Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Wikipedia 1.0 — (talk) FAQ — To do

Release version tools Guide — (talk) — (stats)
Article selection process (talk) Version 0.8 bot selection Version 0.8 feedback
IRC channel (IRC)

Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Version 0.8 release (manual selection) (t)
"Selection" project (Talk) schools selection Offline WP for Indian Schools

CORE TOPICS CORE SUPPLEMENT Core topics - 1,000 (Talk) (COTF) (bot)

TORRENT (Talk)

"Selection" project for kids ((t))


WORK VIA WIKI PROJECTS (talk)


Pushing to 1.0 (talk)

Static content subcom.

Core topics discussions – Wiki sort discussions – FAs first discussions – Work via WikiProjects discussions – Pushing to 1.0 discussions

Wikiprojects and core topics

I'm thinking the subprojects for the wikiprojects and core topics might mest together more somehow. For instance, we could as the wikiprojects and similar groups to check the status of core topics, make to do lists for those articles, or encourage them to work on those articles. Maurreen 17:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! I was going to propose the same thing myself, and I think others on WVWP are also moving in that direction (please correct me if I'm wrong!). Some projects have in fact already done that in response to our contact, and some even created worklists based on their most important articles. Walkerma 17:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Part of the roadmap I proposed above is for WikiProjects to revise the Core Topics list to see if anything is glaringly missing; it is also a good idea for relevant WikiProjects to try to "adopt" a particular article from the Core list. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. Maybe I didn't understand your plan very well earlier. Maurreen 04:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, Wikipedia:Cleanup process/Cleanup sorting proposal is related to this conversation. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's a good point.

Stubs are sorted by topic also.

I have a long-term vision that a lot of maintenance and Wikipedia namespace work would essentially be run through portals or something like that. On my mental to-do list is setting up a model on the geography portal (or maybe the portal already has this) that links to the relevant section of FA, GA, FL, Wikiprojects, RFC, stub sorting, cleanup, etc. Maurreen 03:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

On a more immediately utilitarian note, the article status summary of the core topics page now has a mini tree of the articles most in need of work.

At the moment, those articles are broken into the following groups: Business, Culture, Earth, Indexical Knowledge, Leisure, Science and Math, Society and Everyday Life, and Technology and Engineering.

I could maybe start contacting the relevant groups about these.

Do you have a standard spiel that I might adapt? Maurreen 03:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I do have a message pre-made at User:Titoxd/Sandbox P that can be reworded to ask WikiProjects to check those articles and revise them if possible. Does that one help? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think for our next round of contact with the WikiProjects we need to greatly revise this wording. I propose that we request the (20) most important articles in each subject area. This should probably be asked in the sense of "since at least some of these articles will be included on our test CD we plan to release in XXXX." Ideally we should also ask for some indication of whether or not these articles are decent or not. I suspect that if any of them are not, the project may well get down to work on improving them, which is of course exactly what we want. I think on a test release we would probably only find room for 1 or 2 articles from something like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth, whereas with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music we might ask for a top 50 (in effect, a worklist). (Note, I love Tolkien, so no bias here!) For an example of the sort of dialogue I envisage (though much more succinct!) see this talk page post and this response. We need 500 lists like this one! That would give us several hundred trees to work with, a veritable forest! Walkerma 04:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps something like {{subst:User:Titoxd/Sandbox W|PAGENAMEE}} ~~~~, which would produce something like this:

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will also help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please keep updating your [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject full article list#Wikipedia:{{subst:PAGENAMEE}}|WikiProject article table]] for articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Thanks! Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ideas? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with what it looks like you guys want to do now. But if I am a minority of one, no biggie. Maurreen 03:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I took a while to respond, but things got pretty busy. I think this message is along the right lines. I don't think the mention of core topics is appropriate in every contact, most projects won't actually have anything on the core topics list. The transclusion is really neat! I think the discussion on wording of postings is specifically WVWP so I am following up on the WVWP discussion page.

Levels of core topics

I'm bad, I'm backtracking. :) My hope to bring up some things maybe you hadn't considerered. If we still disagree, I'll try to be quiet. Also, I'm hoping that I don't seem like "no, no, no" all the time.

But anyway ... I might be biased, but I'm not sure it's wise to invite wholesale revision to the main list now. That doesn't mean it can't be improved. But I have some concern that the work on the current topics could be hurt by giving a golden invitation to a mass of people at once. The list could become unsuitably unstable and possibly contentious.

