Userboxes: A rational proposal

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
65 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Userboxes: A rational proposal

Philip Welch
Stop worrying about userboxes and write an encyclopedia already. If  
and when userboxes interfere with encyclopedia-writing activities,  
react in an appropriately minimalist fashion and proceed with the  
encyclopedia-writing.

Quite frankly, the userbox fans are *not* the people disrupting  
Wikipedia with an unhealthy fixation with userboxes. This isn't to  
say that they don't *have* an unhealthy userbox fixation, but rather,  
that they engage in that fixation in a way that doesn't really  
prevent the rest of us from writing an encyclopedia.

The people disrupting Wikipedia—that would be us, writing dozens of  
messages to this listserv about them. Aren't we the people who  
actually care about writing an encyclopedia? Then why don't we do  
that, instead of wasting our time compiling statistics about  
userboxes, trying to delete them, and debating the right way to do that?

You want to end the userbox war peacefully without screwing up the  
community? Repeat after me: "It's not worth it, and I should go  
mediate an NPOV dispute or do some research and write one of our  
requested articles, or bring an article to FA status instead of  
jousting with userbox-happy newbies."

And then actually do it.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

Matt R-2
--- Philip Welch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Stop worrying about userboxes and write an encyclopedia already. If  
> and when userboxes interfere with encyclopedia-writing activities,  
> react in an appropriately minimalist fashion and proceed with the  
> encyclopedia-writing.

Hear hear. As a community, we give userboxes a disproportionate amount of
attention and debate.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com


               
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

Matthew Brown-5
In reply to this post by Philip Welch
My concern is that newbies don't stay new, and that this whole thing -
both the userboxes and the war against them - is not going to give
them a great start.

I think to a degree Wikipedia has reached that stage Usenet did, where
suddenly the influx of new people is beyond the rate at which they
tend to acclimate to the older culture.  There are so many newbies
that a newbie-culture can develop without having to join the existing
one.

My thoughts: move all userboxes to user: space, so that they are
obviously not official and not part of the encyclopedia project
proper.  Then ignore them except for awful examples.

-Matt
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

Fred Bauder
My thought exactly.

Fred

On Feb 18, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Matt Brown wrote:

> My concern is that newbies don't stay new, and that this whole thing -
> both the userboxes and the war against them - is not going to give
> them a great start.
>
> I think to a degree Wikipedia has reached that stage Usenet did, where
> suddenly the influx of new people is beyond the rate at which they
> tend to acclimate to the older culture.  There are so many newbies
> that a newbie-culture can develop without having to join the existing
> one.
>
> My thoughts: move all userboxes to user: space, so that they are
> obviously not official and not part of the encyclopedia project
> proper.  Then ignore them except for awful examples.
>
> -Matt
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

Steve Bennett-4
On 2/18/06, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > I think to a degree Wikipedia has reached that stage Usenet did, where
> > suddenly the influx of new people is beyond the rate at which they
> > tend to acclimate to the older culture.  There are so many newbies
> > that a newbie-culture can develop without having to join the existing
> > one.

Is this true? It's a fairly bold statement...is there evidence for it?

> > My thoughts: move all userboxes to user: space, so that they are
> > obviously not official and not part of the encyclopedia project
> > proper.  Then ignore them except for awful examples.

That seems reasonable - encyclopaedic templates and userboxes should
probably not be mixed. We could always create a "user template:"
namespace too.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

Fred Bauder
Yes, this confused me. A template is part of the encyclopedia.  
Userboxes are more self-expression. Separating them out will help.

Fred

On Feb 18, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 2/18/06, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>>> I think to a degree Wikipedia has reached that stage Usenet did,  
>>> where
>>> suddenly the influx of new people is beyond the rate at which they
>>> tend to acclimate to the older culture.  There are so many newbies
>>> that a newbie-culture can develop without having to join the  
>>> existing
>>> one.
>>>
>
> Is this true? It's a fairly bold statement...is there evidence for it?
>
>
>>> My thoughts: move all userboxes to user: space, so that they are
>>> obviously not official and not part of the encyclopedia project
>>> proper.  Then ignore them except for awful examples.
>>>
>
> That seems reasonable - encyclopaedic templates and userboxes should
> probably not be mixed. We could always create a "user template:"
> namespace too.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by Matthew Brown-5
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 07:27:49 -0800, you wrote:

>I think to a degree Wikipedia has reached that stage Usenet did, where
>suddenly the influx of new people is beyond the rate at which they
>tend to acclimate to the older culture.  There are so many newbies
>that a newbie-culture can develop without having to join the existing
>one.

