User talk:Peter

Welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave me a message, please do it at the bottom of this page as a new section. You can do by clicking here. Don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Some other hints to help me help you:

Please provide links to any articles (even if deleted) or users mentioned.
I will probably reply to messages here, and even though I will try and notify you on your talk page as well if a response is needed you might want to check back here later in case, especially for quick notes.
If you have come here because I have deleted an article you created/contributed to, please make sure you first read the reason in the deletion log, and any messages placed on your talk page. That includes following the links in those messages to read up on our policies and guidelines. Once you have done that you are welcome to leave me a message for further information, a request to restore or userfy the article, or just to point out that I may have been wrong - I am open for correction :-)

Thank you! - Peter

Full archive index of old conversations. If you wish to re-start any conversation from in there please start a new heading on this page.

change of username, and advices concerning link toward foreign wikipedia

F. Kristiansson

Dear Peter,

First thank you for the unblock. I changed(at least I think I did) my username to Emartin33. Though do you think that it is easier to directly recreate an account? That is the advice from the tutorial, but since I changed my username, it should be ok right? I have now another question: A point which bother me is that on the page of Frédéric Kristiansson a lot of terms are technique and requires an explanation like the abbreviations CNVL, CNJ, etc.. but they do not exist on the English wikipedia. I therefore thought that instead of putting a link to the French wikipages, I would directly put a link toward the sites of the organizations, which are translated in English. But this page has been deleted for bad references: What would you advice me? Still put the link toward the French wikipedia, even though it is not very relevant to English users? And can I redo the same page, but with minor changes, without being deleted? Best Regards,

Emartin33 13:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (left by Ministère de l'Education (talk · contribs)

You appear to have just changed your signature, not your username. But I made a request for you at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple, and the re-name has been done, so you are now Emartin33. I've taken a look at Frédéric Kristiansson, which has been deleted (as an administrator on this site I can view deleted contributions) as it doesn't explain why Frédéric Kristiansson is notable, as defined by our guideline. It appears to me that this person doesn't meet these guidelines - if you can, please let me know how he does and I'll advise you further. Otherwise I think this is one article we should simply not have on the English Wikipedia. Peter 23:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Peter, I am impressed by your efficacity, so thank you again. F. Kristiansson was representing 2 millions students at both the Minister of Youth and the Minister of Education for 3 years, and launched the debate about teaching first aid at school. He contributed to present school not only as a scholar place but also as a social one, as it is for instance in Sweden. That is why I thought it would be interesting to put him on the english wikipedia, since comparisons with other countries'educative system are highly relevant(especially since I heard he was now a representant at the European Youths, but I am not a 100% sure so I did not add that info). I therefore ask you to reconsider that deletion. Best Regards,

Emartin33 08:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have independent, reliable, sources to back up those claims? Because we have a strict policy of verifiability I am not prepared to reverse a deletion made by another admin unless you can show some kind of proof for these claims (it's not that I doubt what you say is true, it's that we need to show that using independent sources). I do thank you for trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage, I would like to help with this where possible, but I do need to make sure our core policies are being followed.

Also, could you please go back to 'my preferences' and change your signature into something that includes a link to your user and/or user talk page? If you're not sure how just put in 'Emartin33' and make sure the 'Sign my name exactly as shown' box is not ticked. Peter 23:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Peter, I understand the double problem of reversing the deletion of another admin(don't worry I will copy him the rest of the message) and of having only proved and verified facts. Therefore, you will firstly find the visit card that we made for him[maybe delete it after having seen it because I wouldn't want anyone to use those infos]

and a link to the discussion between the former Minister of Education, now Prime minister Francois Fillon here, released by the Ministery of Education itself:

"M. Kristiansson. -N'est-il pas alors important que dans chaque lycée de France, les élèves puissent bénéficier de cette formation ?

(It is important that every highschool teaches students first aid)

M. Fillon. -Nous allons donc le mettre en oeuvre.

(It will be done)^[1] p18

and then with the next minister Gilles de Robien:

"F. Kristiansson. -Ces lois ont-elles ou seront-elles mises en application prochainement ou votre nomination va-t-elle les modifier?

(When will the law be implemented, does the fact that you are the new minister changes anything?"

