User talk:Tewfik/Archive 7: Difference between revisions
m →Re: Map: fixed link |
|||
Line 224: | Line 224: | ||
Would [http://new.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?contrassID=1&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&itemNo=587525] |
Would [http://new.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?contrassID=1&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&itemNo=587525] |
||
establish notability in your opinion? [[User:Abu ali|ابو علي (Abu Ali)]] 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
establish notability in your opinion? [[User:Abu ali|ابو علي (Abu Ali)]] 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Mr Tewfiq, Please be so kind as to respond. Thanks [[User:Abu ali|ابو علي (Abu Ali)]] 22:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Re: Map== |
==Re: Map== |
Revision as of 22:37, 29 March 2007
- (rocky start) Archive 1
- (until 17-06-2006) Archive 2
- (until 03-08-2006) Archive 3
- (until 04-09-2006) Archive 4
- (until 30-10-2006) Archive 5
- (until 21-02-2007) Archive 6
Welcome to Tewfik's Talk page. Feel free to leave comments and criticism at the bottom of the page:
intersted in your view on this issue
Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-19_Inayat_Bunglawala. Tnx. Zeq 08:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
expert sources on anti-Zionism
I see you're contributing to the edition of the anti-Zionism article.
You've made an interesting point, i.e. that certain sources are not expert, including the poet Michael Rosen and Tanya Reinhart, of Tel Aviv University. However, the same applies to Diana Muir, a historian who makes claims pertaining to the field of statistics, and who misrepresents the very survey she's reviewing, claiming that it deals with anti-Zionism, when actually this term is not once mentioned in the paper.
My point is, either we delete all nonexpert sources or we leave them all.--Abenyosef 01:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate a response to my objections to your edits on the talk page there. I see that you are editing there now and ignoring my latest comment regarding the fact that s source was provided for non-violence as majority tactic, whereas you have no sources for the opposite point of view. I would appreciate acknwoledgement of this point. Thanks. Tiamut 10:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- My contributions show that I was not editing this or any other entry for over four hours prior to this message. TewfikTalk 17:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Your response here
I'd like your response here.Bless sins 21:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
A final warning
Tewfik, if you revert my well-sourced additions one more time, particularly as regards the indigneous status of Palestinians, I will report you and include a history of your reversions of all the well-sourced information I have added in the past. Please see: Category:Indigenous peoples. Note that it says only one source is required from an international, national or sub-national organization or scholar to establish indigeneity. I have provided over 7 in different arenas where we have had this discussion. I also appended the UN one to my inclusions of Palestinians to the indigenous pages in question. Stop. Now. Thanks. Tiamut 17:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't misrepresent the situation with strawmen, and please don't issue these threats. TewfikTalk 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- User subsequently blocked for 3RR on that entry. TewfikTalk 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
I posted the following message on User Talk:GabrielF, and am pasting it here. Same story: if it is a mistake, and you can explain, I apologize, but otherwise I hope you will prevent the need for a report and/or further remedies. I might stress that there is more evidence I could provide, but have stuck with the main issues here. Respectfully, Mackan79 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi GabrielF. Your recent edits on Anti-Zionism and other pages have raised concerns with me and others that you and User:Tewfik are the same user. I'm laying out the basis for the concern below, so you can respond, before I file a request for checkuser. If there is some odd explanation for this, I apologize, and will gladly see this deleted.
My concern was raised by the following series of edits on Anti-Zionism on February 21, before which neither Tewfik nor GabrielF appear to have edited the page in several weeks or months:
- Edit 1: 20:44 21 Feb 2007 - Tewfik enters content dispute to revert Reinhart paragraph
- Edit 2 (Talk page): 20:47 21 Feb 2007 - Three minutes later, not Tewfik, but GabrielF leaves message "explaining revert" of Reinhart paragraph (see edit summary).
Huh? Ok, we wait.
- Edit 3 (Talk page): 21:03 21 Feb 2007 - Tewfik leaves message with nearly identical sentiment to GabrielF (but without acknowledging that GabrielF just said the same thing).
- Edit 4: 21:50 21 Feb 2007 - Tiamut reverts Tewfik back to Mackan
- Edit 5: 22:17 21 Feb 2007 - GabrielF finally reverts Tiamut in first edit on page since 13 September 2006
Ok, so specifically: What revert were you explaining at 20:47 21 Feb 2007? It appears Tewfik was the only individual who had just reverted the page, 3 minutes ago. You had not reverted the page for several months prior. So it a coincidence that you show up for the first time, 3 minutes after Tewfik's also-first revert on the page to directly explain it?
