Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

To centralize discussion, all uw-* template talk pages redirect here. If you are here to discuss one of these templates, please be sure to identify which one. Thank you.

If you have a query, please see The User Warnings Wikiproject Frequently Asked Questions to see if it is answered there.

Subst paramter

Can this be added to the icon template call? Rich Farmbrough, 12:27 15 October 2007 (GMT).

Usage documentation

Is there a page that discusses which template to use for various cases, such as {{uw-test1}} vs {{uw-vandalism1}}, and when are the 4im ones appropriate? Should there be a link to that page either on the documentation pages for the individual templates and/or on the category page?

Proposed rewording

If a user replaces a section is an article with random profanity, it doesn't make sense to say the edit "appeared to be unconstructive". At the same time, a uw-vandalism4im warning would be inappropriate. Thus I propose the change the uw-vandalism1 template to say "appeared to be unconstructive and might have constituted vandalism." That way, a vandal doesn't just get told to "go play in the sandbox", but actually has a policy that warns them against vandalistic edits. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 04:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My view on this is that there is no requirement that you start with a level one template. If the vandalism is mild, I like to start with level one to see if the person gets the message. However, if it's impossible to assume good faith based on the nature of the vandalism, I skip to level 2.--Kubigula (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I like how {{uw-v1}} doesn't actually mention the word "vandalism", it's less bitey and more WP:AGF that way. Anomie⚔ 14:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this some more. I still don't support using the vandalism label in the level one template, for the reasons noted by Anomie. However, I think we should just say the edit "was unconstructive", rather than "appeared to be unconstructive". If the edit was ambiguous, then the test1 template is a better choice. If the edit is clearly unconstructive, then vandal1 is a good template, and we should be clear and direct.--Kubigula (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think the level 1 warnings should remain just as friendly and non-threatening as they are - they should be used for people that you can comfortably assume good faith on. If an IP comes along and blanks a page, I can easily assume it was an accident and a friendly level 1 warning is fine. If an IP comes along and replaces the content of a page with "this guy's a moron" then, depending on the situation, a level 1 warning doesn't really get the message across - in which case use a level 2. Warnings really should be treated as just that - ways of informing users of our policies and, if they seem to be deliberately disobeying them, the consequences of it. There's a temptation to treat the four levels of warnings as a "four strikes" system, but there's no reason you have to start at level 1 if the text of the level 2 warning better describes what needs to be said. ~ mazca ^t|c 11:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Uw-authorshipclaims

Template:Uw-authorshipclaims has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Anomie⚔ 12:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Anomie⚔ 11:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Slight changes to uw-ublock

I made two small changes to {{uw-ublock}}, the first based on an earlier change today by GDonato. The wording preceding the "reason" parameter did leave a grammatically awkward sentence stub which at first I misunderstood; I reinstated GDonato's edit but changed "the username" to "your username" since the template is directly addressed to the user. Secondly, I changed "may not meet our username policy" to "does not meet our username policy"; username indef-blocks are not placed for conditional or equivocal violations. --MCB (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The second part sounds good to me. I have no idea about the first, except to note that it changes the nature of the "reason" value admins should be providing (e.g. instead of {{subst:uw-ublock|names ending in "Bot" are reserved for bot accounts}} they must now do {{subst:uw-ublock|ends in "Bot", which is reserved for bot accounts}}). That's something for people who actually use the template to comment on. Anomie⚔ 00:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Uw-IPblock3

Someone has created {{Uw-IPblock3}} as a redirect to a userspace template {{User:J.delanoy/IPblock3}}. IMO, either the template should be moved to template space or the redirect should be deleted; there is no need for a redirect from template space to user space. I have no opinion as to which should happen, as I will never have need to use it. What does everyone think? Anomie⚔ 01:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I only made it so that it would be easier for my modified Twinkle-revert script to work, but it is not necessary. I didn't think it was a problem, but if anyone does, feel free to delete it. If you do, can you let me know so that I can change my script, please? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Or could we move it to the template space as a new template? I have found it useful when a vandal has been blocked more than twice, but does not yet warrant a 1-month block. What do you guys think? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We should at least move that to something like {{IPblock3}} instead because the "Uw" makes it sound like we're warning someone for improperly blocking someone, or we're warning someone for abusing a block template (example: placing the {{schoolblock}} template on an IP talk page for an IP that is not blocked). :) GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just anyone happening across this discussion knows, per a discussion on WT:AIV, and due to my realization of the limited applicability of the template, I have deleted both the template and the redirect. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

