User talk:MZMcBride

IRC

Hey. I've no idea unfortunately. I've used IRC twice in my life (I'm guessing once with each of those nicknames)? -- Samir 10:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of subpages of List of health topics

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of health topics (0-9), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of health topics (0-9) (2nd nomination). Thank you. This also applies to the other subpages. We now have a new, condensed version of List of health topics Regards. —G716 <^T·_C> 22:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A cowbell how so?

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Continued_discussion

See: Wikipedia:FREQUENT#Deletion it has been tried before. Let me give you a big warm thank you for your comments, by helping you with your Article for Deletion.travb (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "back, beast!", um, glad I can help. travb (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring CSD tags

An editor User talk:Tma-medical keeps removing tags I placed for speedy deletion on a page they created. I don't want to violate the 3 RR What shall I do ? Respond here thanks DFS454 (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is has been dealt with now DFS454 (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old IP talk page

I've noticed in the journals that you quickly remove such pages. How do you get a list of these pages? It would be useful in our russian wikipedia... Rubin16 (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a database query on the Toolserver and then filtered the results. Now I'm running the list through a Python script that checks for certain conditions (no templates, no blocks, etc.) and if the page meets those criteria, the page is deleted. Let me know if you'd like more info. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for information Rubin16 (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just slightly curious: do you have any idea of how many of these pages there are left? If not, do you know how large the initial list was? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The initial list was somewhere around 1.3 million, I think? But that was with very limited filtering. I'm about one-third of the way finished processing the list. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP cites

Just a little random, but I saw your comments on WP:AN, and the examples you listed, and I thought I'd point out that I've now managed to fill in that last "citation needed" for Lisa Kudrow, so at least that one won't be a problem any more :p Best, umrguy 42 02:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Whitehall Street–South Ferry (New York City Subway)

Please take a look at the log for this page and undelete it... --NE2 06:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? I see you're there, since you're continually deleting pages; can you take care of this? It's nothing urgent but I want to make sure it's not ignored. Thanks. --NE2 06:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bots. :O BJ^Talk 07:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be done on a bot account, so as not to confuse people who think he's active? --NE2 10:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like [[::User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[::User talk:David Eppstein|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/David Eppstein|contribs]]) took care of this already. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The neverending story (of Patrick Purdy)

Good morrning,

I'm sorry to annoy you once more with your merging of Patrick Purdy, but after discussions here and here I was again referred to you to solve the matter, maybe. So, my question is: would you mind to reopen the AfD discussion of said article, if this is possible at all? Or can you reverse the decision and start a new AfD? (Lord Gøn (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I commented on the Stockton talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sultan Iskandar kite.jpg

My apologies--Edit Mistake: Pls help speedy delete this page. Thank you!Mr Tan (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you mis-linked. Regardless, another admin will take care of this in due time. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned

Please delete these orphaned photos:

Thanks. 118.136.64.227 (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:IFD or WP:MFD? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

template:Administrator

The recent change you made has made the icon sit a little lower than it should (before & after... Doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but any idea why? Fixing the top offset didn't help. –xeno (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that's why it's lower, I thought that was my userpage only. But xeno is right - why? Oo So Why 14:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent" change from November. ;-) You're fighting an ever-changing banner height. That's pretty much the issue. There's a JS hack in MediaWiki:Monobook.js that is supposed to keep the icons at least somewhat near the <h1>. Feel free to nudge the top offset or whatever, but it's just gonna break again when the banner goes away or gets larger or whatever. The beauty of poorly-implemented hacks. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, no the change was jan. (the november was the "before" and it was fine then). thanks for the explanation about the banner. –xeno (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Self/sandbox

Thanks but that doesn't actually solve the problem... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

!

For closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black president, despite the inevitable DRV –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a true admin at work. Thank you for being willing to be more than a bean counter. Un school 03:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ElectionsAK, etc.

I responded to your comment on my page. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media depictions of a black president

I would like to work on this article. Please would you put a copy of the deleted article in my user-space so I can use the relevant information? Let me know if there are any issues or questions. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User:ChildofMidnight/Black president. –xeno (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:O Thanks xeno! :-) I saw the new message, but I was in the middle of creating a new database report. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much appreciated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget something?

