Jump to content

User talk:Danras

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A welcome from Sango123

[edit]

Hello, Danras, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

–Sango123 (e) 03:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Your "example" test

[edit]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. - Eagletalk 03:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic progress

[edit]

I admit my wording was unduly harsh. But tell me, is this article a discussion of other people's ideas, the way they have presented them? Or is it a discussion of your opinions as informed by other people? Gazpacho 17:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetrical Relativity

[edit]

I never heard of "symmetrical relativity" when I was a physics student, and Google hasn't heard of it, either. If this material isn't cited and verifiable then it's original research, whether or not you personally invented it, and it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions, but we are writing an encyclopedia here and can only use verifiable material.

If you have references you can cite for this article, then please add them. If not, I'll propose this page for deletion. --Craig Stuntz 13:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that another user is AfDing the articles now. You may want to express your opinion in that discussion. Also, please don't take this personally. Your contributions on subjects for which there is an existing body of work which can be used to verify the writing are entirely welcome. Whether or not something is in fact true, it must be notable and verifiable in order to be included in Wikipedia. I hope you'll continue to contribute on subjects for which you can cite sources. --Craig Stuntz 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Symmetrical Relativity

[edit]

Your recent edit to Symmetrical Relativity (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 18:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to move a page

[edit]

Don't move pages with cut-and-paste. This obscures article histories and interrupts discussions. Instead use the article move feature.

I request that you tag Relativity (consistent with general principle) for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7. You can do this by putting {{db-author}} at the top of the page. Once an admin deletes the page, you can use the move tab at the top of the article to correctly move the article to your preferred title without disrupting the article history or the conversation in talk.

Thank you, --Craig Stuntz 18:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith / Personal attacks in edit summaries

[edit]

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing.--Craig Stuntz 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments to those who disagree with you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symmetrical Relativity are unwarranted and unproductive. You've stated your opinion; personal jabs at other users will not help drive the point home. Please allow the process to continue without further disruption. Kafziel 01:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

These comments, here, and here, are completely unacceptable. Byrgenwulf 19:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

The article in question is about relativity. The people who respond allegedly are smart enough to know something about it. The last one claimed to have a PhD in Physics. If I say something implying that commenters lack intelligence, I do not think they are that offended. If you look at some replies, you will see that some clearly indicate that position.

Some who write call me "complete bullocks" which is offensive by the definition applied to me. If anyone has chastised them about it, please apologize to them. I disagree with what they say, but I value free speech. Please do not disrupt intellectual discussion and the sorting out of whose position is most intelligent and whose is not. Intelligent people are tough, and the same rules that apply at a social club for grandmothers, do not apply here.

Secondly, I am from the United States where criticism is acceptable. If an editorial cartoonist depicts the U.S. President wearing a fool's cap, nobody is offended. In some countries, if one depicted the leader that way, it would be deeply offensive, and one would be thrown in jail. Please do not engage in cultural imperialism, by imposing foreign standards of acceptable behavior on Americans. Please apologize to me as an American for your imperialism. Perhaps a second English wikipedia can be created for societies that do not tolerate critcism and the original one left for those who allow free speech. --Danras 02:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Reply

[edit]
I refuse to apologise for imperialism, for I see nothing wrong with imperialism. No-one called you complete bollocks, but many have realised that symmetrical relativity is complete bollocks. And yes, if you're in the mood for such comments, I think that symmetrical relativity is a downright stupid idea, and represents a series of gross misunderstandings of both Einstein's work and simple physical truths.
Regardless, an AfD is not a place for sorting out whose position is most intelligent (much less which editor is the most intelligent). I don't really care about whether or not people are offended: I don't get offended easily, either. But, any truly intelligent person, who has an understanding of logic and argumentation, knows that arguments cannot be won by attacking the people: an argument can only be won by attacking opposing arguments.
Saying "you are wrong because you're stupid" doesn't work. Saying "you are wrong because your argument implies blablabla, which is false" is much better. Criticism of arguments is fine, but in civilised society, even in America, it is considered improper to argue about things like science and philosophy by attacking the personal character of people involved. Byrgenwulf 11:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Counter Reply

[edit]

Your argument is self-serving. Your user page lists you as a deletionist, which means you engage in censorship. This does not mean you are a censor -- that would be a personal attack. It only means that you engage in censorship. Despite your claim to be a knowledgeable critic of relativity, I know this distinction is important to you.