GO-PCHS-NJROTC, does that mean you also want to move {{Uw-3block}}, {{Uw-3rrblock}}, {{Uw-ablock}}, {{Uw-adblock}}, {{Uw-block}}, {{Uw-block1}}, {{Uw-block2}}, {{Uw-block3}}, {{Uw-botblock}}, {{Uw-dblock}}, {{Uw-ewblock}}, {{Uw-hblock}}, {{Uw-huggleblock1}}, {{Uw-huggleblock2}}, {{Uw-huggleblock3}}, {{Uw-lblock}}, {{Uw-npblock}}, {{Uw-recentblockwarn}}, {{Uw-sblock}}, {{Uw-sblock1}}, {{Uw-soablock}}, {{Uw-spamblock}}, {{Uw-spamublock}}, {{Uw-ublock}}, {{Uw-ublock-famous}}, {{Uw-uhblock}}, {{Uw-usernameblock}}, {{Uw-vaublock}}, {{Uw-vblock}}, {{Uw-vblock3}}, and {{Uw-voablock}}? Anomie⚔ 00:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"uw" stands for "user warning". In this case, we are "warning" (i.e. notifying) them that they have been blocked. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition relating to what to do if an edit wasn't just "an edit test"

I quite often see edits in recent changes that certainly appear to be edit tests, but unless the edit is blatant sillyness, such as adding stuff like "Elizibeth rules the world," there's always that .1% chance that a constructive edit gets reverted as a test edit or as vandalism. For this reason, I propose that we add something like If your edit was not just "playing around with Wikipedia," then feel free to reinsert your information citing a reliable source. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:uw-socksuspect

Someone moved {{Socksuspectnotice}} to {{uw-socksuspect}} today. I took the liberty of moving it back and creating something more in the uw-* style at {{uw-socksuspect}}. Feel free to review my version. Anomie⚔ 01:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

uw-aiv

This template warning seems vague : appears...may...or...sufficiently.... It is so vague, that I think Template:Uw-AIV should not be used; it does not indicate the recipient did anything wrong. Suggestion: it should be split into two notices, at the 'or'. --Psrq (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome templates for foreign-language contributors

I have just created the user talk template {{welcomeen-fr}}, which should be used to tell an apparently French-speaking new user that there is a Wikipedia in French. There are a whole bunch of similar templates that exist for other languages, yet they are not listed anywhere, even as a group. I thought here would be the right place to list them, and I would like to know everyone's opinion on how to incorporate them into this page. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Template:uw-bv

Someone is edit warring at {{uw-bv}}, claiming that the statement "This template has been carefully designed based on guidelines by the user warnings project" is somehow false. In particular, this comment was moved here from Template talk:uw-bv (as that same user felt the need to ignore the redirect here for centralized discussion where people might actually see it):

My view is that, whether or not {{blatantvandal}} was actually written by this user, that template was adapted for use in the uw-* system as {{uw-bv}}; that almost no changes were required for that purpose is an indication that {{blatantvandal}} was well written in the first place. None the less, {{uw-bv}} was designed based on the guidelines of the UW project, which just so happened to almost match the design used by {{blatantvandal}} (the difference I notice is that the icon is slightly different and not floated in the uw version). Please, let's not take this to WP:LAME. Anomie⚔ 04:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm correct me if I'm wrong but didn't gracenotes create this template, he can edit away to blatantvandalism, but uw-bv and BV were different templates that just happen to look similar, and have now since merged. The main goal of having the UW system was to create a standard system without people penchant for bells and furry whistles on warnings, and for the standard look n' feel. All changes should be discussed prior to making them to reduce the risk of a calamatous balls up due to the nature of the high visibility of these templates. To me Anomie you did right revert then discuss, and as far as I can see the changes had no merit. Why there are some of the old template floating around, is that some people prefer to use the leery colours etc we cannot stop that, but if it's a uw template, you guys can control whats done to them. ^Khukri 08:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the page history, you are correct, Gracenotes did create {{uw-bv}}. Until now, neither User:Scott MacDonald nor User:Doc glasgow has ever edited that template; the whole ownership issue seems to be that it was based on a non-uw template that User:Doc glasgow did create. I hope User:Scott MacDonald will stop being disruptive and join in this conversation. Anomie⚔ 11:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the discussion is now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_template_police_strike_again. MBisanz ^talk 12:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02: Gracenotes did not "create" Template:uw-bv in any meaningful sense. He even acknowledges in his initial creation that he was making a new version of Template:bv. We wouldn't view that as "creation" in any significant way for GFDL, copyright, or 3RR purposes, and we shouldn't view it as such here.

