User talk:Wetman/archive22Mar2005

"Honest, I was just thinking, Armida, if those columns were a freight train, we'd be dead about now."

Please add your new remarks at the bottom, so we can find them. I'll know where to file them when I have time...

A useful directory to sources of public domain images is Wikipedia:Public domain image resources

See also:

User talk:Wetman/archive3Mar2004

User talk:Wetman/archive16Jun2004

User talk:Wetman/archive12Aug2004

User talk:Wetman/archive16Oct2004

User talk:Wetman/archive15Jan2005

Hey Pal

Hey pal- Want do you think you are doing? Stop vandalising my User Page and Frog. Stop it or I will block you. O0oO0oO0oO0oO0oO0oO0oO0o 04:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Outstanding Wikipedians!

On Geography: "I DO NOT consider the CIA world factbook either reliable or unbiased." CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005

On Scottish Tartans: "The "kilt" can be worn by anyone with scottish heritage (including by marrage), or from a location with a tartan (Canada and each province has a tartan that would be appropriate to wear).... There are many approriate tartans to wear. A person from Chile would wear the Cochrane tartan, to recognize the great contribution of the Admiral Cochrane to that country." User:Glenlarson

Fixed FPC nomination

Here's the diff with the changes I made. [1]. I found the original name of the image too long so I named the subpage I created "Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Auckland centered world map". Also note the miscapitalization and the missing colon in the nomination code on the main FPC page.

Hope I've been of help. Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes you have. Embarrassingly simple. I'm really quite bright in other ways. Really I am... --Wetman 08:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you have the requisite knowledge (not many do) to contribute to this historic and important subject you are welcome. Bearing in mind the global significance of this subject, and its unapreciated place in modern history, I suggest you check your emails. Giano 19:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pre-Olympian

Night the first

Hey Wetman, Sorry about the Sea Gods edit - I should have brought this up on your talk page. For the moment, I'm going to rv the article, and then we can chat about it later. My own damn fault for editing at 3:30 AM (hence 'NPOV' for 'POV'). Best, Bacchiad 16:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello! In what follows, I've interrupted you in italics, to be really specific --Wetman 07:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"The ancient Greeks had a large number of sea gods, or, alternatively, they had numerous localized names for them. Tethys, Thetis or Eurynome may all be manifestations of the same sea goddess, and indeed Homer refers to Phorcys, Proteus and Nereis on different occasions each as the "Old Man of the Sea." All these appear to be "old" Aegean deities that preceded the arrival of the Olympian Gods.

What could be an issue with this material? Are the alternative readings of large number vs. localized deities an issue somehow?, Wetman asked.

No. But I don't grasp the leap from variant names to formerly ascendent old gods marginalized by a religious ideology imposed from without, Bacchiad responded.

Okay, I've thrown two ideas together: bad. How's the above revision, separating multiplicity from "ancient" then? --Wetman 07:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone not know [that was a smidge intolerant eh] that there is a level of Greek myth that precedes the introduction of the Olympian gods? Wetman exclaimed.

'Bout a century to a century-and-a-half ago, the scholarly consensus went something like this:

Wait! You do agree that there is a level of Greek myth that precedes the introduction of the Olympian gods, don't you? And you don't discard all writers save Burkert do you?--Wetman 07:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

During the Greek Dark Ages, light-skinned patriarchal/patrilineal Indo-European-speaking male-sky-god worshipping pastoralists descended on a Greece populated by swarthy matriarchal/matrilineal who-knows-what-speaking earth-goddess worshipping agriculturalists. The gods of the conquerors, in ascendence, became the Olympian gods. The gods of the conquered, marginalized, became the chthonic gods, Titans, etc. aka "Pre-Olympians". Faint echoes of this conflict survived in the Theogony and the Oresteia.

(I'm not, BTW, suggesting that you, Kerenyi, or any other contemporary still thinks this).

