User talk:S Marshall/Archive7

Bastille Day
I noticed your message on WP:NODRAMA mentioning that you intend to work on translating some articles from fr-wiki. Just FYI, if you think there are any that you can have well-referenced and stuff by July 14, we could probably ram some through DYK quickly for Bastille Day. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's a good thought. Finding a well-referenced article in fr.wiki to translate, though, is usually a significant challenge...— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  02:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, yep, I know what you mean. It's usually about 10% "translating" and 90% "researching and rewriting". r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on merger of Bristol Indymedia with Independent Media Center
User:Simon Dodd has requested comment on the proposed merger. You are being informed as you participated in the recent AfD discussion. Discussion at Talk:Bristol Indymedia Jezhotwells (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Question
I think we watchlist a number of common pages and I had a question about your edit summaries. Whenever I see an edit of yours on my watchlist it is like

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion‎ (diff; hist). . (+3) . . S Marshall (talk | contribs | block) (Fix) [rollback]

now most of the time when I see an edit it is like

Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion‎ (diff; hist). . (+341) . . Gonzonoir (talk | contribs | block) (→The Claret Run: Doesn't look in the least bit notable to me) [rollback]

this is useful because the little arrow before "The Claret Run" is a link to the exact thread he was commenting in. I was wondering if you had maybe turned off your automatic edit summaries somehow, since it is a bit hard to follow things when I don't know what is the last active thread on a page. Best.  MBisanz  talk 13:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi MBisanz I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't understand exactly what you mean?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  15:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When you click "edit this section" you get an automatic edit summary "starter", most users leave this in, and add their edit summary just after it. You seem to replace the "starter" (which looks like /*Question*/) with your summary. The starter provides a link to the section you edited, which users find useful. It won't add this starter unless you click "edit section" (i.e. you don't get a starter when you click "edit this page" at the top"). I think that's what was being referred to anyway. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I tend to click "Edit this page" at the top.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, ok, no problem then, that is just a personal preference. Feel free to forget I wandered in.  MBisanz  talk 16:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Golden Bough
A good and thought-provoking question you gave at RfA (Tedder) I thought.Peter Damian (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Not everyone agreed. :)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus continued....
I haven't forgotten our discussion - I was just busy refereeing a fiddly and fraught dispute. I think we are actually broadly in agreement provided that comments can be discounted based on valid commentary by others within the debate so "Delete: article makes me think about cheese" can be ignored provided "But that argument falls foul of WP:CHEESE stating that Wikipedia articles should induce cheese-based ponderances" also appears. I think, however, that we would still fall down on the concept of "validity", because the admin's judgement call would involve making a judgement to discard one opinion over another. On another, related topic: do you think an admin should read an article in advance of closing its AfD? This was a discussion I was having the other week, and I don't think we should in general, as it would encourage us to come to an opinion... Fritzpoll (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, what a lovely dispute. That's a beauty! Given contributions by good-faith editors, it shouldn't be necessary for the admin to read the article in order to decide; but I'm afraid that a substantial number of contributions to AfD are not made in good faith, which means the closer needs to know what the article says.  ("Keep, meets WP:N" might be a perfectly valid !vote with normal weight for some articles, but for others, said !vote might need to be disregarded entirely, and that's a decision the closer can only make with a clear knowledge of what the article says.) I'd also say that when in doubt, I think the closer should also investigate the article's history.  It's much too easy for a misguided or bad faith editor to delete references and sources during the AfD, which could cause the closer to mistakenly disregard certain !votes. The whole issue of disregarding !votes is a bit of a minefield, and I'm concerned that it's a great deal too prevalent among long-term admins, who have an unfortunate tendency to grow cynical about newer editors and loose track of WP:AGF.  Personally, I've certainly noticed that my remarks receive more weight as my name becomes more known, and I think that's a bit worrying.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  09:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree that there is a tendency to disregard votes too readily, and particularly those by good-faith but newer editors. I am, naturally, in no position to judge myself in this regard, which is why I am almost always happy with the DRV process (the exception being when I am not asked to change my mind first - I have done so on at least to occasions.  