Related items Related items Related items Related items Related items Related items Related items Related items Related items

User talk:Dante Alighieri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Archived talk: Clovis et al., AE/BE issues (french fries), Archive 1

Okay, if the place decsribed by Milton is Pandæmonium (with ligature), and the film is Pandaemonium (without ligature), why can't Pandaemonium be about the film? I don't see the point of giving the page about the film a more complex title when the simpler title is free (i.e. is only a redirect). -- Oliver P. 23:28 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

For a few reasons. First of all, people searching for the Pandæmonium of Milton are unlikely to use the ligature spelling in the search bar, so Pandaemonium should probably not be an article just on the film. Second of all, it seems to be common practice to append (movie) or (film) to a movie title when there exists an article at the same name (even if it's a variant "spelling). Lastly, I'm not sure it's a policy, but it seems to me to be a generally unwise idea to have two articles that differ only by "punctuation" (ligature, umlauts, accent marks, etc.) be about different things. --Dante Alighieri 00:39 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm... I did think of that, but... well... Oh, all right, you've convinced me. -- Oliver P. 00:47 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Dante,

Have you voted yet on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (years in titles)?. I am afraid that wiki is about to make a major captioning error. It seems to be voting to putting the year first when naming elections, sports events, etc. While people often do so in spoken english, in titles and captions it doesn't do so, because to do so makes the year the central fact, whereas in reality what the event is is central, the year the disambigulation point. For example, media outlets caption election coverage as Election 2000, General Election 2000, Presidential Election 2000 etc because the the fact that it is an election is the main fact to know, that it is a general/presidential/local/state/congressional election central. We have been following this rule for ages on wiki, so we have everything from UK general election, 1970 to U.S. presidential election, 1932 to Irish general election, 2002, etc. Moving to [[1932 US presidential election]] goes against standard media caption style and would involve the wholescale renaming of pages covering elections and all sorts of events from all over the globe. You are talking about hundreds if not thousands of pages having to be renamed and go against standard caption style, which is often called the where what, when rule. After all, people if they are searching for a page on an election will use the name of the election as their entry point for a list (particularly if they don't know the year). Typing in a search for U.S. presidential election throws up a clear orderly list of US presidential elections, with the disambigulation year at the end uniformly.

As you may guess, I do think wiki's proposed to system would amount to a pointless waste of energy in remaining vast numbers of pages, especially when it is to a format that is generally not used in titles and captions but only in speech. And this debate is all about titles. So I am canvassing support to vote down what I think is a flawed, ill thought through and pointless that originated initially with our mosrt infamous troll (in the Susan Mason persona) some months ago and survived as an idea after SM was banned. FearÉIREANN 01:53 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My pleasure, DA. Not a very good article, I don't know much about them - never seen one. But a whole lot better than none at all, I guess. Maybe I can find a picture on the web somewhere that we can use. Tannin 11:23 18

 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis."

we try to operate always according to these fine words

on of the upper sailor 13:40 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My actions are forgivable because they are not problematic. The edit history remains, and everything can be restored. It's a simple matter to put it back. If I were to unilaterally remove it again; then, there might be a problem. Pizza Puzzle

Thank you for volunteering a part of the information I requested on the photo posted by User:Jtdirl. However, I woasked for the FULL adress and the press officer name who gave User:Jtdirl the photo. Thank you. ChuckM 03:09 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Heh heh. DW is one prize prat! Next thing he'll want Ann's fingerprints! :-) What a nutcase. FearÉIREANN 03:18 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I like to think the best of people. It'll probably get me stabbed or raped one of these days. -- goatasaur 05:48 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You've blocked some IPs for a month or so...

• 20:13 21 May 2003, Dante Alighieri blocked 192.139.27.18 (contribs) (unblock) (User has made 5 edits since Feb 21 2003, all were vandalism)
• 00:17 28 May 2003, Dante Alighieri blocked 200.168.118.100 (contribs) (unblock) (continually putting nonsense at Gyuricza)
• 07:13 28 May 2003, Dante Alighieri blocked 66.81.139.91 (contribs) (unblock) (more random vandalism from this IP range)
• 08:12 28 May 2003, Dante Alighieri blocked 65.219.41.104 (contribs) (unblock) (garden variety vandalism, more of the same)
• 22:20 28 May 2003, Dante Alighieri blocked 217.33.151.148 (contribs) (unblock) (made junk article at Dates, twice)
• 02:12 29 May 2003, Dante Alighieri blocked 24.45.148.244 (contribs) (unblock) (3 vandalizations of 1950)

You may consider that:

1. a 30 days ban is a little excessive for (for eg) five edits.
2. in any case, with only five edits, a ban isn't really in tune with soft security.
3. they're probably dynamic IPs anyway (if you checked, and you know they're static IPs, say so in the ban comment so folks like me will know - thanks)

So I'm going to unblock them. :) Martin 20:13 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

By all means go ahead... I had assumed they would be unblocked in short order, I certainly didn't intend the blocks to last forever. I could have sworn that there was some conversation about someone unblocking them... but I guess we never did... Good catch on that, by the way. --Dante Alighieri 20:17 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

thanks alot. Anthere

Hi.

