|
Note by —msikma (user, talk): the above number is not the actual relevant number in this case. The article that has been deleted has an F in front of the second 9. It was changed on this page due to the blacklisting of the actual number, which was apparently done to cope with the spamming of the number in multiple articles. (It would have been nice if an admin had left that message here when he decided to blacklist the number.) —msikma (user, talk) 06:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 09... (restore|cache|AfD)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
This hex string about a HD-DVD process key used to decode DVD, possibly allowing illegal copying. The article itself is about the info and controversy about DMCA notice being sent around the net asking people to remove it (including those who merely posting about the discovery of such number.) More info here
I nominated this article for deletion due to notability concern (and nothing else, a Google search suggests a possible legitimate topic). An admin then speedy deleted it along with the AfD itself. The reason is mere "DMCA will not be happy". I interpret this as a possible legal threat. From my understanding, it is not libel, and it does not satisfy any of the CSD criteria. Even if it is a possible violation of DMCA, that's not the job of an admin to speedy delete it - that's the job of WP:OFFICE.
If an admin chose to speedy delete this, I will being the case to Admin board and a possible WP:RfAr.SYSS Mouse 00:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I brought this matter to deletion review simply for process concern, due to an admin speedy deleting the article simply for a possible DMCA notice, instead of removing the key and/or renaming the article. There is an article named HD DVD encryption key controversy that I consider a proper replacement of this key. SYSS Mouse 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. Horrible name for an article; all useful information from it should be added to Advanced Access Content System instead. --cesarb 00:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it is, it is not proper to speedy delete it. SYSS Mouse 00:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hmm. Does that mean this page is about to be oversighted too? I guess I can write what I like here, then. Fnord. – Gurch 00:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted It doesn't qualify for speedy, and it should be a WP:OFFICE issue... but why undelete it so we can delete it later? I'd like to throw in that mention of the article's name is required to discuss it, so it should not be oversighted unless the wikilawyers receive a notice and decide to cave to it. Please don't cave wikilawyers. --Auto(talk / contribs) 00:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which law are we breaking? Take breaking copyright law with the key; and on a less prosecutable level, there's discovering and releasing the key. I doubt that spreading the key is an offense, and at this point, certainly not an actionable offense, although the latter is less relevant. It may be an issue of notability, but why salt it? We don't know what the future will hold. GracenotesT § 01:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can request for unsalting if new information is provided. Generally takes five minutes or less. Rockstar (T/C) 01:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, because it was deleted by a formal deletion process and with policy. Oh wait... GracenotesT § 01:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks to me like it was deleted because it was a violation of the DMCA. And, given what I know about this aritcle, it was. Rockstar (T/C) 01:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Distributing a device that decrypts a DVD, or initially releasing the exploit, seems illegal. But this? GracenotesT § 01:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The moment somebody tells me numbers are copyrightable, I'll go and put my dibs on number 1. -- Wesha 05:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-
- My guess is someone who already knew what it was would c/p it into the search box. This info is on other websites, no need for us to have it. Nardman1 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. One, terrible title. Two, a needless content fork. There is no compelling reason to think that this exploit needs to be split from HD-DVD, where it is already covered. Three, while an article on the exploit may be warranted, it may also be a violation of the Section 103 of the DMCA to post the actual code of the exploit. There is no particular reason to wait for an office action; we don't need to publish the code of the exploit and we certainly shouldn't make it the title of an article. Thatcher131 01:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted per reasons stated by Thatcher 131. Sr13 (T|C) 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thatcher131 was previously involved in speedy deletion of the article, although he did not disclose this in his above comment.
