Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 20

List of cricketers banned for match fixing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted a couple of days ago by User talk:JzG. I was not informed that it was going to be deleted and thus didn't have a chance to review the article and if required improve it so that it met wikipedia standards. The reason given seems to be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and after querying this with the gentleman who deleted the article I've come to the sad conclusion that he seems disinterested in discussing it and giving me any specifics other then directing me to the BLP page. I've read BLP guidelines and I am still none the wiser as to why this article was deleted. I would like to direct you to a AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricketers called for throwing which was discussed around the same time, I think both articles have similar cases for inclusion. Match fixing is sadly a part of cricket and there have been about a dozen people who have been banned by their cricket boards as a result of being found guilty. Each person on my list had a reference to an article stating that the information I provided relating to their ban was correct. Crickettragic (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Not only did each of the 10 people listed have a ref., there was a WP articles for each with further refs. WP isnt authority, but summarizing the content of WP articles which do give multiple reliable sources is sufficient. The BLP views of the delting admin in this case do not represent consensus. DGG (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and keep article. This is (unfortunately) one of the most important issues in cricket in recent years, and all of the entries are verifiable by reliable sources provided in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - BLP info was sources, so speedy BLP didn't apply. Although the list might be a selectively populated list with a narrow theme, a better BLP way to present the information might be through merging the list into Betting controversies in cricket as prose. -- Jreferee t/c 23:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per above. Consensus isn't quite dead yet... take this to AFD if anywhere but a speedy deletion was not a good call. --W.marsh 23:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - as above. Suitable subarticle for match fixing and cricket. Not a speedy. Not BLP. It's not exactly hard to find out if someone is banned for fixing matches. Whether they actually did or not, isn't up to the article. - hahnchen 01:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overtun With all the steroid scandals, this will be a useful resource. If its a BLP issue, improve, don't delete. Mbisanz (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn agreed as it is citable/cited.Balloonman (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I approve of JzG no nonsense stance and principles though whether someone has been banned for match fixing is a matter of fact and not opinion. MLA (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn bad speedy. Tim! (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: apparently well-sourced, and if these are prominent cricketers, they're clearly public figures, so BLP is less stringent. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn looks well sourced, about public figures (international cricketers), factual not speculative and a list about an unfortunatly important cricketing issue. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• overturn well sourced. Viridae^Talk 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• This article adds nothing to a treatment in context in an article on match fixing in cricket, and serves to highlight the worst possible aspect of a player's career with no balancing good material whatsoever. Not really a wonderful idea, IMO. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn As long as appropriate sources are provided for each of the individuals listed, there is no reason whatsoever to preclude the existence of the article. As usual, WP:BLP is being used as a rather sorry excuse to delete anything that contains any negative information without regard to sourcing or context. The persistent abuse of admin privileges and refusal to make use of the AfD process to establish consensus rather tham impose one's rather arbitrary views is simply not on. Alansohn (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dorothy Walker Bush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD closed prematurely (less than 24 hours after beginning) by a non-admin. Early non-admin closures are appropriate when the AfD discussion is weighing heavily to one side or the other. However, since the point of AfD is to bring the discussion to the wider Wiki community, a closure this rapidly is premature particularly when the result is "no consensus." The closing user stated, "no consensus...looked likely to be reached." Since the editor cannot predict the future and the discussion was ongoing between multiple editors, the decision should be overturned and the discussion relisted. Strothra (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Moot G.R. Berry has now properly reverted the close on the ground that early closure as no-consensus is never appropriate, no matter by whom-- which is certainly correct. DGG (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul Yingling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

notibility, see discussion page 71.59.104.219 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in the Association for Computing Machinery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|UCFD)

