User:Mystìc/Archive1

Salaam
Salaam,

My name David, and I am a Submitter (Arabic: Muslim) to God Alone (i.e. I do not invoke any other names besides God during prayer, and I do not believe that anything or anyone has the power to help or harm me besides God. Lã Ellãha Ela Allãh. Lã Quwwata Ellã Bellãh.)

My email address is david.aitken@gmail.com.

I admire some of your work here surrounding "Math of Quran" and also in editing the rubbish criticism of the Quran's Mathematical Miracle of 19 on the Rashad Khalifa article.

Feel free to email me anytime if you're interested in collaborating on protecting God's proven Truth (Quran) from disbelievers, idol-worshippers, hypocrites, and masters of nothing but conjecture.

May God guide and bless you, and yours.

Math of Quran
You do not have a right to remove other people's polite comments. That is considered to be vandalism. If a person has not signed, then put. It is up to the presiding admin to determine what votes are fraudulent. Also I have left a note on the deletion page about the identity of the other IP who voted keep. Perhaps you could explain the identity?? Regards,Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you got to read my comment on the talk page before it got deleted. It's a bit long, but here it is:
 * How many people besides me have a copy of this article lying around?
 * The article is "Mathematical Games: Dr. Matrix, like Mr. Holmes, comes to an untimely and mysterious end" by Martin Gardner, and begins with a quote from an "anonymous ballad": "The sons of the prophet are brave men and bold,/And quite unaccustomed to fear,/But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah/Was Abdul Abulbul Amir." The first sentence reads "Going through my files on Dr. Irving Joshua Matrix, the greatest numerologist in the world, I find notes on many escapades that I have not yet written about in his peripatetic career."  In the first paragraph he goes on to describe some of this fictional character's achievements: "I have never told about Dr. Matrix' revival in Bombay of phrenology, which he cleverly combined with the ancient Hindu technique of acupuncture (a method quite different from that of the Chinese).  Nor have I disclosed details about his notorious Parisian brothel for dogs and cats, where the madam was a large red-haired chow from Hong Kong, and pets were given free numerological readings on Saturday."  "Perhaps someday I shall recount these odd episodes, but this month I must with a heavy heart speak of my visit with the wily old charlatan last April in Istanbul."
 * "Ingenious" appears on page 22 of the article, after Dr. Matrix tosses Gardner a copy of Number 19: A Numerical Miracle in the Koran.: "'It's an ingenious study of the Koran,' said Dr. Matrix, 'but it could have been more impressive if Khalifa had consulted me before he wrote it'" (emphasis mine). Gardner's account of Matrix' exploits ends as he describes how Matrix was evidently undercover as a Muslim named Abdul Abulbul Amir working for the CIA and apparently died in a shoot-out with a Russian agent.
 * Now, I think people unfamiliar with Gardner ought to be able to gather from even that much that Gardner was not calling Khalifa's work ingenious, and that he was being sarcastic. Gardner is a serious person, but he is also given to using humor at times, and particularly sarcasm.  I understand that some people can be blind to sarcasm, and that understanding of sarcasm can be cultural (and no, I'm not being sarcastic by mentioning that).  Gardner, besides having written for Scientific American about mathematics is also a noted skeptic and member of CSICOP.  Even if the sarcasm is missed, the fact that it is Gardner's fictional pseudoscientist character who says that Khalifa's work is ingenious and not Gardner who says it is hard to miss.  In the WP article on Matrix it states Gardner invented him "partly to provide colorful context to mathematical puzzles and curiosities, partly as a satire of various pseudo-scientific theories."  Do you have the article, or did someone give you that quote out of context?  I see that the page http://www.submission.org/miracle-history.html mentions this column without mentioning Matrix.  Very dishonest of them.
