![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Perhaps someone can proved direction to me as to how to address a situation. An editor has indicated that he does not like the views of the subject of an article. I believe the article fairly reflects the RSs, a point he hasn't disagreed with. Nor, IMHO, could he in good faith. Still, he doesn't like the reflection of the RSs in the article.
He has now added a COI template to the article. I removed it writing there's simply no basis for it. Nor has any been suggested, despite many requests by me that he provide one. He has told me, however, that I am not allowed to remove his COI template.
He also affixed a neutrality template. But hasn't provided a basis for it, despite requests (and IMHO none exists). He has cautioned me not to remove his neutrality template.
What course to address this? I don't seem to be able to discuss it with him and reach a reasoned resolution. Many thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Everytime a new page comes up with the "Tag: possible autobiography or conflict of interest". Should we move it to the user page of that user? Minima c94 ( talk) 06:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
"Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage." That's a non sequitur. A person could in perfectly good faith not understand that Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for self-promotion, and could in perfectly good faith post an advertisement (or anything else unsuitable for Wikipedia), without having the slightest care about increasing Wikipedia's coverage. Therefore, if I immediately deduce that someone with a COI is writing for his own benefit, that his article is a vanity piece, that doesn't mean I'm not assuming good faith on his part. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 13:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia: it is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.
I'm sure this has been brought up before, but WP:NPOV is a policy while WP:COI is a guideline. If someone is complying with NPOV, then what does it matter if they have a COI? Since Wikipedia stresses anonymity, why should we be trying find out if someone has a COI? If they aren't editing in a neutral manner, shouldn't that be reason enough for corrective action? Cla68 ( talk) 06:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I have been approached off-wiki by a friend that is involved with a company that sufficiently notable to have an article on it and other pages for its notable products on WP. They would like to do some edits to these various pages which are not edited frequently to bring them to correctness with current information. This person is well aware of COI issues and asked me the best way to approach this as transparently as possible (that this company is the one making said edits and trying to avoid COI issues with them).
I don't know if the best answer is for this person (or another company representative) to do the editing directly. I did suggest that dropping notes on talk pages to point out mistakes is less of an issue, but again, with low edit counts, I doubt these pages are well watched and would be updated. I'd offer to do these edits, but I worry that my ties to my friend would still be a COI at the end of the day.
Any suggestions for handling this? -- MASEM ( t) 02:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I work at dramonline.org, a non-profit music-streaming service for universities and libraries with an extensive catalog of contemporary art music, complete with scholarly liner notes. I am testing the waters here, to check with the community whether becoming an editor would be a conflict of interest. As yet I have not edited at all. My main concern is that our sister company, New World Records, while also non-profit, does sell CDs of some of the content we stream. I would like to contribute in a minor way -- updating composer info and adding citations and such, and wondered if the community felt I could do so under the Subject and culture sector professionals clause. Thanks. Ribbonabaca ( talk) 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I will proceed slowly, and transparently. Best, Ribbonabaca ( talk) 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Blocks
Further information: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only
Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.
The way it's written, you can write about your own company in a COI fashion as long as you edit some other things.
In science, they disclose their conflicts of interests.
In Wikipedia, I propose that people disclose their conflicts of interests when they start to come close. For example, if you edit about the BP oil spill in Louisiana (USA), you should state if you are an employee of BP or work in the oil industry. Even that might not be enough. This is proposal #1.
Proposal #2 is more straight forward. It is to disallow COI exemptions just because they edit something else. So the new language would read:
Blocks
Further information: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only
Accounts that a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.
