Intermatic ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Advertising This page has been deleted twice by NawlinWiki stating that it is advertising for using adjectives. This page is factual reference from the corporate site and discusses the history of the company, as well as the product lines they manufacture. References were cited, and still this page was deleted. Also, Wikipedia was contacted directly giving copywrite permission to use content from the corporate websites. Socialsitecore ( talk) 22:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Sure, and the copyright thing is probably a red herring. The issue here is that Wikipedia needs reliable sources. That means independent, neutral sources that are unconnected with the company. If we were prepared to write articles only on what someone says about themselves, then Wikipedia would have articles on every lemonade stand or dry cleaners', and nobody would be able to find useful content in among all the pages saying "Aunt Emma's corner shop sells the following kinds of pie:" and "Timmy's ice cream stall sells the best ice cream in Back of Beyond, Kansas!"

  The rule we have to stop that sort of thing is called notability and it means that every article needs sources (note the plural: more than one source) that are independent of the subject, and also have editorial controls (so no user-submitted content). Yes, this means that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source.

  If such sources exist--so if there's been a newspaper article about the company, or something--then please do post them here and we'll consider them. But without those independent sources, I'm afraid there's no chance that Wikipedia will host a page about Intermatic.

  On behalf of Wikipedia, I'm sorry that you've made it all the way to Deletion Review without anyone explaining this to you. That shouldn't happen, and when it does happen it means our processes have not worked as they should.— S Marshall T/ C 23:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply

  This isn't a kindergarten, and we're not here to hold hands. Users should be expected to display a basic degree of competence, at the very least reading the links provided in the welcome template. A big and shiny template sitting on his user talk page, before any of the copyvio notifications started appearing. Tarc ( talk) 23:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply

  I know you're not here to hold hands, Tarc, but please be careful with that "we". When it comes to new editors who seem to be in good faith, I don't mind spending a few minutes of my volunteering time explaining things and trying to be helpful.— S Marshall T/ C 00:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply

  And I would warn you to take equal care with your "On behalf of Wikipedia..." apologies as well, as you do not speak for anyone but yourself, either. Tarc ( talk) 13:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply

  Socialsitecore, I'm sorry on behalf of myself and Umbralcorax, but not on behalf of Tarc, who isn't sorry.— S Marshall T/ C

• I just wanted to add that helping people along and helping them understand what makes up a good article is not "hand holding", its just common courtesy. We have WP:BITE because, when people come here, they don't know that there are rules they should be following. These people should be guided to the rules, not told "well you should have known better". That said, unless there are some reliable sources out there, I see no reason not to endorse the decision. Umbralcorax ( talk) 01:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion The issue here is not notability: it is the verbatim cut-and-paste of marketing material, as the author puts it, "directly from the company's website," that is overtly promotional in character. OTRS release of the copy to Wikipedia doesn't make it any less promotional. It's fine over at Intermatic where it's doing its job of marketing the company: it's emphatically not encyclopedia material. Adjectives are a red flag, as is the use of the first person plural, but it was not "deleted for using adjectives."

