Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 4

4 March 2011

Structured dialogic design

Structured dialogic design (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

We request the cited page is restored. Structured_dialogic_design The team of authors who have worked on this page were confused by the rationale for deletion. We are first-time Wikipedia authors, although all of us who have edited have PhD's and are widely published in our fields. The page indicated was under revision, and the materials that could be conceived of as promotional was removed. Several of us are also faculty members - I am at U Toronto and OCAD University, and we teach this process among others, and our students have a right to see the development of this material. Excuse us for not being professional Wiki people, but your draconion reviewers are also I think biased from a hyper-wary anti-promotional culture. I sense there was a bit of vengeful glee in taking us down - the process represented by this page is maintained by a non-profit, not a consultancy. It was developed in academic settings in the 1970's and is cited in hundreds or evenm thousands of papers in different terms over the years. I counter-claim a bias against the specific page, because we had no promoptional content AND we were actively revising the page to fit standards. - Peter Jones designdialogues.com peter@globalagoras.org Redesignresearch (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Googling for information about this I find one result in Google news archive search, two in Google book search, and 18 results in Google scholar search. Is this featured in any textbooks? Has it appeared in any journals? Dream Focus 04:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The very page the authors cite in their signature describes this as a neologism that they think ought to be adopted. There lacks evidence that it has yet been adopted, however. When there is, then there perhaps would be reason to rewrite an article, focussing not just on their work, but the others who will by then have discussed it. This is not a negative comment on the value of their coinage, or the underlying basis for it: that's a matter for the other scholars in their field, and we must wait for them. They can certainly teach this; it is normal for faculty to teach their hypotheses and their views, but the question is whether others do also. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion As DGG says, we wait until third party sources have covered the topic. I too am a faculty member (at a top-10 program in engineering) and I understand your frustration with the situation. Please do look over WP:N. If a fair number of people have cited the works involved in academia and roll them into their own work, we're probably good to go on an article. But keep in mind the ideal article is readable by the layperson, or at least the lead of the article is. The article as-it-was wasn't readable and that probably didn't help the situation. Yes, complex ideas can be hard to communicate clearly, but that's what we have technical communications classes for. Hobit (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• I think the fact that both DGG and Hobit endorsed a deletion is prima facie evidence that application of WP:SNOW is appropriate. Regardless, endorse, per the total lack of sourcing. T. Canens (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per lack of reliable sourcing and general silliniess of request: "vengeful glee", huh? Really? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse per T. Canens. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Doing battle with the Deletionists.jpg