<AOL />

Oh, wait, this is a mailing list, not Usenet, isn't it? ;-)

>My thoughts: move all userboxes to user: space, so that they are
>obviously not official and not part of the encyclopedia project
>proper.  Then ignore them except for awful examples.

But make sure the welcoming committee gently inform people that Trolls
Are Evil.  

And I really really don't think that the perennial argument between
left and right in American politics (which of course is right and far
right for the rest of us...) helps build an encyclopaedia, any more
than proclaiming yourself a paedophile does.  For a while I've been
using a flag in my wikisig, this debate has persuaded me to stop. It's
also led me to think hard about the real wiki culture, and amending my
ways to fit in with it (which can't be bad).  But maybe the boxen are
good, in that they warn us to look out for bias from that editor.

Anyway, what is needed, I think, is an "official" statement that the
war is over, and it's time to move on.  People I admire and respect
have done things which I think they should not have done, and that has
in some cases got them into trouble.  These are not evil people, they
are just folks like us with strong opinions.  I want to get back to
normal, whatever normal is.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

Tony Sidaway-3
In reply to this post by Matthew Brown-5
On 2/18/06, Matt Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> My thoughts: move all userboxes to user: space, so that they are
> obviously not official and not part of the encyclopedia project
> proper.  Then ignore them except for awful examples.

Look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes

Isn't this amazing?  The guy is getting fan mail on his user talk page
because he's replacing templates with equivalent wiki code!

And see this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy

I think this is the future.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

Charles Matthews
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG
 "Guy Chapman" wrote

>But maybe the boxen are
> good, in that they warn us to look out for bias from that editor.

That would be excellent then: we would be able to waive 'assume good faith'
for whole scads of editors we come across.  What a relief!  Maybe I have
misjudged the little critters.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

Steve Bennett-4
In reply to this post by Tony Sidaway-3
On 2/19/06, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy

Hmm.

>Although many editors would prefer that expression of POV be
discouraged on user pages, many others believe that bias is better
declared.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with the first. I find it
harder to assume good faith when someone blatantly states their strong
POV. Someone says "I am anti-abortion", then proceeds to edit pages
pertaining to abortion - what are you going to assume? That he's there
to fix typos?

For the same reason that we don't allow strong POV usernames
(AntiAbortionCrusader etc), shouldn't we discourage stating of POVs on
userpages?

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

Philip Welch
> The more I think about it, the more I agree with the first. I find it
> harder to assume good faith when someone blatantly states their strong
> POV.

This depends--context is everything. For instance, I'm libertarian,  
but I've edited [[Libertarianism]] because I like to pretend I know  
something about the subject. In the interest of full disclosure I  
might mention that I am libertarian, which might unknowingly color my  
contributions. If I edited a lot about politics (I don't), I might  
want to outright state, "Here are my biases, if they get in my way  
let me know and help me improve."

If someone's pushing a POV, you can tell from editing patterns alone.  
On the other hand, if someone is making valuable, good-faith, albeit  
biased contributions, it's a lot easier to assume good faith when  
they say straight out "here's my bias, if it shows in my  
contributions too much feel free to correct."

> Someone says "I am anti-abortion", then proceeds to edit pages
> pertaining to abortion - what are you going to assume? That he's there
> to fix typos?

This might surprise you, Steve, but people with a strong interest in  
something generally have an opinion about it too, and vice versa.  
People usually edit articles about their own interests, after all.

Abortion in particular is the biggest issue where people's opinions  
tend to create blind spots. Pro-lifers tend to fail to understand and  
appreciate abortion-choice arguments while abortion-choicers tend to  
fail to understand and appreciate pro-life arguments, and no one  
seems willing to acknowledge that the other side holds their opinions  
in good faith. It's these blind spots which make it utterly crucial  
for us as editors to be open with one another about our biases so we  
can correct one another's mistakes.

> For the same reason that we don't allow strong POV usernames
> (AntiAbortionCrusader etc), shouldn't we discourage stating of POVs on
> userpages?