One thing I've been thinking about that could have some overlap is tagging the current core articles with a template or category. That would bring more attention in general, and as people drop in, they could suggest or make changes as they see fit.

I do agree at least in principle with having Wikiprojects suggest further levels. But I think we should at least first consider how big we would want the next level to be. If it would be on the scale of about 1,000 or more, I'm estimating that WP already has a couple lists like that. So it could be better to suggest that those lists be tuned as needed.

If the next level after the current one would be closer to 500 topics, then I'd definitely like the Wikiprojects heavily involved.

But I think it would be more efficient all around to first make more progress on the core set we have now, and improving those. We could conceivably set levels of "coreness" for everything in WP, and that would be time that is not being spend on actually improving the articles.

Somewhat tangentiallly -- I think we need to be a little wary of specific commitments, given the inevitability inherenet in wikidome, volunteering, and the long duration of our project. I mean maybe this type of wording should be softened: "since at least some of these articles will be included on our test CD we plan to release in XXXX" to change "will" to maybe "are planned to be".

Tangential point No. 2 -- Even with the Wikiprojects involved in setting lists, you guys might have already thought of this, just something to keep in mind, but we would probably want to guard against an accidental Wikiproject bias (that is, being heavy or light in various areas depending on whether the areas have a Wikiproject and how much it participates.

Hope I haven't gone overboard. Thanks for listening. Happy editing! Maurreen 07:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Help improving articles on current core topics

What I was thinking of, for instance, was trying to encourage the Wikiprojects to work on the current core topics, especially the starts and stubs. Am I alone in this aspect, or did I misunderstand? Maurreen 03:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Perhaps trying to refine the wording above to make that clearer? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

You guys have more background with those groups than I do. But whatever we're going to ask them for, I have some concern that the request does not be or seem to be demanding. Just my view, but it seems like the drafts above are already asking for a lot, and I wouldn't want to pile on. (And I'm not trying to backdoor anything, but maybe my thoughts are catching up to me.)

Might it be good for us to decide the priorities for what we want from them and just ask for a little at a time?

But possibly I'm not understanding fully. Maurreen 03:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorting core topics by Wikiprojects?

Thank you. I'm going to peruse the above a little later. I only have a short time for WP at the moment. But I wanted to mention another idea -- maybe we ought to sort the core topics according to Wikiprojects (and by "Wikiprojects", I also mean to include similar groups). It seems like that would well integrate our functions and goals and help get more people involved. Maurreen 17:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree quite strongly with this idea. There is a much better way to proceed. On the core topics talk page, we have been refining a top level categorization system here that is in line with general practice in the English wikipedia, including some ideas from French Wikipedia main page categories. We are near closure on this category set refining process. I propose that we conclude that process amongst several discussants and invite wider input and then apply our refined category set (with whatever tweaks we make to it) to the top level sorting of the wikiprojects page and propose to apply it to the 1.0 project in general, with further refinements probably. Let's not interrupt the almost completed process of thinking about and refining what categories to use, based on good practices in the English and French wikipoedias. See points relating to this in the post on the Core Topics talk page. --Vir 18:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with Vir on this one. I can see the value of it, but I think our project should shape how we want to organise things. That doesn't mean we can't note the relevant WikiProject for each article, though, and record that there. Indeed I think we should note these, so that is the compromise I would recommend. There are several multiple and some weird placements of projects, too, I even left a post asking the philately project (stamp collecting) if they really thought they should be in the Humanities category rather than the Hobbies category! So let's agree on our top level organisation and take it from there.Walkerma

I don't think changing in the middle of the process would help, so just ask WikProjects to revise the existing core article list. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the core topics by wikiprojects thing nither as quite a few good articles don't belong to any and also some wikiprojects are much weaker article wise than others. I would say all core articles, all WP:GA, all WP:FA, and maybe add 2,500? articles in a vote style thing --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be, but I accept the answer. Maurreen 03:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I decided to try to clarify myself a little. I'm not saying the wikiprojects should be the sole determinant. But to use those topics as part of any categorization to some extent should at least help with meshing between the core topics page and the individual wikiprojects. Do you see where I'm coming from, is that more acceptable, to some of you at least?