File:Doing battle with the Deletionists.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The license was fixed Dream Focus 15:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought everything was done, but to my surprise the page got deleted. I tried discussing this at User_talk:VernoWhitney#The_license_was_fixed. The Fair Usage Rational #8 was used as the reason for its deletion. I believe it met all requirements, as it does significantly increase a reader's understanding of the article material. It is linked to in the Peter David article, but the administrator stated the image had to be in an article, so someone added it to Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia where it fit perfectly, there a section concerning it there. [1] If anything needed to be updated, such as pointing to the new article, that could've been done quite easily. I did misread the part about a second tag, thinking that was just the FUR information. I can easily add that though, Template:Non-free newspaper image meeting the requirements just fine. Note that the copyright holder did give permission, which has been confirmed, to use this anywhere on the internet, that including Wikipedia, for which he knows it was uploaded to. Dream Focus 15:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment WP:CSD#F3 was the reason for deletion. Please don't misrepresent my actions. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, since it was just a misunderstanding, can you undelete it and let me add Template:Non-free newspaper image to it? I assumed the FUR would be a reason you'd want to keep it deleted. Dream Focus 15:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The template you would like to add says "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of newspaper pages..." (bolding in original). This was not a low-resolution image, but completely legible. There's no provision in WP:NFC to permit us to reproduce articles as images; on the contrary, it's listed as an example of "unacceptable use" there: "An image of a newspaper article or other publication that contains long legible sections of copyrighted text. If the text is important as a source or quotation, it should be worked into the article in text form with the article cited as a source." (Doing this, of course, opens up the prohibition against extensive quotations.) (The best approach here seems to be, as recommended at User:VernoWhitney, asking the copyright holder to provide a usable license that allows print reuse and modification.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  Template:Non-free with permission says Wikipedia can use it, but it can't be printed and resold anywhere. Which one of the many other tags would be appropriate for this then? There are far too many to be sorting through. He isn't going to give permission to have someone print and sell his work of course, so I'm not bothering him asking that. Dream Focus 04:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  Even with that tag, images must be fully compliant with non-free (fair use) policy. (The talk page of the template may be instructive there.) I don't believe that a valid nfc argument can be made to reproduce this article in its entirety, which is what, in effect, the high resolution image does unless Mr. David is willing to comply with our licensing requirements. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 04:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• See my comments in response to Dreamfocus' request for help at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Can_someone_help_me_rescue_an_image?. Arguably, depending on whether the magazine acquired the text rights when they published it, the author maybe able to release the text on a wikipedia compatible license, they certainly cannot release the rights the the page layout which will be owned by the magazine or the images unless they specifically own the rights to them. The release Dreamfocus claims is to internet use only, which is not compatible with wikipedia as we require release for commercial use anywhere. Therefore this can only be used under NFCC and, as MRG explains above it doesn't meet the NFCC. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is Peter David, the author of the piece in question, speaking. Since I post infrequently, I don't have the hang of the various codes and such required, so I apologize in advance if there are elements to this post that are missing, but the content should be clear nonetheless. While I appreciate irony as much as anyone, I feel compelled to point out that I could not have been more explicit in giving broad and total freedom to distribute the article in question as much as humanly possible. For individuals here, now, to try and seize on some aspect of Wikipedia bylaws in order to delete an article critical of Deletionists seems remarkably self-serving and--as the Church Lady would say--conveeeeenient. Still, I appreciate copyright protection as much as anyone, and if spelling it out yet again is required, then fine: Use that article for anything, anywhere, anytime. The only stipulation I've ever given is that it say "reprinted with permission" and the source cited, but otherwise that reprint is unconditional. If someone ever wants to collect that article as part of--for instance--a history of Wikipedia and then charge for it, go right ahead. Hell, if someone wants to reprint the article on the front of a t-shirt and sell it, hey, if you can get people to buy it, knock yourselves out. As far as this discussion goes, it is my explicit desire that the article be relisted, and I hearby release Wikipedia or its assignees, licensees, etc. from any responsibilities, compensatory or otherwise, that may arise from its reuse. Does that suffice? --PAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padguy (talk • contribs) 12:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

We require that licenses be compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. So the above should be sufficient provided that "use this article for anything" includes the right to create derivative works. Taemyr (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd concur with Taemyr here, but Spartaz raises a good point about the copyright ownership of the layout. An alternative, if derivatives are permitted, might be to host the text of the article on Wikisource, or to incorporate it broadly into whatever pages are appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse - It's remarkable the effort that some editors will expend to carry on the battle. What valid use does this image have anyway, besides for the amusement of Dream Focus? I think this page sums is up quite nicely. Sure, it could probably be crammed into Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, but even then you have to ask yourself if this is really an appropriate image to display in any article? It's not really an image, it's a scan of a magazine article, (i.e. a source). It's a source that should be referenced in an article, and just because the article isn't hosted anywhere on the internet doesn't mean that Wikipedia should host a scanned image of the article and include it in an article as an thumbnail image that you can click to read the whole article. This isn't how sourcing works. If you want to refer to the article, a simple citation like this would suffice:

• Peter David (2010). "But I Digress". Comic Buyer's Guide #1663. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

and if the article isn't hosted on the internet so people can just click on a URL and read it immediately, then tough beans. Not all sources are internet accessible. —SW— ^express 15:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It seems clear that permission to reproduce this image has been given by its author. The niceties of licensing can be attended to after the image has been restored. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is subject to Foundation mandates, including Terms of Use and licensing policy. WP:BURO and WP:IAR do not trump those. If the publisher holds rights to layout of the page, Mr. David cannot supply a usable license for that without their consent. He can supply rights to the text (presuming he has not released that right; we had some issues with a Scottish author who used his text without securing consent of his publishers, which subsequently had to be removed). If he has rights to the text but not to the page globally as published, the image will never be usable as it was uploaded, even if the text is. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse. As and when we get a free license release, we're good; it is policy that user-created content cannot be fair use. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