G. de Robien. -c'est une question de semaines et non pas de mois (It is a question of weeks, not months now)^[2] p21

Here again, the point is not about taking part, but to show that F. Kristiansson is indeed part of the debate right now in France on whether or not First aid should be taught at school. And it is with-and by comparison- to other countries that this debate is done. So as a subject of European importance, especially since we try to take the best from every system, I do think that it is important to have him on the English wikipedia. If it is ok with you, I will also improve the page about first aid, which lakes the civic dimension of teaching students not only to be workers, but also citizens.

Sorry for that long explanation, but I wanted to highlight the relevance of this subject.

Best Regards,

Discover33 (former Emartin33) (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/Note Peter 21:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Peter, did you have the time to take a look at my explanations? I am soon out of office and would like to have the time to read your advices and change accordingly the page F. Kristiansson. Best Regards,

Discover33 (former Emartin33) (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for not getting back to you earlier, I got caught up with other things 'offline' for longer than I expected. As you probably noticed by the card disappearing, I did see that. However that is not the kind of source that we use on Wikipedia. The sources should be secondary, i.e. things like mainstream news papers/sites, or books on a topic. The other source you provide is in French. Maybe he could be mentioned as part of another more general article (if any already exists) on the subjects he's involved in? But again there should be a suitable source. Peter 19:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I understand. The easiest then is that I will come back to you when he will more 'famous' and noticeable in the medias. Thank you for the time you spent on that issue. Best Regards,

Emartin33 (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Word Alive

Peter,

This message is in regard of a band's page The Word Alive and its multiple deletions. The original reason for deletions in September of 2008 was because the article did not assert notability and after four attempts to recreate the page it has been taken down, the last time per discussion (April 12, 2010). The band's EP, "Empire," was released on July 21, 2009 by Fearless Records earning high positions on national music charts as well as industry attention. The band is currently recording their debut full length and is scheduled to appear on the Van's Warped Tour.

If it was a problem of references, please refer to the news post about the band's first week of sales and chart standings on Absolutepunk.net. It should satisfy the second requirement (2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.) listed in the criteria page[[1]].

The sixth point of criteria states that two members of the ensemble must be notable to establish the bands notability. These individuals have pages referencing their current/past membership in the group: Telle Smith and Craig Mabbitt

The band has also toured extensively with other notable music groups:

The Nu Metal Tour (5/21/09-6/21/09) with Sky Eats Airplane

Evergreen Terrace US Tour (7/10/09 - 7/16/09) with Evergreen Terrace

Dreams and Empires Tour (7/24/09-8/15/09) with We Came As Romans

Revolver Presents Tour (10/04/09-10/22/09) with Eyes Set To Kill

Silverstein US Tour (10/28/09-11/13/09) with Silverstein

You'd Be Cuter In a Coffin Tour (11/29-12/19) with Alesana

The Emptiness Tour (2/13/10-3/24/10) with Alesana

Please reconsider the deletion and protection by administration of this article. Markythrills (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Markythrills[reply]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I wanted to check the history of this properly first. What you present is certainly enough to avoid speedy deletion under A7. However, I was deleting because it had already been deleted as a result of an AfD discussion, which was then confirmed at a deletion review. I don't believe what you have presented is enough to overturn that. However, as was suggested at the deletion review, if you create a copy of the article (and I'm happy to provide a copy of the article's history to allow you to do that) in your userspace, more people can check if the article is suitable for moving back into the mainspace. Peter 16:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter,

I've begun a new article for The Word Alive in my article space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Markythrills), but it was denied when I submitted it to move to the public area. I have recently found other sources as well as a Spanish version Wikipedia version of the article (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Word_Alive). What else should I submit to get this article re-opened or my article moved? Here's a few other sources:

They have a track on Rock Band 2

Their music video for "The Only Rule Is There Are No Rules" featured on Noisecreep.com

Recording Video Blog for new album featured on Revolvermag.com

Their debut EP, 'Empire,' was reviewed by various online magazines: hmmagazine.com metalhammer.co.uk

Hopefully this helps to push the page into public space. Markythrills (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Markythrills[reply]

