a glaring error as referenced above. Do you think it is a good thing for discussions to be manipulated by pressure groups?
On the 4 January discussions alone you closed the discussion on immigrants to America/United States simply becuase the nominator withdrew the nomination, even though the current position of overlapping and confusingly named categories has very little support. What you should have done is keep it open for another 7 days so a sensible solution could be reached. You closed the discussion on Category:Indian flags as delete when it was actually a unamimous rename, and you ignored the trend of discussion on the Broadway actors category.
I would ask you to cease your work in this field as such low quality administration makes me wonder whether it is worth participating and may have the same effect on other users. I would recommend that you step back and restrict yourself to tasks that do not require difficult judgement calls. Chicheley 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Thanks for uploading Image:Alliancemlas2003.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Cool! -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Just added this discussion to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies page. Any input from yourself would be greaty appreciated. Thanks. Galloglass 12:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the move of this article! ~~ Peteb16 23:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tim, I just stumbled across the very stubby article which you had created on James Pybus.
May ask you to take a look at my comments at Talk:Percy_John_Pybus#James_or_Percy? Thanks! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
At Derek Birley, you bypassed 2 redirects with possibilities diff. I have two concerns with this:
Please check the purpose of redirects before you bypass them. I have reverted your edit to Derek Birley. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 14:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that you are working hard on numerous education articles, and the above is a minor oversight. Keep it up! -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 14:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not stalking you (honest) but I disagree with this category. It requires users to load an extra page for no benefit, so I put it up for deletion. Nothing personal. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 15:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello
You seem to be an expert in such matters so perhaps you can help me clarify a point: while translating the article Donald Dewar for the French wiki, I tried to check the names of the constituencies he stood for, and could not match them with the list in the article List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies. It turns out the devolution played havoc with the list, Glasgow Garscadden, for example, totally disappearing while Glasgow Anniesland seems to be a recent creation. Apparently some (or all?) constituencies in Scotland were replaced by new ones, but for the non-British reader it is unclear whether United Kingdom parliament constituencies match Scotland's parliament constituencies or whether the two lists are different. Information exists here and there if you use the links, but you can find it only if you know about it in advance. I wish I could think of a synthetic, elegant solution to the problem, but I can't. However it seems to me that a few footnotes (by an expert) might be helpful for non-British readers. Amicalement, -- Anne97432 23:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi I just noticed your new article on the third oldest university debate via the UCL discussion. Just to say good work, I found it enlightening to get a summary of all the universities claims. I personally think UCL was the first even though it didnt get its royal charter till later. Heres a barnstar for your great contribution efforts to WP. LordHarris 13:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Recently a user on Wikipedia decribed Spartacus as a "crappy" encyclopedia that was heavily biased. Spartacus has information in it that sheds certain American agencies in a possible bad light. I have seen other sharp critisism from what it appears to be of American origin implying that we should not use the material in Spartacus unless it is supported by an American encyclopedia or government agency.
Now there seems to be a reluctance to cite Spartacus in this subject area where the English encyclopedia was criticized.
Outside of the United States, is there any reputation that Spartacus is an unreliable source and not suitable for Wikipedia?
RPJ
03:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I notice you've altered several historical references to "King's College, London" to "King's College London". This is anachronistic, since the comma was used until fairly recently. A modern corporate identity name change shouldn't be backdated. -- Necrothesp 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm very sorry but you wrote in your revert that my change from alumnus to alumnus/a was NOT discussed on the talk page. THIS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. It isn't MY fault that you are not a thorough wikipedian, my friend. I put a full two paragraph discussion of my logic on the talk page. Go look there. I think your revert was counterproductive, counterintuitive, and illogical. Please see my comments on the alumnus talk page AND see in the actual article my CITED information that i added under usage proving that this IS a correct usage. Please respond on the alumnus talk page or on mine. I did my part by clearly explaining the reasoning for the revert on the talk page and responsibly making sure there were no double redirects etc. Please do yours. Thank you very much. Nadsat 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You don’t like typographically correct apostrophes (’) and quotes (“”) or why do you remove them from articles as in [9]? Please don’t do that again. Thanks. — Richie 17:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Appologies for the delay in getting back, have been away for a while. I can't seem to find where i got the image from, and searches on google etc show nothing so it might have been from a back issue of the article on QMCUL, so it might be best to delete it and replace it with the current logo. AlexD 20:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
For work as an admin on CfD; that job I'm sure doesn't not suck. Thank you for the tedious and yet excellent work you have done. — Scouter Sig 07:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC) |
With only 5 people commenting, 2 for deletion and 3 for keeping, and there being no stated consensus of those 5 people, I think this would be better called a "No consensus (keep)". I'm concerned about this because categories such as these are clearly often deleted and the entire class of poorly populated eponymous categories is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. Personally, I inadvertantly missed the Joey discussion, and would have strongly voted to delete, as it seems pointless to keep. Considering our guidelines for categorzation, the low turn out, and the ongoing discussions, I'm wondering if I can convince you to change it to a "No consensus". Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 21:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for all of the help over there. I was away for the holidays and it looks like a significant backlog accumulated in my absence. Luckily, Cydebot is making short work of that. -- Cyde Weys 01:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
If you ever see a backup on CFD of a day or more, it is probably because I've simply forgotten about it. Just leave me a note on my talk page and I should take care of it quickly. I almost never go more than a day without checking Wikipedia. -- Cyde Weys 01:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Awarded to Timrollpickering for his work as the human side of a well-oiled category maintenance machine. -- Cyde Weys 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
I'm in Denver, snowed in ... at least the internet is up! -- ProveIt (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tim,
As I initiated
this CfD, I'm wary of closing it, so I'd be grateful if you'd consider doing so. My evaluation is that despite a few dissenting opinions, there is a consensus to rename these categories, especially as they relate to
WP:MILHIST's domain (see Kirill Lokshin's comments).