P.S. about categorization in general -- If I'd had more foresight that categorization was going to become an issue at all, I could have saved us a lot of trouble way back with the original list, because most of it is based on general WP categories. I essentially started with the top few in WP and then went down a few levels. Maurreen 06:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me check if I understand correctly: you're proposing a complementary (not a replacement) listing, so there can be increased operation between WVWP and Core Topics? I think that would be useful. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, using this as a complementary system for listing the articles is definitely a good idea IMHO. Walkerma 06:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think not exactly, but that's close enough. It would accomplish the objective of the meshing, I don't know how to articulate the other idea better, and supplementary such categories would be just fine with me. Maurreen 06:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Maurreen 06:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Break

I might take a break. Have a wonderful life! Maurreen 07:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Howdy. Hope you are all doing well. I think I only needed a few days away. I got some rest and got my taxes out of the way.

In case this information is useful to anyone, this is what I plan now for my next general stages:

Medicine -- a core topic and current Medicine COTW.
Geography subproject
Core topicss
Release version qualifying

Maurreen 16:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on top-level categories

We have had a protracted debate over at Core Topics on how to organize the top level of articles (what we call the "tree-top", and discussed a huge variety of category sets. We finally came up with some options that seemed to match people's views after a lot of effort! Probably these classifications could be changed in the future if needed, but we need to have some way to organize things for the test release. In A & B, language & communication are combined with arts, in C they are separate. Please give your votes on the options by adding a bolded Support to the option you like, then sign. Note in A science and technology are combined, in B they are separated. Thanks!

Option A

Arts
Philosophy & Religion
Geography
History
Mathematics
Natural Sciences & Technology
Social Sciences
Society

Votes:

Option B

Arts
Philosophy & Religion
Everyday Life
Social Sciences & Society
Geography
History
Engineering (or Applied Sciences) & Technology
Mathematics
Natural Sciences

Votes:

Option C

Arts
Language & Communication
Philosophy & Religion
Everyday Life
Social Sciences & Society
Geography
History
Engineering (or Applied Sciences) & Technology
Mathematics
Natural Sciences

Votes:

Support Walkerma 17:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Still OK after revision. Walkerma 19:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Support AtionSong 18:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Support Vir Note: Something that was overlooked in the C list (easy to do in the mass of options) is the last version of C (in core topics talk page discussion and on the category sets page) had replaced one word, Language with Communication (which is a very broad category of media and processes very closely related to language (even including it, but including much more)--which fits well there as a major cultural sphere). I made this minor edit in C above. I have notified Walkerma and AtionSong of this, so they can revise, in whatever direction, if need be. --Vir 19:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Support I'm all for structure and categorisation, of course, but I think the proposed scheme(s) can be tweaked. For comparison/example, perhaps we should peruse the Encyclopædia Britannica Propædia (God forbid! :)) to help round out a salient structure for our purposes? And perhaps we should develop a similar outline/"tree" (e.g., with categories, subcategories, et al.)? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Thanks for the comments. Yes, E Pluribus, we have thoroughly looked at those systems, and I think Vir has in mind that eventually we will be able to offer several different categorisation schemes. Please feel free to update/edit/make pretty the Core topics tree, and create your own sub-trees! Thanks, Walkerma 04:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Great; thanks! I think the table is a little unwieldly, though; shortly, I think I'll boldly reorganise it into a bona fide "tree" – outline format – and tweak it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Geography

I've started Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Geography, which we discussed briefly at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics some time ago. Maurreen 03:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Individual standards and priorities

We've talked some about this at various times, but I think it could be good to put our current thoughts in one place to see where we each stand, where we have the most overlap, what each of us are more or less flexible on, etc.

I think we don't necessarily need to make certain decisions now. But we have about four general questions:

Importance of entries
Number of entries
Quality of entries
When to publish

Maurreen 17:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Maurreen

My short answer -- general order of priorities

Importance of entries
Quality of entries
Number of entries
When to publish

Less short answer:

Importance of entries -- I have some flexibility on this, but I don't like to be halfway. For example, if we wanted to put out just all the FAs, that would be OK as long as we presented it as a "Showcase" or "Best of" and not a reference work.
Quality of entries -- I don't want to need a disclaimer.
Number of entries -- Any amount we are satisfied with is OK with me.
When to publish -- Whenever we have a set we are satisfied with. I see no need to rush. Maurreen 17:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying: "Importance" to me also includes balance, proportion. Maurreen 17:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin is correct below. I mean the subjects within the release should be generally balanced (within the articles is a matter of article quality).

