User talk:Will Beback/archive26

Perverted-Justice page

Hello Will Beback, I was wondering if you could take a look at the Perverted-Justice page when you have a moment. There is disagreement there related to the opening sentence and the inclusion of the assertion that PJ engages in harassment. As it reads now, it appears to make the claim that PJ engages in harassment as a rule. Here is a link to the discussion: Talk:Perverted-Justice#Harrasment

That addition made by Barry Jameson was reverted back by a few people, myself included. Then Swatjester comes in and threatens me with a 3R (although he neglects to warn Barry Jameson of the same offense, even though he had far more than 3 reverts). I pointed out that all of the citations being used are garbage (some point to comments on articles, others point to Corrupted Justice or quotes by Corrupted Justice - an unreliable source by all accounts). I'm not asking for agreement from either party, but Swatjester ignored what I pointed out, left all the citations, and insulted my lucidity. I'm not asking for sympathy, I'm asking for some assitance since if I do make any more reversions or changes I'll probably be banned. FrederickTG (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Pedophia and Child Sexual Abuse" in literature / "Mirror" Wikipedia page seems to have been created under new name

Have you been aware of the existence of this recently-created page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_books_featuring_pedophilia

which appears to be an attempt to pre-empt the discussion by re-creating the page under a new title, rather than addressing problems with the old title?

As an administrator, what do you think of the approach this editor is using? SocJan (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you will review the original page, you will discover that the most recent title change I made actually restored the word "pedophilia". After that, another editor, who thought the new title too long, created the current title:

"(cur) (last) 18:25, 10 February 2008 The Relativist (Talk | contribs) m (moved Talk:List of works portraying pedophilia or other problematic adult responses to young males to Talk:List of works portraying adult attraction to young males: This seems a more suitable title. I have defended it on the talk page.) (undo)"

I take it your advice is that I must start all over, disputing on the page Tony created back in October, his inclusion of Guy Davenport's fictions, which is how I was drawn into all of this in the first place?

I really don't believe that I have been out of line in attempting to resolve problems that were long-standing in Tony's original article, which includes some works that unquestionably are about pedophilia but also many where that characterization is highly OR and POV.

Please take the time to review the full Talk page of the original article.

When you have done that, please simply answer whether you believe Wikipedia should host multiple articles with effectively the same content. SocJan (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I see that another editor has now redirected Tony's new page to the old page.

Frankly, this is getting too deep for me. I got involved when I found works on Tony's page that I did not believe should be there. I disputed their inclusion and was supported by other editors. We deleted those where all but Tony seemed to agree that inclusion was inappropriate. Others, where consensus had not been reached, were left. But then Tony has apparently simply taken "his" page elsewhere, dodging all the work put in by the rest of us who do not always agree with him, restoring material (for example, works by Guy Davenport) that the preponderance of input said should not be there.

And you seem to approve!

Here is the situation as I see it: While many of us were struggling in good faith with a long-standing problem with terminology, one editor (who participates in something called a "pedophilia watch" project) creates a new page that restores disputed content that had been removed after extensive discussion from the old page, and fails to register the new page in the "pedophila watch" section.

I feel a bit of a fool for fiddling away for months trying to improve a Wikipedia page, trying to make it more accurate and fair, without realizing that everything I thought I had accomplished has been quietly removed where I was not looking.

It seems clear that people who simply know something and haven't mastered Wikipedia political tactics aren't really welcome. We can expect to be unfairly labeled as "pro-pedophilia" (and criticized for protesting), while others simply run around any attempts at consensus by re-creating pages willy-nilly the way they want them. Is this really how Wikipedia should work?! SocJan (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely confused by your latest post on my Talk page. On 5 January of this year I made an edit that revised the intro to PEDOPHILIA AND CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IN FICTION (BOYS) and listed a proposed new title for the page, which was then discussed for two weeks. I "moved" the page only after that time. Why was the change "contentious"? And speaking of your "disapproval of contentious page moves made without consensus", is it fair to say that you thus disapprove of the creation of "List of Books Featuring Pedophilia"? Absolutely no consensus supported this move to a new title, not to mention restoration on that moved page of old, contested, content that had been deleted by consensus at the old page.

Please note that the move to LIST OF BOOKS FEATURING PEDOPHILIA was made months before "pedophilia" was deleted from the title of the original article. Was that move (via duplication) not contentious and unsupported by consensus?!