When deleting my DOPPs, you are supposed to give me a heads up before doing so, as per the wording of the template:

This account ((Arcayne)) is a doppelgänger account created by Arcayne, an established user, to prevent impersonation by vandals. Please see their talk page for any relevant discussion.

Administrators: Please notify Arcayne when taking any action on this account.

Now, since you deleted them, perhaps you could let me know how to secure my doppleganger accounts, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Register the accounts. Creating a user page doesn't prevent anyone from creating the accounts. Honestly, I believe this is blindingly obvious.... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess it wasn't. However, when I try to register them, i am being told that the name is already in use (the dopplegangers), or that the names are too similar to my current ID. What to do now?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't register them, then nobody else can (except admins). Perhaps go find something useful to do? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golly, that seems mighty uncalled for. I was asking a question for which it is pretty clear I do not know the answer to. Do you have some issue with me that I should know about? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps a bit more helpfulness wouldn't hurt. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZM, could you not register the accounts for him and then email him the details? Email them to me if you don't want to give Arcayne your email address and I'll proxy them through. I would simply offer, but I'm taking a break, at least with my admin account.--chaser (away) - talk 06:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chaser. I think people are missing the point. The point of a "Doppelgänger" account is to prevent malicious users from impersonating another account. In this case, Arcayne has gone around and placed messages on various similarly-titled user pages, but never registered the accounts. As it turns out, registering the accounts is not easily possible because the software detects them as being too similar to an existing account.

So, there's no point in registering them and sending anyone the password, as there's very little (to no) possible chance of abuse. Now, if Arcayne wants one of them as a test account or something, that can certainly be arranged. But quite frankly it would be a waste of my time to go around registering accounts that nobody is ever going to use (not to mention it adds more entries to an already-over-bloated user table.) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to clarify, doppelganger accounts shouldn't be used for editing at all. If one wants a test account, it'd be both more sensible and correct to create, perhaps, "Arcayne-Test" or similar. Kylu (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that, MZM. You're right, of course. Please excuse the interruption.--chaser (away) - talk 07:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam-tracking pages

Hi. I see you're doing a lot of housekeeping, deleting old talk pages.

Where old talk pages involve spam warnings, we prefer to keep them. Spammers operate over multiple IPs and user accounts. They may also lay low for a few months after warnings, then resume spamming. Old talk pages are the primary means we have of seeing whether we're dealing with a new spammer or a reincarnation of an old one (in which case we maybe should blacklist their domains). Also, spammers may use one account for some domains and other accounts for other domains; by combining these talk page information with off-Wikipedia domain investigation tools, we can see how these patterns fit together and the extent of our problem.

So I'd ask that you leave any-spam related talk pages intact. If you have any concerns with this, let me know, or better yet, take them to the broader spam-mitigation community at WT:WPSPAM.

Thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're still deleting spammer talk pages and I'm still restoring them.^[1] Is this really a good way to spend our weekend? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how keeping them for "spam tracking" is helping anything. These pages aren't categorized so how are you going to track them? Also, none of the IPs that the pages correspond to have edited in over a year. The reasons you mention don't really make it worth keeping the pages around. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I go back and look at who else has added a particular spam-link, I want to know if they've been warned or not. I may see 5 or 10 different IPs or accounts used over several years. If none have received warnings, then we handle the spammer and his domains one way; on the other hand, if there have been multiple warnings, we may be best off just going ahead and blacklisting it. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99% of the time the person who added a link over a year ago from any given IP is not the same person who is using that IP today. There is no point in keeping these pages as the most of the IPs are dynamic and past edits from them rarely mean something. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in that these IPs are dynamic. But you're missing my point -- I want to see if the spammer was warned when he was using that IP. If he's had multiple warnings spread over several accounts, then we know he understands our rules and intends to flaunt them. At that point, more warnings or blocks are a waste of time and we should just block further link additions using the spam blacklist. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This makes absolutely no sense. If a user is using a different IP address to add a link how are you going to know what (if any) previous IP addresses they have used? Going back to what you said earlier - surely there are better ways to spend your time. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjd0060, there are probably many better ways to use my time than fight spam on Wikipedia and yet that's what I do. A major spam investigation may involve going back through all external link additions to a frequently spammed article (such as Asbestosis) and looking at all external link additions.

