User talk:Marskell/Archive 6

Habitable planets FAC

Hi Marskell. Sorry it took me so long to strike out my concerns, but I've been on holiday. There's no need to overload the article with cruft of any kind, but a short paragraph might not hurt, and an external link to the memory alpha article. Proto t c 11:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust revert

Thanks for your note. I've returned the original wording, for the reason stated. The article is already 70K long, over twice the recommended length, so it doesn't need additional trivia added, when the section is not about how Eichmann got to trial, but the fact that he was tried. In addition, the insertion was obviously made by an Eichmann supporter - the excessive level of detail, combined with the scare quotes, was an intentional POVing, and we certainly don't need that. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim. Thanks again for your response. Please keep in mind, if I hadn't thought it "dis-improved", I wouldn't have removed it. Focus is extremely important for all articles, but particularly for very long ones. 6 unnecessary words in a 70k article is 6 words too many. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Europeans

I agree that the list is absurdly broad, and just as useless as just about every other list on Wikipedia. I really don't like lists. But, I don't agree with what I see as a campaign to disparage one list under contention by the nomination of a statistically improbable number of other comparable lists, within two days, by Delete voters of the original list under contention.

I will, however, in this case, assume good faith and withdraw my Keep vote and abstain. I plan on sticking around on Wikipedia for a long time, so I hope that this disagreement can be put in the perspective of a disagreement. I hope we cross paths again and I look forward to amicable and productive partnerships. --Elliskev 01:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message on my talk page - you make a good point. I'll examine whether my responses to all lists related to ethnicity/religion/nationality are in themselves WP:POINT. But, timing is everything, or so I've heard - to be just a little trite. --Elliskev 20:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks for your support. I've now been made an administrator. I'll do my best not to let you down :) --Sherool (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closure

Hi, I've been seeing you around closing various AfD discussions and I realized that you were makig some mistakes.

You've been adding {{vt}} and {{vb}} to close the discussions. The new method is to use {{at}} and {{ab}} to do so.
When adding the result of the debate to the article's talk page you can use {{oldafdfull}} which you can write as:

{{oldafdfull|date=<date of nomination>|result=<result of debate>}}

Also, check out Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_Deletion_page --Shreshth91 13:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that VfD has been renamed to AfD, correspondingly all the templates have also changed. Though they may not create different templates, it is generally considered better to use the new templates. Also, your messages on the talk pages are definitely wrong as they do not contain the date for the nomination.--Shreshth91 13:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary habitability

Congratulations; I'm glad to see it made it. It's not easy writing a featured article; good job! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congratulations me, congratulations you. Give yourself a barnstar, and say it's from me ;) And I'd make planetary habitability in fiction a redirect, but nobody would ever type all that in, surely. All the best, Proto t c 09:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Madrid was nice, but it rained every day, except, of course, the day I left. Y as is frio. Mierda! (nb - I'm sure I've spelt that wrong) Proto t c 10:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken Wiki [reply on my talk page] Mrdallaway 18:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ianblair23's RfA

G'day Marskell,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It closed with the final tally of 57/0/0. I can only hope I can live up to the expectations that this wonderful community of ours demands from each of its administrators. If you ever need anything, please just let me know. Cheers! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

Recreated lists

Since T. Anthony had also responded on my talk page, I've replied there. -Splash^talk 17:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl

Neutral based on mixing external links and references within the body. Choose one system. The content itself I think fine having gone over it. Marskell 09:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the references where they belong and the external links where they belong. Would you like to upgrade your vote? --Hollow Wilerding 21:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?

