Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-14 Increasingly tense encounters

Mediation Case: 2006-07-14 Increasingly tense encounters

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?: ...Template:War on Terrorism; ...Template talk:War on Terrorism; ...Iraq War; ...Talk:Iraq War; ...Zarqawi PSYOP program

Who's involved?: ...Zer0faults (talk · contribs)

What's going on?

This user first introduced himself by supporting Merecat (talk · contribs) in his RFC, which coincidentally had similar editing and debating techniques. So, it is no surprise we clash on mutual animosity. After that we met on several articles where we clearly had opposing views. However, in time what was a difference of opinion has turned into a personal vendetta. Resulting in edit wars not over content but over simply reverting the other user, and [another example of this]. Example

I make an edit,[1] Zero reverts[2]
I make an edit,[3] Zero reverts.[4]
I make an edit,[5] Zero reverts.[6]
Etcetera, of course, if needed there are more examples here and on other articles.

After mediation over the deletion of several of my comments [7] apparently the onderlying grudge against me is still present. His edit summaries explaining his deletion of neutral messages I left on his talk page are certainly not helping.[8][9][10]

At this time it resulted in protecting a page and while trying to resolve our differences he has now threatened to start a RFC against me because I refuse to discuss(??!).[11] While he is free to do so I would think that a more substantial approach is warranted in light of the more than hostile atmosphere between us. Apparently following this request for mediation he has filed his RFC. I will not respond there since it misrepresents the facts and I think we need to await mediation concerning the bigger picture: the mutual hostilities.

I will add diffs, have to look for them so please be patient.

Grievances voiced by Zero: *War on Terror stated that this was a campaign by the US, NATO and allies. I changed it into the US, supported by NATO and allies, since Zero had advocated it is a US campaign in which NATO provides assistance. He objected to this edit and reverted. Evidently he felt that it was a joined campaign so I removed the US from the sentence as stating US and NATO is a tautology. Again he objected and reverted. Evidently he did mean to say US supported by NATO. He refers to this as me contradicting myself, while in fact the change in stance was his. I pointed out he was making a grammatical error in his reasoning. Also he removes text he disagrees with,[12] I restore it with tags,[13] yet he deletes it again.[14]; *Template:War on Terrorism he keeps removing extraordinary rendition, unitary executive theory, and other terrorist attacks. He removes them because I fail to provide sources. In the case of UET I referred him to unitary executive theory, signing statement, NSA warrantless surveillance controversy and the multitude of references in those articles to support including UET in the template. His answer, I must provide a source if I want to include it.; *Zarqawi PSYOP program I am trying to describe this program, but again this user follows me around and massively deletes part of the article.history [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Again I reinsert the relevant parts[27] and ask him to explain.[28] Nevertheless he prefers to edit war over my edits.[29][30] This is a very good example of how this editor 1 follows me around and revcerts my edits, 2 removes all information he thinks is uncomfartable to the Bush administration and therefore POV. Fortunately, there are other editors who are capable of discussing and can refrain from aggressive editing.[31]

There are more examples, but I think this will suffice to show that Zero has an obstructive way of contributing. Instead of AGF, he deletes all he disagrees with, especially my edits, and then refuses to read the evidence I provide unless I quote the relevant text, although nobody is prohibited from reading articles themselves. What we have at the moment is the two of us edit warring while we should be discussing. I admit I can't resist reverting his edits when I find he has reverted mine. Since no debate is possible I do the easiest thing (stupid, I know) and continue the edit war. in the hope somebody can end this silly game I filed this request.

What would you like to change about that?: Could somebody look into our encounters and offer some solution to what has become an unfortunate personal vendetta?

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?: My talk page is fine.