Stripped of its Victorian racist baggage, everyone agrees that there are certain levels of culture, whatever the details, and a connected layering of mythologies, whatever the details, and that remnants of earlier myth survive in later myth, and especially in myth that explains inexplicable old cult ritual:

1. a Cycladic late Neolithic culture centered in the Cyclades (pretty inscrutable)
2. a "Minoan" Aegean Bronze Age culture centered in Crete, with continuities from Neolithic and with Near Eastern and Anatolian cultural connections;
3. ancient Anatolian cultures with Hittite connections;
4. finally, more than one wave of IE migrants/invaders from the north pre-1200 to ca 800: Achaeans, Mycenaeans, Dorians whoever (plus Cadmus), affecting the earlier culture even in its heartland, as they adapted Linear B

Are we in step here? --Wetman 07:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then the cards began to fall. First off someone pointed out that 'Olympus' itself is a non-Greek name yes (brought to you by the same mysterious substrate that yielded -nth- suffixes like in 'Corinth') yes. Then someone else pointed out that 'Demeter' is a perfectly legit I-E name though the grain goddess pre-existed this name for her, yes?, and the most common chthonic cults were those of heroes, positively brimming with I-E ideology. no; there are several layers of chthonic cults Then the Theogony turned out to be a re-working of already old Near Eastern narratives Hittite especially, transforming myth by aggressively patriarchal readings, undermining its historiographical value no: but perceptive disentanglement is certainly needed. Then the big whammy: Mycenean turned out to be Greek, and thus I-E, and a lot of the 'Olympian' gods showed up in the Pylos tablets. no, just some of them; which ones is essential here: Dionysus is the surprise; no trace of Zeus; is Enyalios Ares?

Two possible responses to this. One, give up the idea of a monolithic Olympianism imposed from without,done! it's a composed set, not a unitary kit that came in its own box and dispense with Olympian and Pre-Olympian as historically meaningful categories no, that would indeed be to treat them as a unitary kit; think of levels rather than watertight categories. Two, back off the racial/linguistic claims gods change names, gods collect new cult, gods adjust their personas, and some names are inexplicable in Greek: Aphrodite etc and let the Mycenean Greeks into the Pre-Olympian club don't think of these as closed clubs or impenetrable blocks, while shifting all of the onus of Olympianism onto the later-coming Greeks.why all? When does Dionysus replace Hestia? Why is Persephone not at Olympus in the green season? What does the battle with Titans suggest?

Kerenyi and a few others followed the second tack.too rigid a characterization I think, however, that the scholarly consensus is for the first tack - Burkert mostly follows it, and he is scholarly consensus embodied.

Burkert is your man, then. Forsaking all others? Have you read Kerenyi on Eleusis? --Wetman 07:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to have a Pre-Olympian or Origins of Greek Mythology page, a la life-death-rebirth deity?

Yes! Essential!

All of these issues and viewpoints are important, and deserve space. In many cases, it would be appropriate to have a ==Pre-History== section further down, as in Poseidon. In general, I'd say that since the pre-history of Greek myth is so foggy and controversial, it'd be best not to address it in the *introductions* of daughter articles. In many cases, it would be appropriate to have a ==Pre-History== section further down, as in Poseidon.

"...to Poseidon, made into an Olympian and given a son, Triton, who wrestled with Heracles." Poseidon precedes the Olympian twelve: his name appears at Pylos. This is not in contention, is it?

He proceeds some of the Olympian Twelve. Zeus no, Hermes no?, Athena yes, Dionysus yes, and Hera yes, but not with that name are all there. Essentially, all of the 13-15 Twelve Olympians were "made" into Olympians - the grouping was pretty arbitrary, and had little effect on most cult practice.

So "made into an Olympian" struck me as redundant. On the Triton-Heracles point, I didn't see the relevance here. "Redundant" as too obvious to permit mentioning? The main point is that we have two levels here, and of these sea deities, only Poseidon makes the transition, bringing some minor characters with him "in his train" so to speak. That's the most difficult idea in Greek sea deities and needs to be kept in view.

