User talk:Elonka

Priory of Sion

Hello Elonka! Congratulations on becoming a Wikipedia administrator! Would you have the time and interest in collaborating with me to improve the Priory of Sion article enough to meet Featured article criteria? --Loremaster (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I recently did some tweaking of the Charges of heresy section of the History of the Knights Templar article. Did you have any comments? --Loremaster (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you'd been working on it, yes. Though I didn't review the edits in detail, because I know that you know what you're talking about, so I trust you to put in good material.  :) When I get a chance, I'll go in and look in more detail. The Priory of Sion project sounds like a good one too, I'll definitely help as I can, though right now my time is a bit crunched. I've been sick with the flu for a couple weeks, and when I do have time (and health) for Wikipedia, my attention has mainly been on an ArbCom case. It's in voting phase now, but even after it's done, there are a a lot of articles (some of them Templar-related) that are going to need complex cleanup. I am also trying to get Dirty Dancing to FA, and will be submitting it for another Peer Review soon, and probably FA again next week. But if you still need help on Priory of Sion after I get those projects off my plate, yes, I'll definitely help out! :) --Elonka 19:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The help needed is mostly with standardizing the citing of sources. Anyway, take care of yourself. --Loremaster (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the Priory of Sion article is now worthy of good article status? If it is, could you nominate it? If not, could you tweak it enough before nominating it? --Loremaster (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated the Priory of Sion article for GA status. Can you review it? --Loremaster (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dated sub-cats

Essentially the templates need to be tweaked, and the sub cats created. There's a few bits of admin too, but that's the crux. I'll have a look at it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:29 11 March 2008 (GMT).

Basically done. Rich Farmbrough, 22:41 12 March 2008 (GMT).

AniMate

Do me a favor and tell this editor that there is no way on the Goddess' green earth I can be nice to to just stay off my page and away from me. His comments have one purpose when they are left on my page and that's to get me pissed off, and it works. Tell him, please to back off or I'll take a ban for incivility because I'm going to let loose. Thank you. KellyAna (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I will stay off your page without Elonka telling me to, and I'm sorry that you're upset. I feel that I've been polite, and that the problems aren't on my end but on yours. I'm not going to avoid articles on soaps to stay out of your way, and if you feel like reverting me please at least discuss it on article talk pages. AniMate 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Elonka. See, Elonka, I can't even talk to you without him butting in. KellyAna (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

About this morning.....

Hi Elonka. Sorry we didn't see eye-to-eye about the banner this morning. I do respect your opinion as someone who understands what is a pleasing and what is a frustrating user experience. I suppose our thinking was that the April Fools' Day main page joke is supposed to be a little bit maddening. Did you check out the George Washington (inventor) joke on the main page last year? I was still a fairly novice editor at the time and I remember wanting to beat my computer with my shoe because I couldn't figure out if the story was supposed to be true or not, nor why anyone thought it was so funny. I figured out a few days later (after looking at the article more closely) that Washington was a real guy and the blurb was carefully constructed to lead people astray--only then did I crack a smile. While I guess your banner would have let people in on the lulz more immediately, I thought it spoiled the mystery of delving into the details of the article and discovering for oneself what sort of a prank we'd pulled. I absolutely do not think that people who didn't like the joke are "wrong/misguided/horrible/foolish." In fact, I'm hypersensitive to criticism of my lame jokes and the misunderstandings they cause. (I even briefly retired last night after seeing my writeup wasn't well received!) Anyway, I hope your opinion of the Fat Man hasn't soured over the disagreement. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Request

I replied on there now as per your request, but I do find Srnec an irritable editor to deal with, simply because of the POV he always tries to place into certain articles... while removing sourced material. - Gennarous (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Information taken from my website without credit, etc...

Hi Elonka. I'm not certain on how to do the correct citations, etc... to get a correct credit. Could you help out? I'm confused as to why my research is reliable for the head writing tenure dates but not in other instances. Also, did you ever get my email last week, I never heard back from you. As for the comments on the cast member talk page, I don't think my site should be singled out for those comments and it should be changed to "any fan sites are not reliable." Thanks, Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason47a (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For advice on formatting, see WP:CITE. As for the commentary, you can definitely add a comment of your own afterwards, reminding folks about relevant policies WP:V, WP:RS, WP:EL, and saying that this applies to many other sites as well. --Elonka 04:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?