On another note, I want to issue this warning: the user templates project does not WP:OWN this template, despite what anyone may think, and I want to warn everyone that the very next time I see someone unjustifiably slinging around the word "vandal" or "disruption" to describe parties to this content dispute, I'm going to block them so fast their eyes spin. Nandesuka (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to lose your sysop bit that quickly, you can just request it be removed instead of abusing it to force wikidrama. Anomie⚔ 12:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You know what does force wikidrama and raise tensions? Silly notices like this. Can we try to keep things a bit cooler? Seraphim♥Whipp 12:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Anomie⚔ 12:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's really great to see that post, but it would so much better to see this whole thing diffuse with an exchange of apologies between the people in the dispute... ^{(What...I can dream... :( )} Seraphim♥Whipp 12:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The creation of {{uw-bv}}, indeed by Gracenotes (February 2007), has the following edit note: "create uw-version of the uber-cool {{bv}}". The template {{bv}} was at the time a redirect (essentially created by Doc glasgow) to {{Blatantvandalism}}, created by Doc glasgow. Gracenotes copied the text without any changes. Changes since then were very minor. So Scott seems to be right.

Being right in a dispute about content (in this case the content of template documentation) is no excuse for edit warring. Accusations of an ownership attitude against the opposite party are also no excuse for edit warring. (Actually, there are clearly ownership tendencies on both sides.)

(Btw, Scott, I was very impressed by this "new" user. I am glad you are back.) --Hans Adler (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Doc Glasgow created the substantial majority of the text in the current template in October 2005, and should be credited as such on the template page, owing to the non-history-preserving move that was made by Gracenotes. Having a template say that it was designed by some Wikiproject which had no hand in its creation is an incorrect claim of authorship, really. - Mark 12:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Gracenote's creation was a word-by-word copy of Scott's creation. Compare latest version of bv versus first version of uw-bv. Only the image changes. If you compare the old template with the currect version of uw-bv, the only changes have been: a)restoring the image that Scott's template had b) replacing "stop, and consider" with "stop. Consider" c) removing "Thank you".

I'm going to go so far as to suggest that the guys that wrote the wikiproject guidelines actually based them on how Scott's template was written :D --Enric Naval (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Good point Mark, I've fixed the wording at [1] to properly reflect the authorship of the various templates. MBisanz ^talk 12:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Dang! I was going to propose a very similar thing :D --Enric Naval (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz's change is good. But it does rather imply that the template will always comply with the guidelines. What if someone changes it so it no longer does? Changes are not obliged to follow guidelines - they are only guidelines. See the second below for my suggestions.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why people who care about having standardized warning templates watch those templates. People are free to make their own non-standardized templates, or use the old "test" templates, if they don't like this style. Anomie⚔ 12:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Any wikipedian is actually free to edit anything. Just as people did with blatant vandal. You cannot enforce standarisation.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It can be enforced through consensus, just like most of our existing guidelines. The current consensus is that Wikipedia should have a set of standardized user warning templates (with the "uw-" prefix to make them easy to find) for people to use if they wish, and that those templates should have a common appearance and a common language style. Anomie⚔ 14:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of a consensus like that, outside some obsessives on a wikiproject. If I see a way of improving any template, or indeed any item on wikipedia, I am free to do so. If others disagree, they revert, and we discuss it. We don't enforce meta-rules, across swaths of items, for the sake of conformity. That's the original policy sin of wikiprojects.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that in the end we'll have to agree to disagree. The UW project was started (back in 2006?) with the aim of standardizing the existing system (which was a mess). After much discussion it was ultimately decided not to impose our views to everyone, and to fork the templates instead of forcing everyone to use the same standardization (which is something that I agree can't be done if it is not an official guideline). Not all warning templates have to begin with UW but why can't a group of people wish to improve a system by creating a set of standardized templates (with the same set of arguments, and similar wordings) in order to help tools such as twinkle to develop? I am not a participant here anymore, but I hope it is not forcing everyone to use the uw wording and style when creating a template. If that's the case, I'll come with the hatchet to cut the tree myself. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's not the reality. The blatantvandal template and it's redirect at {bv} were taken over by this wikiproject. If they want to create their own stuff, fine. But a) they can't OWN pages and b) they can't redirect well-used shortcuts to them.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