About Michael. If he wants to complain to Jimbo, then why not let him? I really can't see him e-mailing Jimbo about his long-running problems with the Wikipedia - yet he needs to communicate with Jimbo to have the hard ban lifted.

If he wants Jimbo to publicly respond (and perhaps confirm the hard ban) rather than privately, then that's Michael's choice. Also, you are kind of deciding what Jimbo gets to see on his user page, and I'm not sure if that is right.

Arno 07:28 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Michael has been hard-banned multiple times. Michael knows Jimbo's email address and HAS emailed him on occassion. As a banned user he has no right to edit the Wikipedia and all users have the full authority to see to it that any edits he makes do not remain. See also: this email from the mailing list archive --Dante Alighieri 22:14 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I didn't know about Michael e-mailing Jimbom, but Jimbo chose to reply to him anyway, in the manner that I predicted that he would.

BTW, is Weezer76 Michael or not? If not (and several users now seem to think so) , then weezer76 should not appear on the list of Michael's aliases. Arno 10:25 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

July seems to be the centenial of the birth of Eric Blair (aka George Orwell). I recently was reviewing his guide to good writing. He was death on passive voice.

Anyway, no intent to be nasty. The WWII page needs some serious blue-pencil work and I hope that between us all we can get it squared away.

Now, with three tildies … PaulinSaudi

Thanks for the lookover. There's TONS of information on the external sites that are linked on the pages, but I don't have the time to go through it all. ;) As for the Family links, I was just following standard formatting over at the Cetacea article, and didn't bother to ditch them when I copied the data over to the river dolphin article. --Dante Alighieri 12:33 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

When RK comes back I want to nominate him for sysop (again) I dont ask for much, but I ask that you support his nomination. Sincerely-戴眩sv 23:23, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

Just wondering - what's the extra heading you've added to the bottom of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for? -- Oliver P. 00:29, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Dante. There is a reason for the use of as of 2003 etc.. It allows pages which contain information that may be out of date in the future to be easily checked, by searching for as of 2003 on Jan 1 2004. Mintguy 21:54, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

21st Century Transcendentalism is not a religion and does not advocate (request belief, membership or anything else) anything; it stands for religious rationality in the 21st Century. If Wikipedia can describe what atheists, Christianity, Islam, Bokononism thinks then why can not I as a 21st Century Transcendentalist describe what I think? Bias, maybe?

?Transcendentalism Today Org.? with Kurt Kawohl as its founder has been accepted by and is a member of: IONS - Institute of Noetic Sciences, World Interfaith Congress, United Communities of Spirit, Alliance for Spiritual Community, Interfaith Voices for Peace And Justice, user:kkawohl

As I'm sure you have noticed, I already fixed it. Did I miss any? { MB | マイカル } 13:52, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

:-( now the only vote for my logo has gone Matthewmayer 17:41, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

HI Dante, I was trying to put a detailed explanation for the changes on the talk page, but it is rather hard to do so when Eric within seconds of seeing an article he doesn't like, blanks it, lists it on the VfD page and blanket reverts everything I do. This isn't the first time that Eric highjacked a religious topic and tried to turn it into a polemic, often with comically incompetent results. On Mother Teresa, for example, he claimed that MT's conviction that abortion was wrong in the case of rape and incest was extreme even by RC standards. Actually that is the RC stance on abortion, that even in the cases of rape and incest, abortion is wrong. Anyone with a high school grasp of Roman Catholicism and abortion knows that. The anglican communion has a marginally different stance, that abortion is wrong but that in the case of rape and incest, abortion may be the 'lesser of two evils', not morally right but less morally wrong than not terminating the pregnancy. But Eric's knowledge of catholicism (and most things to do with religion) is so poor it is almost funny. He has a lot of opinions based on minimal knowledge. And writers on wikipedia who do know facts, whether they themselves are religious (like Harris) or non-religious (like me) are driven to distraction by his POV polemics (eg, his determination to quote a doctor about medical procedures in a biographical article - not once does the doctor in the long quote even mention MT, whom the article is supposedly about!) - and to stop that text being moved to a place where it might have some relevance), his hilarious lack of knowledge, and most bizarre of all, his conviction that he knows what he is talking about and that everything he writes on religion is based on knowledge, not prejudice. And of course that everyone else is biased and engaged in cover ups to 'protect' religion when they engage in professional editing and NPOVing.