"some early Greek thinkers like the writers of Orphic hymns (see Orpheus) made the sea-divinities into primordial powers." Is there something that needs to be defended here?

Which Orphic material in particular did you have in mind? Orphic poetry is always hard to date yes. and fragmentary this certainly needs specific quotes, and what is securely datable (like the surviving hymns) tends to be late late texts don't always mean late mythic content: Dionysiaca, Argonautica. The article already had Homer and Alcman, who are demonstrably early, so I thought those sufficed.

"Several names of sea gods conform to a single type: that of Homer's halios geron." What would induce one to suppress the name of Homer (it's the source/reference) in this statement?

Stupidity, sir. Sheer stupidity.

I hope you agree that when I'm mistaken, I'm very specifically mistaken, and credit me with the struggle for precision, Bacchiad.

No, no. You were exactly right. It was my stupidity for removing it. Bacchiad 09:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So again, I apologize for the brusque way I handled this. The major problem I had was that although the edit-summary said, "more flexible interpretations", I thought the edit in fact imposed a particular viewpoint on the origins of Greek religion (best dealt with elsewhere) onto the article.

Origins of Greek religion have to be constantly dealt with all through these entries. Specific points can be made that get elided in the general. Notice how I shirk big general articles. --Wetman 07:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The possible equation of Thetis, Tethys and Eurynome should be dealt with - perhaps in their respective articles. how can this be done? by repeating the same thoughts three times, once for each? This one is the overarching article for all sea deities, and the ripe moment to draw parallels and contrasts and conclusions: the rest is but detail. I think the interchangeability of Old-Man-of-the-Sea names was already dealt with OK, but I would have no objection to additional language in the relevant paragraph (as opposed to the introduction) if you think it would improve clarity.

BTW: I liked your additions to Greek Mythology.

If we can work together, the series on Greek myth can be even better than it's already become.--Wetman 07:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bacchiad 05:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Night the second

Linear B — Zeus is there: DI-U-JA. The only issue is, PO-SE-DA-WO-NE occurs more frequently, leading to the (reasonable) conjecture that Poseidon was more important.

..specifically as the Lord with the Two Goddesses. As you see, I didn't recheck Chadwick. DI-U-JA being IE (yes?), he has been introduced at that Minoan/Mycenaean geological "discontinuity"

"Scholarly consensus" - Let me begin by saying I hate scholarly consensus. So although I'm not a huge fan of Kerenyi, the fact that he's not part of it isn't what bugs me about him. I am, on the other hand, a huge fan of Georges Dumezil and Detienne/Vernant. Sexy and French though they are, they're not scholarly consensus. Burkert's Greek Religion book, on the other hand, pretty accurately reflects scholarly consensus on most issues, which makes it safer to use in NPOV articles without disclaimers. (Though that's not true of, say, his Homo Necans).

Right! "Scholarly consensus" is a self-justifying will-o'-the-wisp, too often taken up as a cudgel, as a spurious prop to authority: a bug to eliminate from one's hard-drive. For, within the Burkert coterie (do I detect that you make one?), Kerenyi plays the Trotsky role, eliminated from the "mainstream" formulation. So I'd say instead: don't dismiss even Robert Graves or Joseph Campbell: Graves perfected the art of unravelling parallel and alternate, self-contradictory threads, and Wikipedia should take a tip from his techniques in Greek Myths— even if we avoid The White Goddess.

Burkert is okay. Greek Religion is the standard work on the subject, with some justice. The Orientalizing Period is a better treatment of the Near Eastern connection than, say, M.L. West's nonsensical East Face of Helicon - but it still gets bogged down in many of the common mistakes of diffusionism. Homo Necans is unreadable and to my mind pretty uninsightful; ditto for Creation of the Sacred.

For full disclosure, my favorite mythology authors are Dumezil, Gregory Nagy and Marcel Detienne.

Layering — I don't in principle object to the layering metaphor. But I think we can be more precise about the layers than Olympian and Pre-Olympian. For example, compare Poseidon is clearly a pre-Olympian figure in the Pylos tablets vs. The Poseidon of the Pylos tablets appears to have differed markedly from the familiar Olympian god of the classical age.