Check out this user page, please. I've never seen anything like it before and it borders on all kinds of odd. Not to be uncivil, but it includes lies that someone could stumble on about The Apprentice and just other oddities. Could you take a look? KellyAna (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably just a leftover April Fools joke. See Wikipedia:April Fools. I assume he'll clean it up on his own. If not, you could probably drop him a polite friendly note on his talkpage, reminding him about it, and perhaps pointing him at WP:USER. If that still doesn't work, let me know. --Elonka 04:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource translations

The proposed policy regarding translations is at s:Wikisource:Translations. In short, we need to work out if the the translation at s:Cum non solum has been published before in a peer-reviewed venue? If it is, the translators real name is attributed. If not, then the attribution is only kept in the history page (or on the talk page, as is the standard GFDL transwiki procedure), and in the header we annotate that it is a living translation that can be improved upon by setting "translator = wikisource". John Vandenberg (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked the page and its talk page; every Wikisource text should have a textinfo block to provide provenance information. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

Here's one of the original shots (before retouching), if you have any doubts :) Cheers. PHG (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No need for speculations (see User talk:Durova#Images). Here's one of my original photographs (before retouching) of the object in question. Cheers. PHG (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Removal of my citation

Hi Elonka. I did the citation of the "Days" head writer tenure dates as you instructed me to (thanks for pointing me in the right direction so I learned how to do citations) and I see it's been removed. I spent over a year researching what dates the writers joined and left "Days" from 1965-1993. My research was taken from my website and added without my knowledge or credit to Wikipedia. Last week, I said I'd be fine with either of these options: Either keep my citation on the bottom of the page or remove the months/days from the head writing dates. Please let me know which option will be chosen, and I'll make the corresponding edit. Thanks, Jason Jason47a (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have proof that those dates were taken from your site? Pretty presumptuous to assume that the collection of writers all took the information, or any information, from your site. I removed the link because it screwed up the entire formatting of the page. I also removed it because yours is a fan site and fan sites aren't acceptable sources. KellyAna (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Elonka a cursory look through history make Jason's claims very questionable. The information was added over time from many different editors. It's impossible to believe that multiple editors all took their information from one site. It's various editors, one noted admin, and multiple IP addresses in unrelated areas. How can so many people all "steal" from the same site? KellyAna (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna, isn't this exactly the kind of thing that you were edit-warring about at the TV schedule page? You can't have it both ways. The key element here is that unsourced information can be removed. Granted, it would be disruptive (and a violation of WP:POINT) to go on a mad sweep through Wikipedia deleting every single unsourced statement, but on a single article, it is perfectly reasonable to delete unsourced information. Anyone wishing to add it back, should then either provide sources, or leave it alone. --Elonka 22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my discussion page, and as the copyright violation page suggests to add to the talk page that has stolen my work:

From Wikipedia's copyright page: "If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. If the copyright holder's permission is later obtained, the text may be restored."

In this update on April 4, I removed the information stolen from my page without my permission. If a credit to my site is allowed in the citations, then I will allow the information to be restored.

This information (head writer tenure dates from 1965-1993) was stolen from this page of my website: http://members.aol.com/jason47b/writers.html (I researched these dates back in 2005 and updated them in 2006)

This posting on SON is from 2005, using my information (with my permission). http://boards.soapoperanetwork.com/index.php?showtopic=1266

This page on Wikipedia was not made, based on the history page, until 2007, using all of the information that I spent over a year researching.