Only reason given for delete is "precedence" (all other "votes" for delete cited nom). Collaboration (which no one challenged) seems more important than following a dubious precedence, as precedence seems to be just another name for WP:ALLORNOTHING in this case. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Define "collaboration."--WaltCip (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • See collaboration. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Define collaboration in the context of a Wikipedia category such as this without blue-linking me to an article. You have chosen a position with which to justify your stance; let us see you defend it in your own words if it means so much to you.--WaltCip (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I thought it was crystal clear. Collaboration in this context refers to editors in wikipedia working together to improve articles related to issues that members in the ACM can be expected to have expertise on. Is that clear enough now or do I need to define "context", "editors", and "improve"? I apologize for being somewhat snarky, but I fail to see how this wasn't clear from the outset. You've been here long enough to know what collaboration means, haven't you? (On the off chance that you don't know what those articles might be, I'd recommend that you read the Association for Computing Machinery article and visit the ACM themselves.)Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
        • What you're missing is: duplicative. Other than the article of the association itself, there are no other articles to "collaborate" on, except those which we "presume" that those who are members "might" wish to collaborate on. Too many maybes and wishful thinking there. There are plenty of computing "by interest" categories with which to foster collaboration. Why duplicate them with this less-than-helpful category? - jc37 11:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn/relist- Wikipedia:Overcategorization was put forth as a basis for deletion, but I couldn't determine from the discussion why this category was Overcategorization. "Other societies/fraternal organisations have been recently deleted" is not a good reason to delete. More discussion was needed to determine a delete consensus. Relist with a nomination that is focused on Wikipedian category points to be discussed. -- Jreferee t/c 19:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Nom obviously doesn't know how WP works. In addition to nothing be wrong with the AfDs...everything he is proposing is in violation of some policy...whether it be ownership of an article, conflict of interest, not adhering to a neutral POV, etc. --Smashville^BONK! 22:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This comment doesn't seem to apply to either me or the original nom (of the actual UCFD). Is it possible you replied to the wrong section? (For one thing this is a UCFD not an AfD, for another, I do not see how I nor the UCFD nom have anything to do with WP:COI, WP:OWN, or WP:NPOV…) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Correct...I must have clicked edit on the wrong DRV. It was meant for the one below. --Smashville^BONK! 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn the closure was on the basis of "nomination is in good faith and is valid. " which is certainly not a reason for deciding one way or the other. I note one of the comments at the discussion, repeated several times by the same person, was "If there is equally no reason to keep and no reason to delete, then the will of the nominator takes precedence" which is equally contrary to established policy. DGG (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Response - just because the phrase "nomination is in good faith and is valid." followed the decision does not mean that was the basis for the decision. This was merely a comment in response to the comment on that and similar UCFDs from that time period which all had a comment posted to the effect that these nominations were not valid. My comment was meant only to show that, as the closing admin, I had read that comment and found it, in fact, to be invalid, rather than the nomination being invalid. Furthermore, the balance was not tipped by the will of the nominator comment, so the decision should not be overturned on that basis either. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• COMMENT - It is bad enough when DRV nominators do not attempt to discuss with the closing admin first, but is it too much to ask that they at least be notified? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - There is ample precedent for this decision. Keep rationales of "time to reverse the trend" and this is not a valid deletion reason are not particularly persuasive in the opposition of that precedent. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  As one of the commenters who said it was invalid deletion reason, I would like to point out that, as far as I know, no one ever claimed the nomination was in bad faith. Quite the contrary, I believe it was in good faith. However, "precedence" is an invalid deletion rationale as it equates to essentially WP:ALLORNOTHING.