Thanks for the kind words, never really thought about it. I'm not actually sure if the things admins can do are things I want to do, and I've no interest in being one for the sake of it. I'll have a look at what adminning actually entitles someone to do. Proto t c 14:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback (or questions) for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Thanks again. Jkelly 08:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Hi, Marskell. Just want to thank you for your support for my RfA, and for your kind words. It was very flattering to get so much support from the people who differ from me in POV. I hope I'll never let any of you down in any way. I'm a bit late thanking you, but I'm reducing my Wikipedia activity this week and next while busy in the real world, so I've only thanked a couple of people so far. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 18:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks so much for your reply on the language desk...that was more than an adequate answer for my curiousity. See you around! --HappyCamper 04:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Omnipotence paradox

Thank you for your comments on the omnipotence paradox FAC, and for holding the article to a high standard. (It makes me ask myself, could an omnipotent being create a Wikipedia article so perfect it does not permit editing? Conversely, the perfect Wikipedia article must have, among its many excellent attributes, the quality of existence.) Keep fighting the good fight. Anville 11:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection

Would you mind weighing it at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy and offering any thoughts/concerns/questions you might have there? (Oh, and feel free to change it too). -Mys e ku rity 05:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking me to weigh in. I'm really pressed for time and can't read the new talk you've created at the moment. May I suggest: check Jimbo's talk page and sum-up what user Ptb (I think it was) and I deduced regarding GWB vandalism %. Also, I've suggested a couple of times in a couple of places, that the page move restrictions seems the obvious template for semi-protection. If perhaps you'd like to start a poll (evil!) with that as the basis, vote on my behalf and let me know and I'll note it later. When I have real wiki-time I'll read back through this stuff. Marskell 20:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I hope you come back soon, as I look foreward to working with you on this. I don't know about polls, and I'm not exactly sure what to write on Jimbo's page, but I'd be happy to do so if I did. Thanks and see you 'round, Mys e ku rity 21:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Halibutt's RfA

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibu tt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi,

Thanks for voting to support my RfA. I wasn't expecting an unopposed promotion (I thought I'd hit some die-hard edit-counters at least) and I'm touched by the trust shown in me. I'll try my best to continue to earn that trust. But first, I'll have to work on not sounding like a politician; that last sentence was awful. Oh well. Let me know when I screw something up with the shiny new buttons. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say

Thanks again for the PM; yes, merrily and somewhat against my better judgement, I am still here, though I am sticking largely to non-controversial topics. Real planets stir up passions; no one complains if an article about the Discworld is altered. I'm interested to see how the Solar System article has evolved! Some really good additions. Curious; the English language version is now far more informative than the French version; how is it that the French version has been featured but the English has not? Serendipodous 13:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA for TheParanoidOne

Hello Marskell. Thanks for the vote of confidence in my RFA. I have now officially received the badge, so I shall try my best to be a good administrator. Thanks again. --TheParanoidOne 19:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bundle :-)

Hey Marskell/Archive 6! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (57/4/3), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, have a question, or just want to chat (or if I get out of line!), please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D

Tom e r ^talk

Info

This may be interesting for you. Alx-pl D 20:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you need to provide an evidence that you tried to resolve a dispute with Molobo and failed. Alx-pl D 08:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RFA

Thanks, Marskell, for supporting my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to help make the dream of Wikipedia into a reality! BD2412 T 21:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alkhemi and Aladin

Hi, back in October05 you participated in the deletion-discussion about a company called Alkhemi ([1]), which was subsequently deleted with your vote. Now the same deletion question is posed for another article about the man behind Alkhemi, a magician who calls himself Aladin. Despite being a truly bad article (extremely biased, outrages claims are made, and the sources used to back up those claims consist largely out of tiny newspaper snippets that are blown up out of proportion to make the subject sound like the second coming of the christ), the vote is so far flooded with "keep" votes, which might be because of dozens of sockpuppets, so I'd like to invite you to add your vote about this matter to tip the balance. The vote is here. Thank you :-) Peter S. 21:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plague of Athens

I admit to having a strong adversion to action oriented templates on articles, including clean up tags. They strike me as simple laziness, I'm afraid. And that, of course, may not apply in this case. As you placed such a tag on the Plague of Athens article, please use the talk page to list your concerns, questions and issues. Then, together, we can make an effort to address them. Thank you. WBardwin 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore7

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theodore7. Cheers, —Ruud 20:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for keeping calmer than me

just want to thank you for making a more coolheaded argument than me. I'm only 16 and am not used to dealing with such difficult arguments. Thanks.--Urthogie 08:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already posted it on the request for comment. If they won't accept the validity of our arguments here, and we come to a stalemate, I may pursue alternative methods of conflict resolution.--Urthogie 09:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there.