As a deleter of articles, you do not have to have real understanding of articles you vote to delete. You do not have to give a reason, although it is considered good sportsmanship to give a vague reason. The individual whose article is being attacked cannot compel would be deleters to give serious reasons for their attack. You say an individual can win an argument by attacking opposing arguments, but that tactic will not work if there are none. Personal attacks and ridicule serve a purpose in provoking would be deleters into giving arguments. Such attacks help ensure that there is a fair fight.

You do not want to engage in fair fights. You want to attack others while ensuring that you are not bloodied in the process. You want to exalt yourself at the expense of people of merit. Let us not kid ourselves about your motivations. On your user page, you say you are probably going to hell. You should add another line to it saying why. --Danras 00:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C3 Reply

[edit]
I suppose it comes down to whether or not one regards censorship as a bad thing. I am vehemently against censorship when it comes down to personal moral values or suchlike. But, since Wikipedia is used by millions as a source of information, I believe very firmly that all the information here should be accurate. If it is not, then many unsuspecting reader, students, people trying to educate themselves, might be taken in and tricked into believing nonsense.
As for deletion arguments, unfortunately articles cannot be deleted because the ideas described in them are wrong; despite Linas' imprecations. Articles are deleted if they do not meet Wikipedia policies and are unable to do so. Symmetrical relativity falls into that category.
But it is also just plain wrong. As the simplest example, the expression you have given for is completely incorrect; a ridiculously elementary mistake. The rest of the article is fraught with similar errors: as Anville pointed out, the article begins with a misconception, and degenerates from there. One bad premise can lead to a whole argument falling down. While it is conceivable that there is some theory that might lead credence to the claims made in the article, such a theory would need to be proven, and the article does not do that; but not only would the theory have to be proven, it would have to be acquitted at the tribunal of experiment, something I doubt that "symmetric relativity" could do. Simply saying something doesn't make it true, even if, on a naive reading, it might accord with the facts, which again, "symmetric relativity" doesn't.
I am not going to indulge in further argument here, because it is fruitless to argue with someone who thinks they understand something better than anyone else but clearly doesn't understand it very much at all.
I do not seriously believe I am going to Hell, because I am an atheist. There is no Hell. But if there were, the reason I would go there is simply that non serviam. Byrgenwulf 07:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C4 Reply

[edit]

If a mistaken article is viewed by millions, some knowledgeable person is bound to correct it. It should be accurate and polished. Many articles only attract the interest of only a few people. They often contain inaccuracies and are not polished. It is better to have them than no information at all on the topics they cover. Such articles lead to criticism from elitists. However, information is for use, not to impress. I would concern myself with maximizing the amount of information Wikipedia contains, and not with limiting it. Censorship also implies that the self-appointed censors know best, when their knowledge is not proven. Let people fight it out one-on-one when there is disagreement. The intellectually self-confident should win, and those less confident should lose.

Thank you pointing out the error in the Lorentz factor. I do not maintain the article does not contain minor errors like misspellings or the one you pointed out. I try to avoid them, but they happen. Your pointing out this error suggests that that you do not know of any more serious errors—at least, ones that you can articulate. The article theory may be wrong, but I have reason to be dubious that you know that it is wrong. I do agree that it needs better referencing.

My guess is that you do not intuitively grasp the general principle of relativity. If you are in a closed box or elevator and you are accelerating, Einstein is saying that there is no way to tell whether the acceleration is due to inertial movement or to gravitation. You cannot do an experiment inside the elevator that will prove the type of acceleration. This principle is apparently my bad premise.