Mediator response

By Nescio's request, I'm looking into this case. I have a bit more background knowledge on the issue since I've delt with it before. --The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 18:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the parties involved waged war on my talk page for a good few days, they've decided to take it to arbcom. There's a link somewhere on my talk page. Case closed I guess. --The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 23:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

The RfC has been filed. While I would be more then welcomed to participate in yet another Cabal, this users violations of WP:POINT have spread in the mean time to a template that I edit frequently and they have begun removing items I add and refusing to give a reason why. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nescio. If Nescio will state here that he is gonig to actually state his reasons for removing items and his reasons related to the Iraq War then I will withdraw the RfC in hopes another mediation cabal will help. However if he will not then I feel the RfC is the appropriate measure. Feel free to reply Nescio if you are willing to do that or not. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so its clear, this cabal was filed an hour after the RfC, Nescio seems to imply above that the RfC was filed in reponse to this. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If Nescio will state here that he is gonig to actually state his reasons for removing items and his reasons related to the Iraq War then I will withdraw the RfC in hopes another mediation cabal will help." Please look here and you will see my explanation for including items and you will also see I ask other editors for their arguments. Second, I have no objections to anything, I merely want to know what exactly should be included and on what grounds. Clearly I have done what this user asks for, so he can withdraw his RFC.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not clearly, see you removed the 2005 Bali bombings when the explanation was already on the page. You had replied directly to the reasoning for it being on the page. Template_talk:War_on_Terrorism#Addition. Furthermore your edits in violation of WP:POINT will need to be addressed via a RfC I believe. You have been arguing both sides of the coin when conveinent including just this past two days by adding Zamboanga bombings after removing 2005 Bali bombings, an incident also by a group related to OEF-P. You want to state I have a vendetta against you, however you removed the 2005 Bali bombings stating all articles should have a sourced reason, yet you only removed the one I added. One of only 5 that are actually sourced on the talk page already, in a section you replied to and started yourself. I am tired of going around in circles with you over this, changing your views to counter any arguement, removing content then claiming its because there is no explanation ro criteria, oddly enough only removing one article, not all, and only one of 5 to be fully sourced. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are then breaking your word. Clearly I repeatedly said I did not object to anything. Clearly you choose to ignore that and my repeated attempts to resolve the issues. The only conclusion can be that you are not interested in finding resolution but are out to pester me. When you are willing to proceed, and not mention Bali which is absolutely not against my wishes to include, feel free to try and find a solution.

As two your coin, it proves you are ijncapable of compromise. First I tried to implement your position: WOT is a US campaign supported by NATO. You objected, so I tried and accommodate what you were actually saying, WOT is a joined US and NATO campaign. Then again you object because it is a US campaign with NATO support. So if anybody was confused about what he wanted it was you. Your failure to recognize I was trying to abide by your rules proves your inability to see beyond your personal grudges against me.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solution to what? Pester you? You remove an item I added, give no reason for it, then now say you never had an objection ... and I am pestering you? You have accused me of stalking you after I revert a page you edit in violation of WP:POINT, a page I helped create and edited first. You accuse me again of stalking you after I start editing the war on terrorism template, yet do not mention that you barely participated on it, 5 edits, before I started editing it heavily. You are the one clearly not interested in a resolution or you would have simply given a reason for removing the 2005 Bali bombing instead of ignoring my request for why, and starting to rewrite the entire template. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of playing this game with you, you obviously violate WP:POINT to try to prove some political point, and that is what the RfC addresses, you want to continue this cabal fine, but we will wait till someone takes it up first. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you refuse to listen to my repeated explanation I do not object to Bali and it was removed in error simply proves you are only interested in harrassing me. What exactly do you want me to say. I said I do not object to Bali, I advanced arguments for including other articles, and I tried to start a debate on what exactly this template should include. Nevertheless you claim all this is me trying to prove some point. Whgat point would I prove in trying to establish a neutral basis for editing the template?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was that neutral basis when you added all those terrorist incidents, incidents you arent even attempting to justify now? What was your neutral basis when you removed the Iraq War article yet added a psyops program that was a sub part of the Iraq War, or a memo that is based completely on the Iraq War? How about yuor edits to the NATO page removing the WOT template, just to goto the WOT article and remove the US from the opening sentence and state its just a NATO operation, where is the neutrality in that? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed it 2x by complete accident? How is that even possible, its not even the same edits, like back and forth reverts, the second time the summary specifically mentions the 2005 Bali bombings being readded and why. Yuu are basically admitting to reverting my additions without even carefully looking at them and I am pestering you ... You did it 2x, both seperate from eachother, so its not in the heat of a back and forth edit war over the same phrase, sentence or item. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what you and I are doing, therefore mediation is better than your RFC, since we both are caught in a negative attitude towards eachother. We can only resolve this by admitting personal feelings are part of the conflict. No RFC will change that. So please try and resolve our differences, which are not about any article, and cooperate in this mediation instead of continuing hostilities with a RFC that does not address the real problem.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a problem which leads to you lying and violating WP:POINT, the lying is sourced below. You stated here it was an accident, but on the template talk page you said you disagreed with its inclusion. I am pestering you? I still wonder how you can come to this conclusion when its obvious you removed something from the template and then lied about why when confronted as to why you did it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just remember this, This user has already state they did not agree with the Bali bombings, so they are lying by stating here now it was an accident. He states:

