User talk:Fram/Archive 4

Can not find Category
Hey, could you have not chosen some other list to delete as your first action as admin instead of the reason that brought me to Wikipedia and which has taken me quite some time of research and ongoing discussion on what actually is the definition of the List of commercial Linux games? Also where is said Category that you claimed has been created as replacement, I can not find it. -- Darklock 03:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly my first admin action, and I just gave the reason of the one that proposed deletion, User:Chris Pickett. He placed all the games that had an article into Category:Linux Games, it seems. This category already existed. He also created the page Linux gaming. Perhaps you can take it up with him and discuss the reasons for deleting the list and categorizing it instead with him. Fram 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as you said, the Category already existed. It is not for the same thing so he did not categorize the list, but thanks for the heads up. -- Darklock 01:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming anniversary
I was close to try to add to Portal:Comics/Anniversaries/February/February 28 this upcoming event, but I thought maybe as the authority on this you could add it according to style.. It does qualify, yes? M URGH disc.  13:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It does qualify, but I prefer to only add dates that are already mentioned on Wikipedia. Of course, this simply means that the Gaston Lagaffe article must mention the first appearance of the character (and you have the prefect sources for that). Then a sentence like "1957: first appearance of Gaston Lagaffe, famous Belgian comic by André Franquin" can be added to the portal pages (I'm quite limited in how I write those oneliners, due to lack of space mainly, and because I try to keep them rather neutral ("famous", "important", "influential", and so on are to be used sparingly). But as it is a Wiki, you are of course free to use your imagination! Thanks for asking anyway, I hope to get it on the portal page pretty soon (there are still 16 dates without any entry though, but I haven't finished checking all comics articles either). Fram 13:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. I had an Early publications section on GL going that got cut by Thermaland's makeover, who felt it too obsessive. I've been awaiting some consensus feeling about this before going back into that page (because repeated rejection is just too much for me ;) ) but I'll think about how it'd be best slipped in. Good luck with the final stretch of anniversaries —and potential adminship. M URGH disc.  14:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed that makeover really, so I can't judge what happened there yet. I don't think anyone can complain if yu add afew sentences indicating both the first and last appearance, as that is normal info (a bit like the dates of birth and death), if it can be sourced (which certainly for the start date shouldn't be any problem). A larger section discussion different aspects of his appearance and format may be overkill, although such things arehard to judge and are more a case of personal preference. As for the adminship: it looks good now, but I will just wait and see! Fram 14:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I did it! Had a go at the anniversary file. Please do let me know what you think about the unorthodox phrasing. ..And the GL article now mentions the big date.. M URGH disc.  22:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Near perfect. I just italicized Gaston Lagaffe, because it is a character but mainly the name of a series. Thanks! Fram 05:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I got encouraged to add a few more (including a virgin entry for April 27) but while flipping to find something missing, I was confronted with a dilemma I found a week ago. There is a birth day conflict with EN, FR and DE:WPs and many other sources of the world concerning the birth date of Claire Bretécher. Well, I changed the EN:WP entry a week ago because of what felt like compelling evidence and the increasing likelihood that one slip of the finger had led to the WP+derivatives error slide, but I still haven't found the conclusively satisfying proof. Her own site says frustratingly little about it. Do you have any anniversary hunter's trick for getting to the bottom of this? M URGH  disc.  21:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the help, it's great that it is finally coming together (only 11 or 12 redlinked dates left!). As for the birthdate: Comiclopedia gives only 1940, and I have no better offline sources close by to check further for now. The official site gives no date, so perhaps she prefers to not list it, and then it is better if we don't list it either, certainly when the sources that do give a date seem to disagree. Fram 21:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You have been doing this project for many months? it must be nice to smell a conclusion. And yes, that is something to consider, that the Bretécher site makes a "no-statement" about it. English Comiclopedia does give 7/4 though.. I'll look at some of her books the next days and see if they ever touch upon it.. M URGH  disc.  22:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been friskily adding to anniversaries when/if I can spot something not yet covered (not easy), and you haven't given me a vandal warning yet ;) I'd like to think I've caught on to the established style of things, but please let me know if there is something to comment about the way I'm approaching it. Cheers, M <font size="-3" >URGH  <font size="-5">disc.  21:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just slightly rewritten your entry on the Pilote / Charlie merger, but apart from that I'm more than happy with the help (and in the meantime, only 8 dates without entries left!) Fram 21:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw that one needed the improvement, I'm not sure exactly what I was thinking there. So, is it when all dates are filled that this goes public, or have you set some other criteria for the launch?  