I was also once not notified about a DRV at all!)  since admins are janitors, and janitors are only human beings.  All I can hope is that I do my best.  Your comments on this subject are broadly in agreement with my own, I feel - which is surprising given that your views have clearly been misrepresented to such a degree that I expected a blazing and all-consuming row!  The struggle, as ever, is the implementation.  The one message, as ever, is that there aren't any, and shouldn't be any, hard-and-fast rules for this.  Our problem is that the principles are inconsistently applied, with admins ranging from vote counters to analysers, and all the shades of grey in between.  The strength of the consensus system is also its weakness when it comes to implementation. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that our views are compatible, and I think it's the emphasis we place on them that differs. Personally, I'm very clear on the admin's ministerial role as a clerk to the consensus, and I'm leery of closes against consensus.  I'll virtually always !vote to overturn those at DRV. As a very, very rough heuristic, I tend to think there's a clear consensus at AfD at between 65% and 75% of the headcount net of disregarded or low-weight !votes.  I'll generally be looking for a closure as "no consensus" if these things are not achieved. At DRV, I'm usually looking for a good closure summary.  I think the main purpose of a closure summary is to take the bite out of a close, but it's also to explain and, where controversial, justify, the closer's decision.  Specifically, if !votes have been disregarded, I'm looking for a mention of that fact (e.g.: "I did not give all the opinions expressed in this discussion equal weight, because I found that some users had not considered the sources thoroughly.")  I think that if the closer hasn't bothered to provide a decent summary, it's a reasonable assumption that they didn't take much time over it.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  11:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh - I've received criticism for my closing statements from several people including non-admins, because I rarely close without them if there is even a single dissenting voice. Apparently, it leaves my closes open for attack by others to pick over my words and find a reason for me being biased. I have continued regardless, and it's nice to know that someone appreciates them.  Whether they're good or not is another matter.... I will probably be more careful on closing going forward from this conversation - I doubt it will make much difference to the closes themselves, but may make some differences on the margins, and I expect my "no consensus" closure rate to rise somewhat.  Unfortunately, and inevitably, that probably means you'll see more of my closes at DRV, but you have only yourself to blame. :) Fritzpoll (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for listening. I think a "no consensus" close is hard to censure at DRV if there's genuine doubt, so you'll have at least one "endorse".  :)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the conversation - it was most stimulating. Hope to work with you in the future. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Dunkirk
Hi S marshall, I am going to direct you to the talk page of the article in question where I have posed a concern about the direction in which the article is going. My main concern is that the use of extensive quotes is problematic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

WP:NODRAMA reminder
Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 21:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal
As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX   ₪  04:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My talk page
In the past, you have raised a concern about my talk page "wizard" system. I have changed this to an FAQ-based system (User talk:Stifle/FAQs), and would appreciate your feedback at User talk:Stifle/FAQs/feedback or elsewhere. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously
Is there cause to panic ? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, the sky isn't falling.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary states indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:


 * T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
 * WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
 * WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
 * WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
 * WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 02:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You were talking about academics and CSD-A7 the other day...
Lorraine Foster → here's another example, which was deleted via A7 and recreated (in which I contested the speedy). MuZemike 05:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MZM; it's nice to see my points so clearly illustrated!— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  08:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Lift vector
Hi S Marshall. I send you my best wishes, all the way from Australia.

On 30 July I nominated Lift vector for deletion. You added to the deletion debate. I responded by deleting part of your addition, and by adding my own postscript. You responded by restoring that which I deleted. Your edit summary invoked the assumption of good faith (thank you for that) and stated that my deletion may have been made accidentally.

I am writing to explain why I deleted what I did, and to assure you that it wasn’t accidental. It was done deliberately and carefully.