-AmendmentNumberOne 02:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems okay to me: after all, this is not a ballot; it's a discussion. Analyzing his arguments, 1. Not a reason to delete an article, at least not the way Thatcher131 phrases it 2. If it was deleted as a content fork, I'm sure there won't be prejudice to it being recreated as, say, a redirect (sans content) 3. The legality of articles is generally reflected in policy/guidelines. When it's not, that's WP:OFFICE's job, not ours. GracenotesT § 02:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete - The title is the now notable number the article would be about. The number is notable because the DMCA has been misused, in clear violation of United States 1st Amendment law, to censor the number. It also notable because there are now multiple sources that refer to the number and its censorship, although some of those articles are themselves being censored. Should Wikipedia censor itself because of the threat of future censorship? Of course not. The article title is not illegal because of the 1st Amendment and it is not a copyright violation because it is a title. This number is a valid encyclopedia topic and article title. -AmendmentNumberOne 02:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the above! SOMEONE TAKE NOTICE AND UNPROTECT THE SITE! READ THE ABOVE! NOT A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.219.105 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Redirect to the HDDVD article. That's what I wanted to do when I got to the page; create a redirect.--Planetary 02:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the article to HDDVD. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 02:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, or Keep and Rename, apparently this topic has made the entire front page of digg. I'm thinking one of those links must be reliable source. --Rayc 03:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pointless Why its pointless The Wikipedia Foundation doesn't want the key on the site, and so it won't be. Sadly, it appears as though this is the beginning of heavy handed censorship on Wikipedia. --142.68.40.44 04:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with HDDVD. Not that this page actually matters... --Bky1701 04:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted due to DMCA concerns. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One, the name of the article is not an argument for deletion of the article. It's not actionable, it has no bearing on whether the article should or should not exist. Two, Wired has published the number for the past couple of months. Any conjectures about DMCA are useless at this point; the fact is, no one knows for sure whether it is or is not legal to publish the number. At any rate, Illegal prime also publishes an illegal number. Until a cease and desist order is sent, the legal status shouldn't have a bearing on whether or not the article should exist. zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete The hex string has become a major issue that the online community is dealing with... see http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/02/0235228 http://digg.com/ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=09-9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0&btnG=Search (20k google results, about 40 if you included varations). The censorship of the number is a major issue. If you want to claim that the "ownership" of the number is enough of a reason to remove it from Wiki its a sad day... While the number may not have been apporiate, given the increasing fervor of debate over its posting, and the questionable takedown notices it is EXTREMELY noteworthy. Monty845 04:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect As per Nardman1 sendai 04:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at AfD. Does not qualify under any CSD criteria. Arguments to the legality are moot because YANAL and even if you are, you are not Wikipedia's lawyer. If WP:OFFICE wants to weigh in, that's another thing. The article should be evaluated on its own merits, which is what AfD is for. Those arguing for the article to be merged or redirected are clearly attempting to have that discussion here, where it is out of place. This needs an AfD. – Þ 04:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fail to understand why this was deleted from Wikipedia. Wired has had this string of numbers, which is all it is, published on their website since Feb 13 of this year (http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/02/the_new_hddvdbl.html). Without something that actually enables circumvention I don't understand how this would fall under the DMCA. And besides all that this has now evolved into a story about censorship and DMCA abuse in it's own right (particularly with what has just happened to Digg). -G
- Redirect. It's clearly notable. It's also a reasonable title for an article, by the criterion that someone might look for an article under that title; currently, a google search for the text of the number returns 9700 hits.--Fashionslide 04:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.125.208.102 (talk) 2007-05-02T14:32:01 (UTC)
- Merge with HD-DVD. I have nothing against publishing this number, but it has not reason to have it's own article, especially with that title, which will be hard for people to find. Noldoaran 04:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with HD-DVD. Copyrighting a number is not possible and treating it as a circumvention mechanism under the DMCA is stretching the law to the point of absurdity. Publishing it far and wide is both legally and morally right. --Afed 04:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't that the number is copyrighted. As a part of the text of the code, it is protected from misuse by the federal law of the United States. I assume good faith here, but to me you are implying that violation of law in the face of morality is correct. That's not in line with our policy or process. Teke