I'm going to just say it now. I don't get the footnoting system on Planetary habitability. I think I could help, but I'm afraid to mess up the references. Since this article is "your baby", I figured you could help me. Mred64 04:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I seemed sarcastic. I didn't meant to imply you owned the article, I just felt that you would be a good person to ask, since you seemed to have greatly affected it and if I'm reading the history right, you created it. I was wondering, though, what determines the order of entries in the references? Is it alpha by author, by work, or is it in the order each reference appears in the article? Mred64 20:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Schiavo

I am just working on the opening paragraph. The current stinks because it bogs down in the medical details. Why is this story notable? It is because of the political struggle. Her medical state should be briefly noted and then the size of the political struggle should be weighed. This is not a big change. It is just the lead section. Give me an hour with it. -- Pinktulip 07:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See? My changes are still there. The reason is simple: My lead section does not waste the reader's time with details. Emphasis is on why the story is notable in the first place. -- Pinktulip 10:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten, for a moment, about Muse. I had previously read that she had strong feelings about the story. I am now in communication with her. -- Pinktulip 14:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, Marskell, and Happy New Year to you, too. Welcome back, also, as I noticed you were absent for some time. I have just replied to Pinktulip here. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 22:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving pages

You write: How can we unequivocally say that Islam forbids terrorism in its entirety, given that modern terrorism post-dates Islam and that there is a great deal of ambiguity surrounding justified killing within the faith?

Justified killing and terrorism are not the same thing. The Koran explicitly forbids the taking of innocent lives and this is widely, although not universally, taken to forbid terrorism.

Why does calling certain terrorism Islamic necessarily constitute a smear on the religion itself?

Because it strongly implies that the terrorism is Islamic or is based on the religion of Islam. "Terrorism by Islamic extremists" is much more accurate and is probably why you often see it used in gov't documents. If terrorism is forbidden (see my previous remark) then referring to "Islamic terrorism" is like talking about "Islamic pork-eating". Sure, not every Muslim would be bothered or would see it that way but some would be and it is an important and useful distinction. Like I said on the talk page. Noone has given any reason why the page would be improved by moving it to "Islamic terrorism" and there are good reasons to maintain the status quo.

How does Islamism as a political force seeking to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life constitute a differentiation from Islam?

Again, it's a movement within Islam or that refers to Islam in its ideology. Islam is the whole ball of wax. When we're talking about Islamist activities, this subset of the Islamic world, why can't we be careful and specific?

But this really is my last word. If it's not convincing it's not convincing. --Lee Hunter 20:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Well I plan on having both, definitely. I hate when Wikipedia is turned into a place for people to test the neutrality of their obviously opinionated ideas. If you look halfway through the discussion, you'll see I gave up on arguing for truth, as it obviously just enflamed the discussion-- this whole thing taught me a lot about life in general-- when theres a conflict, keep simple and direct.--Urthogie 21:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V7ndotcom Elursrebmem Deletion

Hi, I noticed you voted to on the abovementioned article. Initialy I wanted to keep it, but when I compared it to Nigritude ultramarine and Seraphim proudleduck it seems obvious that all theese articles are repating the same info:

It's a search contest
It has begin/end dates
It has a prize
It uses a unique phrase that is not used before

I'd like to urge you to change your vote to Redirect to SEO Contest where I have created already made a copy of the article. This way they dont have "their own article" but they are mentioned in the encyclopedia. Seems like a compromise to me. Right now w/ all the Delete, Keep, And Redirect votes it will be hard to reach a compromise.This user has left wikipedia 22:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary Habitability