I've given this as an optional assignment to James, whom I'm in the process of preparing for WP:RfA. If he doesn't reply, I'll do so when I next have a free moment after I take a look at this. Peter 19:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think, with the presence of the magazine sources you list above, it might now just about meet the criteria at WP:BAND (it would help if I knew how notable those magazines are in there own right, and therefore how significant their coverage is). If the article had only been speedy deleted, i.e. hadn't gone through a AFD discussion, I would say move it to the article space without too much hesitation. However, as it was deleted through WP:AFD, you do need to make sure that issues raised there are addressed. Two of the comments mention just having an E.P., and it was also noted that the band had been on tour, so that isn't 'new' information. When the album is released I assume that will generate more coverage of the band, and then I think it will more comfortably meet WP:BAND. If you want me to, I am willing to remove the page create protection so you can move your article to the mainspace. As long as you make sure the above sources are in the article, I think there is enough to mean that a new AFD would be needed to delete the article. However, I'm really not sure how a potential AFD debate would go - I would personally argue against any comments requesting deletion for re-creation, but it could still be that people think it doesn't yet meet the notability guidelines. Peter 16:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion of an RfA

A little while ago you suggested that I might consider an RfA. Shortly afterwards 3 more editors supported the suggestion (two more on my talk page, and one on her own). I wasn't considering the matter, but with four of you urging me I did stop and think about it, and I have decided "why not give it a try". Since you were the first to suggest it, you may feel like nominating me. If you do I shall be grateful. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. James has accepted an offer of a co-nom from me, so if you do nominate him and don't mind my chipping in would you let me know so I have time to finish a statement before it goes live? Olaf Davis (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James. Before I go ahead with preparing a possible nomination, I'd like you to be clear about a few things. Don't worry if it seems like I'm taking way to long responding to just one editor (i.e. you) - I intend to use this again.

You can see the previous 4 nominations I've made at the bottom of User:Peter/RfA reviews. One thing you may notice about them is that they were back in 2006. I'm aware that RfA standards have changed a lot, but I am far less familiar with what is likely to pass or fail now than I was then. Therefore I make absolutely no assurance that I think the RfA would pass.
Before agreeing to nominate you (so far I've only talked about a possible nomination) I will do pretty thorough review of your contributions. This will both help me decide if I should proceed with a nomination, and help with writing my nomination statement, which I aim to be equally thorough to match.
I also wish to have a high level of confidence that you would make a good admin. A large part of this is formed through the contributions review mentioned above, but another part is you being willing to answer a load of questions (the number and nature of which depends on what I find, and anything I may think needs clarification). These can be done either on a user subpage or by email. I will also of course aim to answer any questions you have.
I make no guarantees as to how long I will take to do the above. It depends on how many other things I have on the go both on- and off-wiki.
If you are in a hurry, lacking in patience, don't think this is all necessary, you're happy to self-nom, or accept someone else's offer (possibly from someone who already knows you better) then that's fine. I won't take the slightest bit of offence, but I will not proceed with the contributions review.
If you would like to go ahead with the above then just let me know that you do, and what form of communication would best suit you (sub-page if you want to keep it on wiki, email if you'd like to be a bit more private while discussing various situations.) Peter 22:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Olaf: I have no problems with a co-nomination, but as I don't have any experience of editing with you I would treat it as separate from what I've said above. Meaning I would do my nomination and then be happy to notify you, and leave it for you to add anything you wanted before adding it to the main RfA page. Peter 22:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here but there have been a few of us mentioned as possible co-noms, including myself. If you don't mind, would you drop me a note along with Olaf, if you do go ahead? I also need additional time and so if this goes ahead sooner than I'm able to prepare something, I'd like to know. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem (to all you said). Cheers, Peter 23:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I asked you because you were the first to suggest it to me. However, in view of what you say above if you would prefer not to then that is fine. Shadowjams says to me on his/her talk page "I am probably more familiar with your contributions than Peter is", so he/she might be a better person to do it. I will be grateful to either of you if you will do it, but I will fully understand if you prefer to stand back. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies to Peter for cluttering up his talk) I know JBW from around AfD mostly, but also in a few vandalism patrol contexts, although we've rarely interacted directly (if at all?). From what I know I'm pretty confident in him, but I feel the need to do some due dilligence before a nomination [which would be my first too].