- It's not a part of the text of the code, just a constant embedded in the machine code. It's no more copyrightable than if the code contained something like #DEFINE PI = 3.14159. --Afed 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to HD DVD. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to search Wikipedia for this number to find out what all the fuss is about. —Ben FrantzDale 04:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion Unencyclopedic, legal concerns, et cetera posted above. As for the "speedy deletion" of the article, I've long considered there to be a difference between a speedy deletion and deletion on site to protect the project. This is the penultimate IAR that an administrator to do, and they usually expect a talk page message at the minimum for accountability for their action. I see no problem with the previous deletion. This article was not befitting of the project. We provide free content, but not a way to provide free content.Teke 05:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find this ridiculous. It's a freaking hexadecimal number. At a very basic level, it's a number. And everyone is going nuts over it. Wikipedia is about information, people should know why this number proves so popular lately. Put in HD-DVD at the very least. Jklinect 06:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect At this point, it seems quite possible that someone could really not know the significance of this number (for example, by receiving this as a blog comment, etc). This number has its own significance at this point, much like pi. Bowing to fears of DMCA challenges even though it's not at all clear that this in fact a violation is likely to lead to even more chilling effects like this. - Afiler 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Put into normal process Legal concerns are not lay editor's matters, and IANAL's should not be making those decisions. Kick back to AfD, since until WP:OFFICE decides (or not) a complete wipe, this key will be in deletion logs, page debates, slashdot articles, indeed, even in this edit summary. Ronabop 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete or Merge This has become to big an issue to just ignore. It's information, it's relevant, let people learn about it. - Pyro19 05:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete. We have criteria for speedy deletion. These criteria do not include "AACS Processing key. DMCA no likey". Speedily deleting this is an abuse of the rules; it is not anyone's business, even an admin, to decide that an article violates a law and therefore he must delete the article out of process. That's what WP:OFFICE is for. And I highly doubt that a proper AfD will result in deletion of the article; there are plenty of Google hits for the number and it's obviously well known and relevant things can be said about it. A case could be made for merging the article (but keeping the number); but that's what the AfD is for, not speedy deletion. Ken Arromdee 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move the content to HD DVD or AACS, keep the key out. Pshew. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect somewhere. I copied in the key to see if Wikipedia had an article on it's discovery, and the resultant furor. — PyTom 05:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete - rationale for deletion does not fall under WP:CSD. Also a curious note - nearly 300,000 hits for the hex string with hyphens (linked on slashdot) ugen64 05:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete or merge. Should go under HD-DVD and perhaps under Internet meme. This is by the way not the first case - see Illegal prime --Denoir 06:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete This is a valid artical. It documents an emerging trend on the internet and is some what like a current news event. I have seen mentions of this number on many websites without explanation and this is justified irregardless of other concerns as a news event. It also is not a legal worry because it is just a number that has no creative or artistic value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blue loonie (talk • contribs) 06:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Undelete This is a valid artical. It documents an emerging trend on the internet and is some what like a current news event. I have seen mentions of this number on many websites without explanation and this is justified irregardless of other concerns as a news event. It also is not a legal worry because it is just a number that has no creative or artistic value.Blue loonie 06:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion junk and that's all there is to it. JuJube 06:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete Given the fact that Digg has been shutdown, Slashdot is buzzing with this story, and the media outlets will probably have it on TV soon, it's just asinine to delete it. The speedy deletion looks like it WAS abused, but since it can be undone, I'm not concerned. This number is all over the place, and people who want to know what it is are going to come here to find out. When a new technology hits the market, this site is one of the first to have a page on it; why should this be any different? And before people start crying "The sky is falling" over how they think this is a DMCA violation, I'd like to point out that this is a number first off. Second, (as mentioned above) you can't just type this number into your PC and have your HD-DVD magically play. Third, even IF Wikipedia were to get a DMCA over this, it'd be an abuse of the DMCA, and the sender would be in more trouble then even the worst pirates out there. Either this place is an encyclopedia, a repository of knowledge the likes of which the world has never seen... or it's just another site that caters to select parties. Ghostalker 06:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS - Sorry about changing the hex key up top. With the spam filter in place, I can't add a comment cause it looks like I'm adding the key maliciously. Ghostalker