Your contribution began: "Without wanting to be unkind, Dolphin51, AfD's the wrong place for this. I think it's blindingly obvious that …"

Firstly, our contributions to deletion debates should be written for an audience consisting of all Wikipedians with an interest in the subject, and possibly for the administrator who will eventually arbitrate on the fate of the nominated article. Positive comments directed at an individual User are sometimes seen in deletion debates. (e.g. “Good point User:X. Your argument has convinced me.”)  However, deletion debates are visible to a very wide audience and they should not be used to direct a comment to an individual User if there is the slightest possibility that the comment could cause offence or discourage a User from further participation. If it is necessary that a potentially-negative comment be directed at an individual, the relative privacy of that individual’s User talk page must be used. Your comment, quoted above, was directed explicitly at only one User – the User named Dolphin51.

Secondly, your words quoted above are, in my opinion, an example of condescending language. At WP:Civility and a number of other Wiki pages, standards of appropriate, civil behaviour are described. Those standards talk about positive behaviour towards other Users, not biting newbies, and avoiding criticism of individuals and the action of individuals. There is nothing on any of these pages to encourage Users to practice behaviour which makes them feel superior, but I could find nothing to explicitly alert Users to the offence of condescension. Consequently, on 2 August I amended WP:Civility to explicitly comment on condescending language.

For both the above reasons, parts of your contribution to the deletion debate were, in my opinion, inappropriate. They were particularly inappropriate because they targeted me deliberately and explicitly. (Those parts should have been posted on my User talk page.) Because your condescending words were directed at me explicitly and on a much-visited page on Wikipedia I was entitled to remove them. However, I don’t engage in edit wars so even though you have restored the words I don’t intend to remove them a second time.

Whether I was actually offended by your comments, or whether I will be de-motivated from participating in Wikipedia to the best of my ability, are irrelevant. You may have made the assumption that Dolphin51 was a sufficiently robust character that he would not be offended, or would not be de-motivated from participating further in Wikipedia, but that would be an inappropriate assumption. We know little or nothing about the personal qualities of different Users so we must always make the safest assumption, and that is to assume that the User to whom we are writing is sensitive and easily offended. (As you know, the Wikipedia community includes people from every race, every culture, every age, and all genders.) I cannot think of a comment that can be made in negative language that cannot also be made in positive language. For example Your recent contribution was garbage so I trashed it can also be said as ''Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent contribution did not meet Wikipedia’s high standards and it has been deleted. However, you are welcome to restore it if you re-write it in a way that is compatible with WP:Article development. Please contact me on my User talk page if you want further assistance. I will be happy to help.''

I also removed some of your text that was, in my opinion, superfluous.

shouldn’t be a redlink on Wikipedia. I found this information useful. However, becoming a redlink is only one outcome of a deletion debate – merge and re-direct are options that don’t involve redlinking.

completely clear - no different to clear

and in this case, it clearly should. Not clearly. In your opinion it should.

After I finished my deletions I think your contribution was concise and fully effective. After you restored my deletions your contribution was again condescending and prolix. Your restorations added nothing to the technical content of your message, but did add to the huff and puff. Other Users are likely to read your contribution and think That S Marshall thinks himself superior. (I doubt S Marshall thinks himself superior, so it is best that his writing doesn't convey that misleading impression.)

Finally, the way ahead.
 * Be aware of the entity called condescension or condescending language. Please strive to avoid using condescending language on Wikipedia.
 * Be aware of the extraordinary diversity of cultural backgrounds among Wikipedia Users. Please strive to avoid embarrassing or de-motivating Users, most of whom don’t have your experience and toughness.  Make use of User talk pages to address individuals, especially where there is the risk of sensitivity.

I have written all the above in the knowledge that Wikipedia will be the better for it. My intention is education, not retribution. I don't intend that this essay should cause you any long-term embarrassment - feel free to remove all of it after you have digested it.