About breadth and importance, I have some concern that a release based too heavily on Wikiprojects would be biased toward Wikiprojects and the most active Wikiprojects.

As an aside, I have some concern about any test version in general.

But the phrase might be suitable for now, and we might be able to work out a plan that we'll all be happy with. More to come below. Maurreen 17:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Walker

Short version:

Importance of entries
Quality of entries
When to publish
Number of entries

Less short answer:

Importance - I'd like to make sure we have the main things covered first. I'm not opposed to themed releases (Wikireaders and the like), but WP1.0 itself should deal with major topics first. As it gets bigger I hope we can include fancruft etc. If that means including some B-Class articles for completeness then we should (e.g., let's say if all the major planets are A-Class except Pluto at B-Class, we should include Pluto for completeness).
Quality - Importance comes first, but I don't really want ot be associated with releasing poorly written articles.
When to publish - I'm flexible, but I would like us to start thinking about when, for two reasons. (1) People need deadlines - if I say to may students "whenever" they only see the last five letters. If I say "Monday or you get a zero" it's amazing how many manage to deliver. (2) If we don't release something this year, I think people will think we are all talk and no action, and get disillusioned with the whole exercise. We don't need to release WP1.0 itself, but we do need to release SOMETHING like WP0.5 or the gazetteer soon.
I'd like to see at least 500 for a test release. Since we have about1500-2000 articles now assessed from the WikiProjects (including worklists) we should be easily able to manage 1000, probably at least 2000.

Clarification: I assume Maurreen means balance & proportion of subject coverage (e.g., we shouldn't be strong in physics articles but weak in chemistry), rather than balance & proportion within articles (which I'd relate to quality). Walkerma 04:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Change to assessment scale

After watching some good articles in bad shape being called A-Class articles, and following the discussion that questioned how much of a reliable quality benchmark GAs are, I made a little change to {{grading scheme}}, adding Good articles below A-Class articles, but ahead of B-Class articles. My reasoning is that a B-Class article would fail Good article criteria, and would not be promoted to GA, or should be delisted. As I was perhaps a bit bold, I'd like feedback about my reasoning. Any comments? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing! I think we need to preserve the value of the A-Class article, which is one that could be considered suitable for FAC (typically pre-peer review). Thanks, Walkerma 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I suggest it is helpful to keep the GA/FA evaluations separate from A/B-class ratings. Some Good articles are B-class or worse. The rankings are uneven. It seems helpful to have two columns in the core topics at this time for the different ratings. For a time, it seems better not to lose the independent evaluation rankings until the Good article evaluations have more than two people looking at them. If the systems over time show more consistencey, then great. But, now they don't show that. -- Vir 01:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I specifically reworded B-Class to fail Good article criteria. As the general sentiment at the Good articles WikiProject is not to adjust the criteria, but rather to delist articles that don't meet them (even if that means removing half of the articles), then any Good article that is a B-Class or lower in our scale should be re-evaluated by us and delisted if it doesn't pass our review. In a way, it would help to get more than two pairs of eyes on each GA. My original intent was for GAs to stop devaluing A-Class articles, as many WikiProjects were assuming that {{GA-Class}} = {{A-Class}}. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It could be that eventually that the scheme you describe will work just great. But, I think it is good to be cautious about the reliability of the GA ratings for some time. I am very unsure about the consistency of those ratings. (I estimate that it would take one expert reviewer at least hundreds of hours to review even half the list -- as it stands now. And, more than one review would be good.) Sure, it is good to record that a GA rating is there. But, it is going to take months (at least) to see how things work out on GA list. Ideally, it would be good if the 1.0 group could have its own review system. If not that, perhaps the FA system will expand the amount of work it is taking on. However it may arise: More eyeballs = better overall evaluation, whatever the system is, eh? -- Vir 01:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we're both agreeing on something here: it's good to be cautious about GA's consistency for now. I saw A-Class articles, which I think of as basically FAs not passed through FAC, being compared with articles that quality-wise would be Start-Class, and I thought that it is not fair for A-article writers for those articles to be put on the same level. My line of reasoning directly from that is to not see GAs as A-Class articles, so I put GAs behind them. If I understand correctly, you would prefer B-Class to be ahead of GAs as well. As from my editing experience at WP Cyclones, I know that some good B-Class articles may be good articles, and A-Class articles would easily pass WP:WIAGA, but not all B-Class articles would, I decided to put GA in between, and use B-Class to help clean out bad GAs. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, cautious as in double check reviews needed. I'm not saying where GA should fit now -- down the road doesn't matter. I personally think the GA process might change. There are different ideas about what GA should do. I don't think there is consensus. I think people just stopped talking for awhile. What I am saying is that the quality of B-class varies. For GA articles, my sense is the quality ranges from good to poor. The quality range is too wide to say where it fits just now in an A/B scale. But, eventually that will change. --Vir 21:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Major stages