 * Regrettably, I never met Gardner, but I had read his columns in the Skeptical Inquirer (SI) for many years (he's since retired from a regular column) and his books. He writes about odd things like Fletcherism and makes fun of them.  Garder later wrote a two-part article in 1997 in which Khalifa came up again, his column "Notes of a Fringe Watcher" in SI.  The first paragraph contains: "it is not hard to understand how the faithful could imagine that their divinely inspired text would contain hidden mathematical structures proving the book's supernatural origins" (emphasis added).  I haven't turned up the issue that the second part was in; he only starts describing Khalifa at the end of the first, after Louis Farrakhan.  I'll keep looking for it, or go to the library if I have to in order to make it clear what he thought of Khalifa and his work. Schizombie 08:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Math of Quran
Hi Arsath, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but on the other hand I do believe that the responsibility of admins at AfD is to assess consensus. AfDs are open for five days, after which they are to be closed. This particular AfD was actually open two days longer than it should have been because not enough admins were around to close all the AfDs in time. However, even with the extra two days there remained a solid consensus and a supermajority for deletion. Most of the support for deletion was a result of the fact that the article only cited primary sources, and therefore appeared to be original research. I personally wouldn't object to your recreation of the article so long as it includes secondary sources to which the various claims are attributed. Please don't recreate the article without those sources, though, otherwise it is likely to be speedied as a simple recreation of a deleted article. Thanks. Babajobu 08:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Arsath, well you're absolutely correct that it's not the admin's job just to delete articles that have been up on AfD for a given amount of time. Rather, as I have said above, the job of the admin is to determine whether a consensus exists to keep or delete. As I say, there was a solid consensus for deletion. When an article has changed in such a way that the voting patterns are different toward the end of the AfD, then an admin should take this into account. However, the votes really didn't change: the consensus remained for deletion throughout the AfD. Part of the reason, I suspect, is that you cited only primary sources, rather than secondary sources, and thus the article appeared to be an example of original research. It's just fine to cite the Quran, the Bible, or the Torah as primary sources, but unless you can cite secondary sources that support your characterization of those primary sources, then your additions will be (or appear to be) original research, i.e. a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". You need to find secondary sources to which you can attribute your claims about the importance of math in the Quran. Once you've done that, you can recreate the article and it will be more likely to survive AfD! If you're still not sure what I'm talking about, have a look at Original research, Verifiability, Primary sources, and Secondary sources. Cheers, Babajobu 15:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Arsath, I should mention that you are welcome to request that my closing be reviewed by others at Deletion review. Regards, Babajobu 08:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Arsath, I am adding the deleted contents of the article to a page in your user space, here: User:Arsath/Math of Quran. Remember, this is in your userspace, it's not an article, so you still need to recreate the article if you want people to see it. Please do bear in mind what I have said at the AfD: it is fine to cite scripture, but you should also cite secondary sources if you expect the article to survive. If you recreate it in its former form it will likely get deleted again. Reagrds, Babajobu 14:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
It was sweet of you to give me a barnstar -- especially appreciated in a moment when various people are upset at me :) Zora 20:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Unknown user
Hi my name is Nusrat plaese tell me, how can i connect with you. becouse I need some kaabas' and other islamic cards. that is way - I like it please my mail; nus_super@mail.ru