Peter's more experienced, an admin, and probably would be a better nominator, especially because he's coming at it tabula rosa. A nomination from him would probably mean more than one from me. That said, I'd be honored to co-nominate. So if Peter nominates, depending where I'm at in my process, I will either support or co-nominate (or oppose if I find out you've been torturing cats or something). I won't take any action without informing both Peter and JBW (of course). Again, sorry for using your talk as the central talking point Peter. If need be, I can setup email or IRC, or you can use my PGP key to communicate with me securely on my talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, that's absolutely fine thanks. Who knows, you may cover everything I have to say well enough that there's nothing for me to add. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a little unhelpful that Peter's talk page has become a sort of central point for discussing this. Feel free, Peter, to move it to User talk:JamesBWatson/Suggested RfA if you like. A central point more connected to me would be more appropriate, and a page of its own would keep it out of the way of other user talk page stuff. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've copied what has been said so far over to the link you suggested. Let's watchlist that, and continue the conversation there. Peter 16:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism report

Hi. You removed my vandalism report on IP vandal 204.171.49.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and commented "stopped before warnings, re-report if continues". Actually the last warning was 23 March but he's been actively vandalising today, e.g. this and this. andy (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that. My edit summary was referring to your more recent warnings, which in this case are the only ones relevant. This is because it's a shared IP address (see the box at the top of its talk page). I checked the contributions and I don't think it's the same user doing the vandalism as before (and there were a few good edits in between), hence it should be treated as a 'new' user and warned appropriately before blocking. Peter 16:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. I hate shared IPs. andy (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16:37, 14 April 2010 Peter (talk | contribs) deleted "NeuGRID" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.neugrid.eu/download/vari/factsheet.pdf)

Dear Peter,

my name is Chiara Barattieri and I'm the project manager of the neuGRID project (www.neuGRID.eu). In the frame of the dissemiantion activities of this EU project we (me and my collegues) are trying to set up a wiki page of the project. For doing this we are using the material we have developed for the website and the rest of the communication materials (leaflet, brochure). Unfortunately, the English page has been deleted twice due to "unambiguous copyright infringment" - which is quite weird, given that this material is not protected by copyright at the moment and we are the developers. Could you please help me and suggest me how to have an English wiki page for this project? What I'd really would like to avoid is to re-develop the entire set of materials.

Thanks for your help. Best,

~~Chiara~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.125.50 (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is assumed that all published works fall under copyright protection, unless the author has explicitly released the work into the public domain, or released it under a license compatible with Wikipedia (such as CC-BY-SA). If you can show where this has been done (telling me here isn't enough for verification purposes), then that particular obstacle will be removed.

Another issue is related to our conflict of interest guidelines - we discourage people from writting about things that they are associated with, as our experience shows that this often leads to articles not following our neutral point of view policy. See also our FAQs for organisations. It is often better to allow others to write about a subject. Peter 10:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Blast from the past: User:The Return of Cicero Dog

You blocked his original account several years ago. He's asking to be allowed to return to editing, any input you may have would be helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did. And that the fact that I remember doing so without checking any logs is not a good sign - I don't think there are many users disruptive enough to warrant that. And judging by the contributions of the above account (a liking of Anarchy, revisiting the talk page of Ian13, the subject of previous extreme personal attacks by Cicero Dog, and the similar style of unblock requests) I would suggest both keeping the original block in place, and continue blocking any sockpuppets. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Peter 21:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering what the Ian13 thing was about. That is definitely not a positive sign if he felt the need to poke him like that. This is seeming less and less like an attempt at a good-faith return and more and more like trolling... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Hi Peter. Did you see this edit? Both the changing of the signature and the content of the comment make it pretty clear that Gromoror is socking from 174.26.20.3. I'd block them for it but since you've already blocked for disruption I thought I'd let you know, in case you want to extend the duration. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No, I didn't see that particular edit, but I was aware that they were likely the same person (or the possibility they were friends sitting in the same place or similar). I plan to keep the block at it's current length, to allow for the small chance of a change in behaviour. I think it would strengthen the case for maintaining any future indef block this way, otherwise we'd probably have to deal with the whole 'give me another chance' discussion. Peter 10:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that makes sense - good call. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self (am I going crazy?)

To do lists don't seem to work, but you do read your talk page, so go and improve MARS-500. Peter 19:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have received and read your message, however I need more time to reply and/or action your request. Thank you for your patience :)

deletion of article 'Canberra Choral Society'

I would like to discuss the deletion of the above article on the grounds that it had the staus of a 'club'. While I am willing to admit that as a stub article it may not yet have contained complete enough details, to classify the organisation as a club when it is a long-standing arts presenter that works with other mainstream musical organisations is to me to draw a very long bow.