No revenge. Simply removing what I disagree with as you refuse to compromise. As you remove everything you dislike I don't see any reason why I can't do the same. Apparently you are thinking that avoiding compromise is being constructive.

The dif is here [32]. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than willing to discuss if you retract the RFC. There is no point explaining that disagreeing Bali is a main event does not mean I object to mentioning it as part of the larger conflict. Either continue this debate and retract the RFC or refuse to resolve this and leave the RFC.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you really dont have to explain anything. Its pretty well laid out in those quotes. Furthermore attempting to shift your arguement again to state you just had a problem with it being a main event would beg the question of why you deleted it instead of moving it, and why you then stated here and on the RfC talk page that you didnt have a problem with it at all and it was removed by accident. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said it yourself. I should have moved it. Removing it was a mistake.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to you, you had no objection to it all, so why would you move it, or remove it. You have given 3 different explanations already for this. I am done arguing, I wont be replying here till someone actually takes up this case. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to solve the dispute? If not please say so, because in that case I stop waisting my time on a discussion you are unwilling to have. In other words do we attempt mediation and stop the RFC or will you ignore attempts at resolution and simply have a RFC out of spite?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton}

Do you honestly believe that you did not violate WP:POINT in the items mentioned in the RfC? Do you really believe somehow that the War on Terrorism is a NATO operation, but that NATO is not participating in the War on Terrorism. Do you hoenstly believe that things that happen during the Iraq War, such as targetting insurgents, are related to the War on Terrorism, however the war itself is not? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to stop waging arguements somehow that include both sides of the coin, I would like you to stop deleting my contributions simply because I do not agree with one of yours. I would like you to provide real sources when asked, meaning external sources, not simply be pointed to another Wikipedia article, not thrown a 158 page ruling and being told the information is in there somewhere. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words if I go to the articles copy the sources on those pages you will drop the RFC?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly Nescio I think you are a good editor, however you edit to prove a point at times. You argue both sides as if the goal was not to support your statement, but to use any arguement possible to prove the other arguement wrong. The edits in the RfC show that behavior being exhibited. I do not and never had a problem with you on a personal level, I have told you time and time again I think you are a good editor. However I do not appreciate when someone refuses to actually give a counter arguement, or their arguement cahnges everytime you present evidence to state the first one wrong, its pointless and just goes around in circles. The RfC specifically only talks about WP:POINT violations, and its not an attempt to get you in trouble, its an attempt to see if the community views your edits in the same way I do, and if so to get a broader opinion on how to resolve the issue. If you tell me here, without admitting any guilt, cause thats not why I started the RfC for, that when you have an arguement for or against something, you will support it with sources if asked, and layout your reasons why. I will drop the RfC, however if those issues arrise later, I will just start it up again. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment more than proves we need a mediator and not a RFC. You fail to recognise that 1 you refuse to provide evidence to support your POV, (see talk page of the template where you still have to answer my question as to what should and what should not be included in the template) 2 you refuse to read the evidence I provide to support my POV (you still have not read the numerous articles by legal scholars on the subject of UET or else you would not say it is not used) 3 you persist in calling me a vandal, disruptive, refuse to AGF when I make an edit (you simply revert everything I do) et cetera, how that is not based upon your feelings towards me is beyond me, 4 it is evident you are out to prove a point and are not interested in resolving any dispute. Again, feel free to continue this stubborn campaign against me, but in the mean time I await your invitation to a serious debate and not this witchhunt.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC) edit conflict[reply]