Suomi Finland 2009 (
talk)
14:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The information on "Ella Mitchell" isn't correct. Yes Ella Mitchell played Hattie in Big Momma's House but not Ella Pearson Mitchell. The women that did full name is Ella Mitchell Holt. She also played in the Wiz, sings with Alvin Alley Dance Company, and other numerous things. 208.54.14.110 ( talk) 03:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
There should be rethinking on COI fundamentalism. The COI fundamentalists forbid persons with expertise written a lot about a subject in journals/ publications from contributing to Wikipedia. If one has an expertise it is natural one may have to quote one's own reference. The COI fundamentalism lets only those who are non-contributors to a field to write/edit a wiki article. I find the policy is some what absurd. May be WIKI managers want to stop wikipedia to be used for self promotion, for that is it a solution to ban all those who significantly contributed to a field to edit and article or cite their own works? I think it is a policy of throwing baby with the bathwater! Dr.P.Madhu ( talk) 10:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
When notable people edit Wikipedia, to add detail or fix errors in articles on themselves or their work, they often do so in unawareness of our rules, and the end result is a lot of upset to them and others. Whenever situations like this aren't resolved amicably, it potentially leads to bad press for the project.
To help mitigate the problem, I've written a pair of essays, one addressed to Wikipedians, and one addressed to notable people coming here to edit Wikipedia articles related to them. They are
Please link to them in cases where you feel they might be helpful, and feel free to improve them or leave feedback on their talk pages. -- JN 466 14:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
In recent months I have had the unfortunate need to warn users about a potential coi situation on multiple occassions. Unfortunately, I have found Template:Uw-coi to be a less than ideal template. While most coi editors are new accounts, not all of them are. It would be handy to have a coi warning template available that isn't essentially a welcome template. It would also be useful to have an option of coi templates that focuses in more specifically on the type of conflict. Most of my encounters have been with family members editing articles on their father, grandfather, etc. The current template is more oriented towards organizations. I am not a template guru, otherwise I would do it myself. 4meter4 ( talk) 13:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I have made a suggestion to Village Pump that everyone should disclose that conflicts of interest. So far, there is widespread opposition to it.
Therefore, if this becomes a consensus, this conflict of interest section should be modified to read:
It is permissible (but not encouraged) to have a conflict of interest and not disclose it. This is the result of a discussion where there was overwhelming support not to have a section for people to disclose conflicts of interest.
This is a very troubling addition but it may reflect consensus. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Disclaimers
Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 00:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization) in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.
This should be changed. Otherwise Mr. Jussi Pajunen could edit the Jussi Pajunen article and also edit a lot of botany articles. He could be disruptively editing his own article. Since his account would not be used for "sole or primary purpose of promotion", he does not qualify for block. A little modification would help, like
Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, that promote (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization) in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.
Very simple and an improvement. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 00:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
In the section How to Avoid COI Edits, the following item, a discouragement, confuses me:
3. Linking to the Wikipedia article, your own user subspace or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
I think you mean one of these formulations, but I don't know which one:
3. Linking from the Wikipedia article your own user subspace or a website of your organization (see Wikipedia:Spam);
3. Linking in the Wikipedia article your own user subspace or a website of your organization (see Wikipedia:Spam);
3. Linking to the Wikipedia article, your own user subspace, or a website of your organization (see Wikipedia:Spam);
I assume linking from article A to article B couldn't be affected by COI challenges, because if both articles survived COI challenges or either or both weren't challenged for COI then linking between them couldn't be a problem. On that ground, the phrase "from other articles" can be deleted.
Linking to a Wikipedia article or to a user subspace from outside of the main namespace or outside of Wikipedia can't be wrong no matter what conflicts of interest someone has, unless you mean that a user with a COI can't link from their user subspace to an article, and I'm not clear why you'd object to that.
Based on this, I think the best is one of the first two alternatives and the best edits are these:
I can do these, but would like to know if they're okay with other editors. Thanks. Nick Levinson ( talk) 02:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the WP:External links noticeboard would appreciate the attention of a couple of COI-savvy editors at this discussion.
The editor who started the discussion is a professional sexologist (PhD, full-time university researcher, specialized in pedophilia and related paraphilias). Two editors in a dispute at Paraphilia seem to be claiming that academic experts are not permitted to add information or external links. I think that comments at the WP:ELN discussion would be sincerely appreciated (at least by all of us regular editors at ELN, who are much better versed in the nuances of WP:EL than WP:COI). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
If we can get past the attempt to poison the well...
