Talk:America's Army/Archive 7

More Debate
Unmistakably, this article's history page has become a single sided enumeration of changes by the user User:Ele9699. In less than one hour this user made already ten major changes to the article and in the last two days there were 64 edits by User:Ele9699. Most of his changes are, in my opinion, not acceptable at all and need to be reverted at any rate. I think the most fitting sentence added by the aforementioned user to elucidate my criticism is the following:

"For example, if a soldier drops his weapon when a OPFOR soldier see's it, it picks it up it will funcion as a OPFOR weapon rather then how it appeared to the person who dropped it."

Indisputably, this sentence demonstrates definite mistakes in grammar and spelling. Also, the sentence's relevance is unrecognizably and in my view completely pointless. Moreover, the statement is false, since a "soldier" in the game does not necessarily pick up every weapon of "a OPFOR" when he sees it dropping. Most sentences the user User:Ele9699 thought up are on a similar quality level which is, in my view, inadequate for this article and wikipedia in general.RememberMe


 * Feel fee to improve my edits and fix grammar, however, not all those edits are mine, and many are from previous people edits I re-incororated into the article. Ele9699 17:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter from whom your edits are, you take the responsibilty for them if you apply them. Your edits can only be improved by being removed.RememberMe


 * Ok RememberMe / User:Nightbeast / User:BeOnGuard / 62.134.105.101 / 212.144.105.156 / 149.225.40.78 etc. etc. its just restoring the page, the information was submitted by those people to wikipedia. If you want to argue over other people's edits, you need to take it up with them. And you violated 3R again btw, it hasn't been 24hrs yet since your the first of your last reverts. Ele9699 18:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually I'm only the IPs and Nightbeast. RememberMe is a friend of mine, but I don't even know Beanguard. Smells like you're projecting your image on other people considering your many dishonest users, Ele. As far as your contributions are concerned: if you really want your material saved, don't edit for the sake of changing something; edit for the sake of improving. Well, just keep in mind that this is not a forum but something that should be of quality like a history book. Could you imagine your edits in such a book??62.134.105.101 22:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think your a lieing IMO, then again I can't really know can I, since you refuse to identify yourself consistently. I am i talking to "you" now? Or your freind? Or your freinds freind? Or perhaps another unkown ip and you are somedy new. Its not possible to have a disscussion when the identy is never known, you do not abide by and cannot be identified by your dynamic IP, and despite all your claims of page quality and my willingness to see your your points included, the majority of "your" edits are simple reverts to old versions that take little or no account of basic page improvemnts including spelling, basic game information, and other edits. Ele9699 23:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, stop that idiotic hypocrisy! It's like Bond said on the talk page: an IP address is in no way as anonymous as an account, so talking about identification, I cannot know a thing about you while you could have known a lot more about me. All I know is you're hiding behind three names and all you can do is try to accuse of being similar to you. You do that to distract from you. And that's why you're trying to complain about identification: you want to distract. Attack is the best of defences, huh? Your edits are all similar and I know you've been on this page before, because I remember there once was someone who wanted to (wrongly) point out that the game is a series. (Just because the game has updates, doesn't mean it's a series.) For you an improvement is what you do - for me an improvement is an edit that is relevant, correct, NPOV, not misleading and unbiased. If you have a problem with reverting your irrelevant, misleading, spamming and incorrect imPOVments, let's call for IMpartial third party help, shall we?NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

some edits by kukuman
OK, I went through the article and made some changes. Mostly copyediting but I removed/changed parts that were blatant POV problems, things that didn't belong in the article, redundant parts, and things which made no sense. I reverted the Controversy and part of the Realism sections back to the old ones because they were too poorly written and I didn't want to bother deciphering them. If you want to readd them go ahead but please rewrite them and take your time when you do. I left the link to America's Army Controversy in, even though it is poorly written at best and blatanly biased at worst. I also removed the Accounts and Third Party Utilities sections because they were wastes of space. Please comment on my edits and try not to just revert them. --Kukuman 09:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've had a look at the edits and made an edit.