  As far as I'm concerned, Intermatic is probably notable as a manufacturer of electromechanical devices. However, I haven't found any reliable sources to back up my hunch. No company can post advertisements on Wikipedia, which is what was going on, not repeated posting of material on a non-notable company. I've reviewed the deleted material and was in the process of deleting it myself the second time it was posted. The promotional issue was explained to the editor by myself and the deleting admin. I've worked successfully with editors with a conflict of interest before, but it's a two-way street. Provide third-party references and a neutrally-written article, and it's fine. Marketing is not fine. Acroterion _(talk) 02:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion because the previous content of the article looked like advertising for the company. However, allow re-creation if a new article is created that does not look like advertising. I recommend that the editor seeking deletion review rewrite the article, but relying predominantly on independent reliable sources and not on materials published by the company itself. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - Nawlinwiki's deletion as advertising was correct: "Intermatic has a line of hard wearing weatherproof products that provide an exact match to the application, are easy to install and provide reliability and longevity. Our complete offering of weatherproof products..." etc. is not material for an encyclopedia. If the author prepares a new, encyclopedic article s/he would do well to follow User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you and should certainly follow WP:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest i.e. propose the article at WP:AFC, not post it. We are not good at explaining in advance to people like this that Wikipedia is not a notice-board for their manifesto: I have the same conversation so often that I have written an essay User:JohnCD/Not a noticeboard. I have pointed this user to it, but I would welcome comments from others. JohnCD ( talk) 13:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment – If OTRS approved of what I am currently seeing in the deleted copy, then I would be concerned about the handing of that OTRS ticket, absent of any other effort by them to inform the requester that, even if released under a free license, said content is still clearly promotional in nature. P.S. If I misunderstood something about the situation above, please let me know. – MuZemike 03:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • When OTRS accepts the release of content with regard to copyright, I don't know that they're expected to address the issue of whether the content is worthwile to include in Wikipedia, because that can be dealt with through other processes. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Metropolitan90 is correct. In fact, it would be inappropriate for OTRS to judge content beyond copyright issues. Thus, endorse this deletion, because material was promotional and OTRS action is not relevant to the question at hand. Chick Bowen 04:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply
    • So basically, we're "passing the buck" down to someone else to say "no", i.e. someone originally saying "yes" and then that changes to "no" at a future time. It seems very counterintuitive, not to mention could be considered jerking around users, most of which are newcomers who, in situations like this, will likely see what is actually an improper contribution to Wikipedia as proper on technical grounds by OTRS. – MuZemike 04:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Restore and list at AfD Given that the creator brought it here, it sounds as if the creator may be well-intentioned, and therefore, it would be a good idea to give this a fair discussion. Shaliya waya ( talk) 06:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Jonestown.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The deletion nomination raided the concern that this non-free image was copied from Brittanica, what makes it a clear violation of WP:NFCC#2. The two voters involved in the discussion failed to realize what the problem was all about and just talked about WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8). The closing admin was led by this mistake and also ignored the original WP:NFCC#2 concern. |When asked about it, he even mentioned the "file resolution", something that had never been a concern in the discussion at all. Damiens.rf —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, January 24, 2011.