The article follows from the general principle. This principle seems to be accepted, so that whatever follows from it must be accepted with it. More broadly, the theory is similar to that of Copernicus. Available evidence was sufficient to prove it superior to the accepted theory of Ptolemy, even though it did not lead to exact predictions. I listed applications to the article theory that are sufficient to prove it superior to known theories. Such applications do not prove it in a mathematical sense. It is not known if the sun is big enough or will ever become dense enough to split into two binaries. Calculations would depend on observation and correct assessment of the mass and densities of nearby binary and solitary stars, taking into account their gravitation potential relative to other stars.

The article theory could be disproven by applying the equations of special relativity to gravitational phenomena. However, the article does not say the theory is true. All it says is that it is consistent with the general principle, as that is the article title (not symmetric relativity). If this general principle is a bad premise, then presumably other Wikipedia articles that reference this principle need editing.

I am a saved Christian, and am probably the leading editor of the Wikipedia Salvation article. I understood that you were an atheist and did not ostensibly believe in hell. I once read the Satanist Bible and noted that most Satanists did not believe is Satan. There are many atheist intellectuals. I suppose not having a religion, atheists make intellectualism their religion.

I hold my own self-interest as my ruling principle. I would never hold non serviam. Sometimes service is in my self-interest. I accept salvation because I cannot save myself. That gift puts me in debt, and implies service. What is Jesus supposed to do, not act in self-interest?

I am quite happy to act as a complete fool, if by acting so, I further my self-interest. I do not care what other people think. Non serviam seems to mean that you serve your self rather than God. However, in practice, having a big ego makes you a slave to other people's opinions. It forces you to act like the main character in the British TV show, Keeping Up Appearances. Even though you are hoping for eternal unconsciousness, don't you think it insane that you are virtually worshipping your own damnation? Clearly you have strayed from the path of self-interest.

You seem to forget that you are the one who started a fight with me. I am responding to you. You are technically taking up my time, not vice versa. I do find you interesting because you provide me feedback of social opinion I am not aware of. In addition, you make me think of things like cultural imperialism and the fact that technically I am not maintaining that the relativity article is true—only that it is consistent with the general principle. --Danras 02:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation

[edit]

Thanks. Lima 04:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CIV and WP:NOR. Use salvation discussion. (Simonapro 16:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Please help

[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but as an Inclusionist wikipedia things are getting desperate and I need to appeal to your for help. We are facing a situation where a deletionist admin is free to declare inclusionist arguments "absurd" and ignore them at will. If you don't agree with this situation, please share your opinion here. Kappa 02:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philly meetup

[edit]

Hi, Danras! There will be a Wikipedia Meetup in Philadelphia on 4 November. If you're interested in coming, RSVP by editing Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 2 to reflect the likelihood of your being able to attend. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Hopefully, we'll all see you (and each other) on the 4th! --CComMack (t•c) 17:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

[edit]
You are invited to participate in WikiProject Philadelphia, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Philadelphia. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

--evrik 18:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to black hole

[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. While the Wikipedia community appreciates your obvious efforts to increase the amount of information on the site, we'd like to point out our policy against original research and for citing sources for the information you provide. This increases the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole and aids in checking the factuality of that article.

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Byrgenwulf 07:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfc

[edit]

As part of the dispute resolution process, I've started an rfc page regarding your repetitive edits on the black hole page. It won't be official unless someone else signs it. Pervect 07:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Danras is "official" now -- I encourage you to comment in response to others' criticisms. I am an outsider and neutral on the subject of classical physics vs. general relativity as they relate to black holes. I have left a more Wikipedia-related question on the RFC's talk page you may want to look at. --A. B. 20:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware County, Pennsylvania and Robert Rivera

[edit]

Danras- yes, I'm a lawyer, but my practice is transactional. I don't have a dog in the fight regarding Robert Rivera's case at all-- for all I know, the poor guy was wrongly convicted. But that's beside the point: (1) I seriously doubt that the controversy over Mr. Rivera's conviction (however significant the event might be to him) is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the history section of the Delaware County, Pennsylvania page. The Upper Chichester Township, Pennsylvania page, maybe-- but not at the county level. Hell, even the Dave Schultz/John E. DuPont murder case isn't mentioned on the county article, and that was international news. Nor is the Aimee Willard murder, which got far more media attention. The Robert Rivera story has only a couple of hundred google hits, many of which are to your Wikipedia article. (2) The Robert Rivera article is strongly slanted in favor of a particular point of view. Take a look at some of the articles linked to Miscarriage of justice for examples of articles discussing particular controversial convictions. Spikebrennan 14:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{unref} tag