JT, keep in mind that you're making a lot of assumptions and stating them as fact... the fact that most of them are negative and about Erik isn't really becoming. Eloquence isn't some crazed vandal, he's an intelligent person who seems to be trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Antaganozing such a person isn't helpful. Right or wrong, perhaps you should avoid saying things that are so very inflammatory?

And yes, a sysop unprotecting a page that was protected to stop an edit war he was a participant of, within a couple of hours, not even days, of the protection, is blatently breaking elementary sysop rules. Others have had their powers removed for doing something like that. And threatening bans is something no developer engaged in an edit war should ever ever ever do. So yes, Eric broke elementary rules left, right and centre. NPOV rules in the article, sysop powers in unprotecting the page, developer and sysop powers in threatening bans.

I certainly agree that a sysop unprotecting a page that was protected due to an edit war that he/she is involved in is unacceptable. The problem is, the only evidence I can find that Eloquence is the one who unprotected it is Angela's blurb to that effect on the Wikipedia:Protected page page. Since it's otherwise unsourced, I'll give Erik the benefit of the doubt on this one until he confirms or denies his role in the unprotection. Also, to be fair, he didn't really threaten a ban, no more than Ed did last week or so... I don't think anyone took him seriously that he was going to ban you...

1. (cur) (last) . . 04:50, 20 Oct 2003 . . Eloquence (removing protection for now (I was involved so I won't edit for another few hours if Jtdirl won't, but others should be able to))

My edits simply were a response to criticism by others on the talk page who complained that what he was adding in was not NPOV, too long and in places largely irrelevant. He ignored them and hinted that they too (surprise, surprise) were engaged in trying to silence the truth, or what Eric and his agenda perceives as the truth. You yourself had the experience of Eric's tone and attitude when you tried to mediate. I am fed up having to try to correct ludicrous statements, simplistic claims and patiently wrong information from religious articles Eric POVs. And then putting up with attacks for a supposed 'pro-catholic bias', or censoring the truth from Eric, who then plays the 'martyr' to religious fanaticism when his polemics are turned into proper NPOV texts. lol FearÉIREANN 19:54, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Frankly, JT, I don't think EITHER of you have behaved as paragons of Wikiquette in this situation. :) That being said, how about you agree to "let him win" for the time being whether he's right or not. If he is willing to do the same thing then we can all go back to worrying about important things, like whether or not the fact that I have clitoris on my watchlist is about to be made public. ;) Seriously, both of you need to calm down. Neither of you is coming up roses in this situation. --Dante Alighieri 20:50, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am simply trying to get an NPOV article, one which must include information on the criticism made of MT. But any attempt to shorten and tighten the segment on criticism which covers 70% of the text (and most of the headlines, and all bar one of the pictures, and most of the 'additional reading'), or to move the full unedited text to a page where it can be read en masse without editing, is greeted with screams of censorship. Merely trimming a quote that has the exact same point made in two sentences by removing one and replacing it with ' . . . ' leads to reverts. Correcting the grammar leads to revertions. Gareth Owen was verbally abused by Eloquence on the wiki-L for pointing out the shambles that is the current article. And cutting needless captions that simply repeat claims in the article, rather than simply let the readers reach their own conclusions on the image of MT with Baby Doc's wife, leads to revertions. Spelling corrections are lost in Eric's revertions. I have fixed the center command in the captions three or four times, only to find Eric reverting and producing versions that, not merely are POV with their captions, but also don't follow wiki layout guidelines. And because Eric can't get his way on his captions, his text, his context, his layout he is now calling on Jimbo to ban me, this time for real. This is not the first time Eric has done this in articles on religious themes, but not to the same extreme extent, and his behaviour at this stage is tiresome. FearÉIREANN 21:22, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I've called a vote on Talk:Mother Teresa to clarify once and for all what people think about the current article and what we should do about it. Please express your opinion. lol FearÉIREANN 23:05, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

Hi. Look what I did! Don't be mad, k? I figured it was better than nothing, and Ed told me to take my problems there, so... let me know what you think? JackLynch 12:34, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hello :-) please read this [1] if you are not registered to the ml. Thanks Anthere

Hello, could you tell me what your email adress is, or write to anthere8atyahoo.com ? thanks