In this regard I also found another sequence of interest, which I recalled from Zionism.
- Edit 1: 15:54, 16 Feb 2007 - GabrielF reverts material for POV concerns.
- Edit 2 (Talk page): 15:58, 16 Feb 2007 - Four minutes later, GabrielF leaves message "explaining my last revert further" (see edit summary)
And then on Racism by country:
- Edit 1: 15:48, 12 Feb 2007 - GabrielF reverts, wanting more discussion
- Edit 2 (Talk page): 15:55, 12 Feb 2007 - Seven minutes later, GabrielF leaves comment with "explanation of revert" in talk.
Two points:
- A person generally does not say they are "explaining revert" unless they have actually reverted. Rather, they post an explanation, and then revert "per talk." "Explaining revert" generally suggests one has already reverted, not that one plans to do so.
- Your previous editing indeed seems to show that your pattern is to revert and then "explain" your revert, not to "explain revert" and then assume the material will still be there to do so.
Based on these issues, I took a look through each of your edit logs (Tewfik [1] and GabrielF [2]), and was interested to find a very strong correlation. That is, when GabrielF is editing, Tewfik is not. In fact, despite rather heavy editing by both accounts, I could not find a single day among the first seven months of Tewfik's account where you were editing at the same time. This held true until 25 May 2006. On that day, you (GabrielF) inexplicably went on a spree reverting vandalism on many random pages, something you hadn't done before, along with placing a series of "test" templates on user pages in very close succession. Tewfik, during this period, went on editing as normal.
In other words, the one time you edited at the same time, it was done in the way that would most likely have been orchestrated with a friend (or alone) to cover your tracks, and in a way that was highly inconsistent with your previous style of editing.
In sum, I find this very frustrating, because you seem to be a dedicated editor, if also somewhat of a dedicated edit warrior as Tewfik. In fact, I did not plan to report this based on the first incident on anti-Zionism, despite having seen the events unfold, because I did not want to deal with the hassle. Unfortunately, your continued reversions on the same page force my hand. Ultimately, if this is a misunderstanding, I will be happy to find out why, and will apologize fully. Alternatively, if you would like to admit that you are the same user, and that it was simply a mistake on your part (technical and/or judgment) that you ended up editing on the same page a few times, I will be happy to simply see Tewfik retired, along with his combative style of editing. If there is a poor explanation, however, with all respect, I think a checkuser and any subsequent remedies may be necessary.
I hope we can deal with this constructively. I'm also posting this on User:Tewfik. Mackan79 03:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can appreciate how wanting to find a connection can lead one to see what isn't there, and I don't blame you for that. However I do take offence at your 'respectful' description of me as a dedicated edit warrior with a combative style, and I question what type of response you imagined that that would elicit. TewfikTalk 08:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
(Pasted from my talk): Unfortunately, I found myself in a situation on February 21 where I was writing a response to GabrielF's explanation of Tewfik's revert. Sorry, I found that odd. Should I not have? I'm also sorry this has now escalated to wild personal attacks. In any case, I guess the first thing is to see what checkuser says. Mackan79 17:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Checkuser request has been placed here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/GabrielF Mackan79 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tewfik -- Sorry about the report, and thanks for your civil response. You seem to have seen what raised my concern, and I appreciate that. Based on your response, I probably would have discussed the matter in more detail, but unfortunately the dialogue with GabrielF seemed to escalate the matter where a checkuser seemed necessary. Best, Mackan79 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
sockpuppetry
Hmmm... If we're actually the same person than why are we paying twice for our official Cabal membership cards? It seems like we should get a multiple-personality discount.
I'd bring this up with Jimbo but I have a sneaking suspicion that he's actually only a voice in my fusiform gyrus.
GabrielF 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Newer, secondary source versus older, primary source
Hey Tewfik. I noticed you changed the >530 citation back to 600, citing that the secondary source was newer than the primary source. I don't disagree with you per se on this point, but we need to be consistent. The same newer secondary source lists the Israeli military death toll at 120 (one more than the current article, which cites an older, primary source at 119), and the Israeli civilian death toll at 39 (four less than the current article, which again cites an older primary source at 43). I don't really care which way we go on this, but I think it's important we be consistent, in the interest of accuracy (and, to a lesser extent, neutrality). I'm going to update the Israeli military and civilian figures to also match the newer, secondary source, but I just wanted to give you a heads up. Cheers. — George Saliba [talk] 08:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Request help...