- Undelete and refer to AFD. Only applicable Speedy Deletion case is G9, and that would require a WP:OFFICE flag. (My original comment was longer but got wiped due to the bloody spam filter.) --Goobergunch|? 06:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete, then merge into HD DVD or Advanced Access Content System - there are already potentially liable numbers on Wikipedia at the illegal prime article. Based on my understanding that the MPAA will let us know when they want us to take this content down, via a takedown notice (which WP:OFFICE would need to handle—not the administrators), I'd say that there is no real reason to delete this content. Whether this number is illegal or not remains to be seen. Other illegal numbers have never been found to be a violation of the DMCA due to their nature. Keeping this content off of Wikipedia is, in my opinion, legal paranoia. It is my belief that this paranoia is largely unfounded, although I can understand those who disagree. —msikma (user, talk) 06:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC) (Oops, changed "copyright paranoia" to "legal paranoia". My mistake.)[reply]
- Comment - it should be noted that this is truly a notable number, by the way. This debate should solely be about legal aspects, and not about inclusion rationale. There are loads of sites covering this, lots of them very notable. Just try Google, or Google News. There are even several articles mentioning the Digg controversy. Be sure to use the correct number to search, and not the censored one at the top of this debate. —msikma (user, talk) 07:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentStrongly agree with msikma. In addition the longer that this remains deleted, the louder the cry "Wikipedia censors The Number!" Which may end up bigger than the stories about digg... sendai 07:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted pending contact with legal counsel --Iamunknown 07:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted - legal quagmire and may be an OFFICE issue. - Alison ☺ 07:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. I have sought clarification of the legal position from the foundation (no doubt others have too). Until we hear from office, I strong oppose restoring material that seems likely to prove problematic. As to those who propose merging, remember that we have to keep the history for GDFL compliance. We can do that as a history merge and delete the present article, but all the revision contain the code at the start of them. So if we can't use the code, we can't use any revision. GDFL therefore prevents us from using the content of this article in another article. WjBscribe 07:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid excuse; you can simply copy-and-paste the list of authors from the history page (or from the undelete page) into the target article's talk page. There's no need to preserve the full page history. IIRC, that's how transwiki was done in the past (it might still be done that way). --cesarb 12:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete. I'd like to see this merged with HD DVD. PratzStrike 07:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Let's hope that the office decides to be bold in this matter, but it is they who would have to deal with the mess if this got us in trouble, so it should be their decision. Let's also hope that WMF finds a new general counsel soon; this came at a bad time. —ptk✰fgs 07:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as there is nothing to state that this singular illegal prime is more notable than any other illegal prime in the sense of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Digg swarms over a lot of things.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How can we censor a number without knowing what it is? For example, if Wikipedia contained exactly one 128-bit number the page for which has been deleted and locked, that would give the game away regardless. If we want admins to delete the page every time it's recreated, or have RC patrolers remove the number any time someone puts it into a page, they would all have to know the number anyway. Legal issues aside, a redirect seems the logical solution. Mike1024 (t/c) 08:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted because it doesn't deserve an article of its own, whether or not is should be included in the HD DVD article I'm not sure, I wouldn't expect to see it in an encyclopedia article so I don't see the need to include it in Wikipedia as some kind of act of protest against the law. — PhilHibbs | talk 08:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, or Keep and Rename: - It has made extremely popular news headlines, and is a first amendment issues. Teque5 09:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per 17 U.S.C. 512: 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(1)(a)(iii) states that to maintain status as a "safe harbor" from DMCA claims, Wikipedia must make efforts to delete material as soon as we become aware that there may be an infringement. