User talk:HelloAnnyong

Something to say? Add a new thread.

archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SPI warrented?

I know that you have some expertise in these matters. I'm kind of baffled about when an SPI is and is not warranted and am reluctant to start something of that significance without just cause. Could you take a look at what's going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embox and let me know whether or not starting an SPI is warranted? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That could be sockpuppetry, but it could also be off-Wiki meatpuppeting. It may be worth a checkuser, if only to discern what's going on. Either way, on that AfD, all of the new accounts can be written off with {{spa}}. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sikmir. Regards. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rasenfassenblasety, I missed one. See here. Thanks for your help. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Addressed, already by Tiptoety. Sorry for the bother, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries; this case was a good catch either way. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved your comment

[1] Hope you don't mind. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Damn! I put it in the wrong place. Thanks for fixing that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muthuwella

another potential sock has appeared...pretty obvious. 124.43.235.205 (talk · contribs) LibStar (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

and this one 124.43.234.170 (talk · contribs)LibStar (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads-up - you should use the {{IP}} template instead of user in this case. But I blocked the first one for block evasion; the second IP isn't really anything so I left it alone for now. If it edits again, though, let me know. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

SameerJaved?

Hi!

Any thoughts on whether Shalalal (talk · contribs) could be another sock of SameerJaved (talk · contribs)? They seem to have made almost identical additions to the same articles (cf. this with this). Gabbe (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's possible. I've opened a request for it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Lorynote

Good call, thanks. Funnily enough, last night I discovered that a Lorynote account had been created on pt.wiki (where Jackiestud is indefinitely blocked) just a few days after this account was created. I'd already asked the blocking Admin there to contact me, and I've let him know about this block. They are luckier than us though, she's hardly edited there at all, clearly too busy here. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Should that fact be added to the archive? Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it's sort of beyond the scope of our Wiki. One glance at SUL and anyone can see what's going on. (Actually, the account has also done some editing on es.wiki and fr.wiki.) But being blocked on one Wikiproject doesn't necessarily mean you can't participate in others; for example, Ottava Rima is active on Commons and Wikiversity. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't even thinking about anything being done elsewhere, and I know that being blocked on one doesn't mean you can't edit elsewhere, just that it is more evidence and should perhaps be noted. But that isn't necessary I gather. How do you look at SUL? Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Easiest way is to go to the user's contribs page, scroll down to the bar on the bottom, and click SUL. This is a direct link. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Very useful. I seem to be still finding my way around the new interface. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

sorry

it was a test Jacob12190 (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing politics request for semi-protect

Could you please look at this article again. Roger Scruton was semi-protected after SlimVirgin wrote, "Problems since October 22 with an anon, using various IP addresses (in the ranges 88.104–88.110, and 85.211) removing criticism, reverting other editors, and insulting people on the talk page. He has been doing the same at other articles related to right-wing politics, and is believed to be the banned Yorkshirian (talk · contribs). An SPI report yesterday led to a range block, but the same anon is back at Roger Scruton today. The blocking admin, T Canens, advised that semi-protection of the targeted articles is the best solution".

We had been discussing the issue at "IPs at Talk:Right-wing politics and Roger Scruton"[2]. The IPs have been soapboxing on the talk page and insulting other editors, e.g., "Wikipedia should not be an exploration of your ignorance.... You are a textbook example of somebody who damages the reputation of Wikipedia.... Your bigotry and intolerance are almost amusing.... I am getting the impression you are delusional.... I am very clearly getting the impression you are delusional.... you are delusional.... As defined by somebody who is delusional?" There are countless examples of this.

TFD (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I was going based on evidence. The page has been untouched for a week. Just because the editor edited there before does not mean they are now. Maybe they decided that it wasn't worth their effort anymore, who knows. There isn't enough recent activity there to justify a protect. If there was any evidence of active socking on that page then I would consider a block, but there isn't. And we don't pre-emptively protect articles, either. As a side note, if you consider it, keeping it unblocked may serve as a honeypot. Not that I advocate acting that way, of course, but just showing you another perspective. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