Image Tagging for Image:Kaaba_interior.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kaaba_interior.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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 16:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"kafir"
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

So where do you get off calling others (people of the book no less) kuffar? Are you a Kharajite?

Maybe you think we don't know what you're saying?

Please excuse me if I sound a little hot-headed. Suppose I am. Maybe there's a totally good explanation for this, but as of now I'm offended.

Timothy Usher 09:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Timothy, I am not going to apologize if thats what you are expecting, Kafir is an Arabic word meaning a person who hides, denies, or covers the truth and it translates to English language as Infidel. (So I am Kafir to you as much as you are kafir to me). And it was not my intention to instigate your religious hatred or to show my religious hatred. Wikipedia is no place for children who cannot take a comment and get offended at the slightest misunderstanding. Its a place for intelectuals to share knowledge. Not a place to get offended and declare war.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers
 * Article 19.

What I presented was my point of view on the Muhammad talk page and talk pages are to express your point of view. Mystic 10:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Arsath,

No one is "declaring war". Check out wikipedia's civility guidelines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACivility

"racial, ethnic, and religious slurs"

"So I am Kafir to you as much as you are kafir to me."

Upon what basis would I call you an infidel or an unbeliever? Or v.v.?

Timothy Usher 18:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

your edits to Muhammed
Hi, I reverted your edits to Muhammed. Your edits constitute a complete change of facts, as well as one section that was pov and none of them were referenced. In the future, if you wish to make such a bold edit, please provide sources and citations. Thanks. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  12:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Swajester It was not complete change of facts, It was a correction of the incorrect info on the page. People should do there homework b4 they comment. See the Al-Aqsa Mosque article, prophet(PBUH) ascended to heaven from Al-Aqsa, the Dome of the Rock was built much later between 687 and 691 by the 9th Caliph, Abd al-Malik(but later this mosque was also called as the Al-Aqsa by caliph Al-Walid but not for long, if thats what you are confused about). For the name of the prophet being called Al Ameen (he was also called Al Mustafa) refer to one of the christian authors book. The Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition), vol. 7 (1993), p. 361, in article "Muhammad" by "F. Buhl - [A.T. Welch]". Mystic 18:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

129.171.180.169 report to WP:RFI
I removed that IP as it only made one edit, which isn't enough to warrant a block or further warning. However I did add them to the watchlist for a bit to check they don't return. For future reference you may be interested in this guide. Feel free to ask any further questions on my talk page (for fastest response). Cheers, Petros471 20:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

can you help me
see whats wrong here [] and correct it Mystic 17:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you explain to me what the issue is? It appears as though the conversation is going just fine and therefore there is no reason for me to butt me. joturn e r 20:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Christianity
Mystic, I think Tom Harrison is right. There is no one Christian view of the Bible, there are myriads of views, especially when it comes to accepting or rejecting various Old Testament rulings. Most Christians eat pork -- Seventh Day Adventists don't. That's why you have to say exactly what denomination is being criticized, and who is criticizing it.