Hey Marskell. Noticed the featured article on the main page - isn't it satisfying? :) Congrats again. Proto t c 08:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted also to congratulate you on finally getting your article on the main page! Well done! It's been a long wait! Serendipodous 12:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hab planets; Gaia

OK, Done. Thanks for creating the "General reading" section, btw. --Mareino 18:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might interest you

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19362 Major Scientific Discovery on Extrasolar Planets The scientific journal NATURE will publish in its issue dated 26 January 2006, a major paper on a discovery addressing extra-solar planets. The European Southern Observatory ESO contributed to this publication and has produced a Video News Release featuring new 3-D graphics, background footage and interview soundbites. As for all NATURE papers, this release is strictly embargoed until 25 January 2006, at 18:00 GMT. On 25 January at 17:30 GMT, the script for this TV Exchange will be posted as a PDF file under http://television.esa.int/photos/EbS44312.pdf Also a pre-view video clip will be online on the ESA TV Website as of that time.

From what i heard-probably first planet with Earthlike mass. --Molobo 02:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary Habitability could use a fragment on pros and cons of exomoons being able to support life btw. --Molobo 02:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo: I'm relieved to see your interest shift towards spheres where potential political or national bias is less likely to be a disruptive factor. What a good thing this wasn't by Copernicus! :) --Thorsten1 16:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK; time for me to face the music...

Truthfully, my knowledge of biochemistry is not anwhere near complete enough to accurately describe the point I was making. Perhaps that line should be removed. Serendipodous 11:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 12:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proposed intro

I'm afraid I have a lot of issues with that intro, actually, but the time will come to deal with that. Well done on getting something started, in any case. I won't really have time to contribute to any great degree until around the 12th February, but I may make comments now and again - hopefully helpful ones! Palmiro | Talk 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administry

Thanks Marskell - I'm just filling it in now, and then it's good to go, but then I've got to run for a few hours, so if you would like to submit it 'properly', that would rock. Proto t c 17:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, needs submitting though! Proto t c 18:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Intro

Yes the intro can use some work. I will try to work on it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

Hi! I noticed a really cool quote by Karl Popper in your user page, How old are you if I may ask? because you sound really smart.--Cosmic girl 01:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup.

Not good! I have warned. If they do it again, I'll block and inform ArbCom. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PP thoughts

Thanks for your fast reply! I probably wouldn't have been so needled had the other entry I wrote (this time on Avida) also been separately scratched at the same time - OTOH, at least it made me find out how this is all supposed to work!

In terms of verifiability/falsifiability, PP itself does make suggestions - and indeed, it contains a full chapter in which the authors try and conceive of every objection that could be thrown at their hypothesis and then respond to them!

The connections between this book and "Rare Earth" by Ward and Brownlee are subtle - I think it was Gonzalez who conceived of various ideas that W+B use as the basis of their argument (i.e. PP isn't simply derivative). It is a "current" and "controversial affair" because a tie-in film was made which was screened at the Smithsonian - but then under pressure from darwinist community, Smithsonian withdrew their involvement.

Methodological/philosophical naturalism isn't the only possible epistemological foundation for science - although I admit it is dominant in the scientific "ruling classes" - AAAS, Scientific American, New Scientist, Nature, Smithsonian etc. This scientific approach would have come as a surprise to Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, Maxwell, etc. You are right that accepting the possibility of something "beyond" nature is controversial - but if worked through carefully, it doesn't destroy science. Of course, simply working on a "god of the gaps" basis isn't science - but then neither is "evolution did it, even though we don't know how" - or "fine tuning is just there, to one part in 10^600, even though we don't know how" - which can be where MN/PN can lead. Proponents of ID would say that they aren't invoking a "god of the gaps", but a "god in the details".

I was aware of the fact that PP as a theory isn't widely known. For myself, I think it is pretty well-founded - other people have to comment otherwise, not me - but some of the responses to it have failed to engage properly with the text (eg the review on the NCSE website). Nonetheless, knowing that the book has been written, it seems a shame to write a consideration of planetary habitability which disregards this interesting angle. How about the following:

In their controversial 2004 book "The Privileged Planet", Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards explore the strong apparent link between the habitability of a planet and its suitability for observing the rest of the universe. Their hypothesis is widely disputed because of its philosophical implications.