IOW an account or fixed IP of a banned user may be blocked, an account or fixed IP that abuses talk page privileges (through soapboxing or abusive comments) may be blocked, but no action may be taken against a dynamic IP that is a sock of a banned user and abuses talk page privileges. TFD (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second. Are we talking about Right-wing politics or Talk:Right-wing politics? I've been meaning the former.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

for dealing the sockpuppetry issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed Ghazi. I'm really surprised about User:Someone65 being involved and few others not being. Thanks again. :) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 04:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetrry

Hi, now I checked the user compare report from Shovon who is trying to ban me for sock puppetry, Im pretty new (almost 1 week) so I dont know all the rules but if correcting the person who is the sockpuppet (gargabook) from an edit they got horribly wrong is bad then Im really sorry I didn't know about this rule, but the edit I made to it isn't Vandalism it was factual and I have never vandalised in Wikipedia, but do notice that the main thing I have been doing is removing overpraise from mainly India articles as overpraise is ripe (I got this from googling the IPL when I saw the news about Australia's version of the IPL and noticing the overpraise on it also from the Comm Games 2010 page a while ago) and notice that Shovon is a bigtime Indian editor so maybe an abuse of privilidges or something might be happening--Luke193 (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh... I'm going to give him a chance to actually respond, and then take it from there. But it seems like there may not be much evidence, so truth may out. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you're reviewing the case, you probably might want to compare the wording of the above and the first unblock request. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 16:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Meenas

"DEAR SIR...some people are intentionally behind tribals..specially meenas article,and adding nonsense like they were animal,PLEASE ban those people..like ip address 59.161.47.25 with immediate effect,I will tell you some more people who are intentionally behind tribals and backward people,they are systematically conspiring against backward and innocent tribal people since thousand of years.They are so selfish that u cant even imagine;PLEASE ban 59.161.47.25,THANKS".Bigbrothersorder (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh.. what. What is this in regards to? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

DEAR SIR..please look at tribals..specially meenas and backward peoples article,some selfish people are adding nonsense and abusing tribals n backward people again n again..wat is this nonsense..?,please give your few minutes and check tribals(st),backward people(obc) and sc(dalit) articles.The nonsense people who are intentionally behind tribals are 59.161.47.25,,81.101.116.123,,ban them immediately please,,AND 81.101.116.123,,86.179.144.43,,86.162.140.193,,87.194.22.30,,82.24.107.240,,82.17.249.111 are definitely the SAME person..please ban him immediately for the sake of TRUTH.,,,people assisting him may be ShelfSkewed,,Ohconfucius,,59.161.47.25,,Oldag07,,125.22.95.71,,FOR THE SAKE OF TRUTH/AUTHENTIC HISTORY AND REALITY PLEASE BAN them..atleast for tribal articles.THANKS YOU N WIKIBigbrothersorder (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No.. no, we're not going to do that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus

Hi ! Thanks for the message. [ Origin theories of Christopher Columbus ] --Davide41 (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to say thanks for helping clear out the sockpuppetry issues with LUUWDA. It was my first time reporting such an incident (which I discovered as a result of incivility directed at me). You responded switfly, making me feel that I did the right thing. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/69.86.142.139/Archive

Thanks for your comment, I didn't realize how checkusers worked :p I've since looked at WP:CHECKUSER, and that clarified it. dmz 21:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: SPI Rcool35 still at it

Please take a look at this update, Rcool35 is also using another IP number range to evade his block: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rcool35 Archived investigation: [3] Thank you! --BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jsecure

I've closed this case. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers! TNXMan 14:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

All the thanks go to you for dealing with it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Stale CU data

So I was looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pohick2 and was wondering: what's the general length of time that CU data is good for? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Check your email. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please double check and comment my corrections at Software visualization

Hi HelloAnnyong. Can you please check and comment the reverts I did here, and the 3-4 preseding edits. Add, revert-by-Ptrb, Add-back, revert-by-Ptrb. And maybe keep eye on this back and forth. Thanks. Ptrb (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You were right on that edit, but you don't really need to point the editor to discuss with me first. In cases like that, you're better off discussing on the talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Similar back/forth discussion going on here too Code coverage. I've requested discussion at articles talk page. Would appreciate if you could keep eye on that Code coverage. I guess admins word is stronger than mine. Ptrb (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

New Stanovc/Whatelsetodo sock

[4] fairly obvious it's him. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. This is a serial sockmaster, we can be sure he will be back again. Athenean (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There is just no stopping this guy [5]. Athenean (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Blah. I've added this to the SPI case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, 'ppreciate it. Athenean (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Letting you know