• Uphold Keep. Please see User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 27#Fair use in copying decorative image from Brittanica, where the closing administrator explained the rationale behind the closure, and makes very clear that the #2 versus #1 and #8 issue was handled correctly at the deletion discussion. There was nothing wrong with the decision, other than that the nominator didn't get the result that he wanted. Please also take a serious look at Talk:Criticism of religion#Jonestown image, and note that the nominator is edit warring to enforce his personal view of fair-use against consensus. This deletion review is just another attempt at forum shopping to that effect. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• A further comment, hoping to nip in the bud an issue likely to emerge. At Criticism of religion, editors have now found a free image that appears likely to get consensus to replace the image discussed here. However, I want to point out that this image is also in use at Jonestown, where it serves a more specific purpose (illustrating, among other things, the basin that contained the poison), where there is as yet no editorial consensus that alternative images are acceptable. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Like we had any justification to rip images from Britannica in order to illustrate "the basin that contained the poison". -- Damiens.rf 19:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Like we're here to discuss anything other than the previous closure. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply
      • You mean the one that fail to consider WP:NFCC#2 as serious as it should be? -- Damiens.rf 20:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn the discussion pointed to above - User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 27#Fair use in copying decorative image from Brittanica - where the response to NFCC#2 is made shows the closing admin chose to put their own opinion as to if NFCC#2 was passed in preference to any other opinion expressed - i.e. they should have taken part in the discussion not apply their own standard. As it stands NFCC#3 is the primary are where resolution of image etc. is discussed NFCC#2 is addressing a different area. As to if there are valid claims to the image for NFCC I haven't examined, but the close here was faulty. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 20:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • What I see is the administrator weighing the strengths of arguments, not casting anything remotely like a super-vote. And it comes as news to me that the closing administrator is expected to have previously taken a "side" in the discussion. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply
    • No they didn't weigh the argument, since no one responded to the argument it failed NFCC#2, they made the argument post fact that it did meet NFCC#2. You are correct they aren't supposed to, but that appears to be exactly what they've done, they've made there own argument that NFCC#2 is covered for what appear to be quite spurious reasons and then closed the debate at least partly on that argument. My point is that if they should have either (that is one or other but not both) contributed to the debate or closed it based on the argument presented unenhanced by their own opinion. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 22:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse This is an iconic and historically significant photo. The copyright of this image is likely held by either its creator, David Hume Kennerly, Time Magazine (his employer at the time), or Getty Images (the company that represents Kennerly's work) and Kennerly's website lists the copyright as being "2003 David Hume Kennerly/Kennerly.com". The copyright is definitely not held by Britannica, so there's no competing commercial interest here. The "original market role" as described in NFCC#2 would surely have to do with the photo's publication in Time magazine and I don't see how our publication of the image takes away from Time's financial benefit, since they first published this image years ago. Them From Space 22:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • That publication in Time was apparently in 1978. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • We have no way of telling if Britannica have obtained a license for use from the rights holder, you interpretation of original market role appears to narrow to me, but this is the problem we aren't supposed to reargue the IfD here, the correct place would have been the deletion discussion where no one addressed the argument it failed NFCC#2. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 07:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Relist. It seems to me that 82.7.40.7 has correctly pointed out a flaw in the deletion process, and I wonder whether NFCC#2 was given sufficient weight in the close. It doesn't seem to me to be relevant who holds the copyright in the image. Whether it's Britannica, the photographer or his employer doesn't matter. What matters is that a commercial entity holds that copyright and we are depriving them of its benefit. And we don't have an article about the image. However, I can't find a "delete" consensus in the discussion and I can't therefore recommend an overturn to delete. On balance, I think we should send it back to FfD so the whole matter can be given more consideration.— S Marshall T/ C 22:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Your comment motivated me to look further. Google Web and Google Image searches for "Jonestown massacre David Hume Kennerly" don't reveal more for-profit sites displaying this image. However, The University of Texas Austin reproduces the Time cover here, with a statement here that payment is sought for prints of this image, but not for reproduction on the internet. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply
    • That's irrelevant, he doesn't have to offer it for sale for any particular media if he doesn't want to, lack of doing so doesn't mean anything about it being freely available. e.g. if he may have sold on the exclusive rights with a proviso he may sell prints, or he may have sold on specific internet rights etc. etc. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 07:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
      • It's moot now, but it seems to me that if the image is being distributed freely except in the form of prints (moot because it turns out not to be the case), then our providing a low-resolution version is not what you are describing. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
        • The point was, looking at a small set of information and reaching a conclusion isn't what we should be doing. The fact that it's on Getty potentially for sale actually reinforces my point. You made a assumption based on no explicit information contrary to your view point, rather than information explicitly confirming your viewpoint, that's not the way copyright works. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 22:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
          • That misrepresents my expressed reasoning. I, and others, found positive evidence that the image was last used commercially in a periodical in 1978 and was now freely available, except in the form of high-resolution prints. When I became aware of the Getty site, I immediately changed my mind. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
            • If that's your idea of positive evidence, then your standards are well short. Postive evidence would be a release saying "this is free to use", it's not finding an image being used in various places where you have no idea it they are using a fair use claiim, violating copyright or have licensed it in some way. Your positive evidence that the photographer isn't offering a license for web use on his website as him being happy for broad web use is frankly laughable, if that's the defence we had against a copyright infringement case, then we'd have no defence. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 07:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
              • When I became aware of the Getty site, I immediately changed my mind. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
                • I guess his point is that we don't need a link to a photo agency page selling the specific images to qualify a non-free journalistic photo as a NFCC#2 violation. -- Damiens.rf 18:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
                  • Obviously that's the point, made very repeatedly, even after I had said my original objection was moot. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
                    • Not to be picky here, but the point, if you had the patience to understand it, is that you should not have need to become aware of the Getty site to change your mind. What you see as "immediately changed my mind" I see as a slow delayed change. But this is all immaterial now (and ever). -- Damiens.rf 18:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