The nutshell has gotten way too long. It's more of a coconut now. Gigs ( talk) 02:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it an obvious Conflict of Interest to have someone from a political candidate's office, in this case, a congressional candidate in New York state, make changes to his article. In particular, isn't the removal of referenced material directly by the candidate's office (using the geolocate tool), a clear Conflict of Interest? Even without the Conflict of Interest, removing legitimately sourced information that reflects the content of what is said in the article(s) is in itself, anti-collaborative. However, coupled with the existing Conflict of Interest that all political candidates have (or actually their staff members which in this case are most likely paid - particularly with the exorbitant sums of money spent on this campaign), why isn't there a prohibition or strong warning against political candidates or their offices (obviously supporters or opposition supporters would still be enabled to contribute) editing Wikipedia. I cannot think of a clearer Conflict of Interest, since they only get paid if they win (this Wiki article references the earnings incentive), and more importantly, there is an deeper incentive for those that will achieve power (the classic corrupter) that far exceeds remuneration. Shouldn't political candidates and their machines be singled out in this article as having a Conflict of Interest? Stevenmitchell ( talk) 02:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
san di con hinakina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.70.232 ( talk) 01:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I have put references to my own work in 4 articles. I want to find out if that was excessive, and if I can make some more. What should I do? Thanks Michael P. Barnett ( talk) 20:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm genuinely puzzled by the idea of "declaring my COI" if I have one, as if this is even remotely black-and-white. Can someone who feels that they understand the concept improve the current definition, which I'll now quote:
A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
In particular, the first sentence contradicts the bold-faced sentence. What if my outside interests are more important to me than Wikipedia's aims, but not incompatible? And how much detail about my motivational structure am I "encouraged" to provide, exactly? --"24" 24.59.179.184 ( talk) 04:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Please disregard, i'm out of bandwidth :) --"24" 209.150.237.34 ( talk) 19:03, 29 December 2010 (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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Perhaps someone can proved direction to me as to how to address a situation. An editor has indicated that he does not like the views of the subject of an article. I believe the article fairly reflects the RSs, a point he hasn't disagreed with. Nor, IMHO, could he in good faith. Still, he doesn't like the reflection of the RSs in the article.
He has now added a COI template to the article. I removed it writing there's simply no basis for it. Nor has any been suggested, despite many requests by me that he provide one. He has told me, however, that I am not allowed to remove his COI template.
He also affixed a neutrality template. But hasn't provided a basis for it, despite requests (and IMHO none exists). He has cautioned me not to remove his neutrality template.
What course to address this? I don't seem to be able to discuss it with him and reach a reasoned resolution. Many thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Everytime a new page comes up with the "Tag: possible autobiography or conflict of interest". Should we move it to the user page of that user? Minima c94 ( talk) 06:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
"Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage." That's a non sequitur. A person could in perfectly good faith not understand that Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for self-promotion, and could in perfectly good faith post an advertisement (or anything else unsuitable for Wikipedia), without having the slightest care about increasing Wikipedia's coverage. Therefore, if I immediately deduce that someone with a COI is writing for his own benefit, that his article is a vanity piece, that doesn't mean I'm not assuming good faith on his part. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 13:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia: it is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.
I'm sure this has been brought up before, but WP:NPOV is a policy while WP:COI is a guideline. If someone is complying with NPOV, then what does it matter if they have a COI? Since Wikipedia stresses anonymity, why should we be trying find out if someone has a COI? If they aren't editing in a neutral manner, shouldn't that be reason enough for corrective action? Cla68 ( talk) 06:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I have been approached off-wiki by a friend that is involved with a company that sufficiently notable to have an article on it and other pages for its notable products on WP. They would like to do some edits to these various pages which are not edited frequently to bring them to correctness with current information. This person is well aware of COI issues and asked me the best way to approach this as transparently as possible (that this company is the one making said edits and trying to avoid COI issues with them).