1)You made the date more exact (not only 2002). I agree.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2)You corrected a spelling mistake. I disagree because there's no need to mention the second "main release" at all. It's just a name that changed.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3)You corrected another spelling mistake. But again: the sentence doesn't fit at all. I've tried to explained it to Ele.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

4)You changed "pertaining to" to "in"... I agree if it's grammatically correct, which I assume.NightBeAsT

5)You added "attempts to avoid an unrealistic style of play." I disagree. If it attempted to do so, it would have more civilians for example.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

6)You fixed a spelling mistake. I disagree on it because I disagree on the sentence. The game is NOT designed for that. Mentioning this redundant advertisement lie and so much of it in the "overview", reflects total bias. Also, the link to the page is not allowed.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

7)You added "The gameplay is similar to that of Counter-Strike, a Half-Life modification and the most widely played online FPS in the early 2000s.". I couldn't agree more.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

8)You've fixed spelling mistakes in Ele's false, misleading and irrelevant sentence about the number of accounts. I've told him.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

9)You changed the order of "CD-Rom"... sounds better, I agree.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

10)You fixed spelling mistakes in Ele's irrelevant, false and misleading other sentence.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

11)You replaced "costed 7.5 million Dollars " with "cost US$7.5 million". I just fixed the tense and added the link. It's now "costed US$7.5 million". Hope you don't mind.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

12)You replaced "often played" with "popular". Often played is a fact, popular also means "well-liked" or "admired". That's not the same.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

13)You deleted "(where the game is alloted as well)". I don't think it should be deleted. It's interesting where the game is spread... somehow... and although it's a bit irrelevant, it only takes 6 words.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

14)You deleted "Target groups for recruitment are between 17 and 24-year-old males." I think that's an important piece of information because it shows that gamers are in the target group to a high percentage. It's therefore relevant to understand why the FPS-world was chosen and not lego or something like that. It's not so obvious.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

15)You deleted ", so essential did they prove in Afghanistan and northern Iraq; ". I don't think it should. That's the reason why SF is supposed to be doubled, the reason why SF was chosen.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

16)You deleted "On November 6, 2003, version 2.0.0. America's Army: Special Forces was published. This version, more progressive in comparision to the first one, also shows how much personnel and money the US Army invests in the game. The permanent financial support of servers underscores that.". I added "(e.g. through servers)" so the information that the army supports it with servers isn't completely lost.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

17)You fixed "release on".NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

18)You reconstructed "Controversy". Thanks.

19)Gameplay: you replaced a brackets with a comma. I replaced the other.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

20)"Assault and Defence" and "assault and defence" existed. You wrote them both with small letters. I wrote them both with capital letters because they're always written like that. I hope you don't mind.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

21)You wrote "OPFOR", but they're mostly writte "OpFor", so I've changed that.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

22)You deleted a paragraph about the transformation. I restored the sentence " Not only the opposing US soldiers are depicted differently, but also their weapons, objectives, voices and vehicles." because that's a good summary in my opinion. If you like, you can delete it again, but then other parts of less relevance should be deleted before. It's not the most irrelevant sentence of "transformation" paragraph.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

23)I changed the three sentences about the objectives. You should check them. I'm not sure if they're fitting.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

24)I removed the stuff about the weapons that you later fixed. It's got no relevance.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

25)I wrote "HONOR" in capitals. It's written like this everywhere on the official site. Also, it distinguishes the word from the real word Honor/Honour.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

26)I agree on the following two little changes ("kills", " and how")

27)I disagree on "every time you fail to protect an objective which you are assigned to defend,". That's not true. Besides I've already discussed the sentence before... somewhere on the talk book.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

28)I agree on your "teammates". The other description was already used.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

29)You changed "but also" to "and every". I changed it to "as well as every"... sounds better.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

...

and so on. In general I agreed on much of what you have changed. But before "Accounts" gets excluded, I think "weapons" and "versions" should come first, maybe even "cheating". Please list wherever you disagree with my edits. Just place a comment beneath the respective point. If you agree with a point, delete the point. The page is long enough. I hope someone archieves sections on the discussion page that are not being discussed anymore.