It could, somehow possibly, be that something comics-related hasn't happened on every day of the year, yes? <font size="-1">M <font size="-3" >URGH  <font size="-5">disc.  21:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm almost through the lists of articles I know of that could contain a relevant date, a few more weeks should do the trick at most. Then I put it online, whether complete or with eight holes doesn't really matter. I'll ask at the project and portal pages for other people to add and update the lists then, but I'll try to get it as complete as possible before it goes live. We don't want to many empty sections on the portal page after all... Fram 21:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw you added Bretécher's Bday on April 7, does it mean you found a definitive source? Convincing enough to remove the older conflicting Bday of April 17..? ;-)   <font size="-1">M <font size="-3" >URGH  <font size="-5">disc.  13:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I had it already for another date? Oops! I was browsing the French authors, noticed the date, thought you added it from a good source, and never checked itf I had it already on another date... If you know which is the correct one, could you pleae remove the other one? And if you doubt we can know for certain, could you remove both? It is getting hard to know shat is the good version of the Bretécher date :-) Meanwhile, down to 7 missing dates (Alain Saint-Ogan fixed the last August date!).Fram 13:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's that last conclusive feeling I'm still missing. I think English-V Comiclopedia ( and some other sources I like) have got it right, and many other sources have quoted a typo from Fr:Wp that are now spookily widespread. But sure, I'll stay on it and remove the wrong one when I have undisputable proof (or both if none can be found). <font size="-1">M <font size="-3" >URGH <font size="-5">disc.  14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing in on the end
I see you added Hogarth to the timeline, which could set a precedent for new horizons. Don't you think this opens for considering to add the likes of Hokusai, Max Ernst, Lynd Ward and such? <font size="-1">M <font size="-3" >URGH <font size="-5">disc.  15:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They are all debatable. Hokusai was no storyteller-trhough-pictures though, I have no idea why Max Ernst is related, and I see no reason wy Lynd Ward or Frans Masereel couldn't be included. There is no definite line between comics and other arts (Töppfer is debatable as well), but since Hogarth is often cited as one of the main predecessrors, I thought it would do no harm to include him. It's not like we have an abundance of dates and subjects to choose from (although some dates are quite full). Anyway, if you rather have him removed, I won't complain, but I don't think it does any harm to include him. In the meantime, I'm still getting nearer to the end, and only two days are left open! Fram 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nono, I'm certainly not strict school and think the Hogarth connection is fair, and certainly not OR. I mean to remember McCloud has made the Ernst arguments based on Une Semaine de Bonte, and (maybe I jump to conclusion) thought Hokusai had a fatherhood of Manga from some authroity voice -or maybe that's just in the name, not sure, I'm no expert.. Were it up to me I'd fall unorthodox astray, including (personal comics chiefs) like Maurice Sendak, so I'll just follow your direction with interest. Thx for Masereel, I didn't know about him. 2 days is agonizingly close, may it be possible to fill complete. <font size="-1">M <font size="-3" >URGH <font size="-5">disc.  16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope so, and I luckily already have one entry for February 29th, so that one is taken care of. I have still quite some articles to check, but the amount of biographies without complete dates of birth (and death were applicable) is amazing. We have thousands of comics articles, but the number of decent start class ones is much lower... Fram 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Your RFA currently has a 100% (54/0/0) tally and is scheduled to end any minute now. It looks like you going to become an administrator as soon as a Bureaucrat closes the discussion. Good luck. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 09:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And here he is. After unanimous support, you're now an admin. Spend some time on the administrator's reading list and have fun using the new tools to make this a better place. Don't hesitate to ask questions, and as you get comfortable, dig in and help out with the backlogs. Again, congrats. - Taxman Talk 13:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of you! Wow, a new bunch of buttons to play with ;-) I'll take it slow at first, and try to get the hang of it with some uncontroversial CSD's in the beginning. I'll post a thank you to all supporters somewhere in the next few days as well, but here's a thank you for the confidence in me to everyone reading this! Fram 13:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Good luck with the tools...! The Rambling Man 13:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, all the best, and remember that there are over a thousand of your fellow admins who will be only to happy to lend advice if you're unsure (especially in the early days). Congrats!  Neil   (not Proto ►)  14:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