                      • Oh, no, don't be picky. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• No way Jose. The use of this image is still for sale. The only way we could perhaps justify fair use of this image is if the image itself were notable enough for an article and then only in that article. Otherwise, we can't use it no matter how many people say "keep" in the FFD. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 12:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete per Ron Ritzman. Not sufficiently distinctive/unique to overcome the presumption that actively marketed nonfree images can't be used as general illustrations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. Fails WP:NFCC#2 through and through. — ξ ^xplicit 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Relist. I'm changing my mind, per Ron Ritzman. He is right about that, and I wasn't aware of the Getty site, which changes everything in my mind. The reason I'm saying relist instead of overturn outright is that no one in this discussion has established that the closing administrator decided the matter incorrectly, only that the examination during the discussion was not adequate. I also want to point out that this fact in no way justifies the disruptive and, frankly, childish, manner in which the nominator has pursued it. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • No it was established that the closer inserted their own refutation of NFCC#2 into the debate as part of the close, that is an improper close. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 23:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Oh, honestly, let's just put the admin's head on a spike. No, the nominator's statement at the XfD was simply " WP:NFCC#2: Copyrighted image copied from Brittanica used "to illustrate the events depicted on the image"." The nominator's subsequent argument was simply that they have been able to learn about the subject without seeing the picture, focusing on the dubious claim that the use of the image was purely for "decorative" purposes. Editors made arguments that the image was appropriate for use under Wikipedia's existing fair use policy, and the administrator found those arguments to have been consensus. In hindsight, it would have been better if the nominator had actually explained the commercial interest of the Getty site, but that will not be a problem if this is relisted. When asked at his user talk, the administrator pointed out, correctly, that a low-resolution image was less likely to infringe on commercial use, and it is subsequently being Wikilawyered that this was "inserted" into the close. Wikipedia does not use courtroom rules to close deletion discussions. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
      • And you are over dramatising, no one is calling for blood. Admins are human and make mistakes, when those are uncovered they shouldn't be afraid of acknowledging/correcting the mistake, so your casting this in that way is totally unhelpful. We are a free encyclopedia, the NFCC is quite clear the burden of proof lies with those wishing to use the image. The fact that no one argued about the NFCC#2 image makes it hardly suprising no futher debate happened and as above there is no burden on the nominator to find hard evidence that a current commercial interest is being damaged, the burden lies with those wishing to use the image that there is no impact on the commercial interest. The close subsequent comment about NFCC#2 is the only response, so of course if the closer was closing in line with the NFCC which requires all to be met, it has got to be assumed that's why the believed NFCC#2 was met. Franlky it's a crap argument, I'd be interested to see you point out where low res has been considered a general way of passing NFCC#2 in other debates, that is something the closing admin imposed on their own (further reinforced by minmial use is covered by NFCC#2, the two aren't duplicative). That is inserting their own view point. If you want to talk about wikilawyering take a look at your own comments, you are thrashing about trying to avoid the rather obvious that the close was faulty. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 07:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
        • You want the image deleted, now. Got it. I think everyone reading this discussion understands that. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
          • And I'm sure everyone reading the discussion understands yours... However of course you'd be wrong, as I've said repeatedly the close was faulty, that's different to it needs to be deleted now, and indeed as I said in my very first comment, "As to if there are valid claims to the image for NFCC I haven't examined, but the close here was faulty.", perhaps if you stopped trying to put words into other people mouths "Put the admins head on a spike", "you want the image deleted" and tried to understand the issues, we'd move along a lot faster. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 10:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC) reply
            • Got it! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Relist. The closer read the debate correctly, but I fear the debate itself was faulty. Stifle ( talk) 09:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete – Notability does not override the non-free content policy. – MuZemike 03:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Relist per Stifle. Even accounting for the fact this image can be bought, there could be a case out there that the image is usable here--it's not plain that having the image here would _hurt_ it's commercial application more than help it in fact. Let's discuss it where the discussion belongs, and DrV isn't that place. Hobit ( talk) 05:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • We have a very clear and well established practice of deleting (and even speeding!) photos belonging to news and photo agencies, unless the photo themselves are notable (notable meaning Wikipedia's Notability, not the usual "Wow! What a notable picture you've taken!"). -- Damiens.rf 12:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Unfortunately, the "speedy" idea has been discussed and rejected. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 14:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply
      • At this point in the discussion, I think the issue is increasingly settling down to whether we should delete here and now, or whether we should relist with an expectation that deletion will be the outcome there. (Heck, even I intend to argue for deletion if it is relisted!) But I want to make the point that Deletion Review is for the purpose of determining whether or not the previous deletion discussion was closed correctly—not to provide a new venue in which that deletion discussion can be re-argued in hopes of getting a different outcome. It seems to me that, indeed, the first discussion was seriously flawed and needs to be re-argued, but that the closing administrator was well within policy in the way that consensus there was ascertained. As such, it should be re-listed. Otherwise, DRV would become a place where anyone who wants to forum-shop to change a decision they didn't like could come to game the system. Just because editors, in this discussion, agree with deletion as the eventual correct outcome, they shouldn't assume that there won't be cases where DRV would be used to get results that they would not be happy with. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete. Though it is true that there has never been a consensus for a CSD covering press agency photos, there is indeed consensus for a very narrow and specific criterion for their use (the photo itself must be historically notable, not just the event covered). That standard is not met here, and thus this is a copyright violation by our standards. By long precedent, we don't allow copyvios to linger in deletion processes for long periods, but delete them when the copyright situation becomes clear. Chick Bowen 05:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Relist - The test isn't whether its presence would significantly increase a viewer's understanding of the topic. The test is whether its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Usage of non-free content criteria requires at a minimum a reliable source description of the NFCC image. This image is descriped in the article with an original research caption and none of the text in the artcle accompany it. The FfD failed to address this and needs to. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 06:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Actually I think the test we're most concerned about here is whether the use of the image on Wikipedia interferes with the commercial market for the image (NFCC#2). Stifle ( talk) 10:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Carmen Hayes ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Restore She won the Urban X Awards ^[1], ^[2], so she passes WP:PORNBIO in winning a notable award. Even if it is the Category Nicest Breasts in Porn. The last delete was 2008, and she won the award in 2009.