I'm trying to understand your position as an administrator watching this topic. You have mistakenly perceived that I "made sure that List of works portraying adult attraction to young males excludes "pedophilia" from the title" when in fact I was very cautious about removing it in the first place, and then restored that word to the title when people objected. And now you say I mischaracterize your comments about contentious title changes when the record is clear that I did my best to seek consensus while another editor completely evaded consensus.

So I must ask: Is it your opinion that moving effectively the same content (with disputed material restored without notice to those who disputed it!) to "LIST OF BOOKS FEATURING PEDOPHILIA" was not contentious? And that it reflect some consensus? If so, who participated in that consensus? I cannot understand your comments. SocJan (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Will. I accept your recent deletions on the Talk page as a legitimate way to deal with the recent situation.

But could you clarify whether your intervention is as an editor of that page, supporting a position in the discussion, or as a neutral moderator of Wikipedia discussions. You have played both roles. They are not incompatible, but some indication from you of where you stand on the page's current and future evolution would seem timely.

As you know, a number of editors have been concerned that "pedophilia" has multiple meanings -- one in psychology, a different one in law enforcement, and a still vaguer one in general and casual usage in society -- and have thus argued that it was a poor choice for a word around which to build a Wikipedia article of that sort. It was clear that editors interested in the page could not agree on which definition to use.

Are you comfortable with the new title and introductory paragraphs? Or should we continue to seek a better solution?

The originator of the page is clearly upset, and that's highly understandable. He has made it abundantly clear that he is wedded to the word "pedophila" and to a definition of it that is extremely broad (one that he repeated in the material you deleted).

But Wikipedia requires its entries to acknowledge controversy and lack of unanimity where they exist, while he wants things simpler than they can be made for this subject. DEATH IN VENICE was a good test case. My position is that It can now be included, whereas it was a great stretch so long as "pedophilia" and "child sexual abuse" appeared in the article's title, since neither is clearly and unequivocally present in D in V. Do you agree? SocJan (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Water tank collage.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Water tank collage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 01:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Diebold

Wanted to request your support with, in my option, a disruptive editor involved with the Diebold article. His edits include adding adding Black Box Voting and Hacking Democracy under the See Also section of the article. These in my opinion are not related to this entry and would be better served in the Premier Election Solutions entry. If you agree I would like to request your assistance and monitoring this article and if necessary contacting an admin. I wouldn't want anyone to think there are any efforts to protect Diebold, but at the same time WP is not a soapbox and I wont have the time in the near future to help with this. Please help if you're interested. Thanks. --Electiontechnology (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

List of African-American porn stars and List of Hispanic porn stars

Hi. I see that you deleted all the redlinks from these lists. One of the advantages of lists over categories is that "lists can include items for which there are yet no articles (red links)". I appreciate the formatting changes you made, but I'm going to restore the redlinks to the lists per the guideline. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I hadn't thought about references. I don't suppose the covers of adult videos are reliable sources, eh? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Eletion systems

I moved your paragraph about the master key to Premier Election Solutions#Security issues. It's better to keep all the voting machine-related stuff in that article, and keep the Diebold article about the parent corporation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, thats ok, I was not aware of the difference. The "Press" still refer to these machines as "Diebold" voting machines, so I have added a {{for}} at the top of the section. Fosnez (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

If you go back a few days you will see this isn't about massive deletion, it's about massive bloating. This article has been at about 53 kilobytes for six months. Editors are reverting to a 13 month old article that was drastically trimmed following a GA review. It should go back to Vassyana's last version. Thanks.Momento (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Astroturf groups cat

I nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_9#Category:Astroturf_groups DickClarkMises (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

LA Times

Hello Will, do you have a link to the LA times article you refer to? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two articles in the LA Times, one April 11, 1985, and another from July 7, 1985. [1] None of these report that the Prem Rawat property is owned by Seva Co. (doing business as "Anacapa View Estates"). Could you please provide the date of the article you refer to? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Meir Weinstein

Could you please look at Meir Weinstein. I get the strong impression that Eternal Sleeper is removing material he doesn't like on dubious pretexts and I'd like an admin to review the situation. Black as pitch (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Weinstein

Can you please review the debate at Talk:Meir_Weinstein#my_opinion? Thanks. Black as pitch (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Osho / User:Semitransgenic

The article is now locked as a result of an edit war. Ongoing incivility: [2] This may again be User:Semitransgenic from another location, see [3] and the recent IP-based contributions on the talk page.