Hi. I don't seem to like the category I created [3]. Sorry. What is your concern about it? I was about to split it by creating a "Military operations involving Isreal and the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict" category for the more recent ones. There are so many military operations that it can be useful to split them. I also created this category [4]. I find separating out the battles useful from the larger "conflict" category. I have been trying to think of a good name for a Palestinian equivalent that doesn't use the word terrorism. Something alone the lines of "Palestinian militant operations and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" which could contain all Palestinian attacks both against civilians and military targets. This wouldn't replace any existing terrorism or massacre categories but rather collect all of the operations in one place. --HistoryBuff1983 05:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it is best to start with an equivalent category to "Battles involving Israel", how about "Battles involving Palestinian militants"? --HistoryBuff1983 05:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you don't like the categories? I think they help. I see the templates and they are good too. Are you going to remove ever category I made? I was copying this category "Battles and operations of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War" and "Battles of the Yom Kippur War" in a way. --HistoryBuff1983 05:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing some of my mistakes. Sorry. I just realized I misspelled Jordan in this new category relations and I just found "Category:Nursing_schools_in_Palestine" with one entry which shouldn't have been there so I removed it. --HistoryBuff1983 06:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
reuters
look [here] amos 19:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
why is it needed to be used in an article to stand out? the line sais reuters is still hosting an image by hajj on it's website, and that is exactly what it is. i think i probably didn't understand you. amos 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop breaking the template. While you may be looking at a particular use of it where "the" is not required, in most cases it is vital. Warofdreams talk 01:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, just check the examples on the talk page. Geography of the Palestinian territories makes sense as a link (although it is currently a redirect), Geography of Palestinian territories does not, and does not exist. This is the same for every use of the template. You can see exactly the same format for other countries with names which take the definite article, such as the Philippines. Warofdreams talk 03:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- But your revision isn't an actual example of the template in use. It's not used anywhere else to simply link to the national entities. Take a look at the talk page and the Wikipedia:Guidelines for "(Continent) topic" templates to understand how this template is used. Warofdreams talk 03:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Arab citizens of Israel
Hi Threeafterthree, Unfortunately, your observation about conflict carrying over is often true, though WP generally lets us sort more out than not in the end. As for your compromise, I'm afraid it is has the same problem, since the same Arab Israelis that don't identify as Palestinians, don't identify as Palestinian people. It would be like labelling the population of N. Ireland Catholic or Protestant - neither fits both. That some Arab Israelis identify as Palestinian is represented in the text, but such a disputed description should not be applied across the board as a category (per policy). Cheers, and thanks for your help in any event. TewfikTalk 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okie dokie. Thanks for the explaination. Cheers! --Tom 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Zionism and racism allegations
It is being considered to be moved back to Zionism and racism. I noticed you were the one who moved it to the "allegations", so I would be interested in hearing what you think on the matter. Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Free Spirits & Christianity
Hi Tewfik. I've done a massive redraft on the Brethren of the Free Spirit article. I was wondering if you wanted to put the Wikipedia 'Christianity' tag thing on it - or if not who I should bring it to the attention of? I would do it myself but I don't really know how. Hope this is ok.ThePeg 14:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Tewfik. I corrected the category for the image. Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories is correct. Not Category:Maps of Palestine as you put it in twice now. Your edit summary was: "please don't create cats for single images when they can populate supercats".
There are multiple images in Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories. See the subcategories there. They have more images. Please learn more about image categorization. I have been categorizing many images with only a couple complaints. --Timeshifter 05:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I said there are more images in the subcategories. Also, I just found many more uncategorized images that belong in the top level of the category. I am adding them now. --Timeshifter 05:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- See how wikimedia commons categorizes these maps:
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_the_Palestinian_territories --Timeshifter 05:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the images on the commons were already categorized in their present categories before I started categorizing them.