[edit]

Hi, you recently removed the {unref} tag from Barry Lee Fairchild‎ (why can't I get that to link properly?) and your edit summary indicated that the external links were references. I'm not an expert in the fine details of the matter, but if the links are actually references then shouldn't they be in the form of in-line citations? My understanding is that "External Links" are simply to provide additional info on the topic, not to serve as actual references. I'm certainly not criticizing the article itself, it contains some useful and important information. I think it's just a minor technicality to be corrected. I'll be watching your Talkpage, so you can respond here. Thanks for your time :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I looked at the article and it seemed that most if not all of the article content is contained in the first external link. That link should at least be listed in a Reference section. I will check it out and see if in-line citations seem appropriate. I am going on a two-day trip and will perform the work when I return. --Danras 14:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Danras. Sounds like a good plan; have a nice trip :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boorne Brothers article

[edit]

A fake Colvin is not as far-fetched as it may seem. I read several articles related to this issue a while back but I'm having trouble locating them. Basically, Jesse admitted to a false Colvin being hired and taking advantage of the fact that Colvin had a reputation for acting really confused all the time. Remember, he returned seven years after he disappeared so it would not be so hard to use an imposter to take his place. I'll try and find my sources again to prove my point. There are many parallels between this event and Martin Guerre so it is entirely plausible. I'll get back to you when I have evidence.

Looking for input

[edit]

Hello, you recently participated in this AfD. There is a discussion going on at the article's talk page about the title of the article, so I am notifying everyone who voted or commented on the AfD in case you wanted to participate in the discussion. Thanks! Tufflaw 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Disputed convictions in the United States

[edit]

An editor has nominated Disputed convictions in the United States, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disputed convictions in the United States and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Noling

[edit]

Tyrone Noling has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this article might not be appropriate for Wikipedia without the addition of reliable sources. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so, attributing the information in the article to third-party sources.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Pennsylvania

[edit]

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 02:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choctaw Three going through possible deletion

[edit]

As the lead editor of the article, I figured I would let you know.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choctaw Three. -- Guroadrunner 09:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeke Goldblum

[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Zeke Goldblum, by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Zeke Goldblum fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

AfD, closed as hoax, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeke Goldblum


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Zeke Goldblum, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economic progress

[edit]

I am afraid I have nominated the article for deletion as an original research/POV essay. Feel free to comment at its deletion discussion/vote page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic progress. Regards, Mike Rosoft 08:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good riddance. I nominate the economic progress article as "Worst wikipedia article ever written" award. - Private Freedom 05:39, 23 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Private Freedom (talk • contribs)

WikiProject Germany Invitation

[edit]

Hello, Danras! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.


--Zeitgespenst (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Anthony Graves

[edit]

I have nominated Anthony Graves, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Graves. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sandbox page

[edit]

Hey, now that you seem to have transwiki'd it to the mainspace, do you think you could put a {{speedy}} on User talk:Danras/Temp Sandbox? Or at least blank the contents now that you're done with it? Thanks. Ford MF (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Dechaine

[edit]

Just to let you know that a user keeps censoring the name of the murder victim from this article you created. I have already reverted it twice but the user is still at it. John celona (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He just [[1]] had the nerve to vandalize your comments on the talk page. You may want to file an ANI-this should be a blockable offense. John celona (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Disputed convictions leading to execution

[edit]

Category:Disputed convictions leading to execution, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Ferguson and Erickson appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Ferguson and Erickson, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see my comments at Talk:Ferguson and Erickson. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Ferguson and Erickson, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mark Kirk (convict)

[edit]

I have nominated Mark Kirk (convict), an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Kirk (convict). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Tikiwont (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Tikiwont (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

[edit]
Article Rescue Squadron

I notice that you are part of Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Nicholas Yarris

[edit]

I have nominated Nicholas Yarris, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Yarris. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. لennavecia 01:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Ferguson and Erickson

[edit]

I have nominated Ferguson and Erickson, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferguson and Erickson. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. MBisanz talk 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Dennis Dechaine

[edit]

I have nominated Dennis Dechaine, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Dechaine. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. لennavecia 02:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Hello, Danras. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Danras. Thank you.