- dup. comment.
 * Congrats on your succesful RfA, Fram! Have fun mopping. :) - <font color="Black">An <font color="Grey">as <font size="-4"><font color="DodgerBlue">Talk? 14:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats! <font COLOR="blue">ConDem <font COLOR="red">Talk 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Proficiaat! Heel veel succes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Fram. Well-deserved. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  15:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, great work. All the best with the new tools :) – riana_dzasta 09:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck with you mop, hope you have success. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Congrats! —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 02:38Z 

EAScripting
I just noticed you deleted my page on EAScripting. Care to explain what you you meant by it being a hoax? Comperr 14:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is not one googlehit for EAScripting outside of Wikipedia. It is probably the only existing, publicly released since 2005 programming language with that dubious distinction. There is not one shred of evidence (via Google or via the article) that this exists, so that's why I said that it "looks like a hoax, no verifiable sources found". If it isn't a hoax, then it is very, very badly commercialized and publicized... Fram 06:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't a hoax - conserding I use it. Although I do admit that it is like Whitespace - not many people have heard of it/use it.  If there are no google hits for it I am not going to fight for it to be undeleted but....
 * Allright, I was fooled by the lack of sources. Not a hoax then, but I'm glad you agree that it isn't notable enugh to be included either. If that changes in the future, feel free to recreate the article (with sources indicating notability) of course! Fram 15:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comperr (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Kap po kap
OK, I've restored, but it's still tagged, so you may want to ad a hangon or evidence of notability? jimfbleak 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I removed the speedy notice and added a very short assertion of importance (for the artist at least). It would need to be sourced to survive an AfD, but I have the feeling that she is genuinely wellknown and successful in Bosnia. I may be easily fooeld of course :-) Fram 15:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rciahrd Donner
Richard Donner is a comic writer. http://www.dccomics.com/comics/?cm=6414 Written by Geoff Johns and Richard Donner. Brian Boru is awesome 15:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That'swhy I asked for help on the project talk page, because I don't know enough about these authors to see if they are truly a comics writer where that work is simply not mentioned in the article, or someone who has never written a comic. Fram 15:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked
Hi, Fram. I indef blocked and protected as they were still intent on using it as some kind of chat room after the initial block expired. Hope you agree the course of action. :) Bubba hotep 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, they had no useful contributions and received clear warnings, and were apparently a role account as well. Fram 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Biography
Hi Fram,

Please excuse the fact I am having problems with cookies so I cannot log in properly on this server. I was wondering why the Kathryn E. Darden biography was deleted.

Thank you, Flora


 * The article was Proposed for deletion for 5 days, and I agreed with the concerns by the editor who added the prod. The article was about a non notable person (according to our WP:BIO guidelines), with only one article by an independent, reliable source (the Tennessean article), and the rest of the info all from her own websites. Neither the magazine nor the books are enough to assert notability. Fram 20:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Script Frenzy
Why exactly did you delete "Script Frenzy"? You say "Expired prod. suggested future contest; nn, crystal ballism" When I last visited it before its deletion, all of the facts were verified by the Office of Letters and Light, the organizer of the program, which is not a contest.

Also, there are many things on Wikipedia describing things that have not happened yet, and shall not for some time, often being much more than the couple of months until June.

And finally, today (Wednesday, March 14, 2007) the teaser site opened, confirming for a second time the facts in the article. I mean you no disrespect, as a fellow human being, fellow Wikipedian, and superior Administrator, but I believe you were not aware of this when you deleted this.