Also see [4] -- I am currently wondering if I should pursue it. Looking at it, there might be some sockpuppetry going on on the Talk:Osho page, with various IP ranges (143.50.37.229, 62.47... and 67.183...) posting mutually supportive views, sometimes within minutes of each other past 4 a.m. European time: [5] [6]. Cheers, -- Jayen466 19:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

++ Vinmax ++ water tank == I see my funky collage of water tanks has been deleted from my submission, thats cool it needed work, I am such a newby at editing, I have a group of pictures of water tanks for replacement, the water tower that replaced my funky one, is a water tower and covered well under that term. How would I go about submitting several pictures of water tanks, ie a gallery. Again please excuse my ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinmax (talk • contribs) 03:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

David J. Silver

Looks like Mr. Silver, the perma-banned editor known for making self promoting, megalomaniacal edits without using the preview function, might be back. Check out the edits on the USS Simpson article and tell me that doesn't look like his pattern of edits... especially since he put his name down as a "notable" sailor! Just giving you a heads up!

Supersquid (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just got home from work, and I opened a suspected sockpuppetry case on him, hopefully I did it correctly. I was going to revert his edits, but I see you beat me to it!

Supersquid (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Gerald F. DeConto

Not sure why this article was reverted, but I made substantial edits today that cleaned up the work of the IP editor who had made the previous 20 edits. You in turn reverted all of my work. The minor explanation in your edit summary doesn't state your rationale or intention. No warning or notice was left on the previous editor's IP talk page or my own. Can you please clarify your intentions and what "banned" editor you are referring to? Thanks, --Daysleeper47 (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Tx

Tx for the info. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hans Ji Maharaj

Thanks. "Sure, Will. I will take a break." is certainly not "stop editing this article" - but I guess it will do for now. Thanks for stepping in there. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Winterberg and LaRouche in 1985.jpg‎

You left this message on my talk page:

Can you explain how you came to edit Image:Winterberg and LaRouche in 1985.jpg‎? It is an obscure image used only on an article that has been protected since before you opened this account. There is an appearance of being a sock puppet for the last LaRouche editor who edited that image page, the banned user Maple Porter. Will Beback NS (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Will, you seem to be a bit paranoid. I came to edit that image because there was a big fat message at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche, warning that the image was about to be deleted. Don't believe me? Take a look, it's still there. --Terrawatt (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

Given the recent protection, which was based on User:Nandesuka's assessment that There has been a full-blown edit war on that article for the past several weeks, the recent disruption by User:Nik Wright2, the ongoing misuse of talk page by User:PatW, and the WP:AN discussion about User:Momento, I would argue that requesting article probation (1RR, NPA, and disruption of talk page) may be the best way forward. Would you consider making a join request for article probation? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording in my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you post at AN? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you back? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User :147.114.226.172

Please note that user::147.114.226.172 is almost certainly another sock puppet of ZoeCroydon [[7]]. Momento (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I just want to thank you...

...for blocking User:EliasAlucard. He was being an utterly narrow-minded nuisance and just wouldn't shut his mouth. He definitely got what he deserved. I love you, even if you are a guy. Onur (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

If you are genuinely concerned about personal attacks, I would expect to see lots of similar messages to that you placed on my talk page placed on those of other people, such as PatW. If you have not done that, then your request to me was disingenuous. Having said that, though, what is your definition of "personal attack"? I simply suggested that people were naive. The term "brainwashed" was used by various people on "the other side" on many occasions. So that can't be a personal attack. It's not a crime to criticise people's beliefs or positions; that is not a personal attack.

In addition, WP: No personal attacks states "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack."