afaik they didn't, TfD did. Could I recommend everyone politely bugger orf and come back tomorrow, as I'm really seeing a storm in a teacup here, and alot of words are being bandied with no regards to good faith and assumption of cabals, power hungry wikiprojects or people taking ownership of templates. ^Khukri 15:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

From the specific to the general.

Ok, let's leave aside the blatanvandal particulars. I'd like to suggest two changes that would solved this going forward

1. Change the standard documentation from "this template has been carefully designed based on guidelines by the user warnings project" to "people changing this template may wish to refer to the guidelines by the user warnings project". The Uw-bv template was not created with guidelines in mind, and since we will never know whether the creator of a template was thinking of the guidelines, or was "careful", we'd best not attribute motive. Indeed what does it matter what the designer thought?
2. Can we not redirect all the talk pages of templates here and then tell people they MUST come here? Why not just have a note on the talk page suggesting it might be more effective? The problem is that whilst those interested in templates in general may watch here, some of us are only interested in afew of the 1,400 - so we just watch them. Further, it should be in order to place a note on a talk page to record a comment on the template that you wish people to see in future. Or to record a discussion why a certain specific change to THAT template was previously considered and rejected. If that can only be done on a page covering 1400 templates, then it will soon be lost in the archive and not seen. There's a difference between current discussion that needs noticed by as many people as possible instantly, and long term specific notes that need recorded in an accessible place. If a specific discussion begins on a talk page of a template, and is specific to that template, it may be best (sometimes) to flag it up here where the flag will be seen, but to leave the discussion there where it can be found later. Equally any specific discussions here, ought to be recorded on the talk page of the template for easy finding. Generalised discussions are, naturally, better centralised - but not by hitting people and removing their comments.

Thoughts?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your point #1, and I see it was already done before your comment was posted. As for #2, I must disagree. Comments at the individual template pages tended to not get any attention, and this talk page isn't busy enough to be a hardship to watch (and probably will never get that busy). Anomie⚔ 12:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You still can't force people to come here. You can only suggest it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings. I wholeheartedly agree with you on principle, but having everyone discussing templates on a central place however favors broader inputs than the kind of discussion you will have on a single talk page. Achieving consensus on a page watched by 2 people is not really the same than discussing it with at least 10 people. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So suggest people come here. But don't enforce it. And don't redirect pages and move comments. If someone posts to a talk page, either suggest they come here for more input, or flag it here. A banner inviting people to consider coming here is better than enforcement. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You know very well people don't read the strange yellow boxes on talk pages ;). Doing so will result in drama too ("OMG you didn't discuss it on UTM, you are twisting longstanding consensus" "but I didn't know that"). As I said, I have mixed feelings about this :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Disallowing people from commenting on talk pages would be a very major policy change. Not something any wikiproject can decide. If anyone wants to change policy, then they should make a proposal and initiate a centralised discussion somewhere.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How would it be a major policy change? The choice to have a centralized discussion was formed via consensus in a fashion consistent with WP:MULTI. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:MULTI does not suggest a ban on people placing remarks particular to one page on its talk page. I see no such consensus, and a wikiproject cannot legislate a ban for all other editors. You can suggest, and that's it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

For my two cents, I agree with point 1. Sounds perfect. Point two also seems like a good plan. Suggest - don't enforce. Template talk pages are for discussing the template in question, redirects seem to add a stamp of ownership to the template. A centralised place for discussion, though, is an equally good idea - but it shouldn't be enforced in such a way. Perhaps a 'You may get a faster response if you ask your question at ...' box?> Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Uw-sand/doc