Hi Dante, I'm not sure if you are aware but we are discussing a lot of the mediation issues at the new bulletin board ( http://boards.wikimedia.org/viewforum.php?f=1 ). I think we are just waiting for you to join us and the whole committee is joined up there. Sorry if you didn't get all the previous messages, there seemed to be problems in getting hold of you - but I think everything we've talked about so far is there. Regards -- sannse 18:49, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Plants and animals of Belize

Hi, I noticed that you identified some of the images from Plants and animals of Belize. I would also note the identification (or guess) on the image's description page that way it can be used correctly in other places. Dori | Talk 20:00, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

I also left a comment on that page so that others will hopefully do the same. As for the signature, it's sort of a trick, I set my nickname to ]] | [[User talk:Dori|Talk in preferences. See this for a small explanation. You still use 3 or 4 tildes. Dori | Talk 20:17, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Wikisource:Communist Manifesto

Everything is still at Wikisource:Manifesto of the Communist Party - Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels. Sorry, I forgot to tell you that. >_< Think you can do the appropiate move? I had/have to do other things. --Maio 21:19, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

friendly reminder

When editing the main page, re-arrange the order of the links so that they all the rows line up as evenly as possible. Keep up the top-notch work, Kingturtle 18:49, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Advertising and the FAQ on the village pump

Yes. :D. I love MediaWiki messages! My ideal wikipedia would be one where no regular text existed in articles. All edits would be done to MediaWiki pages and different messages would be placed in the articles. This would cause quite some confusion. --Sennheiser! 00:25, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What a strange thing to do. I assume it is assume Mythrandia. It seems to be the only edit he's made under that IP though. Maybe your warning worked? Angela. 00:43, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

I must echo Angela....how bizarre. To this day, I think I can claim that Mythrandia is the only user I know of who actually got fully angry at me (over the nonsense article Tyranokatta or something like that). If he dropped back in to attempt exoneration, well....so weird. Thanks for letting me know. I have to assume you reverted? :) Jwrosenzweig 00:48, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I dub thee Dante, Protector of the Archives. :) Jwrosenzweig 00:52, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey. Any word on what level of math the Mandelbrot book requires going in in order to understand it? Thanks! Kwertii 00:07, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC) (moved from User talk:DanteAlighieri by Dysprosia)

Quite right, but mentionin of the uprising in any case wouldn't be on the main Haiti article -- that is basically just a skeleton with links to various offspring, like History of Haiti. Maybe I will put together something later this evening. -- Viajero 18:10, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

hah. 3 years old. I need to start pressing the refresh button. ;-) --Ed Senft! 00:14, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

User:Sam Spade/Mediation with Bryan

Here are my talking points and references. Sam Spade 11:14, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mine are at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bryan Derksen. They already address the issues Sam raises above, I've emailed specifics. Bryan 04:16, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey, whats going on? I thought we were gonna mediate and stuff... ? Sam Spade 23:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dolphins

The merge is now done. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I started on Boto. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:54, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Edwards has not dropped out yet. Expected to announce on Wednesday, US East coast time. So I've changed all mentions of this to expectations of announcing it on Wednesday. Thanks. Fuzheado 02:56, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bees

thanks! :) Optim^·.· 08:12, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The expression Potato Chips is perfectly well understood in the UK (some brands of crisps even say "Potato Chips" on the packet), other than that I don't see any wording that favours American spelling. The article is not exclusively about an American subject and the subject of flavoured potato chips was introduced with British English spellings. The arguments favouring the insidious mutation from flavour to flavor could be applied to all articles that use British spellings, and I don't want to see British spellings gradually expunged from Wikipedia simply because once in a while an American comes along and thinks he's fixing an article, by changing it to American spellings. The general rule as I understand it is that the spellings of the person who contributed the text should be retained. Mintguy (T) 22:56, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Flavoured crisps were invented in Ireland (Although Golden Wonder say they invented them[2]) Either way Ireland or the UK, they were flavoured before they were flavored, not that that matters a toss (as does the fact the potato chips were invented in America). There are NOT two different variants in the article. The article contains no specific US spellings according to my Word spellchecker. So this arguement holds no water. You should have respected the original contribution (you may recall that I flagged this issue to JTD at the time). After you changed flavour to flavor (however long ago it was) "flavour" managed to find its way back into the article (nothing to do with me) and then User:Lefty then changed those references back to flavor and that is when I restored "flavour" again. It was his actions to which I was refering when I described it as insidious. Mintguy (T) 23:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BTW - at the time you said "I have no objection to the article going the other way, however, I was just standardizing as I thought was most appropriate given the article as it stood." Mintguy (T) 23:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do what you like. Mintguy (T) 23:45, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are hundreds and hundreds of "hybrid" articles on Wikipedia, where subsequent authors have chosen to respect the spellings originally used. Please do likewise. Mintguy (T) 23:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am currently engaged in two arguments on Wikipedia and I have decided not to continue this one, which is why I said "do what you like". I certainly have no intenting on changing the article (after 3 reversions I usually call a halt). Mintguy (T) 00:05, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah... I see what you were on about now. I had assumed that you restored the article with flavor after my last edit, and hence I wasn't planning to change it back again. I have no intention of changing it to read crisps throughout. I'm sorry if you find that this "hybrid" article is offensive, but I do not intend to force this issue and further. Whatever... we'll see how long it lasts as flavour. I have seen a number of articles which have lost British spellings (this was the point I was originally trying to make) and was only trying to push back the inevitable tide. Mintguy (T) 00:32, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For sure. I wasn't reverting you, personally. I was reverting the other guy, it was only later that I remembered what had gone before. Mintguy (T) 01:27, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As you should know, there is a mediation message board. I have made numerous requests there. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Altering comments