- Many of the images belong in both of these categories:
- Category:Maps of Israel
- Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories
- Where applicable the images are put in both categories. --Timeshifter 05:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maps often cover more than one nation or territory. So both wikimedia commons and wikipedia have a long history of categorizing maps in multiple categories. --Timeshifter 06:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Maps are given various names by their uploaders. The maps are then used by other people on many different wikipedia pages. Those wikipedia pages concern different nations and territories. Thus the maps are categorized under multiple nation and territory categories. The maps are not owned by the original uploader, nor by the name the original uploader applies to the map. Oftentimes the uploader only puts the name of one nation in the image name. There is not room to put all the nation and territory names. It would make the image name too long. Category content includes the subcategories, too.--Timeshifter 06:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am talking about both the filenames and the maps. The maps cover multiple nations and territories, and not just one nation or topic.--Timeshifter 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your objection is clear to me. But it goes against a long history of wikipedia and wikimedia map categorization. I have been categorizing many maps. From other regions, too. As far as I remember I have had only 2 complaints. I went along with the other complaint. I disagree with your complaint.--Timeshifter 07:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Look at
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps
- You will see that maps are often categorized under multiple categories representing the nations and territories covered by the map. --Timeshifter 07:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that wasn't a model of an explanatory deletion summary, it's true. I was closing Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 February 22 and deleted the image as part of that. The image should never have been uploaded here in the first place, as it came from AP. Associated Press makes it living from providing its subscribers and readers with informative content, enhanced by commercial photography. We cannot then take that photography, which they pay for and relicense, and use it to illustrate our articles and claim that there is no commercial impact. That is what I meant by "From information provider". Counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use mentions this explicitly. If you know of any other images like this, please do nominate them for deletion. Thanks. Jkelly 17:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
CSD
Before nominating a category as empty-cat, please ensure that it is empty. If you do not it will leave red-linked category on other pages. If you disagree with the tagging of en: pages for commons:'s media (e.g. Image:Hitt Egypt Perseus.png), please resovle that issue first. Deleting the category will not delete the en: media page, but will red-link it's cats (encouraging someone to recreate them). — xaosflux Talk 01:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I must be missing something, when I look at Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories it shows three entries: Subcat Category:Maps of Gaza Strip, subcat Category:Maps of the history of the Palestinian territories and media page: Image:Israel.png. — xaosflux Talk 01:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- As for the content dispute, I don't really want to get involved in it. I'm looking at this from a "Red-links encourage creation of a page for the red-link" POV. To that, deleting a category with inbound category links encourages someone else to recreate it. The same would go for subcategories that are uplinked to it. In that case I'd suggest either also nominating the sub-category, or editing the sub-category to remove the "parent" category. — xaosflux Talk 02:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think we need to recreate commons: cats here for media that isn't on here. The tags reffering people to the commons' categories can be put on the articles and or article categories. — xaosflux Talk 02:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Commons media in English wikipedia categories
Commons media are for the use of all wikipedia sites worldwide. The English wikipedia category pages for those commons media list the English wikipedia pages on which those commons media are used.
The commons page for a particular image does not list the English wikipedia pages on which that image is being used.
Sometimes better images are uploaded that can replace lesser-quality images. Without the list of English-language wikipedia pages it would be very difficult to find and replace a particular image on multiple English-language wikipedia pages.
There are images in English wikipedia categories that would not be accepted in the commons. Gif images, fair use images, etc.. So the link to the commons category allows for more public-domain images to be used in English wikipedia pages.
The existence of the English wikipedia category allows for links to be made to the commons category of the same name. So English wikipedia editors then know of the additional commons media available to them. Those images are sometimes better, as explained previously. Oftentimes there is a larger selection of images at the commons.
The existence of the English wikipedia category also allows a logical location for links to the English wikipedia subcategories.
Not all commons images are suitable for placement in English wikipedia categories. Images captioned in other languages for example.
As many others have done I put some of the English-language commons images in the English wikipedia categories. This saves editors time in finding images. Because they don't have to click many commons images to open them up and see what language is used on the image.