  As for not discussing it with you first, I was unaware that this was a part of the process. I apologize. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  Well, as has been noted elsewhere, both "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" and "ALLORNOTHING" are less applicable to Category discussions than for other discussions, since categories are sets of sets of sets (ad infinitum). So usually, attempting to rename something contrary to the obvious "convention" of a category will get numerous "ALLORNOTHING" responses, which would be deemed appropriate, since the goal is to reduce bureaucratic overhead and not have listed out "conventions" for every category. The same applies here, if in the past a categorisation scheme was deemed a "bad idea" (that's right, this wasn't a precedent of a single category folks, it was several, over several separate nominations), then - "per precedent" - this one is likely a bad idea too. It's very much a "valid" nomination statement, and one which is common throughout CfD, (not just UCFD). - jc37 11:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong overturn: I tried to tell them at CfD they were being disruptive by nominating a shitton of articles based on "We deleted other things before", but nobody wanted to listen. Maybe now people will listen that that's not a valid reason for deletion!!!!!!!!!!!!⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSER If, as Swatjester suggests, there are a bunch of recent (e.g., within the past few weeks) CfDs like this were "precedent" is the basis for the deletion, please close this DRV with a statement that permits you to apply the close of this DRV to those CfDs. There's no reason to receive a flood of CfD appeals to redecide an issue already considered at DRV. Perhaps the close of this DRV can be applied by the DRV closer to CfDs listed on or after 14:09, 5 November 2007 and closed before 14:09, 20 November 2007 (the posting time of this DRV). Something similar to this was done in Multiple reality show categories DRV-- Jreferee t/c 07:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not the case. There are 6 cases to which Swatjester's comments apply, and most of them have not yet been closed. Most CFD discussions in the period 5 Nov - 20 Nov are unrelated to professional organisations. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

See also: User_talk:Swatjester/archive13#CFD which has a more in-depth discussion regarding this. I think I'll WP:AGF and presume that this is just a case of someone used to AfD and is un-used to CFD discussions. - jc37 11:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - it is well-known to the closer and other UCFD regulars that a substantial group of editors have expressed concerns regarding the representativeness of UCFD "precedents" that have formed over the last few months, with too many of the same faces. XfDs should not be closed based on such highly contended precedents -- if there's merit to the precedent, then it should be discussed in more depth, not asserted against present consensus. Besides that, there isn't really any substantial history of professional organization cats being deleted. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this argument is fallacious, since the situation depends on the type of precedent we're discussing. There have been 6 discussions for professional organisation categories, and one should not generalise any principles from those few discussions to all user categories, or to UCFDs in general. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • According to [1], there have been over 900 different contributors to UCFD - 925 (26 IP addresses). This argument has been tried before, and has been retracted on the face of evidence, looks like it's your turn... - jc37 11:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - faulty reasoning for close per precedent-related arguments above. Wikidemo (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• CommentThe UCfD discussion on [2] with essentially the same issues is clearly headed for a keep (4 keep, 1 delete, plus the nom.). This clearly shows that the above-mentioned shift in consensus is real, so the discussion of this one should be reopened. 18:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not oppose reopening the discussion for this category, but I think it's erroneous to claim a "shift in consensus". It's more accurate to state that professional organisation user categories are considered to be more useful than others of their class, and that there never was clear consensus on them or their deletion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It seems like you're saying that professional organizations (which both the ACM and IEEE are) are not affected by the precedent that was cited as the deletion rationale. I am not attempting to put words in your mouth, and I strongly doubt this is what you're actually saying, so could you clarify your position? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No, you're mostly correct. I think that the precedent for deleting fraternal society user categories applies less to user categories for membership in professional organisations, which is why I've not recommended deletion of these categories except when there are other special circumstances. (Please note my deliberate use of "applies less to" in place of "are not affected by".) Whereas the former are simply MySpace-type hobby categories, the latter indirectly provide information about profession and, therefore, knowledge, skills, and access to sources. They do so rather inefficiently, when compared to actual profession categories (e.g. Category:Wikipedian psychologists), but it's a matter for individual consideration whether the particular circumstances – such as degree of redundancy, the nature of the organisation, the nature of membership in the organisation, and the potential for use of the category – justify retention or deletion. Precedent applies generally to all cases, but the degree to which it applies varies across different types of user categories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Make that 5 keeps and 1 delete, including the nom. Furthermore, the nominator's delete is conditional on "if that is to be the general policy with professional organizations". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: deletion arguments were basically a combination of "no valid reason to keep", whatever that means, and, as Ben Hocking put it, "the deletionist equivalent of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS". Additionally, I think that closing as delete where comments are split 50-50 requires more of a rationale than "nomination is in good faith and is valid". David Mestel^(Talk) 18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• That was not the rationale; please read up. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comments - Let's take each comment on-by-one:

  Mine: I quoted a line from the article, hopfully showing what it was (a "society"), and then explained that such societies have been recently deleted.