Ele, I don't agree with your new categories. The relevance of them is next to nothing and they waste as much space as more relevant sections. Relevance may partly be in the eye of the observer but your contributions are not informative at all. Not even players would care at all. But I like the contribution to version if you can prove it is true (mac, linux, windows). Please make sure you can justify your edits and prove a helping attitute on the talk page. I'm really sick of getting my work ignored by you. §Do to others as you would have them do to you.§ or something like that.NightBeAsT 15:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ele, I do not want an edit war, but I do not want your changes either, so I'll try the first step of dispute resulution and try to talk. Your edits are horrible and I can give you an explanation for them all. For example: "Single player(training missions only), multiplayer (combat and training missions)". It makes no sense to write "(combat and training missions)" unless you want to mislead. It would claim the game had trainings missions for the multiplayer mode, but it does not in reality. That's sneaky vandalism. The next edit was "(not all versions)" concerning mac versions. But that's misleading again: mac players cannot play the game - there are no servers anymore. What's the point of distorting the truth? Any third party reading this will immediately recognize the kind of your edits. Can you at least justify ANY edit?? Please be more constructive and decide for the way of discussing with an open mind. Your most extreme case is probably that you're even breaking the copyright laws by having the link to www.americasarmy.com/... . Only the link to www.americasarmy.com is allowed. These are all small issues, but you've made over 100 edits of those issues.NightBeAsT 20:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "It would claim the game had trainings missions for the multiplayer mode, but it does not in reality." Have you even played the game? There is entire mulitplayer level that is a training map that require MILES (laser tag only) in a fake urban environment. Ele9699 21:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then everything is training! Meant by training is where players get to know movements, controls, etc. What you're talking of is multiplayer combat against other player that uses other weapon effects and models. That's not what is training in video games! It has score, Honor, ROE, etc. only the effects are different. In real life it would be training, but training in video games is different. Are we talking about the game or the army? You said what the article is about. The map is a mission, an operation. Otherwise it would be misleading.NightBeAsT 21:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Look you are wrong, the level is not a combat mission like the others. Its only laser tag, and the players sit down when they "die". This is not like other missions which are meant as hypothetical, but "real" combat. Ele9699 21:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Should AA:SF be split off

 * Should AA:SF split off from the AA page? The intial AA:o versions have a number of differences over SF, and a lot of reviews handle them seperately. As changes accumulate with SF additions (new weapons etc) the page is going to be quite large, and for example a article doesn't need to talk about future developments really since its not updated anymore. Ele9699 18:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course NOT! How many articles would wikipedia comprise if you created a new article for every version of software???? A question like this is just ridiculous. RememberMe 19:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm it wouldn't be for "every version", one for the intial versions up to V1.9, and the other for the second big release SF. SF changed a LOT of things and it doesn't make sense to combine them some things are true for one but not the other. Ele9699 19:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you pay for the site, Ele, why not? Look. It's not reasonable to create more pages because one update has the name AA:SF instead of name AA:O. The update didn't change more of the game than any other, but, you're right... if you don't play the game, but play the name. You said it's an article about the game, Ele. Suddenly it's an article about the name? So 4.5 million people registered for AA:O? Or for AA:SF? Or maybe for AA??? You see, even if you accept the lie that there were 4.5 million people registered, you must admit not even the developers differentiate between there "different games". Don't spam with edits and sites. Please consider the logical borders between relevance and irrelevance.NightBeAsT 19:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, all the AA versions should be covered in this article. The differences between versions are not big enough to warrant their own articles. Kukuman 19:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps... neverthless the differences are growing with each new release so it some point it will make more sense to have two smaller articles then one large one. Here is the boxart for sf when that time comes. Ele9699 02:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)




 * Ok, they've a new cover for the hand-out version (it is extremely rare that this cover is seen because the game is downloaded by an overwhelming majority) and they have partly changed the name to make the game appear to be new. However, it is merely an update and doesn't end or begin America's Army at all. The name changes all the time, and new version of the game come and go. There was also America's Army: Recruit or something, the first version. Another name, another version, nothing worth considering. You cannot call America's Army a series because it is ONE developing game. An update is NOT a new game. An optical apportionment makes no sense, an apportionment relating to contents is needed, an apportionment in non-fiction and fiction. I've explained why already, in the section below this.NightBeAsT 20:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well it depends on the situation, somtimes having two smaller articles can work better then a single larger one. As for the names for the intial versions 1- 1.9, they were mainly patches to the intail version under the name 'operations', and are good to be combined in as single entity. With 2.0 the main name was now Special Forces, and was a bigger change then the previous patches and changed many features in addition to just game content- changes that grow more significant with each new patch to SF. For example, SF was reviewed independly of the first versions by news sites. The other names your talking about, are the names of patches (i.e 'firefight' etc.)which add content under the banner of a release name. These patches are comparable to a expansion pack that are commonly released for other games. Ele9699 18:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * When I tried to establish an article for something called Habbo Hotel for the German version of Wikipedia, it nearly got deleted on grounds of irrelevance. In fact, the irony is that this pointless game has more players than America's Army does. Video games are part of culture, but they come and go and are extremely numerous and certainly many doubt articles about video games are educating at all.