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is NOT a DMCA issue. A number cannot be under copyrighted domain. Teque5 09:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The distribution of "circumvention devices" is indeed a DMCA issue. I don't know whether the courts would call this a circumvention device, but it's hardly unimaginable. —ptk✰fgs 09:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- JFYI: 512 only applies to copyright infringement, not circumvention devices; there are no safe harbour provisions for the latter at all. -- Schneelocke 09:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Universal_v._Reimerdes tells me that the DMCA is interpreted liberally. The definition of the key as infringing material or a circumvention device is not for us to debate here: regardless, per the safe harbor clause, we have to interpret it as a potential infringment and remove it as soon as we have knowledge. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 09:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IANAL, but 17 USC 512 is not a case mentioned in WP:CSD. --Goobergunch|? 10:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this has been around since February...why is it only a problem now? --CCFreak2K 09:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted' - I don't think this one's encyclopaedic enough yet to deserve an entry of its own. On the other hand, I've also got to say the DMCA is not a reason to speedy delete anything - whether something should be deleted for legal/liability reasons is something that only the Wikimedia Foundation can (and should) decide, and if they decide it is, it should be deleted as an Office Action. Community deletes should always go through the regular deletion process unless one of the speedy criteria applies, and that's not the case here, so the speedy deletion was inappropriate. That being said, I still think that the deletion of the article *as such* was OK. -- Schneelocke 09:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, not only is it legally problematic, there is absolutely no encyclopaedic purpose to this. Wikipedia is not the place for Diggers to promote their l33t crack. As a redirect it has no value (you would not search for an answer, if you know the key you'd have no need to search) and the number itself is legally problematic and in any case violates WP:NOT#info. We seem to have spent much of the last 24 hours removing this shit form articles on everything from DVD to Scottish Parliament Building. Enough already. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you know the key you'd have no need to search to find out what the number is, but you would still have reason to "search for an answer", because the article about the number would contain more content than just the number itself.
- Moreover, your link to WP:NOT#info doesn't work, and if you had intended WP:NOT#IINFO, you are misusing it; unless your item is one of the ones explicitly listed (and it's not) using it properly requires giving a specific reason why a type of entry is not encyclopediac, not just saying "this is indiscriminate information" and removing it. WP:NOT#IINFO is not a roundabout way to invoke WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ken Arromdee 13:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to [[HD DVD] (where HDDVD redirects) per others above. Thryduulf 10:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete and refer to AFD This should never have been speedily deleted. --Apyule 11:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete - this page in no way fulfilled any criteria for SD. In addition, there must surely be some mistake because all the links above go to the wrong article - there is an F missing from the start of what should be the second pair of hex digits. CiaranG 12:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete - The number itself has become a source of viral internet media. Even sites that are primarily non-technical like icanhascheezburger.com and ytmnd.com are displaying media with the number. Also I do not see how a company can legally claim DMCA Violation on a number. BinaryCleric 12:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete and cease this mindless censoring of current event which has become a phenomenon. The legal argument is moot since the key is already on a protected Illegal_prime#HD-DVD_Key page, although in base-10 to get around the blacklisting. And when it comes to notability the story is now on the front page of BBC technology news website. --Miikka Raninen 12:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - it was created as a violation of WP:POINT, to get around its removal from Digg. Wikipedia is not a repository of cracks and passwords - and especially not for MAKING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE UNDER THE GFDL, which is what we were effectively doing. DS 13:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm... well, since now we're getting into copyright, I believe that such a number is ineligible for copyright, and in GFDL terms is freely distributable. However, that's a different than its legality, which is being actively disputed. Could you quote a section from the GFDL to support that? GracenotesT § 13:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Put disclaimer at top As a UK user, there is no reason I shouldn't be able to read this. Put a disclaimer at the top of the page along the lines of Forbidden to view for US readers. 131.111.8.103 13:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing is, our servers are in Florida, and must obey US law. Nonetheless, I disupte that regarding this number encyclopedically is technically contrary to the law. GracenotesT § 13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