Thanks for your recent help to me at SPI. I just thought that, as a courtesy, I should notify you of this: [6]. Please don't block the IP. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sure that telling them to add to AN from an IP was the right move. In this case WP:OFFER applies, I think. They did the first part (contact an experienced editor), and I think that second part about opening a thread at ANI falls to you to do it, if you agree that the block should be reviewed. On the other hand, the standard offer says "wait six months without sockpuppeting", and for this person it's been.. five days. Maybe a little too soon. But if you really think that the editor deserves another chance, then by all means give it a shot. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, woops, I guess I'm still in need of more experience, since I didn't know about OFFER until now. (For that reason, it would have been good if you had left them a message about that when you blocked them, as I suggested.) Let me tell you what I think about the five days thing, though. I certainly could be wrong, and I'm unfamiliar with the original history of that editor, but it looks to me like the recent socking that I've been reporting has been a case of good-faith, albeit foolish, attempts to make a clean start, just doing it in all the wrong ways. Anyway, given that I might or might not be wrong about that, and given that what's done is done, I think it will be OK for me to not open an AN thread myself. Let's see what he does, as that will be something of a test of whether or not he "gets it". If I change the instructions to him now, it will just complicate things. I'll keep an eye on it (I'm monitoring AN and ANI anyway, because of another block discussion where I've been commenting), and I'll certainly speak up if and when a thread starts. But I think it will be good in this case to put the onus on him to take the initiative. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Brah sock?

Could this be yet another in the long string? (wikilinks purposely excluded to avoid tipping him off if it is) WuhWuzDat 19:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it. Blocked and tagged. And I opened/close a case for it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi there, I've request Get 'Em Girls (album) for semi-protection due to continuous IP vandalism. ozurbanmusic (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A request

I was wondering if you could train me to become a clerk, or at least show me the ropes of how it works. When reverting vandalism, I've come across a couple users/IPs that seem like they might be Socks to me, but I'm not sure what evidence is needed and what to put in the case. I know that training me to become a clerk would be a bit overkill for my purposes, but it would also mean that if there's ever a need for more, you could grab me :p. Thanks, dmz 17:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey. To be completely honest, clerks generally have more experience editing on Wikipedia, and I don't think a thousand edits is quite enough to get started. We're also not really taking on new clerks right now. In the meantime, I would say keep editing and gain some more experience, and check back in a few months to see what's up. If you're asking about what's required to start a case, that's a different story. In terms of evidence, you need to provide tangible evidence of commonalities between accounts - things like similar edits, similar edit summaries, that sort of thing. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask me. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll come back if I have more questions. dmz 19:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

KentKnight007

Can you please log the block results from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug at the page WP:ARBSCI? Thank you very much for your prompt actions in this matter, -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

So done. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Can anything additional be done about this repeated behavior pattern from this banned user? Can the underlying IP be blocked? -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, they're not on a static IP, so it'd have to be a rangeblock. Problem is that it's a pretty wide range, and there's at least one good IP in there. So no, unfortunately there isn't really much to do in that regard. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the prompt replies. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice re Delicious carbuncle

• Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At ANI, BLPN, NPOVN, WT:SCN, and multiple other locations, this user is abusing forumshopping and attempting to game the system in retaliation for my reporting the user to ANI over the user's BLP violations and the user's disruption on the topic of WP:ARBSCI with those selfsame BLP violations. What can be done about this? Should the user be reported for forumshopping-disruption related to WP:ARBSCI? Multiple users have commented that the user's counter-claims have little merit. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

1. ARBSCI notice [7]
2. BLP violations [8]
3. Gaming and forumshopping [9]

Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI Check

Regarding this request Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818, I have another IP address to add user:66.177.19.78. Noting this threat [10], it seems that he is determined to disrupt the articles using multiple IP addresses. Do I need to reopen the SPI? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That IP is blocked for two days for block evasion, so it's fine for now. You don't need to include it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI - Abhishek191288

Hi, Since you were the clerk for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhishek191288/Archive, can you handle the unblock(s) based on User_talk:Tnxman307#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations.2FAbhishek191288.2FArchive? I think Tnxman307 went offline quite immediately after rechecking and last thing I want to do is wheel war on unblocks right now, but I don't want to leave the editor hanging either:) Also, you're probably better off fixing whatever needs fixing on the SPI page. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked Abhishek191288 and updated the archive. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, one of the other editors is blocked based on the same SPI, that need unblocking too? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah.. yeah, I guess so. So done. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thx again. BTW, just as an FYI, the Shinas one has a history Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anwar saadat, although only IP socks have been documented, other socks have been blocked without SPIs and the master's had escalating blocks, last of which was three months. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Vandalism by Thmc1 - PLEASE READ!