Eh, I summarized all of the comments on Talk:Artifical consciousness, didn't get any ban warnings there... ugen64 22:33, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

---

Altering comments is vandalism??

If that be so Dante, than user:RickK is a vandal.--Plato 23:17, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RickKs accused vandalism

This is what he delated he claimed it was unsigned (you decide) MY ANSWER RickK it has become evident to I that you dont like what I am doing I ask you why? Are you being resectful to wiki's? I'd say NO. This lack of respect leads me to believe that we must break the police state that wiki. That is why I am not asking but I am demanding series of reforms to our project thank you for you time.--Plato 02:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A user has the perfect right to delete things from their talk page. As I plan on doing right now. RickK | Talk 06:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didnt know, the policies with talk page--Plato 06:51, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sup Dante

Hey Dante any relation to the real Dante???--Plato 04:34, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Blindly supporting the wiki-hierarchy in its sinister goal of destroying democracy and freedom across the net

Glad to oblige. I like admins to operate like a school of fish where trolls are concerned -- give them too many targets to drive anyone off successfully. :-) Keep up the excellent work, and enjoy this:

In honor of noble and polite service in defense against trolls.

Jwrosenzweig 00:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Michael3 is Michael?

Are you sure that Michael3 is Michael? I don't know if the "research group" story is credible (see Michael3's user page), but I don't think you can infer from the username that it is definitely Michael and thus worthy of auto-reversion regardless of worthiness. Has this account made any other edits which decided the matter for you? (Also see note on User talk:Meelar#WikiExperiment.) -- VV 01:38, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure? No. But the subsequent actions of User:Michael33 don't give me much faith. It is my assertion that there is sufficient evidence to support my actions. Of course, people are free to disagree with me, that's what makes this world such a wonderful place. :) Seriously though, the Michael3 account is either Michael or else it is intentionally using his modus operandi to make others believe that it is Michael. Either way I consider the edits to be vandalism. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:43, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

The discussion was never about whether Michael or Michael3 was a banned user or not. That's why I considered that edit of yours to be both condescending and a misrepresentation of my position. -- Dissident 02:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The reason I took a combative attitude as you put it was because I saw somebody doing something unproductive just on the principle of it with no regard of anything else. Now if you deal with these things all the time and were just in some kind of automatic mode, then I can understand and I'll apologize. But if there is one thing I can't take, it's seeing someone "following orders" with no regard of anything else. The fact that you admitted that the edits were benign (and even verified it yourself) boggles the mind. -- Dissident 02:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, instead of an anti-barnstar accept this (additional) originale instead for bringing a heated discussion to a peaceful end, demonstrating you're definitely fit to be an administrator:

Dissident (who has probably made too many enemies with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles to "win" a sysop vote)

Dante, can you tell me what was with the Michael3, Michael33 affair, it seems to me like an "Sockpuppet"/Apr. Fool's joke?--Plato 04:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Hyacinth 20:46, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello Dante,

It seems you have blocked me. (ip: 213.224.83.136) Can I ask why? -- Jan Hidders 23:21, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) (now posting from another IP)

PS. I just saw the vandalism that was done from this ip number. PPS. And apparently I can now edit again. Thanks. -- Jan Hidders 14:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

taxoboxes

Polish

Comments on The Trolls of Navarone's userpage

Related items		Related items		Related items		Related items
Related items		Related items		Related items		Related items
Related items