  User:Scoutersig - per nom

  User:DGG - comments about "reversing the trend", and wishing for a policy change of some kind.

  User:Benhocking saying the nom was "the deletionist equivalent of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" - which, as has been illustrated here, is not true. (Especially since that same argument could be used against anyone, regardless of keep or delete.)

  User:Swatjester - "not a valid deletion reason". Well, that isn't a "useful" comment either. At this point, who cares about the nomination? Explain why the category should be kept! So far in that discussion, not one person had done so.

  User:WaltCip - "No reason was given to keep." - I presume that this is in response to the comments above his. Because he's right, at that point, there were no reasons given to keep, just "meta-reasons" to not delete.

  So since all the others have been "given the weight that they were due", let's look at the nomination rationale: societies/fraternities have recently been deleted.

  Check out these several nominations, starting with this discussion and continuing down that page with Fraternal organisations, Category:Wikipedians in the Hospitality Club, Student organisations, Save the Plants; IQ org categories, Category:Wikipedians in Theta Chi, and Category:National Honor Society Wikipedians. Several of which refer to this previous discussion.

  Looks like precedent to me...

  And also since "overly broad" categories are also typically deleted, someone may wish to note this part of the article: Association_for_Computing_Machinery#Special_Interest_Groups.

  I think the main thing I'd like is for there to actually be discussion of the topic, rather than attempting to bypass discussion through variations on ad hominem and other such actions, well-meant though they may be. - jc37 12:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per my several comments above. - jc37 12:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Pawn (MMO) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Pawn Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD | DRV)