Very best regards, Dolphin51 (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't worry about embarrassing me, Dolphin51. I don't embarrass easily! I chose my words with all due forethought, and their emphatic nature was deliberate.  I want to respond to you with several points. First: on debate pages, it is never acceptable for you to edit someone else's words in such a way as to change their meaning or emphasis.  You can reply, but you do not get to edit what someone else has said.  (Very occasionally a remark is made that needs to be deleted from Wikipedia entirely, but that's always a matter for admins or for WP:OVERSIGHT.  If in doubt, alert an admin.) Second: I began with "Without wanting to be unkind" to try to take any potential sting out of my words.  I obviously did not succeed, but the fact is that sometimes matters are brought to AfD that do not comply with WP:BEFORE.  They need to be dismissed promptly and the user encouraged to pay more attention to WP:BEFORE in future. Third: I used strong phrases like "completely clear" and "clearly should" because the matter really is cut and dried.  This is not "my opinion", I'm afraid; it's an objective assessment of Wikipedia's basic policies and guidelines, based on a long series of AfD precedents. Fourth: The sole purpose of AfD is to decide if an article title should be a redlink on Wikipedia.  Per WP:BEFORE, if it should be a bluelink, AfD is not the right place for it.  Again, that's fact and not opinion.  I do realise that "merge", "redirect", "userfy" etc. are common outcomes of AfD debates, which leads some users inexperienced with AfD to think these things a part of its purpose. Fifth: My contribution was intended to inform and educate all those who read it.  Had the error involved been a rare one, I might have contacted you on your talk page, but this was a relatively frequent one.  Replying in private would rather defeat the purpose of a centralised discussion. I hope this clears everything up, but if there's anything you still don't understand, feel free to ask me.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  08:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi S Marshall. Thank you for your prompt, thoughtful and courteous reply.

I would like to see stronger acknowledgement that you might do things differently in future, and I will challenge your fifth point, but apart from those two things I accept what you have said. You have written that you don't embarrass easily. Please be aware that this is not a universal quality among Wikipedia Users. We are a remarkably diverse group.

I would like to comment on your first four points.

First: I agree that it is never acceptable to edit someone else's words in such a way as to change their meaning or emphasis. I concede that by deleting the words I have described above as superfluous I was changing your emphasis. I apologise for that, and I won’t do it again. I also concede that by deleting your words shouldn’t be a redlink on Wikipedia I was changing your meaning. I apologise for that, and I won’t do it again.

Your words ''Without wanting to be unkind, Dolphin51, AfD's the wrong place for this. I think it's blindingly obvious that'' provide neither meaning nor emphasis. They are inappropriate in a deletion debate. I am unable to apologise for deleting them. I find these words offensive. If there is a rule that prohibits a User from deleting words that are personally offensive, and target that User directly and explicitly in a deletion debate, then I invoke the principle of WP:Ignore all rules to defend my action. WP:IAR states If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. I believe your words were unnecessary and offensive, and by deleting them I improved Wikipedia.

The principle of being civil to all other Users is not a rule. It is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. (We are even exhorted to be civil to Wikipedia vandals.) I believe the principle of WP:IAR cannot be invoked to justify incivility. I believe condescending language, particularly on a much-visited page, is an example of incivility and cannot be excused by invoking WP:IAR. Please see my recent addition to WP:Civility.

Second: Without wanting to be unkind. Thank you for trying to take the sting out of this one. Condescension can be a puzzling thing, and avoiding it can be elusive. For example, when someone begins a sentence With all due respect, you can be fairly confident that what comes next will be disrespectful! Far better for that someone to completely re-word what they have to say to genuinely avoid disrespect than try to obscure the disrespect by using a disclaimer as an opening to the sentence.

Third: I concede this one.