Blocked

[edit]

I have blocked you indefinitely based on evidence that you have engaged in serious plagiarism of articles related to crime. It appears based on the ANI discussion mentioned above that you have lifted large blocks of text from Websites without attribution, or only made minor changes to the wording. This is simply not acceptable here. Blueboy96 14:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion and Unblock Request

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Danras (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In regard to the plagiarism allegation, I am the author of victimsofthestate.org, a site I allegedly plagiarized from. Every crime related article I have written for Wikipedia has been copied (with minor changes) from that site. I update articles on victimsofthestate.org from time to time, so the current version of an article on victimsofthestate.org might look a little different from what I originally posted on WP. :As to the Butler and Yelder article, if you look at my original post, you will see my it lists the Northwestern Center on Wrongful Convictions article page as Reference. It somehow got deleted as the Reference and instead listed as an External link. If you compare the WP article to the entire Northwestern article, you will see that it is a fair use summary. The Northwestern article adds “Permission is granted to reprint, quote, or post on other web sites with appropriate attribution,” so in theory I could have posted the Northwestern article verbatim. :As far as the Nicholas Yarris article is concerned, I should have listed deathpenaltyinfo.org as a reference. Instead I copied the references from victimsofthestate.org. When I put references on the victimsofthestate.org, my main concern is to aid the reader who wants further information unless perhaps the article is based on a single source. One thing I probably did not like about the deathpenaltyinfo.org site is that the Yarris information is listed way down on a long web page. A reader who goes to it might not initially understand what it has to do with Nicholas Yarris. On victimsofthestate.org I cannot burden casual readers with excessive references. I know especially interested readers/researchers use search engines and can check things out almost as easily as if I listed specific links. :I did source the Robert Diaz article if one looks at the original post. :I am all for giving credit to sources. While I may pick up some fair use phrasing from sources, I like my own writing style and find the plagiarism allegation offensive. :I stopped putting new articles on Wikipedia long ago. Too many users want to complain about some aspect of an article but cannot be bothered to change an article themselves to what they recommend. WP is supposed to be collaborative, but in practice it seems that only some are willing to perform the actual content work. Please delete all WP articles that I created, especially those that look similar to my original posts. I thought of doing that myself before, but I did not get around to it. These articles are available elsewhere, often in improved form. :Please unblock my username. Some content I wrote on WP may remain and want the opportunity to defend it, although in many cases I may not care. Also, I may want to peruse WP articles and correct obvious errors that do not take much time to edit.

Decline reason:

User demonstrated failure to understand United States copyright law. ⟳ausa کui × 16:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi, Danras. I want to thank you for making efforts to improve Wikipedia. Hopefully we can get this sorted out so that nobody is left with a bad taste in their mouth. There is a lot that is wrong with your unblock request, and a lot that you seem to misunderstand about United States copyright law. Let me try to straighten a few things out so you can better understand what the issue is here:

  1. I am the author of victimsofthestate.org, a site I allegedly plagiarized from. Every crime related article I have written for Wikipedia has been copied (with minor changes) from that site.
    That's better than copying someone else's work, yes; but it's still deeply problematic, since anything you contributed to Wikipedia was released under the CC-BY-SA or GFDL licenses, as described at the bottom of every edit page. Though you've legally released this material just by uploading it, it's difficult to prove that you are the true copyright holder, so it would make everyone rest a bit easier if you released the content on your website first by placing some kind of notice. Currently, all you have is an attribution to yourself, which is suggestive that you are trying to reserve your rights. Once your material is on Wikipedia, you have very few rights over it anymore; we want to make sure that you understand that before you upload your content. For more information, see WP:COPYRIGHT or feel free to ask me here.
  2. If you compare the WP article to the entire Northwestern article, you will see that it is a fair use summary.
    This is absolutely unnaceptable. We cannot accept fair use text whatsoever on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia; most media, and all text content, must be released under a copyleft license such as CC-BY-SA. Though it may be within our legal right to make use of fair use summaries, it is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others.
  3. Northwestern article adds “Permission is granted to reprint, quote, or post on other web sites with appropriate attribution,” so in theory I could have posted the Northwestern article verbatim.
    No, no, no. That text releases others to reprint the content, but not to modify it, nor to redistribute the derivative works for profit. Once you've posted it on Wikipedia, anyone could edit it, or reprint it and sell it; some people are very uncomfortable with having their work used for someone else's profit, and we do not take liberties with these rights until they are explicitly released.