That's for just about everybody involved in this discussion. For God's sake, what's wrong with you?!? A notable author wants to contribute content to Wikipedia under a free license. Some folks here think he hasn't recited the magic words properly (and he may not have). Nobody's posted a suitable request on his talk page, or indicated any effort to communicate with him about whatever problem remains. The comments about the publisher's rights in the image remind me of nothing so much as the publisher's toady of a lawyer who told various news outlets that authors don't have the rights to sell ebooks of their own novels, because when they do it they're stealing the vital creative contributions of the proofreaders, copyeditors, typesetters, etc who the publisher paid to create the physical books. It might be technically correct, in the most attenuated sense, but it comes across as a desperate to evade doing the right thing. On the other side, what is the encyclopedic value of the image? The author's released the text, why not just OCR the image or type in the relevant text, or even the whole thing? This whole thing comes across not as a dispute over licensing, but as two sides arguing over whether to overemphasize a potentially embarrassing incident or to sweep it under the rug, not about genuinely encyclopedic values. Simple resolution: Author wants to contribute content to Wikipedia: HELP HIM AND STOP ARGUING!! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Two points: The first point is that the author may not be sufficiently authorized to contribute the content in that form, so as much as he'd like to contribute the content, he can't. The other point is that the content really has no place on Wikipedia as an image. It is a source, and should be cited as such. I challenge you to find another article where instead of citing the sources, we provide high-resolution scanned images of them in the article. —SW— ^comment 19:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the first point entirely. On the second, if I understand you, it's pretty common. [2] would be the classic example. As long as it's got a CC-BY-SA license or something similar, we're golden to host it. Hobit (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all, the Mona Lisa is a painting, not a magazine article. Secondly, obviously if a WP article is about the source itself, then you'd want an image of it. This is a different story. My point is that you're not going to have an article about an Antelope, and in it have a scanned image of a few pages from Horns, Tusks, and Flippers: The Evolution of Hoofed Mammals by D. R. Prothero and R. M. Schoch. You're going to cite the source. There is no WP article about Peter David's pro-inclusionism article, there is only an article on Peter David and an article on Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, and in neither of which would it be appropriate to have a scanned image of the article. I think this is a pretty basic concept which should be easy for anyone to understand. —SW— ^yak 00:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is a free image which helps that article (which is an editorial decision, not one for DRV or FfD), we should have it. Does it help? No clue, but also not an issue for this forum. Hobit (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse pending a properly done (free) license, after that it's a clear restore if such a license should appear. Hobit (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse: unless I'm completely misunderstanding this, it seems like the permission is coming for the author of the article, not the copyright-holder for the magazine. The article author does not own the copyright for the layout, design elements, logos, etc. that make up the magazine page. This is not a free image, and is not going to be a free image even if Mr. David explicitly releases his article under a free license. Chick Bowen 05:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse per Moonriddengirl, Spartaz and Chick Bowen. Also, I read the article in question when it was still up and it was a particularly vapid bit of windmill-tilting, so I have to agree with SnottyWong that it has no real use here. Reyk _YO! 08:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Peter David here again. In point of fact, I DO own the visual layout in question. The design of the page was specifically commissioned by me ages ago, done for me by a friend of mine, who turned over all rights for the design to me. The photograph was taken by Maggie Thompson who has no problem with it being reproduced anywhere, anytime. The page is owned, wholly and completely, by Second Age, Inc., which is me. I'm beginning to suspect, however, that if I produced a letter from the Editor in Chief signing off on this, someone here would declare that there's no proof the letter isn't a forgery. At this point, any reasonable observer would assert that continuing to make an issue of this stems not from concerns over legal requirements and more from certain parties simply not liking the content and wanting to shut it down. Frankly, the only one who I think has been truly honest in opposing it is "Reyk," who spent some time crabbing about how s/he didn't like the article. The quality of it shouldn't be in dispute, but that's really what's at issue here. You guys don't like what I had to say. In my view, this isn't about toeing a legal line. It's about the convenience of making something that doesn't reflect well on you go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padguy (talk • contribs) 12:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Reasonable observers are often wrong. :) At least in my case, I haven't even read this specific article, although I've enjoyed quite a bit of your work in the past. This is simply red tape; we don't have a lot of it, but we have some. We have policies and processes regarding republishing materials; this is intended to protect the project, the copyright holders and our downstream reusers (as we encourage people to reuse our content, even commercially). Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials explains a few of the issues, including the concerns with the assignment of rights to publishers. Via e-mails to the Wikimedia Foundation, we process dozens of permission letters every day related to images and text that people are willing to allow us to use, but there are certain formalities that we have to follow. For instance, in terms of photographs, when we receive a donation of a self-portrait from somebody via e-mail, we aren't supposed to accept it, but have a form letter we use to advise the correspondent that the photographer owns the copyright and to ask for a usable license from the photographer (unless there has been a legal transfer of copyright). Maggie Thompson opens kind of a new can of worms. :/ I still believe that the easiest way to deal with this is to clear the text, which does away with all other issues (we tend to take your word for it that you haven't assigned your rights to your publisher and this wouldn't require that you muster Maggie Thompson to clear the photographs). I'd be happy to help transcribe it; it could certainly be hosted in your userspace, and it can be used in whatever appropriate manner may be desired. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Unfortunately it's the reaction of someone such as yourself who apparently does fully hold the rights and the reaction of someone who doesn't tend to be pretty much indistinguishable. There is a large caution regarding copyright and it's not solely directed at your work, nor work you feel will be distasteful to some members of the community, see m:Avoid copyright paranoia showing this to be a long standing topic.