Good! We have to briefly say how, or the assertion isn't informative. "Indo-European" should remain an adjective applied to some of the strata.

For pre-Olympian, we can specify "Minoan", "Mycenean", "I-E", "Near Eastern", "pre-Greek indigenous", etc. For Olympian, we can specify a more historically precise term, such as "Homeric", or "classical", or whatever.

The Greek mythology article should introduce and link these terms, whose designations need to clear; then more specific articles like Greek sea gods could link securely to the main article with a "more on this subject" reference.

User Ril (sp?) added a section on Prehistory, which I made some changes to. Could use some work, but it starting to come in place.

When I alluded to Poseidon as an Olympian in the first paragraph, all I was trying to signify was that he was counted as one of the 13-15 twelve chief gods of Greece in the classical period. Thus showing the range of esteems and roles in which the various sea-gods were held. I wasn't trying to make any definitive statement about the historical value-system he necessarily embodied.

Oh, okay!

Placement of pre-history - I'll agree that the pre-history of various figures is worth discussing in their respective articles. I will still submit, however, that this is best addressed in the body, not the introduction, of the article.

Good, I'll work that way consistently. "Rites" would make a good subsection too. Replacing some of that "patron-saint-analog" stuff. What are some other subsections?

What do you think of Zeus and Poseidon as a paradigm for single-figure articles? Intro-Prehistory-Cult-Myth.

Enyalios = Ares? - Depends ;)

A redirect from Enyalios to Ares, where the evolving relationship should be treated in one place, with a good link at epithet.

Myth and Dream. Sweet.

Thanks.

Bacchiad 20:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) Wetman 23:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Night the Third

Thanks, Wetman. Thanks to your laudable hard-headedness and extremely useful feedback, the article is coming along nicely. Bacchiad 05:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Calling Card

I'm stopping by to register my pleasure in reading your user page. I particularly liked your comments on wit and neutrality. One of my favourite reference books is Chambers Dictionary ISBN 055010013X. It can be very dry, and holds hidden gems like one of the entries for faithfully — "a meaningless word used to end a business letter".

I am as you say a Christianist, but I am a strong advocate of the NPOV and think that facts, palatable or not, should be presented side-by-side. A faith that cannot present itself as a choice among other belief systems is no faith at all. I do not plan to get embroiled in the religionism here. In that spirit, I have been active in the Bible books, adding links to the Christian translations at Bible Gateway for example. I recently made a template for citing entries at that site, especially for use in external links: e.g. Template:Biblegateway. Make of that what you will.

It's been a pleasure. Dizzley (Peter H) 07:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks! It's good to hear sometimes that I'm not the only one looking at my Userpage and cackling at my own jokes. Now, I do recognize that there are Christians as well as Christianists, but, like Modesty, they don't serve nearly so well as figures of humor. External links offering a range of translations of Scripture are an excellent idea: I've been noticing them cropping up. Thanks for doing that. The links to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ are my doing, in similar vein. As Oxford's Robin Lane Fox, who has written excellently on good gardens and on Alexander, said in introducing The Unauthorized Version: "I may not believe in God, but I do believe in the Bible." I too try to write about texts as texts... --Wetman 08:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for the comments at blah blah Amos. I replied. See you around. Dizzley (Peter H)

Another intrusive label

The above dreary notice reminds us not to suggest candidates for whimsical "features"

Hi, could I ask why you inserted that comment at the top of the talk pageTalk:League of Nations? It seems a rather puerile submission (this diff) - could you explain its purpose? For the moment, I'm reverting. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTP)

(You may agree, Gentle Reader, that on talkpages for these "failed" articles, it is the ridiculous label that is at the top of the page, not my small sensible rejoinder. I certainly shall not soon suggest a candidate for any feature to be voted upon by such as User:Smoddy. --Wetman 01:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC))

I could not agree with you more! Giano 17:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Simple, but effective edits