I'm fine with the information being restored, as long as I get proper credit. Please do not repost the information without giving me credit, as that would be a copyright violation. Thanks, Jason Jason47a (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As posted on my talk page, it seems the solution has been found: As Elonka stated: "The key is whether someone is adding unsourced information to Wikipedia. If you remove it, then they add it back without sources, that is them being disruptive. If they do it repeatedly, they may be blocked." It seems anyone re-adding the information that I remove without backing it up could be blocked. And from Avruch's comment: "You can remove them, but if someone cites them to a reliable source they can be added back whether you are the original source of the research or not." So until someone cites a reliable source, that information can not be added back to the page again, and if it is added back, then that person could be blocked. Jason Jason47a (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct. And, as you may have noticed, KellyAna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked for 24 hours. --Elonka 23:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Elonka. And a quick addition to correct KellyAna's incorrect statements from above: I just took a look at the "Days" head writer page created in June 2007. All of the information was added on that date by editor Mike Halterman. As KellyAna incorrectly stated above: "The information was added over time from many different editors. It's impossible to believe that multiple editors all took their information from one site. It's various editors, one noted admin, and multiple IP addresses in unrelated areas. How can so many people all "steal" from the same site?" So, in fact, the information from my site was added by just one editor in June 2007: Mike Halterman. He just forgot to cite where he got the information from (my site), so it should have been removed way back in June 2007 since I've been told my site is unreliable since it is a fan site. Jason Jason47a (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Jason47a, please assume good faith. Mike Halterman is a longtime Wikipedia administrator, and you have no way of knowing where exactly that he got this information. I do agree that he should have added sources, but sometimes in the middle of a complex edit, someone may be working on multiple articles, and end up leaving some of them in a half-finished or "stub" state. I have seen MH's work on other "Days" articles, and he's normally very good about using reliable sources. --Elonka 23:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I do have a way of knowing how he got the information, since I'm the one who researched it for over a year and posted the information online on my website. I'm not faulting Mike Halterman. Perhaps I'll ask him on his talk page, if he's still an editor here, and ask him where he got the information.

In other news, I just received this email (from a yahoo account): "You really are an idiot. You don't even understand how Wikipedia works but remove information you claim to own. You can't own dates and you can't copyright information. If you would actually look at history you would see that the information couldn't be "stolen" from you. You need a life and a hobby although you're probably a Hogan fat unwanted f*** that has no life." I assume this is from someone involved in this recent chat, and earlier this week on March 27, KellyAna used the same wording, calling me "an idiot" and telling me "to get a life." I hope these personal attacks will stop both on Wikipedia and through email. At least I'm of the belief that "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." Jason47a (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please forward the email to me? (elonka@aol.com) Thanks, Elonka 00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Email received, thank you. And for what it's worth, I'm sorry that you have to deal with this. No one should have to put up with this kind of abuse. KellyAna's email privileges have been disabled through Wikipedia. Her block has also been extended to 48 hours. If you get any other emails of this type, please let us know. --Elonka 00:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

First, let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with Shell Kinney's original block and your extension of it. Her behavior as of late has shown exceptionally poor form. My problem is that with her Wikipedia email features disabled and her talk page protected she can't contest it. Perhaps you could add a section on her talk page pointing her to one of the mailing lists. Finally, I'm sorry about the harassment aimed you way Jason. No editors should be talked to like that. AniMate 01:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I should add that, I also got a nasty email from KellyAna a few days back. It was over a issue we we're disputing. DJS --DJS24 (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please forward it to me too? Thanks. --Elonka 02:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I opened a WP:SSP on KellyAna and Irishlass0128. I already notified Irishlass, however I see that KellyAna has been blocked and her page is protected. Could you let her know for me that, "I think she should comment on the issue". Here's a link - [1]. Thanks Again DJS --DJS24 (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, I have unprotected her talkpage, go ahead and post. I'll leave the page open as long as everyone is very very polite. A-class manners please. --Elonka 02:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A proposal

Hi Elonka,

Could you please take a look at my proposal here [2].

I think this is important given the current waves of secular attacks on all religions. . Thanks in advance.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Identity confirmation

I have leik tons of 'videos' if anyone needs to confirm my identity. Haha. Inquire within. the_undertow ^talk 00:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OWB

Thank you! Means a lot to me, coming from one I greatly respect. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice Kryptos video!

And now I know how to pronounce "Dunin" ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) The HowStuffWorks folks did a nice job, and they got some stuff on record now that hadn't been previously publicized. That particular interview was recorded while I was in Atlanta last year for Dragon*Con. --Elonka 00:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

?