Fourth: I sense you hold the view that nominating for deletion something that could be dealt with differently is wrong. I sense you don’t see various options, some better than others, with various Wikipedia Users doing different things, some optimally, some sub-optimally, some learning by trial and error. Perhaps you see right and wrong, and nothing else. Your response begs the question What punishment should be imposed on a User who does something wrong? Should that User be named and shamed? Probably not. This is Wikipedia and people participate as a hobby! It is not a commercial undertaking with billions of pounds at risk, nor a military campaign with hundreds of lives in harm’s way.

Fifth: Trying this defence was a risky strategy and I’m afraid it hasn’t worked. You have written My contribution was intended to inform and educate all those who read it. At first glance this looks like a laudable intention. However, remember that the sentence in question is directed at Dolphin51. Remember that my User name is there, explicitly, right in the middle of the sentence. You cannot successfully claim the offending sentence is aimed at all those who read it. It is aimed solely at Dolphin51. It says so. Other readers will see the User name Dolphin51 and not infer that your words are a general truth aimed at all who visit the page.

Fortunately, there is a clear and simple way ahead.
 * I humbly concede that deleting the words I described as superfluous was unnecessary and inappropriate. I have no objection to those words remaining.
 * Your opening words are the only ones in dispute. They were intended to draw my attention to a problem in my nomination of Lift vector, and to alert me to the existence of WP:BEFORE, which I should have read.  I have now read it, and I am wiser for doing so.  Those words have now served their purpose.  They are no longer required.  If you delete the offending words I will thank you for your understanding, and have nothing further to say on the matter.  Remember that once a deletion debate has been finalised, the record of the debate is frozen and remains visible to all Wikipedia Users forever.

My best regards, Dolphin51 (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I remain convinced that my words were not inappropriate. But I think it behoves me to make a concession here, and I have rewritten the comment accordingly.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello S Marshall! Thank you for your understanding.   I appreciate your action in editing your comment in response to my request.


 * I think we have resolved this disagreement very well. We avoided an edit war and remained cordial at all times.  This debate has now reached its conclusion and I will have no objection if you choose to erase it from your Talk page.


 * I hope to meet you again in Wikipedia some time soon.


 * Happy editing! Dolphin51 (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted offending material as requested User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)
Have deleted offending material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to User:Spartaz|Spartaz] re deletion User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers? page

DRV & MFD

 * Wikipedia cannot host any material that contains unsubstantiated allegations against living people. For this reason I have closed the DRV and the MFD (deleting your page) as the only way to remove the offending revisions is to delete the pages. Please do not repost any allegation suggesting that any person has acted unlawfully or inappropriately without obtaining multiple impeccable sources to substantiate this. If you do not mind my saying, I honestly do not think that this subject matter is suitable for a Wikipedia page, and, if you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, you would find it more productive to engage on a different subject. Spartaz Humbug! 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to User:Spartaz|Spartaz] re deletion User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers? page

I note that the it appears that the Australian Weekend News has decided to host the Triumph of Truth(Who's Watching The Watchers?) page and discussions on one their Investigative News web page instead, this is the link for your and our Wikipedian Editors involved in the deletion of Triumph of Truth(Who's Watching The Watchers?) page to view if they like. http://australianweekendnews.info/InvestigativeNews.html I suppose along with millions of other interest readers around the world, to decide for themselves the rights and wrongs of all this. It is out of my hands now. I am no longer interested in this Wikipedia Web Page matter, I have spend too much time on it already. I look forward to working on other articles in Wikipedia in the future.This is the many thanks. PenrightPenright (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted, but I gave my reasons and an invitation to revert. cygnis insignis 17:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I understand that. My position is that the people who're entitled to remove content from my talk page are (1) me, and (2) oversighters or officers of the Wikimedia Foundation.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Record of my WMF Trustees vote
SPID:      2291 -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