I know, makes it hard to criticize Christianity as a whole. That's why I've stayed out of that article! Zora 20:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Zora, Which denomination of christians follow the New International Version of the bible. I am not clear about it. Can you help find it? I am only quoting from the New International Version of the Bible. Mystic 04:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Arsath, I have a midterm coming up this week and would not be able to work on the article; hopefully will get back soon. Salam- --Aminz 22:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arsath; The thing is, you can't just make up your own criticisms of Christianity and write them into the article. Even if you did a first-rate job, it would still be original research. You need to find reputable scholars who have made such criticisms and cite them. Also, keep in mind the three-revert rule. You haven't violated it, I just point it out in case you haven't heard about it yet. Tom Harrison Talk 15:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy
Please do not falsely accuse me (or any user) of vandalism; please review WP:VANDALISM. Please also review WP:CIV and WP:NPA. The content on Criticism of Christianity was removed because it was inaccurate and, more importantly, because it was misplaced on the article, and should have been included at Criticism of the Bible (or at least discussed there). I will join the discussion, of course, but will also exercise my right to delete inaccurate or inappropriate material. KHM03 (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please gain a consensus on the talk page before continually inserting contested material. Thanks...KHM03 (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You have reverted to the inaccurate/POV version of the article now 3 times...please review WP:3RR before reverting again, or you may end up temporarily blocked. I strongly urge you to make your case on the talk page of the article and gain consensus (please review WP:CON).  Thanks...KHM03 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have done only two reverts.. The other one was to accurately place the misplaced (according to you) section in the correct place.
 * Arsath/Mystic: Your proposals have been removed by another user, but all editors may review them in the article history. Please gain a consensus before inserting them again.  Thanks...KHM03 (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You may also want to review WP:OR when you can. If you wish to cite, say, lists of problematic Bible verses, you need to cite some scholars who have done so.  Otherwise, it's "original research", which is a no-no on Wikipedia.  Thanks...KHM03 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have answered your question...please cite the scholars who have written about the problems you raise. Thanks...KHM03 (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, please cite your sources, and review WP:OR. KHM03 (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that your contributions may be removed as original researtch if not cited. KHM03 (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop restoring your original research. If there's more in the article, then let's talk about removing it or finding citations.  Please review WP:OR, which you are apparently choosing to violate.  KHM03 (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Christianity
I've also left this comment on KHM03's page regarding the reverts:
 * I've done it twice too - see the edit summaries. Put your proposed additions onto the talk page and we can discuss where they best fit (there are loads of christianity related pages) and also how to phrase it in an encyclopedic way. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalk TCF 09:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My talk page
Please watch your language on my talk page (see WP:CIV). I won't tolerate any bad language or inferences there. I'll assume good faith on your part that you meant no offense. None of this has anything to do with my personal beliefs; there are loads of completely appropriate critiques of Christianity, but you cannot violate Wikipedia policy in order to place them on an article. Please watch your language. KHM03 (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the Quran quote means...please enlighten me when you have an opportunity. KHM03 (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that the Bible is the word of God, inspired and authoritative. I believe that Jesus alone is the Word of God, God revealed in human flesh, the fullest revelation of God.  I don't believe in inerrancy, like many fundamentalist and many (but not all) conservative Christians.  I believe that Scripture, properly interpreted, is authoritative, but that it has been abused and misunderstood throughout history, even by well meaning folks.  Does that help clarify my view?  KHM03 (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My view is that the Bible is the word of God, "sharper than any two-edged sword". But Jesus is referred to in Scripture (see John 1) as the Word of God.  I capitalize it when referring to Jesus in order to show that Jesus is superior even to divinely inspired Scripture.  My guess is that Muslims hold a similar view in that while the Quran is lifted up and revered as a holy, inspired document, even it is subservient to Allah.  The same is true for Christians regarding the Bible and Jesus...we believe that Jesus is Lord of All, God in human form, and superior even to the divinely inspired words of the Bible. Does that help?  KHM03 (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Your rudeness is forgiven. Regarding the original manuscripts, they have been lost to history. This can be an issue for those who ascribe to inerrancy, which I do not. The "classical" theory regarding the texts has been that the Holy Spirit, through the Church, declared that the Biblical canon was inspired and authoritative in about the 4th century. Even though we don't have the "originals", it's been amazing that with every new discovery, the canonical Bible has remained remarkabaly unchanged...a minor detail or rewording here or there, but nothing of doctrinal import. Does that help? KHM03 (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The Christian faith is not based on the Bible...but on Jesus, who is without sin/error. The Bible points to him. KHM03 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Christianity is all about Jesus. Yes, we're talking about the guy talked about in the Bible, and that is certainly our key source. But it's more than just rules and regulations. It's about a way of life, a perspective of the world. Certainly, there are behaviors which are antithetical to Christianity, and behaviors that support it. But it's primarily all about a relationship with God through this man Jesus, whom we believe to be very much alive today. KHM03 (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't want to judge your friends or anything. Suffice to say that there isn't necessarily anything wrong with drinking alcohol or dancing.  Paul urged Timothy in the Bible to drink a little wine with his dinner, and there are multiple examples of dancing.  The Church is divided (sadly) into many denominations which emphasize different aspects of the Faith.  In my view, this division (which goes against Jesus' prayers for unity in John's Gospel) makes it difficult for the Church to hold people accountable.  The truth is that we live in a world where each person...Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, whatever...can choose how best to practice his or her faith, and if a religious authority gets angry, what can one do?  Violence?  That's not an answer.  So, yes, many Christians (myself included) fall way short of Jesus' vision ("all have sinned and fall short..."), but, thank the Lord, God gives us grace and mercy and forgiveness.  And, by the Spirit's power, we can try again tomorrow to be more faithful.  KHM03 (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Interpretaed properly, there is very little about the Scripture that is convenient. Paul did indeed suggest Timothy take alcoholic wine, as the process for creating non-alcoholic grape juice had not yet been invented. Generally, Christianity maintains that a glass of wine is OK, but abuse of alcohol is, of course, sinful. Dancing with someone other than your spouse can certainly lead to adultery, but doesn't have to do so, and usually does not. Yes, many Christians interpret the Bible in too convenient a fashion, but when we honestly face the words of Jesus (et al), we find a different understanding. So, the Church (and leaders like me) need to do a better job! KHM03 (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are doing copivio. It's a waste of time.
Zahira College Colombo is a simple copivio. Please stop editing, and start a whole new article. Starting from copivio does not work, and will make all your or others' later editing worthless. The page, sooner or later, will be deleted. I added the copivio template. Please do *not* remove, unless you have a good reason to (e.g. you wrote the original article) Msoos 12:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I wrote the orginal article.. Mystic 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay this article cannot be a copyright violation, because of four reasons