Here are some ideas for possible plans and compromises. Please add options here as you see fit. Maurreen 17:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Test version

Maybe one or more test versions could be based on one or more of the following:

FAs
FLs
GAs
High-quality entries according to wikiprojects
Accepted list of important entries
Almanac -- x number of lists and such
Biographies
Countries and continents
BozMo's work (Also please see discussion of whether we are interested in taking it over his work or whether we should just note it and redirect to it.

1.0 version

Maybe RVQ would be changed to "1.0 Version Qualifying". It could be more selective and deliberate. It would start with a small set and gradually expand.

Comments

Martin, I get the idea that you're reasonably confident of having a set that you're satisfied within six months, is that right? Maurreen 17:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Plan A

Sorry I took a while to respond. I would judge we could have a set to release within about six months for each of the following:

Geography project: Could we get every country in the world, every continent and every city over 5 million onto a CD? by fall 2006? Here the emphasis would be on completeness, we can't just not include a country because it was only Start-class - we need to just clean up any major problems and add it in.
Wikipedia 0.5: This is what I like to call our initial general release, again it's possible to do this by fall (IMHO). I think we should set up a "0.5 Version Qualifying" page soon (though I think "Wikipedia 0.5 Nomination" page sounds better), modeled on FA/FAC and GA/GAN. The question is then what do we include. I'd say we include all of Core Topics, then look through FAs, GAs and A-Class for the most important topics, perhaps using WP:VA to guide us. Then we fill in gaps in coverage using B-Class articles. We already have 733 A, B, GA or FA articles suggested from the WikiProjects, and probably a similar number on WikiProject worklists (e.g., Chemistry/Chemicals has 555 articles listed), though coverage is very patchy. With our new bot (still under development) we should be able to handle thousands of articles by the end of the year. We can also include a few lists, maps, etc.
#BozMo's work: I'd like to see if he would mind us releasing that as an official release this fairly soon. We might want to update some of the articles, mainly those relating to current events like Tony Blair.

My answer to this is "yes", with pleasure, but I am still not 100% sure what you are proposing. All I need to produce a version is a list of articles (either historical versions or just articles names) and section excludes. However I probably need to do some work on image attribution next version--BozMo talk 13:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Next year:

Wikipedia 0.8: If WP:0.5 works well in the fall, do this early next year. If it doesn't, we'll lick our wounds and release WP:0.6 next year. We can get more picky about what we include, and try to get weak subject areas worked on. Once we get a really solid core, release WP:1.0.

Does this sound like a plan? Walkerma 21:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm ...

No problem about the delay. We all have stuff to do and stuff to think about.

I don't entirely understand BozMo's work. But as much as I do understand it, I think it could be be a big help, especially for early versions.

I'm ambivalent about pre-1.0 versions, but your ideas are OK for those.

I would very much like to use the RVQ process I outlined (or something very similar) for all entries in 1.0 and above. I'm not saying it's perfect or can't be improved. But so far I think it's the best option for the long term. Maurreen 03:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The names for the 0.5 and 1.0 nominating, qualifying, whatever pages would need to be distinct.

And if you guys go along with RVQ, we could change it to "1.0 Qualifying" or some such, and I'd probably put most of my attention there. Maurreen 03:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying --

I think we should pursue discussion with BozMo.
I have some doubt that we will have a set within six months that I am satisfied with. But if the consensus is otherwise, that's OK. Maurreen 17:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Grading scheme

There's many discussions in that page, all going on at the same time, and as they directly affect us, I'd like for everyone to give their opinions in that talk page. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)