  I haven't read the image in question, but I'd suspect the material isn't directly usable as text within a wikipedia article, so I'd agree that this sounds more like a source so we don't need an image of it, we can just reference it in the appropriate places. If someone really feels strongly we need to host the text of this, then a userspace essay would seem the most appropriate place. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Well, this is certainly going nowhere useful. I'd like to know why it is that there's so much attention being paid to the "layout" copyright interests of a publisher here while the project is riddled with far more dubious images under far more questionable claims. For example, consider File:Marilyn_Monroe_in_How_to_Marry_a_Millionaire_trailer.jpg. The trailer itself is apparently in the public domain. But this image (one of many such) isn't taken from the trailer itself. It's a "screenshot." That means it came from a videotape or an optical disc, neither of which technologies were around when the trailer was originally issued. So somebody had to republish the trailer by transferring the photographic film images to a different medium, and that process involves much greater skill/craft/creativity than laying out a page of prose. We don't know, for example, the extent to which the republisher of the trailer corrected/adjusted the color values from the film stock. There are any number of reliable sources describing how transferring film to videotape/optical disc isn't a simple, mechanical process but one requiring skill, craft, and creative decisionmaking. And that creates copyright interests for the republisher, which we've been, it seems, blithely ignoring for years. And there was this longrunning circus [3] [4] [5] , pretty much a mirror image of this one, where WMF copyright policy was reduced to the status of mild advice. So far all that's come out of this escapade is that a fairly well-known, moderately influential, and very reasonable writer has become convinced that Wikipedia editors are trying to keep his published opinions out of Wikipedia, using copyright policy as an excuse. That ought to be a clear signal that something has gone very wrong here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Given his published opinions are given a fair coverage here in the article, then I'd say his view they were trying to be keep them out would be badly founded. It isn't for the encycolpedia to merely reprint his view in a verbatim form, and nor should we encourage the belief that it is. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd note that it's actually been included for over a year since Jan 2010 where it is attributed to the Mar 2010 publication, so if the regime is trying to supress the view, then the regime is failing badly. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn and/or Endorse: as long as the image is restored, since the copyright holder is participating in this discussion and seems fully willing to satisfy any technical objections. This whole discussion is surreal.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by this. #1 do we have solid evidence that this is the copyright holder? #2 has he agreed to a free license? I may have missed it in the discussion somewhere, but I think we are right to wait until those two issues are cleared up. I'd hope that folks would be willing to help him get those two things done. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • He is most definitely the copyright holder of the text; his identity has been verified through OTRS. He indicates above that he is not the copyright holder of the images in the piece. Whether or not he holds copyright to the arrangement of the text is unclear. I've proposed transcribing the text as soon as he verifies that permission is suitably broad (commercial reproduction, modification. His original release was for internet use only; that restriction has been cleared up and commercial reuse is now explicitly permitted). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Re the image, he says above "The photograph was taken by Maggie Thompson who has no problem with it being reproduced anywhere, anytime. The page is owned, wholly and completely, by Second Age, Inc., which is me."--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, thanks, I read that; that's why I refer to mustering "Maggie Thompson to clear the photographs"; WP:CSD#F11, which is precisely for such situations; "Acceptable evidence of licensing normally consists of either a link to the source website where the license is stated, or a statement by the copyright holder e-mailed or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org." This is standard practice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• We certainly don't have a scan of every public domain/CC-BY-SA source we use. Why should this be the exception? T. Canens (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That's an editorial question, I guess, but I don't think we need delete every such image either.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's quite a complex question, probably not one which DRV can answer but. If it is licensed as CC-BY-SA/PD then it's something for commons normally, Wikipedia wouldn't normally keep a free but unused image around either, however I doubt commons would particular want the image and wouldn't be kept around if it's unused. Generally I can't see it as something for wikipedia, we don't have scans of the sources and it sort of becomes along the line of article ownership, a wikipedia editor has published something elsewhere then that text becomes an immutable part of an article albeit linked in image form. So perhaps wikisource? I agree it's not something which DRV needs to decide per se, however there is little point going through the process if the end result is we have no real editorial use for it and so delete it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter Orullian