I think I have a pretty good handle on how to track down spam based on experience and others' comments.^[2] I'd ask that folks trust me on this; it seems like I'm making a reasonable request. We have a zillion inactive user talk pages and I suggest deleting the non-spam ones first until we've resolved this matter.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I've asked nicely that you stop deleting spammers' talk pages. I've laid out my reasoning here. Yet you continue deleting more spammer talk pages and I keep restoring them. Can you at least give me the courtesy of a reply or are you trying to make some sort of point here? Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to block him to stop the automated process. It's his admin bot currently running. –xeno (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there bot-generated spam reports, etc. to record this stuff? Uncategorized talk pages of anonymous users seems like about the worst possible option for keeping track of this kind of information... Mr.Z-man 19:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several sets of tools but their chronological coverage is incomplete. For instance, User:COIBot has been running for a year or so (although it sometimes misses link additions). There were also extensive records created in 2007 for several months such as this one: User:Veinor/Link count/January 26, 2007. However, even where an IP is identified as having added a link in one of these reports, we still need to know if they were warned (see my comments above). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I agree with some of the others who have commented here. The five criteria used seem sufficient when deleting these old pages. (No backlinks, no templates, no blocks, no recent talk page activity, no recent edits.) If there's some sort of list of IPs that you don't want deleted, just make a list somewhere and the backlinks will stop the pages from being deleted. (But, please, be reasonable and try to ensure that the list is accurate and that every page must be kept. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride, I don't understand the delay. Was this a bot that was running or were you just ignoring me? If it was a bot, aren't you supposed to have a separate account for it?

As for which pages to not delete, just don't delete any you see that have a spam warning. Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a script, yes. (xeno pointed this out above.) As for "your instructions," there's no real way to detect a spam warning that I can see. Please make a list of the pages that you're tracking. That shouldn't be too difficult if you're actually tracking the IPs. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I used the phrase "my instructions" What I've done is make several polite requests, not give instructions.

As for "there's no real way to detect a spam warning", it's actually very easy to see a spam warning -- just look at the page and see what it says. That's how I've known which of your deletions to restore -- I read each deleted page. If your scripted process is so automated that you can't do that, then you are really running a bot of sorts and need to comply with WP:BOT. I'm assuming and hoping that's the case and that you weren't just blowing me off while deleting so many pages after my first request.

As for watching these IPs, my concern was initially triggered by deletions of pages that were on my watch list. However, we also want to keep the many more that aren't on my watchlist. If you look at my reasoning above, you'll see that we sometimes go back to a page that someone else tagged several months or years previously.

Beyond that, I really don't see the reason to delete these pages if they are useful to some editors. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a list, please make one and that will prevent the deletions. If you can't make one, then I have an incredibly hard time believing that you're tracking these at all. (How do you track this type of thing without backlinks, templates, categories, or some sort of list somewhere?) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to say above, I may not become aware of a spamming IP until several months or years after the fact in the course of a spam investigation. Then I go back and see if anyone warned that IP. That IP would never have been on my watchlist before this time, however I need to know if it was previously warned by someone. So, no, as I said already, most of these spammer talk pages are not on my watchlist but they are still useful.

Why can't you just look at the page before deleting it? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is where you've lost me: "I need to know if it was previously warned by someone." You've already admitted above that it's likely (perhaps even very likely) that the person editing under the IP today is entirely different than the IP editing several years ago. ("You're right in that these IPs are dynamic.") And in many cases, I imagine you're looking mostly at the contributions of the IP (which are visible regardless of whether the User_talk: page exists). So my confusion comes from how these pages are useful. "IP 222.33 got three warnings in 2005." So?

And to be frank, the entire lack of any decent tracking system is incredibly off-putting. Nobody can come up with a simple list after years of tracking, which includes the use of several bots and "off-Wikipedia domain investigation tools"? Come on. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see both the pro's and con's. However, spammers and vandals may use different IPs, and may return sometimes after several months (but still persisting in the same modus operandi). If a spammer/vandal now returns, today, after being warned over a year ago, then their actions are still unwanted, and seen they had warnings over a year ago, they knows that these actions are unwanted. If I see that returning IP vandalising/spamming, an immediate final warning is in place, or even an immediate block; but with the deleted talkpages I can't (in an easy way) see if the IP was adequately warned.