? :$ - Gennarous (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Template merge

Elonka: Hi. Would you please advise me on whether there is a formal process for merging templates? The two templates at issue are Template:Protestant_missions_to_India and Template:Indian Christianity. A merger has been proposed here, but I have my doubts about its transparency: I would assume that notices on the talk pages of the relevant templates are a basic expectation, yet I have seen nothing of the sort. A second part of the discussion may be found here. I am also troubled by th dismissive and sarcastic tone of the other editor. This is not my usual area of interest, but I hate to see a useful contribution to the encyclopedia eclipsed without due process. Thanks in advance for your help. Aramgar (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Abaqa Khan

Hi Elonka - I was looking over the list at the FMA talkpage of articles needing cleanup and noticed that this one was still on the list, although you seem to have done a fair bit of work on it. I admit I haven't read through it thoroughly, but it seemed ok at a glance - does it still need work? Kafka Liz (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Certain sections could definitely still use expansion, as it's very Crusader-centric, with very little information about everything else in Abaqa's reign, such as his wars with other Mongols. If you have any information on those topics to help balance things out, that would be great. Otherwise, if you're happy with it, go ahead and cross it off The List. :) --Elonka 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt I'll be able to add anything strictly on the Mongols -- they're more in Aramgar's line. I'll check it over though. Thanks. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lomis

Please could you have a look at this guy, he is voilating WP:STALK by following me to different articles to continue a dipute, strictly against Wikipedia policy. Here he moved sourced information blanking 75% of the article.[3] I even tried to warn him about blanking articles and stalking, but he just removed it.[4] Naturally, I'm just here to contribute to articles, not to have a stalker, so if you could advise me how to deal with his "unwanted devotions" that would be good. Thanks. - Gennarous (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lomis has stalked me to the article again and is destroying work, despite the fact that he is not even engaged in discussion on the talk. As thus I am treating his edits as purely vandalism and violations of WP:STALK, at least with Direktor we are discussing. Lomis is just hit and run trolling me, without any discussion. Can you understand how it would be difficult to remain civil when I have to deal with Lomis? - Gennarous (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dirty Dancing

Hello, sorry to not respond sooner! Somehow, your message slipped under the radar on my talk page, and I found it when I was reviewing past discussions. I will do my best to take a look at your article and see what suggestions I can make for its improvement. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

re:Official caution

Very well, I'll try to be more courteous. My post did concern edits after all, but if a person obviously does not follow WP:NPOV am I not allowed to say so? I really don't think what I said constitutes a personal attack. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

cryptology

I'm considering this as my graduate degree. I find the topic fascinating, as well as relevant. I have spent the last 14 hours hanging out in a cemetery, but still have no idea what you do. However, I have learned that people aren't really buried six feet under. It's more like 4.5 feet. Don't ask. But since you did, bail money, plz? the_undertow ^talk 08:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wine or vodka?  :) --Elonka 09:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, the gauntlet has been thrown. I'm driving to South Central to interview the Crips and understand their ology. You think yer badass? Give me time. With an IQ of 158, and completely lacking common sense, I'll best you. Somehow. the_undertow ^talk 09:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I also forgot. Yer into decoding. Figure out why anyone would do this. [5] Yeah. That's what I thought.

Merlot. the_undertow ^talk 09:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(fans herself) Sorry, what were we talking about again? I got all flustered and forgot... --Elonka 09:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever seen the mating dance of the King Bird of Paradise? The choreography and the ritual display are very similar. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That video was actually based on a PBS special dealing with the King Bird of Paradise. I was quite adept at using the same lighting, mating ritual, as well as trying to capture the essence of the time-honored tradition. Or I was just drunk. Either way, I find the file to be a Cannes contender. the_undertow ^talk 07:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Rab concentration camp

Thanks for your cool-down effort in this article. My greatest respect how on you can stay so completely cool. I will do my best effort to keep this article from edit wars, even though this means stepping down a little for me :) lomis (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, and one question: In case User:Gennarous continues his behavior (not talking about content, but the personal attacks), how much longer will it take until he gets blocked? I usually work a lot at the German Wikipedia and don't have much experience here on the English version, but on average, I'd say he would be blocked there by now. Where is the borderline here on the English Wikipedia? Best Regards, lomis (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing restrictions (Digwuren)