And I am sure you are aware of "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." That seems to occur with great regularity amongst the detractors of Prem Rawat who edit those pages.

best wishes

Armeisen (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

About user Chaldean

He keeps removing everything that is about Syriacs. He remove the page Syriac people. Just because he is assyrian/chaldean, and thinks that syriacs are assyrians. Its been proved that syriacs are arameans. The user EliasAlucard is also blocked on swedish wikipedia. What can we do about user:Chaldean ?? VegardNorman (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear sir, the user VegardNorman is not your typical wiki user. He has previously threatend by using vandelism [8], moved pages without concent with the rest of the Wiki community that deals with Assyrian/Syriac project, and has repeadly been warned of 3RV as well as other Wikipedia violations. Now in regards of the subject, we the Wiki users (lead by admin User:Garzo) of the related subject have been working really hard in clearing the subject as much as possible. We have created a page specifically explaining the naming dispute (Names of Syriac Christians), and have created disam page (Syriac (disambiguation)), so that we can stay as neutral as possible. Now, this user as well is his possible suck puppet User:The TriZ have stormed English Wiki from Swedish Wiki and are editing radically, demanding this Aramean revolution be observed here on English Wiki. I don't know what I can do with these users other then talk, but they have declared they are not willing to negotiate (see Assyrian people:Talk page). I don't know what do to with them anymore. Chaldean (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User Chaldean keeps removing everything that is about Syriacs. [9]. [10] [[11]]. He removes the page Syriac people just because he is assyrian/chaldean, and thinks that syriacs are assyrians. Its been proved that syriacs are arameans. The user EliasAlucard is also blocked on swedish wikipedia. What can we do about user:Chaldean ?? And that the vandalism,[12], you missunderstood. I meant that people would not vandalize the article, but they will continue vandalize the article just because of the content in the text. I have noot been vandalizing. VegardNorman (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The irony of statements like this Its been proved that syriacs are arameans. is somethig else. I have not removes the page Syriac people just because he is assyrian/chaldean, but instead have made it clear that Syriacs needs to be a disarm page, since it can be a reference to either Assyrians, Syriac Orthodox, [Chaldean Catholic (Suraya), the actual language, etc. Chaldean (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, if you have anything to say about me, please take it in my discussionpage. Is is also obvious that you're not that innocent that you apparently want to show you are. Lets take a look at the article Sharbel Touma and its history. Here, [13], you redirect to Syiac people. Same article, which it if course stood Assyrian before i changed it with a reliable source, you write in history that "reverted the edits of anonimous. he is a assyrian", how you know that he is Assyrian doesn't say. You probably even don't heard of this person. Not to mention what EliasAlucard wrote, "Look, the guy is an Assyrian. Just because some Syriacs claim they're Aramaeans, doesn't mean they are. Most Syriacs claim they're Assyrians anyway". Obviously with no reliable sources at all. This is a typical way of you to start an edit-war. And just to point it out, i'm not saying i'm infallible. The TriZ (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Triz the reason I changed it from Aramean to Syriac, is because Aramean is a page that talks about an ancient people, not today's Syriac Orthodox (like Western Syriacs is for example.) Previously, I reverted an anom's edit because I thought without any citation, it might have been possible vandel. No I don't know him, but if you are sure of him not considering himself Assyrian, then that is fine. But you can't write on English wiki that he is Aramean. Its not like Swedish Wiki. In English language, its either Syraics or Assyrians. Look I would be more then glad to work with you two, but you guys need to understand that things work different around here then on Swedish wiki. Chaldean (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

I may be persuaded that it would be better not to post anonymously, but your contention that it would be better to do so needs justification. In a polarised debate such as surrounds how to describe the operations of Mr Rawat, most of the arguments fall back on ad hominem statements. Whilst it is worthwhile to know, for instance, that one of the most actively involved editors (who also happens to be a wikipedia administrator) is (or was until very recently) a press officer for the Prem Rawat Foundation, I think it's better generally to look at what is being said rather than who is saying it. I post anonymously for that reason. (I already have a long-established user id. To set up a new one would imply operating a sock puppet, which I'd prefer not to do.) There is also an element of fear. Wikipedia has a lot of credibility, which I have, in my own small way, helped to build up over the years. The millionaire lifestyle of Mr Rawat is threatened by poor publicity. Therefore it would hardly be surprising if his foundation operated ruthlessly to censor anything which might deter would-be donors. If they fail in that, the next logical step would be to threaten those who operate to obtain transparency. I would rather keep safe and anonymous, protected by a firewall that allows my IP address to be the same as that of about 180,000 other people globally at the organisation where I work.