I see in the row of IP-talkpages that have been deleted spammers, but also the pages of a very long term POV pusher. Deleting these pages hides the situation from admins (who have access to the deleted data, but deleting the talkpages makes it less visual), but also from the many people who help with fighting these spammers/vandals who do not have access to these pages. I would be in favour of archiving these talkpages for the IP (as it may indeed be useless for the editor who is using that IP now), but I am certainly not in favour of deleting.

For spam, our linkrecords show which accounts added which link. But it does not tell us if the account was warned, for that we need the talkpages, which are easily found knowing who added the link. Another method is using the Javascript contributions on IP-ranges .. if the talkpage for the IP is blue .. there might be warnings.

Also for spammers: since quite some time, we (including automated by XLinkBot) are adding working links to the talkpages of these editors, which show up in the linksearch. Deleting the page would also remove that.

I hope this explains a bit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of long-term POV pushers who have talk pages that have never been linked from anywhere else on the project and who have never received any blocks? Nonsense.

Unless there's some sort of system to detect "spam-related" IP talk pages, there's nothing that can be done here. There's consensus for these pages to be deleted. Please, if there are valuable pages, make a list. Make several lists. But if you can't even do something as simple as that, then it's pretty clear that the "tracking system" in place is ... unfit for duty. (And I'll also point out my previous comments about the dynamic nature of these IPs.) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride, do you look at these pages before you delete them? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's your turn to reply, not mine. See above. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he did, he wouldn't have deleted Talk:Whitehall Street–South Ferry (New York City Subway). --NE2 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've asked the same question (or variations of it) several times. I take it you're declining to answer. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've answered several times. I'm not sure your continued presence on my talk page is helping matters, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus, indeed (where, by the way?). But now there are at least two admins who seem to have problems with the established consensus.

And I think that I quite clearly described where and how we can find the talkpages, but if they are redlinks, it makes it for us difficult, and for non-admins impossible to see if they were warned, or at least, why they were warned. Linking is not necessery, the range-contributions show which IPs edit a certain page, or have edited an external links section, and does show if the talkpage is a blue link or a redlink. That is indeed not 'being linked from somewhere', it is a built-in software feature. And if I now create a linkreport for a strange domain, then 5 minutes ago the talkpage of the IP was not linked from somewhere, now it is, but the warnings it got are gone. I don't see how you don't see that we can easily track the users who did perform the actions, but we can't see (after deletion) if they were warned. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the archives of (or the current page content of) WP:AN, WP:AN/I, WT:UP, and WT:CSD for discussion about old IP talk pages. If you would like certain pages preserved, please make a list and they won't be deleted. Or, barring that, tell me how I can identify them in some sort of easy fashion. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so help me here. I've asked if you have read these pages or if you can read these pages. I don't think I've seen an answer. Can you point it out to me? Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your process does not include looking at these pages before deletion, then it's violating our BOT policy, isn't it? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can look at the pages. And, no, not looking at them is not a violation of the bot policy. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! So could you just not delete any that you see that have spam warnings? That would seem to address the issue. Thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But nobody has told me what to look for. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of warning templates that have all been standardized to look nearly identical. Are there specific phrases I should be looking for? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just skim the text looking for any of these five words: "link", "links", "promote", "promotion" or "spam". There's also the POV-pushing issue Dirk identified, so there may be some additional terms for that, but I'll leave that to others. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing your page deletions to see which should be restored, I found I could skim about 2 deleted pages/minute and catch which were spam-related talk pages and which weren't. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Done. I didn't use the "link(s)" search because of false positives. But the script does now scan for "spam," "promote," and "promotion." Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:User page#OLDIP. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a reply there now.... --MZMcBride (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Ha'Ivri deleted again

It seems that no matter how David Ha'Ivri is depicted, his article will never satisfy Wikipedia's self-appointed censors. Here's an idea- instead of deleting, try editing David Ha'Ivri so that it conforms to Wikipedia's standards.

... but I didn't delete it? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus man...

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You should know why you are getting this barnstar...I shouldn't even have to mention the fact that you've deleted well over 2,000 pages in the past 24 hours. Cheers, Razor flame 22:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes

Is there away to keep up with recent changes? I'm trying to patrol it, so that I can stop vandals with Rollback. Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza 01:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Huggle? I hear good things. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it work for slow computers? Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza 01:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. Also, you need to stop using a template as a signature. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]