If for any reason you'd rather not make the decision, I'll happily ask another of the CfD regulars. Yours,
David Kernow
(talk)
09:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Just spotted your closing the above, so my thanks for that as well as for your generous barnstar! (I guess you've been talking with the End-of-Year Bunny...?) Chuckle, David ( talk) 12:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar :) Secretlondon 18:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, a veritable orgasm of barnstars! Hopefully, we all had fun :-P Cyde Weys 22:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
..for the barnstar. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 01:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tim,
Done; have left some notes there indicating the variations from a simple rename all per nom. Happy New Arbitrary Time-Point, David ( talk) 10:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for the barnstar - I've displayed it on my user page. Warofdreams talk 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your views. I agree as far as using not photos for the top image goes (although I like it on the Oxford colleges). User:Freakofnurture, who disagreed with me over this in the first place, is also a keen deletionist of unsourced fair-use images. I did suggest to him that sources are easy to find in the case of University logos, but some of these have gone the way of all flesh already. This has happened to a few articles, not least those bearing images which were mis-tagged by a "clueless" user. These include Exeter, where a tooled up editor has already hoovered up the redlink. — mholland 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject guide might be helpful here. Briefly: the main problem I see with the project is that it doesn't actually do anything internally; hence, there's little reason for people to hang around the project pages. Setting up assessment & peer review programs would probably help with this (as would more agressive recruitment). Kirill Lokshin 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:US State Related Ships just went through the cfd, one day after the cfd was removed, somebody put it back. They should a certin amount of time before that can be done. I request you remove the current cfd, based on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_27#Category:US_State_Related_Ships discussion that already took place. -- 71Demon 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:FieldTurf installations. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this category, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lovelac7 09:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
...for the barnstar! very much appreciated. sorry for the lateness of this reply - I've been on holiday without the internet for the last few weeks. very nice surprise upon return though, thanks again. all the best, DJR ( T) 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, it made me laugh. :)-- §hanel 04:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
When you close a keep, or no consensus, you need to remove the CfD template from the category. See Category:Shopping malls in Saskatchewan for one that I just had to cleanup. Vegaswikian 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Timrollpickering,
I think you were mistaken on your close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 1#Category:Palestine, as if I understood the comments correctly, most of the opposes were only for the renaming of one of the bloc Category:Political parties in Palestine. It seems most people did not oppose the others. Let me know, Tewfik Talk 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: "Category:Family Guy actors, Category:The X-Files actors, Category:Murder, She Wrote actors" - since 90% of the cat content is one-time actors, it'd probably be easiest if a bot was used to depopulate them, then it'd be easy to refill the bit that's necessary from the relevant "list of characters in <foo>" articles. The other way around is a lot more work actualy. >Radiant< 10:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you created the template for WP Universities, and it works quite well. I'm have soem serious trouble creating a template for my WikiProject, WikiProject Big Ten ( WP:BIGTEN). I have no idea how to add in the category at all, hopefully you can help. -- Wizardman 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion you have made a serious error of judgement in closing the discussion in Category:Military brats as "no consensus". This discussion was subjected to the most blatant piece of vote stacking. I was about to revisit the discussion to point this out to the person closing the discussion (though I scarcely thought it would be necessary). Taking out the effect of the vote stacking I have rarely seen a category so emphatically rejected. Osomec 15:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I came here to complain about a string of poor judgements and incorrect descriptions you have made when closing discussions on Wikipedia:categories for discussion, and the first thing I see is that you are unrepentent about a glaring error as referenced above. Do you think it is a good thing for discussions to be manipulated by pressure groups?
On the 4 January discussions alone you closed the discussion on immigrants to America/United States simply becuase the nominator withdrew the nomination, even though the current position of overlapping and confusingly named categories has very little support. What you should have done is keep it open for another 7 days so a sensible solution could be reached. You closed the discussion on Category:Indian flags as delete when it was actually a unamimous rename, and you ignored the trend of discussion on the Broadway actors category.
I would ask you to cease your work in this field as such low quality administration makes me wonder whether it is worth participating and may have the same effect on other users. I would recommend that you step back and restrict yourself to tasks that do not require difficult judgement calls. Chicheley 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)