I originally worded the introduction as "The Canberra Choral Society is the premiere large choir in Canberra" but thinking that this broke your rules about bias and personal opinion, I changed it. It now reads as much less than it is. For such organisations in Australia there is rarely any documentary evidence of their status. I have hundreds of newspaper articles showing evidence of high quality, professional performances in major concert venues etc., etc., but this is not the sort of thing that should appear in an encyclopedia entry. THe status of arts organisations is most often about anecdotal standing.

My intention was to create an article that woudl allow a sercher to identify the organisation and to see at a glance its historical standing in the city of Canberra. I am happy to remove the sentence concerning "new members are welcome at any time" if that in particular suggests its status as a club, but the comment was intended to indicate that it was a community-based organisation that was still operating.

The number of links to other organisations must be some indication of its status within the network of similar organisations that do have pages in Wikipedia already. There arenumberous refernces to major national events with which the organisation has been linked thus varyfying its significance to the community and to the nation.

With some minor adjustment, I feel that the page would stand alongside these without comment.

PeterChickenCampbell (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a comment about this on PeterChickenCampbell's talk page, in the hope of helping to clarify the matter for him. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll reply there to keep things together. Peter 19:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: User:174.26.20.3 and User talk:Gromoror

Do you think it is a mere coincidence that User:174.26.20.3 makes this edit [2] on the same day that User talk:Gromoror (who was blocked on the same day for using their talk pages as social network chat sites) makes this edit [3]? Active Banana (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's a coincidence, which is why I hard blocked the IP. I don't want to go into any more detail here. Peter 10:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen two incidents involving this IP (the first incident also involved registered users). Even speaking from a position of near-total ignorance, I have to say I thought the most recent block was sound. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 10:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your (3rd) email to JamesBWatson

I have read your email. Thanks very much. I have now changed my Wikipedia setting back to the original email, having decided I'm less likely to miss any that way. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts (and other RfA related discussion)

At User talk:JamesBWatson/Suggested RfA you asked, amongst other things, for examples of conflicts I have been involved in. I have rather belatedly responded to your request. The reason it has taken me so long to do so is that I found (to my surprise) that I had to dig quite a long way into history to find what I thought were significant conflicts. I could easily have given examples of mindless abuse from vandals who had been the victims of my merciless war against them, but I did not think that those were "significant conflicts". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I'm too surprised. One thing I need to make sure I show, is examples of how I've seen situations with you that could be conflicts turn into a happy ending. I was planning to finish the nom today, but that might not be possible now as I (unexpectedly) have to go out for something this afternoon. We'll see. Is there a particular time in the near future that is good/bad to run the RFA (noting that especially for the first couple of days you should be available to answer extra optional questions etc. pretty quickly, and around in general for the whole time)? Peter 10:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I am least able to spend time on Wikipedia at weekends (opposite, no doubt, to many people). I suggest Tuesday would be a good time, as it would mean I should be available for the first few days, and again at the very end. Thanks a lot for the significant amount of work you have put in to this. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that sounds fine. I've now created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamesBWatson. I will leave it for you to copy over your acceptance statment and answers to main questions, as it might look a bit odd in page history if they don't come from you. Also might be good to re-sign your acceptance, just so the time isn't before mine (I don't know if people could be that picky, but let's cover all grounds to be safe). Do you want to do the transcluding of the RfA onto WP:RFA yourself? Peter 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

99.244.95.122

Enough discussions and talks were conducted for Ajith kumar article and the reference says his father was a Palakkad Iyer but the 99.244.95.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to change it daily. He also writes funny edit summary everyday. I'm tired of reverting and warning him. Finally he also scolded me. What can I do to end this ? you can refer Hindunet, "My father is a Palakkad Iyer".

Hindunet, 2007: "a Keralite father"
Oneindia.in, 2008: "A Malyalee father". [4]. What can be done? If someone constantly changes Barack Obama as Chinese people from American. How would you consider this activity ? Is this not a vandalism? --The wind or breeze (talk · contribs) 15:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now had the chance to take a closer look, and have given the IP user a final warning. If he/she continues, then I am happy for a block to be issued. Peter 19:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

[1] ttp://media.vie-lyceenne.education.fr/file/Comptes-rendus_du_C.N.V.L./03/0/C.N.V.L._28_janvier_2005_22030.pdf

[2] ttp://media.vie-lyceenne.education.fr/file/Comptes-rendus_du_C.N.V.L./02/9/C.N.V.L._23_SEPTEMBRE_2005_22029.pdf

[1]

[2]