hQIOAyJFW7mPGxLhEAf7B3q2EizLBD5KuCEyXy9hhCpvgSB+KoVoeVJOJjZUJo3y 0olGWCy0IK9qJNhTqi7Te03MjCfTr1RlH3xBcF7kIR9p8atbgbl0fQCgftUx8KLL /QqRrI4oTgFutXYgyXREJsWfbHdaei0xkr5niEkDNOKky+DtKXCc1oRom+e/KQCH 8k/1Ts2LCoui3ay0R538nZdOg592Afinj+WSMHb6RX79sztIhBNU9oGVX4HFZaWX TywSEP4x8oZ5Z1E1xcaa30SYO3aycuP0JIqCZ02fj+SZHPZVdRtDkUC1Aeml8x3s 0RBoiifsaqX+kn1qmILLB8z0ZCzzQMSTtnzvyFcbGwgAmSzV2XsdzQ9WNiLAlIBG fhkzMOJx0wVQpwlEDTYTsBigfxf9BHpfN+NOgHAFGAtW2PMT64rVFydwY2rcIoGZ K6yQ7o3e/nS5rSDpFWMOs39jl6Tc3de3zaigpy60bx4lXkArheGtqcjdyMFNofOj WGtslnbonFln8z9FsYYx3LCXimz9cZfVtBIP1AyVPp9cIjRpN7yyHGoVeLYiF5yy K9IUDpZLDQSr6W5MMaiUaNX2ypOCwV4wqz+k9qM+gkosgLRSnC0BWl6CrMw82e7E KyRva7yvddEAuONX6G//YP9z3e18YurR0W6zD5RScPBqWd/fRcpaAXUc7OuomKmd dNLpATdnvdah3xbDtavn/0Ilg7KlqKzUnxPaOpBZKNAH5xe6KOubqwJ2+N9c43W3 iQm36VAjs4RLutkT267UDhhelDaI2p4VEvf6DHgujpD9M3aODaYcb0qytuNTJVDs u44TYbjKkAavd7bxowcKb5m/SwyLHHPumqMOMgBt1aNLxFtdFdair0gRBQ1Bzz39 NzofmDlwjpyIdRN5y1RUIR6oCnxkVnBIH7sPrhPXGhUnXXVC+OYksEdA5v/rGxV+ VH7AUuXRGo5eMS3U+EZwfNLGFrWl19wIvy1cg7GDdOoDUoSgaSgC3etkbGyOrBKg EYnUc9oC2sY4Fc4xmjJEuDxfr1/2j50gS4FwRyXHrN1v/le4a+7hBu96CwABML8u Lm5FG6uEoi7Da3Cx7jQpE4YOGjPy2omt19xFBGyUiTdUoLlRmfvczkesfFGhwKMB wTM4s3v3cQIbo2rmTP6fmQPGczVPtdo1tDeU8sZLhkvp+2LK+3wUGDgD23WUzYAQ 5ttMsHV5fXyPePao0ywtHfRJl0adJu7JNuJxJIiXLwXHYF6xKAgyNssuqNTRPg40 OLqdvNByqJmv5xZoAD+gjKCFQHDChAqk6hB1b8qFYNgU5E/FhrG7nPnD0gfGqn6V 2Kgl0xv/3S1ZyRJ3k/mg74UF/iUjiaSZuXSN3nerEfjHfOi2CDhYkF4lGAPrEwID YpRlsqVEwAd/2fcxQ+Fph6prBCu+7RX6fYG0PZyq6UXZN3/rTSZneALiN5/0pwGU /KIAg/fdm+ALqz8qk+jnT8VinlIA+ZCcgKhw/TYGQQw87+1miLolhc8IRECS/tat kRQt9sMXvJRrNOtRTAZWAobMDRzZ1Y8qn2yMlPGBL9W80Bg1E1tXu6JrNAYrStmK qscrUzFd3BLTycM4ihqtxpxIfvrD3qu0qiE= =325t -END PGP MESSAGE-