Hello, if I was placed under general editing restrictions for calling some edits as vandalism, this is next candidate because he calls some edits that are obviously (after you've explained it to me) content dispute, as vandalism [6]. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing. A link to the related ANI thread would have been nice, btw. --Elonka 02:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've learned from some editors these edit summaries:

rv, hungarian language has no formal or informal status in todays slovakia

rv, hungarian language has no formal or informal status in todays slovakia, please explain why it should be included ?

rv, hungarian language has no formal or informal status in todays slovakia, please see talk. (and then they start talk)

and then they started a thread on the talk page. This is used even by the administrators or common editors. So I think I remained civil. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've invited now all four editors disputing those articles to the one talk page. We'll see who comes to talk. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Danzig/Gdansk vote cannot be applied generally. It is a very sensitive and specific consensus related only to the Gdansk/Danzig issue. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

I immediately apoligized in my very next edit "undo deletion under misleading summary by Tulkolahten - anachronisms fixed again, previous was Tankred, sorry". If I wouldnt do so, Tulkolahten would never find that edit to deliberately use it against me. This tells everything about him for me, therefore I do not wish to talk to such a user now, and furthermore. I am not a masochist to go to debates to prove in lenghty, pointless battles that an anachronism is an anachronism. Nonsense, nothing to debate. Try to think for a minute: why do we have separate articles about the Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, the Weimar Republic the Third Reich and (E&W) Germany? Are they really substitues of each other? Can I say that Goethe was born in Germany? In a country wich was erected 39 years after his death? No. If I would so, I would falsificate history. This is what I call "history falsification". Nor Hungary, nor Slovakia didn't existed at those times. They were one entity: Kingdom of Hungary. Slovakia was not even a successor of KoH, it was Czechoslovakia. Slovakia gained independence from Czechoslovakia, twice. First in 1938, than in 1992. Noone has born in Slovakia prior 1938 (& between 1945-1992) --Rembaoud (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not the person you need to convince. I recommend bringing up your concerns at the talkpage. Make your concerns source-based and civil, and see if you can find a meeting of the minds. I'll watch to see if I can help. --Elonka 03:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

all right, i am sorry. --Rembaoud (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do you think this merits some form of warning? Particularly [7] but also last paragraph indicate some bad faith assumptions about editors of Polish nationality.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't be bothered watching your contributions User/Piotrus, but apparently other editors think I should be watching my back --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Will try to dig it for you, hope I will remember where exactly. However there were discussion about WikiProject Germany in the Czech cities and villages. There was a hot debate and the result was that it is a not good idea to place WikiProjects of other countries to other countries. Because it brings only a hot blood. For example Berlin can be under WikiProject Germany, Russia, France, Great Britain, USA etc ... Prague under WikiProject Austria, Czech Republic, Germany etc. and hundreds of other cities and places all over the Wikipedia. We discussed that it may be a harmful practice and may discourage editors from editing when you wake up go to Wikipedia and see shiny waving flag of the other country at the talk page of your city. Also it brings POV pushing and territorial ownership tendencies of some editors. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus or Darwinek may confirm that as they were participants in that debate. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think that it would be the opposite, that adding all applicable WikiProject banners would be more calming than trying to decide which one was most applicable. But I'd be interested in a link to the debate. You might also want to check Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. --Elonka 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this is even possible. Try this very simple test, go to the Paris article and put into its talk page {{WikiProject Germany}}. Stand to the corner and wait and see what happens :) Then please report. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. --Elonka 21:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean it more like a joke, I hope it could be heard from the tone. But the point is same. I will ask Piotrus and Darwinek to join us here. Their opinions will be welcomed. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I don't want my talkpage to become the new debate center for this. I'm just saying, you made several article changes, "per consensus". So could you please point me to that consensus? Thanks, Elonka 21:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you have raised serious questions that need to be answered. I do not want to be punished for my edit summaries again, so I would like to hear what Piotrus and Darwinek think about that as they were participants in that debate before. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)