Please understand that there is nothing personal about this; nobody means to attack you. Wikipedia is in a precarious position because people regularly upload plagiarised or copyrighted content that potentially subjects Wikipedia to legal entanglements. Because of the open nature of the project we have to take copyright very seriously so that there's never any doubt that an article may be a derivative of a copyrighted work (and so we would have to start from scratch, even after years of painstaking labor.)

Thanks for reading this far. ⟳ausa کui × 16:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for responding. Since WP largely depends on WP users’ “fair use” interpretation of reference material, your interpretation of U.S. copyright law means that much of WP, at least articles based on U.S. copyrighted material, will have to be shut down. I am assuming that your interpretation applies to others, not just to myself. My condolences to Jimmy Wales, as I am sure he will be upset by the major ramifications of your legal finding.
However, since I have wanted to delete all my WP article contributions anyway, arguments regarding the interpretation of copyright law are beside the point. I realize that articles on WP can always be improved. If someone wants to improve an article, he or she should go do it. In practice, however, a deletionist mentality has taken hold at WP in which the deletion of one’s existing contributions is used as a threat to implement the demands of deletionists for things that they cannot be bothered to do themselves. It is a form of tyranny, private power lust, and corruption that punishes people in proportion to the merit they have shown in making contributions. Since I value merit, I no longer wish to support WP with my contributions for this reason. I wish Wikipedians well who suffer under the deletionist tyrants. Perhaps the tyranny will one day be overthrown, but I should point out that there are no armed border guards or Berlin wall keeping anyone in.
Please delete all articles that I originated on WP. If some contain extensive content by others, the articles can perhaps be rebuilt based on such content. However, my contributions should not appear in the history of such rebuilt articles. I also ask that any extensive contributions by me to other articles be deleted.
WP administration already acknowledges by its block of me that I am no longer effectively a WP member. It is not clear why it continues to present as its own, material from me, an effective non-member. I withdraw permission for use of my contributions. I hereby put WP on notice that they are plagiarizing from me and I demand that all my contributions be deleted immediately.--Danras (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the license Wikipedia operates under is not revocable. When you click on the edit button and move into edit mode, directly above the "save page" buton, it states: "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GFDL." We make it as clear as possible that you cannot revoke your contributions and this is one of the key aspects of Wikipedia that allows it work. Wikipedia isn't an article bank and you can't deposit articles here and then take them out when you get upset. I'm sure that some of your articles will be deleted, the ones that copied from, sources not your own and those judged not to meet content policy but I'm sorry we can't do a universal deletion of articles on demand. Sarah 13:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Revocation of our licensing is not permitted. Users who attempt to revoke the license on their contributions are usually banned. Please reconsider. It is still possible for you to contribute to Wikipedia constructively. ⟳ausa کui × 16:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Unfortunately, license agreements which attempt to legitimize fraud are not enforceable. They cannot change the reality of who wrote an article or a section of text. If user Tom Jones wrote a section of WP text, the truth is always going to be that Tom Jones wrote that text. If WP were a paper publication, legal agreements would have some merit. If WP went to the expense of publishing 100,000 copies of a bound volume of its articles which it had not yet sold, and then Tom Jones said he did not want anything he wrote to be included in the volume, WP would incur a financial loss if it complied with Tom Jones’ request and had to destroy its unsold copies. Even in the case of paper publication, there would be no ethical reason to enforce a legal agreement between Tom Jones and WP in perpetuity. In subsequent publications WP would incur no financial loss if it left out Tom Jones’ contributions. Since WP just exists on computer servers, it only takes a few mouse clicks to delete Tom Jones’ contributions. There is no financial downside to WP. As contracts, license agreements are not always enforceable. If I signed a contact to give you a hundred dollar bill in exchange for a one dollar bill, that contract would not be enforceable unless it was for a specific one dollar bill that could be shown have a collector’s value apart from its face value.
The existence of WP is not dependent on restricting users from walking away with their contributions. If WP openly acknowledged the rights of contributors, perhaps 1% of article creation effort would have to be devoted to rebuilding articles and text removed by users who walked away, but 99% of users effort would still be devoted to new and existing articles. There exist many businesses which are owned by stockholders rather than by management. These businesses have no trouble functioning. In WP contributors function as the stockholders as they provide the assets.
I do not dispute the validity of the WP licensing agreement to protect WP from a financial downside if a situation occurs similar to the paper publishing example given above.
I have reconsidered and now retract my demand that my contributions be deleted. Admittedly, I am weary of having to spend time defending or explaining old contributions. It would be easier if these contributions just went away. However, I am not very politically motivated to fight for a cause I do not expect to win. I may disagree with some WP rulings, but I know they simply have to be complied with. I would like access to WP at some point, but I will wait for now. --Danras (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dan, if you decide you want to appeal and request an unblock in the future, you can post another unblock template or email the unblock mailing list, unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org but naturally any admin who responds will want to discuss the copyright issue before unblocking to be sure that you now understand Wikipedia's rules in that regards (as explained above by Causa sui). Regards, Sarah 10:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Rivera and Walpole