Sorry, this is a long reply which relates to a short item! ("Mostly harmless") Thanks again for your time, and your tolerance of a newbie!!--Exiled from GROGGS 14:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfa

thanks for your message. i had another look at proto's case, and i'm really not concerned about mongo's evidence. two things do concern me however.

it does look like proto views afd as a vote. one problem with this, beyond the consensus mantra, is that often newer voters point out useful information that older voters likely didn't notice. so, one wants to be mindful of trends in voting and the like. it's just not a vote; it requires some judgement.
i thought the response on vandal templates was non-responsive. i have decided to flat out vote no on anyone who starts with a block warning -- test3, test4, or bv, for reasons i discuss at Template talk:Blatantvandal. i can see that he might have meant he'd start with test1, but it's so ambiguous as to be non-responsive. also, it's not "fairly obvious" which one to use, because lots of people do it differently. and to me, this is one of the questions that really yields insight into a candidate's judgement and maturity.

so, i'm just not there yet. if i could be re-assured on these two points, i would support. it seems like a reasonable bit of opposition is coming on point 1, so he really ought to clarify that for everyone if he's being misunderstood. Derex 15:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reverting

Our case is being weakened by you reverting Lee every time. I'm watching the page, let me revert Lee next time so I can threaten 3rr if he keeps doing it. That way, we'll all be forced to use the talk page. Thanks,--Urthogie 19:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timecop and the GNAA

I searched Proto's contribution listings for the words "GNAA" and "Gay Nigger", and this leads me to believe he likely knew what the GNAA was and Timecop's association with it, long before a few days ago. See the links I posted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Proto. -- Curps 05:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

funny you should mention it

I'm currently submerged in the stuff myself, i.e. editing a long paper about it. So help yourself. As you have no doubt noticed, I have decided to spare myself further involvement in that issue, because I would probably have ended up in your current condition. Palmiro | Talk 12:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure thing

So many wikipedians seem to think that something being a neutral fact warrants its inclusion. If they won't use the talk page, then theyre clearly not going to get anything on a controversial page regardless. Thanks for staying on this page by the way. This is the only really controversial page I watch and I probably wouldn't without your help. Peace, --Urthogie 14:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do

Thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Regarding second line of Islamic extremist terrorism...

The sources are straight from the article. But I agree that the statement on supporters was redundant.--Pecher 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "flawed" methodology

I was using irony, but clearly not very well. I knew that "Osama" had become a popular name after 9/11. I think in fact that some editors are looking for citations to support what they believe while ignoring data that's contrary. Sometimes it gets me down and I get kind of snarky about it. Sorry, Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy

I may add it this weekend, since I think adding that as a source messes up the numbers on quite a few sources. Astronomy does have a website, but in order to look at back issues, you need to subscribe to the magazine or have bought the issue of the current month, so would it really be worth adding a link to it? Mred64 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

misleading?

I think that its not really misleading because it establishes the significance of the subject matter. Also, please note that it is verifiable. How is it misleading?--Urthogie 08:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue is that creating a word, Islamism, suggests that religion aren't political, when in fact all religions tell you how to act politically. The guys blowing themselves up are fundamentalists, not confused misinterpreters as people would have you believe. And I say this as someone who believes in the jewish faith-- I know that if its taken concretely it can be hazardous.--Urthogie 12:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

... for getting back to me. I haven't been put off - and what I have seen of wikipedia has in fact strengthened my conviction that it is worthwhile. I just have lots of other things I need to do as well (I haven't even had time to blog this week!).

Feel free to incorporate those sentences as you feel appropriate to fit them in - I trust you, and in any case I'm now happy with the "discussion/appeal" process.

Best wishes,--Exiled from GROGGS 14:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]