Peter Orullian (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After substantial edits and sourcing added no one added any consesus on the added into. The consense was on the material prior to the edits. Mycoltbug (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment What the editor is attempting to communicate is that all the Delete !votes in the AfD were given before his/her improvement to the article. Therefore, the editor is requesting an undelete based on the improvement to the article. My view is that none of the delete !voters changed their votes post the improvement, leading to a stronger consensus of delete. At the same time, it was I who suggested two options to Mycoltbug. One, that I could copy the deleted article to his/her user space for improvement (post which feedback could have been taken on the improved article before moving it to the main space); and two, that the editor could go for a deletion review (which, evidently, has been the option chosen). I'll leave it to the community to decide on whether the article should be restored to Wikipedia's article space; I would not restore it to without consensus supporting the same. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The article is presently viewable in the cache, with the link above. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Wait a bit Even though his first novel is not yet actually published, a pre-publication review did appear in Publisher's Weekly. The significance of this was mis-stated in the discussion. PW is not a list of all books published; PW's reviews are very selective, and are accepted here routinely as a suitable secondary source for notability. But we normally need at least a second significant review. I'd wait until it appears, and then rewrite the article accordingly. Publisher's blurbs count as very little, even when they are by established writers such as James Frenkel--I would not even quote them in an article. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• The author's official website links to an interview he did at http://sf-fantasy.suvudu.com/2011/01/interview-peter-orullian-on-fantasy-maps.html Google news search of his name shows a writer signing books at various places. Didn't bother looking through them though. Dream Focus 21:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Relist. I sympathise with Wifione and might well have !voted delete, but two wrongs don't make a right. The statement "My view is that none of the delete !voters changed their votes post the improvement, leading to a stronger consensus of delete." troubles me. Firstly because only about 40 hours passed between the improvements being mentioned in the AfD, and the delete button being hit. Secondly, if the article substantially changed through the course of the AfD, the other three delete !votes should be given little weight for being outdated, not more on the assumption that they silently chose to stick. There were two reasonable arguments for deletion of the improved version, and one reasonable (if poorly communicated) argument to keep. Given the keep-er's contributions, I can understand why this might not have been relisted on those grounds. But ultimately, even if Mycoltbug has a COI, the argument that PW helped establish notability was still a credible one. The AfD should have been allowed to run a few more days to establish a stronger consensus. —WFC— 23:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd still recommend waiting. The odds are that if the book is successful, a much stronger article will be possible in a few weeks. If we wait till then, the article will be descriptive. At this point, it will give the appearance of being somewhat promotional--which is a large part of our objection to articles on books and other works that have not yet been published. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse I voted before the supposed "improvement" but felt it inadequately addressed the real reason for deletion: that this was an writer who, so far, had no notable works from which an article might form. Sure, that could change in a few months, or in a decade, or never. But speculation along that line is as silly as going into the maternity ward and guessing which baby might become president someday. Come back when something really changes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Notability Comments I wanted to help show further proof that he has an other independent review on another of his books from PW for your information and consideration. [[File:PW]]--Mycoltbug (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)