Thanks for your clean up edits to Orange Revolution. I've been watching and adding to this article for a while. Thanks for helping out. (User:Mennonot)

Ah, simple but effective! that's me all over! Just a few tweaks to make the narrative run more idiomatically; that's all. Thank you. --Wetman 05:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changed title

Hi, I changed the title of "Culture defines politics" to Cultural imprint on politics. I think this is a great title. Do you think so? Also, [172] has changed the title back. Can you please talk to him. I changed the title to suit other people's concern and that is the only reason. Thanks for your time and consideration and your keep vote. WHEELER 19:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Wetman thanked Wheeler for the change, which cannot be misread as anything but neutral, and set up Cultural imprint on politics/Revision, for work on the text, taking stock of the more sensible reservations in the contentious disputes. Further editing under the new title might leave all the contention behind. 30 Jan.)

Epistle to the Hebrews

Thanks for the changes and links. I made a couple of minor edits: for flow and a typo I think. You dropped a couple of dates from the article. Do you have good reason? — Dizzley (Peter H) 12:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the only dates dropped were in the untenable text " From around AD 400 to 1600, the author was traditionally considered to be Paul." Weren't these rather arbitrary dates just someone's way of saying "during the Dark Ages and till humanism took hold..." Waffle. Some specifics of who has attributed the Epistle to Paul might be more evocative: Jerome? Or, put the dates back, if they're meaningful to you... --Wetman 15:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Photography of female nudes before 1923

OK, I changed the name from vintage erotica to Photography of female nudes before 1923. That is a more accurate description of the content. 205.217.105.2 17:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Quite right. --Wetman 17:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uza

You inserted:

Modern Muslim readers interpret the episode as a compromise ending the dispute between the pagans of Mecca and Muhammad. However some time later, according to the Qu'ran, Muhammad received a supplementary revelation from Allah that Muhammad had been misled by Satan and the verse should be removed.

Since you inserted according to the Qu'ran in the above quote, I would like to see you prove that claim. Where is that passage in the Qur'an? I would also like to see you cite the source for Modern Muslim readers interpret the episode as a compromise. And John Burton that you wikified is not the same John Burton (the Islamic scholar) Please avoid editing articles when you have no clue what you are doing OneGuy 01:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Gentle Reader, you may agree that my text quoted above was well-intentioned and essentially accurate, in spite of this person's tactlessly-expressed challenge. I was trying to interpret the perhaps unintentionally murky recent edits of another such, User:Mustafaa. But, to be sure, who does not interpret the deleted surah, made so notorious as the Satanic Verses, as an early compromise on Mohammed's part? Only those who will at the same time look us right in the eye and swear that the surah never existed in the first place. I would never challenge such a person as this on such a point. The text mentioning Uzza, necessary to this Wikipedia article, was actually deleted— a bold dishonest gesture. The surahs concerning the supplementary revelation that cancels out these are already quoted in the article. Are they not from the Qu'ran? How mystifying that the "right" John Burton has no Wiki entry, but is being displayed as a reference! )

Further discussion on this point, if any, may be found by checking Page history.

Anyone can search google for "John Burton Qur'an" to see how many hits he gets. He is not even a pro-Islamic scholar. Does Wikipedia has articles on all Islamic scholars? Where are the articles on Michael Cook and Patricia Crone? If you have not heard about a scholar, that says more about your knowledge on the topic (you wrote these articles by using Christian evangelical sites as a source anyway, according to external links). There is no Qur'anic verse that can be clearly interpreted to claim that Satanic Verses episode happened. That's just flat out false. I challenge you to post that verse here. The source for the story is Ibn Ishaq, not the Qur'an. If you are familiar with Ibn Ishaq, you should have known that Ibn Ishaq reports all kinds of stories he heard, whether he believes them or not (read the introductions to Ibn Ishaq by Guillaume). And to claim so confidently (as you do above) that this is really a historical fact says a lot about your understanding of early Islamic sources and history. If a major episode like this really happened, there should have been many more references. Why the story is not mentioned in any of the hadith? I suggest you stop being so pompous when you clearly don't know what you are talking about. OneGuy 02:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