I don't know if the best answer is for this person (or another company representative) to do the editing directly. I did suggest that dropping notes on talk pages to point out mistakes is less of an issue, but again, with low edit counts, I doubt these pages are well watched and would be updated. I'd offer to do these edits, but I worry that my ties to my friend would still be a COI at the end of the day.
Any suggestions for handling this? -- MASEM ( t) 02:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I work at dramonline.org, a non-profit music-streaming service for universities and libraries with an extensive catalog of contemporary art music, complete with scholarly liner notes. I am testing the waters here, to check with the community whether becoming an editor would be a conflict of interest. As yet I have not edited at all. My main concern is that our sister company, New World Records, while also non-profit, does sell CDs of some of the content we stream. I would like to contribute in a minor way -- updating composer info and adding citations and such, and wondered if the community felt I could do so under the Subject and culture sector professionals clause. Thanks. Ribbonabaca ( talk) 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I will proceed slowly, and transparently. Best, Ribbonabaca ( talk) 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Blocks
Further information: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only
Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.
The way it's written, you can write about your own company in a COI fashion as long as you edit some other things.
In science, they disclose their conflicts of interests.
In Wikipedia, I propose that people disclose their conflicts of interests when they start to come close. For example, if you edit about the BP oil spill in Louisiana (USA), you should state if you are an employee of BP or work in the oil industry. Even that might not be enough. This is proposal #1.
Proposal #2 is more straight forward. It is to disallow COI exemptions just because they edit something else. So the new language would read:
Blocks
Further information: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only
Accounts that a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.
Suomi Finland 2009 (
talk)
14:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The information on "Ella Mitchell" isn't correct. Yes Ella Mitchell played Hattie in Big Momma's House but not Ella Pearson Mitchell. The women that did full name is Ella Mitchell Holt. She also played in the Wiz, sings with Alvin Alley Dance Company, and other numerous things. 208.54.14.110 ( talk) 03:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
There should be rethinking on COI fundamentalism. The COI fundamentalists forbid persons with expertise written a lot about a subject in journals/ publications from contributing to Wikipedia. If one has an expertise it is natural one may have to quote one's own reference. The COI fundamentalism lets only those who are non-contributors to a field to write/edit a wiki article. I find the policy is some what absurd. May be WIKI managers want to stop wikipedia to be used for self promotion, for that is it a solution to ban all those who significantly contributed to a field to edit and article or cite their own works? I think it is a policy of throwing baby with the bathwater! Dr.P.Madhu ( talk) 10:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
When notable people edit Wikipedia, to add detail or fix errors in articles on themselves or their work, they often do so in unawareness of our rules, and the end result is a lot of upset to them and others. Whenever situations like this aren't resolved amicably, it potentially leads to bad press for the project.
To help mitigate the problem, I've written a pair of essays, one addressed to Wikipedians, and one addressed to notable people coming here to edit Wikipedia articles related to them. They are
Please link to them in cases where you feel they might be helpful, and feel free to improve them or leave feedback on their talk pages. -- JN 466 14:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
In recent months I have had the unfortunate need to warn users about a potential coi situation on multiple occassions. Unfortunately, I have found Template:Uw-coi to be a less than ideal template. While most coi editors are new accounts, not all of them are. It would be handy to have a coi warning template available that isn't essentially a welcome template. It would also be useful to have an option of coi templates that focuses in more specifically on the type of conflict. Most of my encounters have been with family members editing articles on their father, grandfather, etc. The current template is more oriented towards organizations. I am not a template guru, otherwise I would do it myself. 4meter4 ( talk) 13:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I have made a suggestion to Village Pump that everyone should disclose that conflicts of interest. So far, there is widespread opposition to it.
Therefore, if this becomes a consensus, this conflict of interest section should be modified to read:
It is permissible (but not encouraged) to have a conflict of interest and not disclose it. This is the result of a discussion where there was overwhelming support not to have a section for people to disclose conflicts of interest.