[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rivera and Walpole. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rivera and Walpole. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Max Soffar, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.victimsofthestate.org/TX/Soffar.htm. As a copyright violation, Max Soffar appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Max Soffar has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Max Soffar and send an email with the message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Max Soffar with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Max Soffar.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. momoricks 23:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, William Jackson Marion, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.victimsofthestate.org/CC/VFA.htm. As a copyright violation, William Jackson Marion appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. William Jackson Marion has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. momoricks 00:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Condy Dabney, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.victimsofthestate.org/CC/VFA.htm. As a copyright violation, Condy Dabney appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Condy Dabney has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Condy Dabney and send an email with the message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Condy Dabney with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Condy Dabney.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. momoricks 00:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Boorn Brothers, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.victimsofthestate.org/CC/VFA.htm. As a copyright violation, Boorn Brothers appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Boorn Brothers has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Boorn Brothers and send an email with the message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Boorn Brothers with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Boorn Brothers.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. momoricks 01:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Ernest Lyons, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.victimsofthestate.org/CC/VFA.htm. As a copyright violation, Ernest Lyons appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Ernest Lyons has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Ernest Lyons and send an email with the message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Ernest Lyons with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Ernest Lyons.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. momoricks 02:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Butler and Yelder, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.victimsofthestate.org/CC/VFA.htm. As a copyright violation, Butler and Yelder appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Butler and Yelder has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Butler and Yelder and send an email with the message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Butler and Yelder with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Butler and Yelder.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. momoricks 02:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Charles Hudspeth (convict), please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.victimsofthestate.org/AR/index.html. As a copyright violation, Charles Hudspeth (convict) appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Charles Hudspeth (convict) has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. momoricks 02:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Robert Rivera, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.freerobertrivera.org. As a copyright violation, Robert Rivera appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Robert Rivera has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Robert Rivera and send an email with the message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Robert Rivera with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Robert Rivera.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. momoricks 03:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the above

[edit]

Having reviewed the above proposed speedy deletion, I have declined it, the rationale is explained on the article's talk page. However, I have concerns about the relative similarity between the original article as you wrote it and the original source you cited. The article is currently under review at WP:CP, note that the following alternatives, as written in the template notice just above this update, can also help close the review process by mooting it:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Robert Rivera and send an email with the message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Robert Rivera with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Robert Rivera.

Wikipedia takes copyright concerns seriously and is obligated to exercise due diligence when doubts about the ownership of material added to the site exists. Thank you for your understanding in this matter. MLauba (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danras&oldid=1144907416"