Best regards, Aet Lindling. --Aet Lindling 02:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no outside sources about the contest. Confirmation of facts happens by secondary sources, not by the organisator, for the purpose of Wikipedia (see WP:ATT for more about this basic policy of Wikipedia). And we write about things whic are either already notable or bound to become notable (like Harry Potter and the Deadly Hallows). If it is uncertain if something will be notable, we wait until it becomes clear from secondary sources that it is notable. You are free to recreate the article if it is based on secondary, independent sources to indicate notability: basing the article on the site of the organisator isn't sufficient. As for your other points: there probably are many similar and much worse articles, and we try to delete those as well, but we can only do so much and we don't notice every article. And admins are not superior, we have a few extra possibilities but our mistakes are just as bound to get reverted as those of other editors. Fram 06:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have put the deleted page at User talk:Aet Lindling/Script Frenzy, so that you can work on it there if you plan to recreate it, without having to start from scratch. I hope that helps! Fram 06:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
It seems to be a bitable newbie who has no idea its on an encyclopedia! Appreciate the response! SatuSuro 11:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Music Notability
Hi there. I received a message regarding the deletion of the G-Unit Radio series albums. Apparantly, it failed the notability guidelines. However, the guidelines say that "the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." So a multi platinum artist like 50 Cent is obviously notable. Also, the series would simply be too long to fit in one article. And if this deserves deletion, why not the mixtape series by The Game? Or Kanye West? Spellcast 13:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If they are clearly notable, please make that clear in the article with reliable sources (see WP:ATT). From the articles, it was very unclear if they were real 50 Cent albums or compilation albums with a.o. songs by 50 Cent. I note that these albums or mixtapes are not included in 50 Cent discography. As for mixtapes by/with other artists, it is a common misconception that if article X exists, similar article Y may exist as well. Chances are that Article X was unnoticed until now, or that Article X is not that similar, or that Article X is a much better (sourced) article about a similar subject. In any case, we judge articles on their own merits, not on what else exists or not exists on Wikipedia. So basically, like I said: you can recreate the article(s) if they are significantly expanded to include sources establishing notability per WP:MUSIC, or you can let the articles be deleted. Recreating the articles without improvement will get them deleted again, and doing it again and again would potentially get you blocked for disruption (this discussion, on the other hand, is the correct way of acting and thus in no way cause for blocking, and you are free to continue this discussion of course). Fram 13:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I re-created the articles again on the basis that I show how they're notable. As I said previously, the notability guidelines simply say albums by notable artists are considered notable. Thus, I explained in the intro that the mixtapes were from multi-platinum selling artists G-Unit and added citations. But I received a message from Cryptic saying they were deleted again. This album is complying with the guidelines and I honestly don't see how this is going against any rules. Spellcast 06:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at mixtape, I don't think the same rule as for albums applies. Albums are made of new material, polished to get the best result, and get massive media attention. Mixtapes are much more low-level rush jobs and get hardly any media attention. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) to see what other editors think about it, I would still delete these articles if it was up to me but we'll see where the consensus goes... Fram 06:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough bringing it up. The guidelines should be more concise. If there's a policy that sets the standards more clearly, I'll be happy to accept it. And just so you know, I haven't even listened to those tapes. I was merely trying to expand on articles I legitimetely thought deserved expansion (as I've done with other pages). If I knew those pages were previously deleted, I wouldn't of started them. Also, if they get removed again, I'm not looking forward to receiving 2 dozen messages on my talk page warning me about re-creating it. It just makes it seem like I was trying to make inappropriate articles (like a vandal), which I wasn't. Hopefully this won't tarnish much reputation should I decide to become an admin. Anyway, thanks for your time. Spellcast 07:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to nominate the above articles for deletion here. Although the mixtapes are referred to by notable sources, it seems that most of the mixtapes can not be expanded beyond a track listing & would likely stay as a stub if kept. I hope the album guidelines in WP:Music are made more clear in the future. The vagueness was a reason I started them in the first place. Spellcast 16:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Coffee
Thanks for letting me know about that, I noticed that the title was already red and had been deleted due to copyright infringement, so I figured it was pointless to read the debate. I will know better next time! Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion notices
Re the articles Gino D'Addario and Torsten Lenk, I removed the proposed deletion tags from these articles because they had been contested, i.e., the proposed deletion tags had been removed. (They still had proposed deletion tags on them because the tags had been reverted or re-added.) In accordance with the policy on contested proposed deletions, these articles are no longer eligible for proposed deletion. Spacepotato 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And thar's of course where the Prod page is contradictory. Editor X is not supposed to remove the Prod without commentary and/or improvements to the article, but even if Editor X does remove it incorrectly (but without vandalism), editor Y is not supposed to reinsert it... One wonders why the sentence "Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion." is added in the first place, if it can't be acted upon anyway. Oh well, I'll perhaps AfD the two articles in question. Thanks for explaining, and please don't take my questioning these two removals as criticism of your general work in checking prods. Many prods are about non notable subjects, but there are enough legitimate subjects which get prodded as well of course. Fram 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
I find it an annoyance that you blocked me in relation to the Baines Sixth Form article. It is as notable as that of Blackpool Sixth Form which is a neighboring college. I request you understand that the Sixth Form Centre is a separate entity to Baines School. I also suggest you research more carefully so that you do not just delete information for no reason. I could have been warned for an error. I will also be reporting you to wikipedia for not using your administrative powers in the correct way.
 * This user, User:Krissyboom 179, has since been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account by another uninvolved admin... Fram 20:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Merho EL section name
I do see the point, but recall specifically reading (somewhere, couldn't find it now in the jungle of MOS guidelines) that the heading should always be plural, even when just one link. Or has it been scrapped from the guidelines? <font size="-1">M <font size="-3" >URGH <font size="-5">disc.  15:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And I thought I had seen the opposite (if one link or source, use source / link), and can't find it either :-) I do have an example of a similar use [], but my example may be equally wrong of course. I'll not revert you if you change it back, it's not that important anyway. Fram 15:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're a gentleman. But it's weird that all mention is gone/extremely difficult to find. This diff —> is the best I can do as followed up here: Wikipedia talk:External links. <font size="-1">M <font size="-3" >URGH <font size="-5">disc.  18:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Marvano
Hi. Can you give me some references for that change to Belgian? I know he was born in Belgium, as stated in the article, but the reference makes it clear that he almost exclusively seems to work in the Netherlands. Cheers MadMaxDog 07:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, he works in Dutch, but that's the language of both the Netherlands and the northern half of Belgium. He is a Belgian, lives in Belgium, and has worked certainly as much (if not more) for Belgian publishers as for Dutch ones: he has been the editor-in-chief of Robbedoes, the Belgian Dutch language translation of the magazine Spirou (magazine), and he has lead the Antwerp based editor Den Gulden Engel, and his comics appear at Dupuis and Lombard, both Belgian. The Dutch Wikipedia page lists him as a Belgian, Flemish artist. nl:Marvano. Fram 20:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why was my article deleted?
My article "Seitou Ryu Karate" was deleted and I was not informed.