This is a very troubling addition but it may reflect consensus. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Disclaimers
Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 00:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization) in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.
This should be changed. Otherwise Mr. Jussi Pajunen could edit the Jussi Pajunen article and also edit a lot of botany articles. He could be disruptively editing his own article. Since his account would not be used for "sole or primary purpose of promotion", he does not qualify for block. A little modification would help, like
Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, that promote (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization) in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.
Very simple and an improvement. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 00:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
In the section How to Avoid COI Edits, the following item, a discouragement, confuses me:
3. Linking to the Wikipedia article, your own user subspace or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
I think you mean one of these formulations, but I don't know which one:
3. Linking from the Wikipedia article your own user subspace or a website of your organization (see Wikipedia:Spam);
3. Linking in the Wikipedia article your own user subspace or a website of your organization (see Wikipedia:Spam);
3. Linking to the Wikipedia article, your own user subspace, or a website of your organization (see Wikipedia:Spam);
I assume linking from article A to article B couldn't be affected by COI challenges, because if both articles survived COI challenges or either or both weren't challenged for COI then linking between them couldn't be a problem. On that ground, the phrase "from other articles" can be deleted.
Linking to a Wikipedia article or to a user subspace from outside of the main namespace or outside of Wikipedia can't be wrong no matter what conflicts of interest someone has, unless you mean that a user with a COI can't link from their user subspace to an article, and I'm not clear why you'd object to that.
Based on this, I think the best is one of the first two alternatives and the best edits are these:
I can do these, but would like to know if they're okay with other editors. Thanks. Nick Levinson ( talk) 02:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the WP:External links noticeboard would appreciate the attention of a couple of COI-savvy editors at this discussion.
The editor who started the discussion is a professional sexologist (PhD, full-time university researcher, specialized in pedophilia and related paraphilias). Two editors in a dispute at Paraphilia seem to be claiming that academic experts are not permitted to add information or external links. I think that comments at the WP:ELN discussion would be sincerely appreciated (at least by all of us regular editors at ELN, who are much better versed in the nuances of WP:EL than WP:COI). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
If we can get past the attempt to poison the well...
The nutshell has gotten way too long. It's more of a coconut now. Gigs ( talk) 02:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it an obvious Conflict of Interest to have someone from a political candidate's office, in this case, a congressional candidate in New York state, make changes to his article. In particular, isn't the removal of referenced material directly by the candidate's office (using the geolocate tool), a clear Conflict of Interest? Even without the Conflict of Interest, removing legitimately sourced information that reflects the content of what is said in the article(s) is in itself, anti-collaborative. However, coupled with the existing Conflict of Interest that all political candidates have (or actually their staff members which in this case are most likely paid - particularly with the exorbitant sums of money spent on this campaign), why isn't there a prohibition or strong warning against political candidates or their offices (obviously supporters or opposition supporters would still be enabled to contribute) editing Wikipedia. I cannot think of a clearer Conflict of Interest, since they only get paid if they win (this Wiki article references the earnings incentive), and more importantly, there is an deeper incentive for those that will achieve power (the classic corrupter) that far exceeds remuneration. Shouldn't political candidates and their machines be singled out in this article as having a Conflict of Interest? Stevenmitchell ( talk) 02:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
san di con hinakina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.70.232 ( talk) 01:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I have put references to my own work in 4 articles. I want to find out if that was excessive, and if I can make some more. What should I do? Thanks Michael P. Barnett ( talk) 20:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm genuinely puzzled by the idea of "declaring my COI" if I have one, as if this is even remotely black-and-white. Can someone who feels that they understand the concept improve the current definition, which I'll now quote:
A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
In particular, the first sentence contradicts the bold-faced sentence. What if my outside interests are more important to me than Wikipedia's aims, but not incompatible? And how much detail about my motivational structure am I "encouraged" to provide, exactly? --"24" 24.59.179.184 ( talk) 04:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Please disregard, i'm out of bandwidth :) --"24" 209.150.237.34 ( talk) 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)