Not if we want to get an encyclopedia written according to the  
neutral point of view.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

Steve Bennett-4
On 2/19/06, Philip Welch <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This depends--context is everything. For instance, I'm libertarian,
> but I've edited [[Libertarianism]] because I like to pretend I know
> something about the subject. In the interest of full disclosure I
> might mention that I am libertarian, which might unknowingly color my
> contributions. If I edited a lot about politics (I don't), I might
> want to outright state, "Here are my biases, if they get in my way
> let me know and help me improve."

Not surprisingly, I see a big difference between *admitting* a bias,
and proudly *proclaiming* a bias.  Someone who recognises that their
bias is a problem is more likely to step back when told their edit is
not NPOV. Someone proud of their bias is more likely to accuse that
person of themselves having a bias.

> If someone's pushing a POV, you can tell from editing patterns alone.
> On the other hand, if someone is making valuable, good-faith, albeit
> biased contributions, it's a lot easier to assume good faith when
> they say straight out "here's my bias, if it shows in my
> contributions too much feel free to correct."

Yep. Do you think POV userboxes express that humility?

> This might surprise you, Steve, but people with a strong interest in
> something generally have an opinion about it too, and vice versa.
> People usually edit articles about their own interests, after all.

Yes...I don't have any intelligent response to make to this comment at
the moment. But I'll get back to you. :)

> Abortion in particular is the biggest issue where people's opinions
> tend to create blind spots. Pro-lifers tend to fail to understand and
> appreciate abortion-choice arguments while abortion-choicers tend to
> fail to understand and appreciate pro-life arguments, and no one
> seems willing to acknowledge that the other side holds their opinions
> in good faith. It's these blind spots which make it utterly crucial
> for us as editors to be open with one another about our biases so we
> can correct one another's mistakes.

What if the userbox was "People who believe in abortion are scum"? How
would you treat their edits then? Is there a liimt to how biased a
person can be and still make useful edits?

> > For the same reason that we don't allow strong POV usernames
> > (AntiAbortionCrusader etc), shouldn't we discourage stating of POVs on
> > userpages?
>
> Not if we want to get an encyclopedia written according to the
> neutral point of view.

Then shouldn't we allow strongly POV usernames?

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

Fred Bauder
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
Not if it creates a bigger problem than it solves.

Fred

On Feb 19, 2006, at 4:07 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 2/19/06, Tony Sidaway <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/ 
>> Policy
>>
>
> Hmm.
>
>
>> Although many editors would prefer that expression of POV be
>>
> discouraged on user pages, many others believe that bias is better
> declared.
>
> The more I think about it, the more I agree with the first. I find it
> harder to assume good faith when someone blatantly states their strong
> POV. Someone says "I am anti-abortion", then proceeds to edit pages
> pertaining to abortion - what are you going to assume? That he's there
> to fix typos?
>
> For the same reason that we don't allow strong POV usernames
> (AntiAbortionCrusader etc), shouldn't we discourage stating of POVs on
> userpages?
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

Matthew Brown-5
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
On 2/19/06, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> For the same reason that we don't allow strong POV usernames
> (AntiAbortionCrusader etc), shouldn't we discourage stating of POVs on
> userpages?

The problem with userboxes, stated bluntly, is that people are willing
to say much more aggressive and divisive things with userboxes than
they'll generally say when they're writing it in their own words.  For
one thing, turning an opinion into a pithy 'This user ...' statement
gets rid of nuance and equivocation, and for another thing, many seem
to be more comfortable displaying others' words than saying the exact
same thing themselves.

-Matt
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

The Cunctator
In reply to this post by Philip Welch
On 2/17/06, Philip Welch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Stop worrying about userboxes and write an encyclopedia already. If
> and when userboxes interfere with encyclopedia-writing activities,
> react in an appropriately minimalist fashion and proceed with the
> encyclopedia-writing.
>
> Quite frankly, the userbox fans are *not* the people disrupting
> Wikipedia with an unhealthy fixation with userboxes. This isn't to
> say that they don't *have* an unhealthy userbox fixation, but rather,
> that they engage in that fixation in a way that doesn't really
> prevent the rest of us from writing an encyclopedia.
>
> The people disrupting Wikipedia—that would be us, writing dozens of
> messages to this listserv about them. Aren't we the people who
> actually care about writing an encyclopedia? Then why don't we do
> that, instead of wasting our time compiling statistics about
> userboxes, trying to delete them, and debating the right way to do that?