Template:Uw-sand/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Anomie⚔ 18:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

New templates: uw-vandalism3vo and uw-vandalism4vo

Someone has decided to create two new vandalism warning templates: {{uw-vandalism3vo}} and {{uw-vandalism4vo}}; the intention seems to be to have a separate warning for "vandalism-only" accounts versus accounts that also make apparently-constructive edits. Personally, I don't see the point of having separate templates just to mention that vandalism-only accounts are often blocked indefinitely. What does everyone else think? Anomie⚔ 23:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

These could be redirects, I suggest a TFD to that end. MBisanz ^talk 23:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

XfD is not used to establish redirect consensus. Has this been discussed with the user concerned? And frankly, if he want to create alternative templates, what on earth is the harm?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The user was invited here for discussion, and as you see below they have come. The only "harm" is that they are named as standardized warnings, so they should actually be standardized; what would be the point of having standardized warnings if they're not actually standardized? Anomie⚔ 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"What would be the point of having standardized warnings?" - beats me.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice misquoting. If that's the way you feel, why are you wasting your time on this page? Anomie⚔ 03:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I created this because when it is established that an account has been used only for vandalism, they should be warned about an indefinite block. This makes it more likely for the vandal to turn around to do constructive edits. -- IRP ☎ 23:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I doubt an account that hits level 3 will turn around. These might work with a bit of renaming, maybe to {{uw-voa3}} and {{uw-voa4}} to better match the "vandalism-only account" moniker. MBisanz ^talk 23:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be used if there are no constructive edits by the 3^rd warning after the first block. -- IRP ☎ 23:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I also question whether the threat of an indef block is really going to "turn around" a vandalism-only user any better than the existing templates; more likely, they'll either abandon the account or keep on until it is blocked and eventually create a new vandalism-only account. And I agree, uw-voa3 is a much better name than uw-vandalism3vo. Anomie⚔ 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If they abandon the account and do not create a new one, it will significantly reduce disruption. In my view, it will work as a deterrent for the vandals. IRP ☎ 04:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

But is it any more likely that they'll abandon the account on the threat of an indef block versus the regular template? Anomie⚔ 16:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It does somewhat increase the probability that it will either make them abandon it sooner or otherwise turn around. Even though it may be low, it is still a chance, which would reduce disruption over time. -- IRP ☎ 16:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Does it really? If they're going to abandon it on the threat of blocking, the threat of indef blocking is probably not going to make much difference there; truth be told, I suspect the "VOA abandoned after a v3 warning" accounts are really "VOA creator sobered up/passed out/etc after the v3 warning", and had nothing to do with the actual warning. And if they're going to keep on until they're actually blocked, no threat of any sort is going to work. Anomie⚔ 18:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, then what if there is a template created for blanking? That's the reason why I put "vandalism" in the template name. -- IRP ☎ 04:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Like {{uw-delete1/2/3/4/4im}}? Anomie⚔ 16:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No, like "{{uw-blank(3/4)vo}}" -- IRP ☎ 16:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were asking about making a warning about blanking, not another set of these "vandalism only" warnings of questionable utility. Anomie⚔ 18:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So, should these templates be moved to the suggested name? -- IRP ☎ 01:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, IRP, judging by my experience as a Huggle user, I can tell you that edits from someone who already has a level 3 warning are rarely constructive enough to even avoid getting a level 4 warning. As a matter of fact, it's as if these vandals don't even bother to read their talk page to see what the "You have new messages" prompt is about, and, when I have evidence that they actually do read their talk pages, the way I know is because they have vandalized the user page of whoever issued the warning. I think that since Huggle puts warned vandals under high surveillance (the higher the warning level, the higher the surveillance), the new templates do not give much in terms of protection against vandalism. I can tell you that vandals either stop after getting a level 1 or 2 warning, or make it all the way to an AIV report.

Additionally, you cannot assume that an account is vandalism-only based on a single edit. And actual vandals will respond to a threat of blocking with a "make my day" attitude. Just look at my {{user Vandalized}} template (on a protected user page, no less) to see what I mean. See WP:DNFTT. Point is, we already have adequate templates for level 3 and 4 warnings, and I would think that a newbie would assume that when these templates talk about blocking, they talk about indefinite blocking. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)