It is common for a map or media to be in several categories. There are many examples of this. Maps, for example, often show several nations, territories, etc..--Timeshifter 09:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Categories
As for Category:Maps of Gaza Strip, I think that as Image:Gz-map.png (the only local image) is public domain, it should be transwiki'd to commons: then deleted. Then there would be no need for this category here, and the other projects would benefit from another image. — xaosflux Talk 02:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- And if the other images pages existed just to add it to a category here, they should be deletable as well, thus emptying the category. — xaosflux Talk 02:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- See my comment in the above section. --Timeshifter 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
transjordan, western palestine
Hello Tewfik, Here is how the text was before:
- Between July 1922 and 1948, the term Palestine referred to the British Mandate of Palestine. After the seperation of Transjordan, the term referred to Western Palestine,
First there is a contradiction, since the first sentence says that Palestine meant the full area of the Mandate (which included Transjordan) up to 1948 while the second says that it only meant the west part after the separation of Transjordan. Second, the separation of Transjordan preceded the coming-into-legal-existence of the Mandate, so the time sequence is wrong. Third, it seems confusing to say in effect "Palestine meant Western Palestine" as if there is also another Palestine that isn't Palestine. The facts as I understand them is that before the Mandate came into effect "Palestine" was only informally defined, then as soon as the Mandate came into effect the British administration began to use Palestine to refer to the left bit and Transjordan to refer to the right bit. --Zerotalk 07:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Multiple categories for maps
It is common for a map to be in many categories. I have seen many examples of this. Just today you added more categories to some maps. So you left those maps in multiple categories. We discussed the need for this previously on my user talk page. --Timeshifter 08:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Incorrectly adding template to some map pages
You are incorrectly adding this template to some map pages:
You are adding that template to maps that are already on the commons.
I explained previously about wikipedia category pages that include commons maps. Let me clarify. When one put a commons map in a wikipedia category, one is NOT storing the map at wikipedia. It is still at the commons.
Look at one of the map pages where you incorrectly added the template: Image:Gz-map.gif. It says on the wikipedia map page, "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below."--Timeshifter 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The record will show that I just pasted the message from xaosflux (ibid) onto Timeshifter's Talk, and he promptly removed it under the strange edit summary:revert. Please do not sign for other people. Feel free to quote them, though. And be sure to add your signature., and then went on to revert the edits I made based on that response from xaosflux. TewfikTalk 20:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- On my talk page you added 2 old comments from Xaosflux. I had previously replied to his comments where he made them. So he may have changed his mind since then. I removed them because you did not write anything to explain them. Those 2 comments just appeared on my talk page by themselves, but you were listed in the revision history. Some would consider that to be deceptive. When you put them back and explained what you were doing I left them in. Please be clearer next time. --Timeshifter 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Mess Up
Hi Tewfik, I wonder if you can help. I've made a bit of a mess up on two entries I've made to do with titles and don't know how to change them. One is Rosicrucian Manifestoes which should read Rosicrucian Manifestos. The other is Monad Hieroglyphic which should read Monas Hieroglyphica with redirects from Monad Hieroglyphic and Hieroglyphic Monad. Would you be willing to change them for me? I don't know how. Thanks! ThePeg 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
MAavak Sozialisti deletion
Shalom, Would [5] establish notability in your opinion? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mr Tewfiq, Please be so kind as to respond. Thanks ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Map
Hi, thanks for bring the map to my attention. I am honestly not sure I can come up with a proper replacement, since many of the things on the map are constantly changing and it would be difficult to come up with an accurate version. Which brings me to the point that the map in question should absolutely not be used for any purpose on Wikipedia, because it has countless factual errors, as well as dubious POV statements. I mean, what's 'Greater Jerusalem'? Who defined it? Are they talking about the security barrier?
In any case, I'll see what I can do, maybe I'll come up with something. But for now please oppose the usage of the current version in any way you can. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Here's another related map, although it does not show the expansion plan. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- For example, the 'main roads' are all screwed up (important roads aren't marked, minor roads marked as 'main'), and there are a few fictitious roads. For example, notice on the map the part of Adummim to the left of the main cluster, so to say - it is supposed to be left of a 'major road'. Actually it's to the right of another major road, as you can plainly see here, and the road to this neighbourhood's right, as the map shows, doesn't even exist (although there is one somewhat resembling it). In addition it's hard to say whether the map even shows areas in West Jerusalem because it chose its edge like that on purpose, but I don't think it shows Ramat Rachel, the edge of which is supposed to be just barely visible.
- As you said yourself, it also doesn't show Mount Scopus at all, doesn't show the Jewish Quarter of the old city, and the Jewish cemetery in the Mount of Olives seems to be marked as 'Palestinian Built-up'. These are the most outstanding direct factual errors, although there are a lot of subtle errors (never heard of the name Pisgat O'mer) and deceptions on the map.
- Also I have doubts about the authenticity of the location of E1 on that map, which is actually the Ma'ale Adummim forest - I don't think they deforest the area after spending so much money on it, especially considering there's so much empty space around! I believe the real E1 is between Ma'ale Adummim and Anata (as on this map), also because I was just recently there and they're building a lot of things, notably multiple new roads.
- -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)