Certainly America's Army is especially interesting concerning its background and therefore needs to be included if other famous games are included too, but would that justify a new article? Because the background remains the same? Because there are several versions that slightly changed the gameplay and made it up to date so America's Army can survive? Because a new article of America's Army would contain almost the same as any other version's article would? Would THAT really make the article smaller and spare room, or would that just create two similar articles of (almost) the same space? I even doubt it would shorten ANY article, not to mention that it would just multiply primarily. Above all, while you insist on calling the game a series of games because it has updates (Warcraft is a series of games - there is Warcraf 1-3, but is Warcraft 3 a series?? It has updates too. Is an update a new game or an update of a game??). Now, you can say America's Army is a modification of Unreal Tournament, just like you can say Counter-Strike is a modification of Half-Life: both are mods but some versions don't depend on the mother game. A modification is a modification if the version is modificated from the mother game, and this both fits for America's Army and Counter-Strike. Sure, you'd now like to point out that UT and AA are very different, but then you would introduce a border between modification and game capriciously, say depending on your matter of opinion. So you see: calling America's Army a game instead of a simple modification even plays down the truth. But suddenly it's even a series of games that needs a new article for some irrelevant updates that changed next to nothing???? If you really want two articles, you can create one for reality of America's Army and America's Army make-believe part. Just because a part of the name after America's Army has changed to appear new doesn't justify a new article. If you like you can create new articles on Albert Einstein for updates / every new year of his life. But I guess America's Army, a computer modification, is far more relevant and needs more articles than a simple man.NightBeAsT 00:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Many gaming sites have reviewed them as seperate games. Intersting points, but there may come a point when its better to have 2 smaller articles then one larger one. Ele9699 22:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Minor mac Changes
I don't know what all of this arguing is about. I'm new so if someone will fill me in, I'll try my best to help. -Anyway, I went ahead and put in some version/mac development notes regarding the mac/gamespy situation.User:Mediaright

Now, there are two different versions of the article. The "out-dated" but discussed and accepted version and a "new" version by user:Ele9699 and his other nicknames. Ele edited a bit, that is, over hundred versions. I find his changes irrelevant, POV, poorly written, misleading and false. He finds the original version "out-dated" (but hasn't said why and in what way) and accused me of having additional users hiding behind (I'll come back to this). I've tried to discuss his first 50% or so changes and tried to explain why they don't fit Wikipedia and he's replied once then stopped, ignoring most points. As discussing obviously doesn't help, I'll try to contact a mediator, which another user adviced me to do. I'll try to explain to the mediator my point of view and will tell Ele to do the same.

As far as his accusations are concerned, I want a meeting in ICQ or IRC or anywhere else where you can see that there are two persons and not one to prove me and user:RememberMe are not the same. At the same time I accuse him of being user:GACSean and would like a similar test for him. The tests would not only show how many reverts and opinions the user represents, but also it would check honesty and reliability.

Speaking of which, I would like Ele to give prove of a lot of claims, e.g. where he found the additional information to the >>version<< section in the article. That shouldn't be too hard. So please find reliable sources, Ele. You haven't really proven your reliability so far.