I am the head instructor of the club. Why was it deleted and why was I not informed in advance that this was going to happen? If someone had requested it to be deleted, what were the reasons? The article was on my watch list in case anyone tried to put false information on it so I should have been told if it was being requested for deletion.

Please let me know ASAP!


 * I notice that you were indeed not informed that your oage was Prodded on March 7th, but since it was on your watch list, you should have noticed anyway (or you wouldn't have noticed the message either). It was deleted because it did not assert notability (per WP:NOTE or if you prefer WP:CORP). It has been discussed on several Internet fora, but it doees not claim to have been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources (for a definition of reliable sources, see WP:ATT). Please do also read WP:OWN (it is not "your" article) and WP:COI: creating or editing a page about a subject you have a personal interest in, like in this case, is in general not a good idea. Fram 06:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Obtree. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Metazargo 09:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You put the article back. Now it would be nice of you, or the users User:Drakeja, or User:JonHarder, to tell me which part of the article seems to be an ad and where the missing notability is. The online instruction does not really help. Thanks. See also Talk:List_of_content_management_systems
 * Well, where is the notability? The only outside source given is, which calls it a smallish and struggling company (Obtree the company that is), and says next to nothing about the product. We need published independent reliable secondary sources discussing this product in depth to establish notability (see the primary criterion of WP:CORP). And then all claims about the product should be sourced to those sources. As for the advertisement: stating without sources that a product is or has "high performance", "tight integration", "easy to manage", "full-featured", "significant market-shares" is advertising. This article could be a press release from the company, but can hardly be called a neutral, objective, sourced article presenting both advantages and disadvantages as noted by secondary sources. Fram 13:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

28/03/07: I did't understand any of that. Can you explain it in simple english without all the complex jargon as it confused the heck out of me. RichardGregory 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to show that the product is often discussed in serious publications. It is not enough that it exists and that it has many versions and customers. A new Windows release is discussed in many magazines and newspapers. Does something similar happen for Obtree? Fram 05:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Change in Template:DRV top
Just a heads-up that I made a small change in the DRV top (or drt) template: the level 4 header, with a (closed) marker, is now part of the template. So any discussion can now be closed by simply replacing the four equal signs on each side of the title into the the template text:  ==== [[Title]] ====  is changed to  Title  which turns into

Title (closed)
Hope that makes closures a bit easier. Comments and questions please here. Take care, trialsanderrors 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)