References

-- Hixteilchen ( talk) 01:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Come up with something more If a downlevel category on a downlevel awards show is what counts for pornbio then that criteria is too low. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
• Keep deleted A "well-known" award is not the same as a "notable" award. Just because a porn award has an article on Wikipedia doesn't mean its a "well-known" for the purpose of pornbio. For porn bios we need to move away from just a snippet citation of an award and move towards more significant coverage. When an actor wins a truly well-known award it is likely that there is more discussion of him/her that we may not be able to find. This award is only mentioned through press releases and blog entries and primary sources. I don't see how the article can be expanded beyond the proposed stub until more and better sources are found. Them From Space 10:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment - It is sad that the current state of affairs...the Commons as a free dumping ground for images and Wikipedia's WP:PORNBIO threshold being so ridiculously low...pretty much gives the porn industry free advertising space on one of the internet's most-trafficked websites. As written now, the notability guidelines allows this person into article-worthiness. But this needs to be fixed. Soon. Tarc ( talk) 16:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• What makes the "nicest breasts in porn" a notable award?— S Marshall T/ C 00:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply

  WP:HOTTIE? - Atmoz ( talk) 01:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, oppose recreation. TFS's comments are squarely on target. Even if the claimed award is notable, a dubious proposition, there are quite many notable awards/honors given out in such quantities that they do not contribute to individual notability (most military medals, for example, annual British crown honors outside the top levels, even Rhodes scholarships). Most porn awards, especially ones like this, which seem to exist primarily to stage a profit-making awards ceremony, have no genuine relationship to individual notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment.S Marshall, Just look at Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award, before asking such questions, there are also categories like Favorite Breasts, Favorite Ass and Hottest Body and all winners are notable for Wikipedia. So it´s no absolutely new Category. This argument is lame as you can see. -- Hixteilchen ( talk) 05:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply

  It's not my argument that's lame, it's those awards. I don't see any evidence whatsoever that the GNG is passed in this case. And I don't care about PORNBIO--invididual wikiprojects' guidelines don't supersede the GNG.— S Marshall T/ C 12:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply

S Marshall is mistaken that PORNBIO is an WikiProject's guideline. It's actually a part of the notability guideline for people, and should be considered seriously. -- Bsherr ( talk) 00:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. The award seems obscure. More information on its significance in the industry would be required before it could be used to establish the importance of its recipient. -- Bsherr ( talk) 00:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted - Six words - "She won the Urban X Awards" - is not enough text on which to base a stand alone article. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 06:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC) reply