As an admin yourself, you might want to take a step back and try to see what is going on here. I am expecting now, following the Register article, that there will be increasing media interest in this story, particulary as the subject of that article continues to apply his (rather limited) marketing skills to keep a lid on the Prem Rawat and related articles and stop them covering what Rawat's followers don't want them to cover. A friend of mine is already in touch with an English quality newspaper, aiming to get a good story to follow up the Register article. (I should add that I am a seasoned activist in a number of areas, having been commissioned in the past to write for the BBC news website, for instance.) My suggestion was that jossi ought to back down, else he might find that his own friends will disown him because of the damage that will have been done to their cause by his own incompetence. Intriguingly that suggestion itself was deleted from the Prem Rawat talk page yesterday by another anon. His actions act considerably to increase the stench which the Rawat's Foundation's abuses of wikipedia have already created and are continuing to do. Newspaper readers love a good stench! 147.114.226.175 (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A request

Hi Will. I wonder if you'd mind stopping by Elias Acuard's user page and protecting it. Someone keeps posting asking Elias to post on their talk page [14]. Or if I'm wrong on this, please let me know. IronDuke 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so active in Pedophilia pages?

Just out of curiosity, why are you so active on pages related to pedophilia? A cursory review of your edit history shows tons of edits on pages related to NAMBLA, pederasty and other such topics. Based on the hair raising and despicable nature of these pages, and your access to the IPs and information of young wikipediaers, I think you should at least give us a quick explanation? --Neongreenchair (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. no offense intended if your sole reason for watching those sites is to police them and make sure they don't cross the line (I don't even know why they're on wikipedia.) --Neongreenchair (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

None needed, Will's track record on this subject speaks for itself. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Squeak ought stay out of it since his answer is the same as the question, which accomplishes nothing.

Neon, what's your point in asking? Why does anyone edit on Wikipedia? Without any other reasons to guess I'd think that the obviousness of "these articles are of interest" is enough.

Now, other users have been permanently banned for having edit histories on such narrow subjects, mind you, but Will won't have that problem cause he's on the "right" side.

But really, the question was pathetic. (This is me defending Will and his edit history.) Squeak's "answer" was worthless and came off as knee-jerk defense of bad actions and intent, even though there is/was none to defend!

TMOTSI... Neon: Who Cares? Will: Keep editing whatever you want to edit! Squeak: "Thanks,"

• VigilancePrime • • • 09:31 (UTC) 2 Mar '08

Job for administrator Will Beback

Moved from Talk:Prem Rawat

You thanked this user [[15]] for participating on this article, perhaps it's time to ask them to leave, they are an obvious sockpuppet of ZoeCroydon[[16]]. Thanks.Momento (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I thank everyone for contributing, even vandals.[17] As for this user, what evidence is there of sockpuppetry? I don't see that the identified socks have shown any interest in Prem Rawat, and the IP address is registered to National Westminster Bank, a business with 33,000 employees. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I should have asked 147.114.226.172 [[18]] if they are a sockpuppet. I assumed that 147.114.226.172 [[19]] might be related to 147.114.226.173[[20]],147.114.226.174[[21]] and 147.114.226.175[[22]], who have all edited on Rawat or related articles.Momento (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the IPs that've recently been used to edit PR-related articles all have been used by the same person, which is why I asked him to register an account. I just don't see how we can determine that ZoeCroydon is that person. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're sure that all four IP addresses are being used by the one person and those addresses have been block or accused of vandalism by more than a dozen editors, I'd take a deep breath and block those IP addresses. If some innocent member of Nat West Bank in New York gets their anonymous edit bounced, they can register an account.Momento (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to edit without registering. There's no indication that the person editing Prem Rawat is the same as any previous user. I'm not going to block 33,000 users without any proof of a major current problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

At least stick with the facts. You are not blocking 33,000 users. You are blocking anyone posting from four IP addresses that have been block or accused of vandalism by more than a dozen editors. I'm sure if Miss Moneypenny from accounts, who has been innocently editing articles anonymously from those IPs gets bounced, she can open an account. I'm getting a feeling that you don't mind if sockpuppets post on PR articles and that is a very serious allegation for an admin.Momento (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't produced any evidence whatsoever that this person is a sock puppet of a banned user. If there's evidence of it of course I'd try to remedy the problem. But I don't see any sign that the user is ZoeCorydon - no overlap in interests or style. Am I overlooking something? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't overlooked anything. You just think it's a magical co-incidence that 4 consecutive IP addresses that have posted on Rawat related articles and have a common thread of vandalism and being blocked are unrelated.Momento (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)