Fine then we will go the route of the RfC and the cabal. I will wait for a mediator to appear here before further commenting. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it comical that you do not admit to violating WP:POINT yet you have no proof to the contrary of any of the evidence presented in the RfC. You also refuse to state how it is the Zarqawi PSYOP program is part of the WOT yet the Iraq War is not. I am still hoping for an answer as to how NATO is not involved in the WOT, yet according toy our edit on the WOT page, they are the principle and sole combatant. You keep tossing around woe is me comments and calling things witchhunts etc. You call it campaign against you, because I will not give you inclusion exclusion criteria, oddly enough you do not even propose any. You give reasons why you want to add certain items, I did the same, yet I am wrong cause I am not telling you what things should be added. Its not for me to pick the inclusion exclusion criteria for the template, I do not own it, see WP:OWN. If I single handedly made the rules, you would then complain if your items did not fit in them and cite WP:OWN when I attempted to enforce those rules. I have told you already that Bali should be included because the group responcible is a primary combatant in a WOT operation. I am not sure what more you want me to say on it. As for me attempting to prove a point, lets see your evidence. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The root of our dispute is your failure to avoid logical fallacies and the fact you do not understand the basis of grammar.

Regarding criteria, the whole point is that all contributors try and find mutual ground as to what they should be.
Please read my explanation on grammar before repeating I say NATO is the sole party in WOT.
I never said that Iraq was not part of WOT as defined by Bush. Again, grammar seems to be the problem, since my objection was part of WOT (implying there are terrorists being fought) instead of part of the US designated WOT.

But let's await mediation since you are unwilling to engage in serious debate with me and apparently prefer RFC instead of finding middle ground. Good luck to you but I will not participate in your continued evasion of possible solutions.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but you still did not explain why you added Iraq War related items, but remove Iraq War from the WOT template. Which understanding were you working with when you did that? The understanding that the template was about Bush's war or that it was not? Because according to your statement above, you should have not removed Iraq War if you really felt its subsequent items were not related. But I am sure you will not answer this directly. Here is the simple question, we can see if you will answer. How is Zarqawi PSYOP program related to the Iraq War, yet not the war itself? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your compromise[33] solves all problems. We can include that in the template, leaves the task of determining what exactly we should include in the template and on what grounds. Imagine that, you solved the dispute without the RFC.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually okay with that? Rangeley 17:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as you know, I never objected to the concept advanced by Bush. All I, and numerous others try to explain is that the statement as you wanted it was ambiguous. If you had acknowledged nobody had a problem with a Bush defined WOT there would not have been the need for your continued warring and the entire manipulated poll is the result of you failing to understand there is no dispute over what Bush has said. All people wanted is that the article explained the nuances invlved. You refused to do that.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have imagined if lnog ago he would have simply said, just add US in front of it will solve the problem, instead of constantly arguing that terrorists were not actually being fought. Praise the lord. However the RfC still stands because your edit were still in violation of WP:POINT on all those articles. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QED: your RFC is out of spite and clearly in bad faith. As to WOT, many editors have suggested to add US and then the entire debate would be moot. The fact you fail to recognize that proves my point. Incidentally, could you bring yourself to admitting that your reversal of my edits and other behaviour was in violation of WP:POINT?<Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont you present evidence to the contrary in the RfC if you really think its out of spite. If there is no substance to it then you can easily show evidence proving that. Unless you are stating you did violate WP:POINT, but my reporting of it is whats out of spite. If you think I am violating WP:POINT, maybe you should gather some evidence and file a report. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not take part, it is your party so have fun. You are misrepresenting the facts, conveniently leaving out your behaviour and my experience with RFC's is that they are more a popularity contest than a real attempt at addressing any perceied problems. So, there is no need to waste my time on dispute resolution when you have made abundantly clear that is the last thing on your mind.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I think you have the wrong idea about RfC's, the goal isnt to get anyone in trouble, its so the community can give feedback on ther behavior. Look at mine, Anoranza filed it and the community took my side. The same may happen with yours. Its just a request for comment, not a beating stick. I would like you to present some evidence and actually use it to resolve the whole WP:POINT issue. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are commenting here so you must be aware of my attempt to try and solve the hostilities between us. But, as in your RFC, you misrepresent the facts and claim our mutual encounters are not addressed. Exactly this behaviour of making statements not compatable with the facts is what I find annoying about communicating with you. I will wait untill a mediator turns up.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton}