English country house

Hi, I've decided to resume work at English country house all help, advice, contributions and criticism welcome! (from you anyway) poor old Country House is in pieces still but I will leave it for the aggressive one! Besides which there are quite enough English ones to write about. I would quite like to get ECH up to featured article status but don't really have the time. Regarding your comments about the Squirearchy, (so ridiculed by the aggressive one) I've recently read a great book the Purefoy Papers, have a look at Shalstone you would probably enjoy it if you can find a copy, I found mine in a 2nd hand bookshop. The book a collection of letters completely, without really trying, explained all you had to say on the subject, and was fascinating insight into unremarkable minor gentry daily life in them18th century. If you don't have time to contribute perhaps you could at least make sure my facts are all OK. Regards Giano 13:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll put it on my watchlist and have a first look now. I have had the Purefoy book for years. Saw it just the other week. I've added to a new Ref. section at ECH Mark Girouard Life in the English Country House probably out in paperback nowadays. That's a book that will make you say "oh yes!" every three or four pages. Gladys Scott-Thompson wrote up the Bedfords in a series of books. Plus there's a book on Erddig (my ancestral homeland, or one of them) with a more Upstairs/Downstairs view. Erddig has no entry at Wikipedia: a living textbook. Plus there has to be a mention of Gosford Park (2001), another textbook, for those with "print issues" --Wetman 21:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yep! you're right, I have Life in the English Country House and a great one called 'The perfect Country House' can't be bothered to go upstairs and look, but its by John Betjeman's daughter, Candida "someone-other", that's a great book, because I feel the English country house is not just the Blenheims and "Gosford's" but all the smaller ones as well, the ones when driving through Oxfordshire in an obscure village, one sees a pair of gate piers, and one knows instinctively there is an unrecorded gem just out of reach, so this page will not detract from Country House, if its ever completed!, just concenntrate on a different more humble aspect of the subject. Giano 21:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Avebury House ("A'bry" I know, though a Yank, not " 'ave a berry") in Wilts is just as you describe. Did you ever think of Petworth as entre cour et jardin? I've done a tweak and added some books. The social history of the English Country House is the essential here, I agree, and architectural history might be even more downpedalled. Socially it's (1475) 1530 - 1641; 1641 - 1660; 1660 - 1688; 1688 - 1832; 1832 - 1914; 1914 -1939 (1945); since 1945. (Yes?) Breaking it into these blocks helps keep dear old Inigo Jones from intruding eh? --Wetman 22:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the lead has to be rewritten now to explain the idealogy of small is beautiful, Holkham has to go, as luck would have it, I have to drive to Exeter next Wednesday, and have the whole of Thurs to drive back, think I may take the digital camera with me, shame its winter everywhere's shut. We had an edit conflict earlier I think I blended all your stuff back, hope its OK. I've given the grand architecture a mention, and will now try to explain by example that some of the best and most beautiful houses are often an achitectural disaster, this could be the best chalenge so far!Giano 22:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Giano, what do you think of working from the angle of the English country house as a social phenomenon, which architecture had to satisfy, rather than as a sequence of styles. The time blocks I mentioned above are meant to substitute time-blocks of class-continuty for reign-dates. "Neoclassical" in this context is less telling than the recasting of the Library as an added Sitting-Room. "Baroque" is less telling than the sequence of the "Baroque apartment" imitated in such unlikely ealier and more diomestic contexts as Dyrham Park. A double circulation to render servants invisible is a new mid-Victorian requirement, which transcends "neo-Elizabethan" or "Barry classical" categories. What does the Conservatory mean to the patrons who added one? was it just an up-dated Orangery? This way the article won't trace established footsteps. A thought. --Wetman 23:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nation-state

It is the best but not the ideal solution because the early history of [[Nation-state] has been lost. The real error was by Neutrality wo did a cut and paste move several weeks ago. - SimonP 04:30, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)