The following is a copy of a message I left on Thmc1's investigation: Annoyong, I think you should re-start the investigation on 96.242.217.91. He's back once again, and making the exact same edit ("NY Chinatown has the largest concentration of Chinese people in the western hemisphere...) on the "Chinatown" page as with the other chinatown pages. I don't think it's merely a co-incidence that this person mysteriously disappears right after the start of the investigation, only to return immediately upon its suspension. Whoever this person is, has been(IMHO) keeping tabs on the Thmc investigation file. If it were somebody else, they wouldn't know where to look since the investigation file was opened under Thmc's user name and not under IP "96.242.217.91". An examination of the IP's edit log also shows no record of deleted messages tipping off the individual in question, so this person clearly had prior knowledge of Thmc1 & was keeping abreast of the current situation. I am now more suspicious than ever that this person is, in fact, Thmc1, or connected to him/her in some way. What's your take on this?MBaxter1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

It was one edit three days ago, so this is a bit stale. Calm down. One edit is, in my opinion, not enough to go around blocking IPs. If it happens again, let me know and I'll take care of it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

MentorRC

I think MentorRC (talk · contribs) simply couldn't remember the exact spelling of the account he created and so created a new, similarly named account Mentor rc (talk · contribs). See the discussion I had with him here. He did agree that the account could be "deleted", but as I'm not an admin and couldn't block him, I put that alternate account tag on his user page to hopefully help him avoid being blocked for it. I don't think he intended to appear to be two different people at the AfD, but simply switched back to MentorRC once he realized his mistake.

However I didn't realize Rosy13 (talk · contribs) was a third account, so I'm less certain now it was just a mistake. I've also been wondering if he is perhaps also ContributeUS (talk · contribs), who wasn't mentioned in the SPI report, but is the only other keep !vote on the AfD. Yworo (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A CU was just run on ContributeUS, and it was found to be  Unrelated. Probably meatpuppetry then, though it seems like they want the article deleted. Maybe. I'm not really sure how to interpret their comment on the AfD. Anyway, Mentor rc is now using only that one account, so hopefully that ends it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it probably covers it. I'll fix up the tags as you've moved the SPI. I think you got that right, I'd call MentorRC the primary account. Yworo (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:MentorRC may be evading their block by editing with IP 129.27.143.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Yworo (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

response

I don't have an account. I started with the satellite map of the Sahara desert which was reverted without good reason. Hired gun --75.162.21.102 (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:SweetBabyGirl06

Since you commented on the respective sockpuppetry case, you may be interested in this posting I have made on the Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank You very much for unblocking me. I am very glad about the same. Abhishek191288 (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello HelloAnnyong, Abhishek191288 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pfainuk

This SPI case is now closed but I have seen what could be more evidence. Here is a discussion on a talk page [11]. Both User:Pfainuk and User:Wee Curry Monster leave a double space between each sentence which leaves me to believe their the same editer.--MFIreland • ^Talk 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Kevorkmail

Started a new about Kevorkmail [12] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Why wasn't he indeffed? how many block evasions has he done now? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it was an IP, and not entirely confirmed that he was up to it. If he sockpuppets again we'll deal with it as necessary, but SPI isn't a place to get revenge. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have evidence that undoubtedly confirms that the IP is him. Do you want me to send it through mail? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Um.. you can if you want, but I'm not going to change my block based on it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

TisTRU

Emr, I am TisTRu and you have apparently blocked me. Can only assume this is some sort of misunderstanding as all my contributions have been accurate, truthful and only with the intention of improving an article. If you have an issue with any particular edit pray tell? You have certainly never contacted me regarding my contributions. Otherwise I am a a loss. Would it not be more sensible to discuss whatever issue you have rather than just putting a bock on my account? Not having internet at home i tend to use internet cafe or friends computer if that has caused confusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.5.61 (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)