Pawngame.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

PAWNGAME (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Pawngame (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I (Firstmate) represent Pawngame as a mod, and I feel your deletion of the page should be reconsidered. The reason being that the previous writers did not consult the pawngame staff and rashly made the page. And because of this happening so many times, Texas Android deleted the page. Another reason that was provided for the deletion was that we were trying to promote the game. That is not true, like said above, the article would have been much better if done from a mod or admin's view. Not only that but the article is purely meant for people who may wish to learn more about the game. IF you do decide to undelete it, please notify me so that I can post the article instead of letting someone else. This may be in the wrong format, and for that I'm sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstmate22222 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I note that other forms of the article title are protected titles after repeated deletions and a full AFD. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive307#PAWNGAME reveals that the article was repeatedly attacked by anon editors and had to be semi-protected during the AFD. GRBerry (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per the AfD, as an improper nomination. The AfD seems to have been interpreted properly (don't see how it would've been speedied otherwise). It also mentioned the author may be a single-purpose account, and their blank contribs seems to support that. I'd like to see the page histories temporarily restored so this can be confirmed. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The nominator of this review has no deleted contributions and has not participated in any of the previous versions of the articles - at least under this ID. Short of CheckUser, there's no way to tell if this was the same person under a different ID. Nothing in the pagehistories shows any evidence either way to the SPA question. Rossami (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as deletor.Was deleted as an A7, still is an A7. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, obviously given that it's been through AfD at least twice and in each case the decision has been unanimous that it be deleted, I don't see this coming back, ever. And don't bother re-creating it under different titles, that's not exactly fooling anyone, you know. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, two unanimous AfDs, one unanimous DRV to keep deleted. Provide reliable sources as to its notability, write a version in your User space, and then come back here for further consideration. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Nom obviously doesn't know how WP works. In addition to nothing be wrong with the AfDs...everything he is proposing is in violation of some policy...whether it be ownership of an article, conflict of interest, not adhering to a neutral POV, etc. --Smashville^BONK! 03:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Per all of the above.Balloonman (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you I will make a copy of what I want in my user page, and Ill post back here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstmate22222 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tang Yuhan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The page was deleted as not notable. But the result of the discussion was just 1 for Keep, 1 for neutral, and 2 for delete. This cannot be interpreted as consensus. The article should be kept as non-consensus in the deletion discussion. Four editors, not including the creator of this article, participated in the deletion discussion. Only two, Paul Pieniezny and I, got substantially involved in it. Paul's main reason for deletion is that Tang Yuhan is not a notable physician. But I pointed out that Tang was a notable benefactor. Paul then kept silence and have not replied. The administrator AGK deleted this article. This incorrectly interpreted the result of the debate. And AGK also said: "Whilst the addition of citations is commendable, unfortunately the fact that they are in Chinese means that cannot be confirmed as Reliable Sources." This statement is not fair. Chinese sources are clearly valid sources according to Wikipedia:Citing sources. They can be confirmed by other Wikipedian who can understand Chinese language. All of the citations are from reliable sources including People's Daily, Sina.com, etc. And some of theses Chinese sources have been translated in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tang Yuhan. Even English-speaking editors can read them. Therefore, the deletion should be re-considered. Thanks. Neo-Jay (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete and relist - this probably needs a more thorough discussion. As it is, only three or four editors commented, and while some deletion debates can be correctly interpreted with numbers like that, this isn't as clear-cut a case. So let's give this more exposure and see if any improvements can be made in the meantime. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. Foreign language sources are certainly citable, granted that they are reliable. bibliomaniac15 06:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist - Foreign language sources are certainly citable, but usually need a little bit more than English language sources. For those of us who do not read Chinese, we look for an editor who does, who is reliable themselves, and who vouches for the sources. Neo-Jay comes across as someone who could be believed if they say there is enough reliable source material in the Chinese language. Send back to AfD and post notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China and the relevant related projects solicitation those who read Chinese to participate in the AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 06:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist - I simply cannot see a consensus to delete in that AfD, nor do I think the article warranted deletion per any other grounds. 1 != 2 07:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete (and relist) - I made a mistake here. I certainly rushed my decision here, and it was a lapse of judgement on my part. I apologise for the inconvenience caused to those involved, and I'll happily endorse my action being overturned. Anthøny 09:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I can't find anything in Wikipedia policy or guidelines which says that foreign-language sources should be regarded as any less reliable than ones in English, only that English language sources should be used if they are available and are of equal calibre. Also please note that the nominator himself said the subject "is more than probably notable in China". Being notable in China is enough to make him notable in Wikipedia, so that statement is tantamount to being a withdrawal of the nomination. The only other editor to support deletion provided no arguments in support. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist. I was the nominator for deletion. While I do not agree that "is more than probably notable in China" means he is notable in English Wikipedia (that sentence of mine was based on him being both a graduate of a European university and a member of a British medical college - something very unusual for a Chinese doctor, but still applicable to at least 10,000 people worldwide - and let's not forget that he lived in Hong Kong during his professional career and that Hong Kong had English as its official language, which makes it rather awkward that precisely that part of his life is still largely unaccounted for) I do agree that the article as far as sources are concerned is completely different from the article that was nominated. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy undelete and relist - per original closer's rationale above. In any case, this does warrant further discussion.--WaltCip (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Brent Blake (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

"Brent Blake" was deleted April 22, 2007, Because "Building the Worlds Largest Lava Lamp" was probably an hoax,Doubtful notability. Brent Blake and the project are real. See Seattle PI January 1, 2005 and Seattle PI January 26, 2006. Additionally see www.giantlavalamp.com PLEASE CONTACT ME AND REINSTATE THIS INFORMATION ON YOUR SITE. soapblake@gmail.com 509-246-1692 Mail. Brent Blake P.O. Box 422, Soap Lake, WA 98851 Brent Blake (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)