I have no hostilities toward you, you violated WP:POINT, simple as that. I filed a RfC, just because someone states you violated a guideline does not mean they have a personal issue with you. Also since the RfC is about the WP:POINT violations, and we havent had mediation on them, my attempts to discuss them with you leads in circles or with the comments deleted, or with a subject change, that is what I listed in the RfC. Like I said, you are more then welcome to post your evidence, its highly appreciated if you do, so we can resolve that issue. Please do not look at RfC's as a means of punishment, that they are not. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is about your WP:POINT violations, nothing more nothing less. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering highlighting in bold everywhere I mentioned what the RfC was about, however I felt that might be a bit rude. Instead I will simply state again. The RfC is about your violation of WP:POINT. Something you have failed to discuss before, and now only seem to be willing to because of the presence of the RfC. This cabal is not the appropriate place to discuss the RfC as its titled Increasingly tense encounters which really has nothing to do with your edits. This cabal mediation seems to be based on the fact you feel I have a problem with you, regardless of how many times I tell you I don't. So again in closing, the RfC is about the WP:POINT violations, violations you have provided no evidence to even attempt to justify them. I hope you consider that maybe you are the only one engaged in hostile editing. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally you understand why the RFC should be stopped. It is about my edits (and may I add grossly misrepresenting my contributions) while we should be discussing our edits. Evidently you fail to acknowledge what several editors allready have said, there are personal issues between us.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh, i grow weary of these games. The RfC has been certified, if you contest its contents, please provide evidence. Good day. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zarqawi PSYOP claims

All of the dits I made are summarized. If I forgot a summary, I made a trivial edit like a space, then added the summary there. This user has not contested a single edit, they just keep reverting, which is what they call "added back relevant parts". I went through the article again, not a revert a fresh edit removing content I felt was wrong adding quotes, added Zarqwawi's back story which was sourced and removed without giving a summary etc. The user then reverts yet again telling me I did not explain my edits. This is bordering on WP:OWN. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You followed me to this article (yet again, so this looks like stalking behaviour), start objecting to summaries stating this program was among other things aimed at the US, you force me to include quotes frome the article to prove the US is a target. Then you start deleting everything you perceive as redundant, refuse to even discuss your edits and blackmail me to accept your censoring the article. Clearly you are obstructive (edit war, refuse to try and reach consensus), refuse to AGF, persist in uncivil behaviour and in gemneral are impossible to reach consensus with since consensus to you means doing what you want. Unless somebody steps in and tells you to stop being disruptive you have succeeded in your mission and I will no longer particiapte in this project.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again you have not contested a single edit. Sounds like you have a problem with the editor and not the edits. You seem to be the only one with a personal issue here. You dont find the following redundant?

One of the goals was to set up local citizens against him by portraying him as a foreigner and key actor in the insurgency.

Part of the goals was to inflame Iraqi citizens against him by focusing on his terrorist activities and status as a foreigner

Furthermore you state I am removing information, but I added a large quote explaining the "Home Audience" target, and added a paragraph on Zarqawi's backstory, one you removed because it was in contention with your editorial based source. More then 1/3 of the article is quotes, literally by word count. Still waiting for you to prove Zarqawi program is linked to information roadmap. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[34] - WP:AGF
[35] - WP:AGF

--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]