Also, I'd like to request separation of the article, in reality and virtuality. If I'm right in guessing, having two little articles is better for the database than one of the same size. Furthermore it would allow him to include more of his rather irrelevant information (e.g. about maps). Of course the primary part of the article would be about reality, that is "overview", "history", "controversy" and "realism". There is a difference between "kill a player" in reality and "kill a player" in virtuality, don't you think so? That would avoid ambiguousness. Ambiguousness, for example, I realized in our latest little dispute about "training". I thought about "training" concerning video games, while he thought about "training" in real life (army training). Another good reason to put the focus on reality is certainly that we live in REALITY instead of virtuality and thet section about reality would not only be informative for gamers, but for almost everyone. I'm not even sure if the rest, the virtuality part, is even informative for gamers: why would anyone read through the names of the maps? Or the guns? Or gameplay? (I would be interested in gameplay if I hadn't played the game though). The big picture of America's Army is certainly the reality part. I do not think that any university would care about the extremely specific parts of gameplay. For me virtuality would be like describing the colors of a national flag instead of what the flag stands for, when it was founded, what was the cause and effect and so on. Almost all w-questions would it describe. And that's just what the reality part of the article represents. The virtuality part should have some links, and could include the parts I find irrelevant. I felt he was trying to play down the important and informative parts of the article by spamming it with trash and thereby creating an unfair proportion of information (a university article is certainly more relevant than some german clan site). Agreeing on putting it elsewhere would kill that impression and would justify his sections in my opinion. If he was trying to manipulate by creating an unfair proportion, it would be no good anymore, then he could only spam the irrelevant part.NightBeAsT 19:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm interesting points, I agree on something disagree on others. For example, that german fansite probably needs to go. Once again, feel free to edit things like that. However, stop reverting the page to the out of date one. Ele9699 20:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for all of the info. Here's a bit of fresh info. The goal of the internet and Wikipedia is to provide a collective database of reliable knowledge that could be used in anything from a discovery to even a research paper if need be. Our job is to make this info reliable, and as easy to use and find as possible. We shouldn't concern ourselves with server and other technical issues. Wiki is in talks with Google for server hosting and is holding a fund drive right now. They can spare the space. I think that we should keep this all one article because it is easier to use for someone who has no idea what we are talking about to use 1 vs. 2. Just use a table of contents. On general info versus technical, it is the place of Wikipedia to provide as much info as possible. It doesn't matter what WE think people will be interested in as long as all the info a person COULD want is there and we organize the info in a way that anyone from beginners to advanced players can navigate easily. On reality vs. virtual, we should just use 2 clear sections, one on history and origan, and one on gameplay. We should also use more specific words in the gameplay section like killing the PLAYER'S CHARACTER, rather than the player. Once again, we should look at this all from a users standpoint. It should all be easy for all users to find anything they could possibly want in addition to basic easy info for new users. Anything else?
 * History, Message and Gameplay should be enough? That would also be JUST what the german version of America's Army's article includes. But what about the rest of the materical? Move to a sub-article or remove?NightBeAsT 00:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the information about the mac's was fine, as for the other stuff its ground we'v already covered. Ele9699 22:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page Changes
User:Rememberme, if you want to add your idea's in you need to edit them and not revert to a outdated and highly pov version. It disregards dozens of spelling fixes, links, info, and corrections. Ele9699 18:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 1)I'm not reverting your reverts in order to include ideas. I'm reverting to prevent your vandalism
 * 2)"outdated"?? Just because you're editing like a beserk does not mean other edits are outdated!
 * 3)"highly pov version"??? I'm not the one who moves "controvery" somewhere else but let superfluous information about weapons, realism and maps remain.
 * 4)spelling fixes??? links? I think this article can do without links to forums. There have been enough links to articles about the game written by reliable information sources.
 * 5)"info?" This article can do without a list of maps that are present in the different versions. That's just superfluous. If you want to write a book, that might be worth including.
 * 6)"disregarding"? That's what you're doing all the time.
 * 7)Your edits are not justified. Statements like "The game, while mostly well received by the gaming community.." is just not bearable without prove. That's only your speculation.
 * 8)You violate the law: The disclaimer of americasarmy.com prohibits linking resources.

They mean Direct Linking of content (i.e. linking to pictures), not linking to pages. Get your facts stright man. Ele9699 22:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 9)The pictures you add are not connected to the game. If you think every weapon the game imitates needs a picture of the real weapon, create a gallery for it.RememberMe 19:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to edit your idea's in, just not by reverting the entire page to old version. Also, that sentence has been modified by other users, feel free to edit that one too (or even remove it). Ele9699 20:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What's the point of adding ideas? These small, immature details one might brainstorm are usually not what should be in an encyclopedia. Above all, you're always talking about "old" or "out-dated". Why don't you explain WHY it is too old? WHY would something good that is old worse than something bad but new? With bad I mean inconsiderableness, bias, possible copyright infrigements, opinions, misleading statements and falsehood? Please be reasonable.NightBeAsT 20:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"What's the point of adding ideas?" Well thats what wikipedia is about. The version that you revert to lacks changes ranging from remove POV, incorrect information about the game, to spelling changes, in addition other material by me and other users. Ele9699 21:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you please be more exact? Where are things based on opinion in the original version? Where is incorrect information? Where are spelling mistakes? There is certainly not everything from other people included, yes, just like not everything is correct, npov, pertinent, accurate ... fitting Wikipedia. I'll verify my claims tomorrow. As I see, the page is protected anyway, which allows us to focus more on debating than on editing. I've got to do something today. Cu tomorrow.NightBeAsT 21:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well depending on whether your talking about edits by you, your 'friend' Rememberme, or any number the IPs that 'you' have edited from there are a wide range changes that across the board, and a lot of these we have already gone over actually. Also, its not just about what is there, its about whats not there and whats missing. Ele9699 22:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You have both broken the 3 revert rule already. Cool down or the page will be protected from editing. Kukuman 19:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)