1. its not a verbatim copy of the web page you are refering to. 2. Historic Information cannot be copyrighted by anyone.. the information I have put on the article is historic data. 3. There is no creative work involved here, so no one is going to loose money or make any money the information is freely available on the internet. 4. Anyway thats my college history info, I have put it at the reference location I have given at the reference section of the article. someone would've copied it from there and hosted it at angelfire.com, so actually that person is only violating copyright law (if at all he is violating by puting historical info) not me. Does that answer your question ?..Mystic 14:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's simple. Copyrighted is something that is creative work. Creative work is something like: a sentence. Even a slogan such as Let's roll can be copyrighted. The article we are talking about here is was written by someone. Composing an article is a creative work, as I am sure you understand. Copy-pasting that article here is therefore copivio. As I said before, starting a new article and adding the data, is of course, not a copivio. But starting with a copy and editing it out not to look too much like a copivio is a copivio. So take my advice, and start a new article. I am myself not an administrator, but as you can see, administrators know what I know and revert your deletion of the copivio notice. It's simply better not to fight. Trust me. Msoos 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: Talking aboiut Mystic :please give evidence that you wrote the article. And then write that reason into the edit history. Deleting a clear copivio notice without giving a reason will be reverted by any administrator on sight. Please follow regulations of the Wikipedia. Doing things entirely your way will not get you anywhere, either here in Wikipedia, or in your life in general. Msoos 14:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you want me to give evidence to you? I tried that b4 with the same article, nobody is willing to see the evidence. Anyway just a piece of advice, you have all the right to tell me how I should, add to wikipedia, but you have no right to tell me how I should do things in my life, thats totally unwanted.. Mystic 16:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you cannot prove beyond a doubt that you are the same person who wrote the original page that the article is a copy of, Wikipedia can't keep it for legal reasons. The burden on you is to prove that it is not a copyright violation, not Wikipedia. If you don't, it will be deleted. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 20:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Posting personal information is against WP policy - sorry to edit your user talk but see WP:AN/I for details. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalk TCF 13:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to do this but it is a breach of a very important policy to post personal information. Please do AGF as KHM03 and I are usually on opposite sides of our debates so my concern is for upholding the rights of privacy for all editors not suppressing information (you may be glad of this one day yourself). I only came to your page as I was reverting edits by users who have now been banned. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalk TCF 14:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have any issues with what I have done please post them on WP:AN/I - do not repost this link anywhere. If you don't understand this message then please ask any admin (or me but I'm not an admin) before adding the link . Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalk TCF 08:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The page is on my watch list and has not been modified so I'm not quite sure what you mean. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalk TCF 10:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The policy is on personal information posted by other users contrary to the wishes of the user concerned. External links are fine (as long as there are not excessive numbers of them) but linking to the personal web page of a person who wishes to remain anonymous is not. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalk TCF 10:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of possible copyright violation notices
You don't have the authority to remove the notice, since you are the primary author of the article under investigation. Someone without a conflict of interest will sort it out in good time. In the meantime, removing copyvio tags is vandalism and will be reverted. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 22:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well its very simple, why dont you check the article yourself rather than accusing me of vandalism, I dont think it is vandalism, as I didn't do anything wrong. Rules doesn't state that only an admin could revert copyio. if you look at with good conscience, it is okay to revert that article, as it is not a verbatim copy of the article on the quoted website, Wikipedia is not a place for people to fight, and show who is the "Macho" and who can call the shots, rather I believe its a place for peaceful sharing of knowledge and information. Please tell me do you honestly believe the guy from the other website is gonna come and sue wikipedia for violating copyright laws? Infact that article was copied from another website www.azzahira.com. Sorry if I sounded rude.. I am not going to revert that article again, Mystic 06:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand you feel that way. However, Wikipedia has formal processes that must be respected, and interfering with those processes is vandalism whether you think so or not. So that I am being absolutely clear, here is the relevant part of policy from Vandalism, subsection Types of vandalism: "Avoidant vandalism: Removing, copyvio and other related tags in order to conceal or avoid entries to risk deletion."
 * So long as Zahira College Colombo is being investigated for possible copyright violation, removal of the tag is vandalism. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 07:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)