The people disrupting Wikipedia, maybe, are the people writing
messages to the listserv about people writing messages to the listserv
about userboxes.

Discussing and formulating Wikipedia policy is as important a
contribution as is editing an individual article.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

Guy Chapman aka JzG
In reply to this post by Charles Matthews
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 07:31:08 -0000, you wrote:

>>But maybe the boxen are
>> good, in that they warn us to look out for bias from that editor.

>That would be excellent then: we would be able to waive 'assume good faith'
>for whole scads of editors we come across.  What a relief!  Maybe I have
>misjudged the little critters.

Maybe you haven't seen my userpage.  I freely admit to strong
opinions, when I edit articles on subjects on which I have strong
opinions, I do so in good faith and I am, to the best of my ability,
neutral - but I still have strong opinions, and that means it's best
if someone else has a look.

Strong opinions and good faith are absolutely not exclusive, and being
aware of the subconscious bias of another user is not the same as
failing to assume good faith.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

I propose adding a community namespace

stevertigo
There are three usages for a Community namespace:
* a wiki namespace would be too redundant with
  the Wikipedia namespace
* a template namespace would also be redundant since
most
  community templates can be kept as subpages to a
  wikipedia userbox template.
* a category namespace would separate the use of the
  category namespace for content, while still allowing

  for quick access to particular subpage templates

Editor:Stevertigo

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

Stan Shebs
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 2/18/06, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>>>I think to a degree Wikipedia has reached that stage Usenet did, where
>>>suddenly the influx of new people is beyond the rate at which they
>>>tend to acclimate to the older culture.  There are so many newbies
>>>that a newbie-culture can develop without having to join the existing
>>>one.
>>>
>
>Is this true? It's a fairly bold statement...is there evidence for it?
>
In the process of bashing on the untagged images that have
accumulated since last summer, I've noticed quite a few
accounts where they've uploaded, banged on articles, etc, yet
the talk page is blank - no one ever posted a welcome message.
There is another contingent of logins whose talk pages seem to
record mostly semi-informed discussion with other newbies. Some
stick around, some only last for a day or week.

Dunno if it it's evidence, but clearly there is a bunch whose
first interaction with the "older culture" is coming six months
after their first edit, and only because an uploaded image is
found to be missing information.

Stan

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Userboxes: A rational proposal

Charles Matthews
In reply to this post by Guy Chapman aka JzG
"Guy Chapman" wrote

>>That would be excellent then: we would be able to waive 'assume good
>>faith'
>>for whole scads of editors we come across.  What a relief!  Maybe I have
>>misjudged the little critters.
>
> Maybe you haven't seen my userpage.  I freely admit to strong
> opinions, when I edit articles on subjects on which I have strong
> opinions, I do so in good faith and I am, to the best of my ability,
> neutral - but I still have strong opinions, and that means it's best
> if someone else has a look.
>
> Strong opinions and good faith are absolutely not exclusive, and being
> aware of the subconscious bias of another user is not the same as
> failing to assume good faith.

Over in my corner, I'm strongly of the opinion that User Pages are to be
used in a confidence-building way.  That would of course be the confidence
of others in me, not my confidence in my own opinions, in own opinion of my
rigorous adherence to NPOV, my patriotism with respect to the great county
of Cambridgeshire, all that.   Given that we're supposed to leave many
things at the door, I don't really hold with giving other Wikipedians the
hat-check girl's view of me, when they may simply be curious as to who
corrected their typo.

I'm completely against having Wikipedia touched by the contention and
polarizing forces so obvious in the outside world.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I propose adding a community namespace

Ilya N.
In reply to this post by stevertigo
Hmm...the only problem is that I see arguments over 'No, this goes into
Wikipedia:. No this goes in Community:. No no nonono! " ad nauseum

On 2/19/06, stevertigo <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> There are three usages for a Community namespace:
> * a wiki namespace would be too redundant with
>   the Wikipedia namespace
> * a template namespace would also be redundant since
> most
>   community templates can be kept as subpages to a
>   wikipedia userbox template.
> * a category namespace would separate the use of the
>   category namespace for content, while still allowing
>
>   for quick access to particular subpage templates
>
> Editor:Stevertigo
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
~Ilya N.
http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1234