User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2012/November

Talk page contributed to

I am only returning the page to what it was before. I've written my points so it is not an edit war. You are incorrect--Brickcity55 (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You should read WP:EW. It explains why your edits are part of an edit war. The previous state of the article, or your talk page comments, do not make it less so.  Sandstein  21:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

Sandstein, I have encountered a snag in trying to follow your sanction procedures. I posted a request for an uninvolved admin to determine whether or not rough consensus existed for an edit proposal here (it was then moved here). No admin came forward and the requests were archived unanswered. Should I just repost the request until I get a volunteer, or could you recommend someone for this? Thanks in advance. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made the evaluation myself.  Sandstein  19:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain your reasons for deciding that there was "no consensus" for the edit proposal. By my count 9 editors supported it and 5 opposed. I would imagine that if editors believe by an almost 2:1 margin that there is a POV dispute then there probably is. On the other hand since you believe there is no POV dispute, then I suggest you unlock the article, since there is no reasonable basis for locking it. TFD (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus means a reasonably broad agreement about what to do, assessed in the light of applicable policy. The proposed edit was a content dispute for which there is no clear solution that could be derived from policy, and the high proportion of disagreeing voices indicate that there is not a sufficiently broad agreement in favor of the proposed change that could be called consensus. I don't see how the question of whether there's a "POV dispute", whatever that may mean here, or the question of whether the page should stay protected is in any way related to the question I attempted to answer, which was only whether there is consensus for a particular change to the article.  Sandstein  19:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I confused the two edit requests on the discussion page. Policy requires us to "represent[] all significant viewpoints" - in this case the estimates that it was proposed by excluded from the lead sentence are the estimates of one person misrepresented as the range of estimates in reliable sources. Policy also requires that opinions in articles have intext citation. TFD (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking for advice

On a completely different topic related to the same article...

Hi. I'm an editor who found the Mass killings under Communist regimes article last year, just a couple of weeks before it was locked. Since then, I've occasionally come back to it, to participate in Talk page discussions, hoping every time that some progress could be made. And every time, I've left in frustration at the absolute refusal of editors to agree on anything. It seems the editors watching that article are split in two irreconcilable sides, with no agreement possible between them. Each side is large enough to block consensus. Thus, no edits to the article are possible. And if consensus is required to unlock the article, then it can never be unlocked, either.

I am looking for your opinion and advice. What can be done? If the current situation persists, will the article simply remain locked in its present form forever? It has already been locked for almost a year, more than most protected articles. If existing policy gives us no answer, perhaps we need new policy? This is, after all, a situation that is bound to repeat itself in the future, on other articles: having two (or more) groups of editors that refuse any agreement or consensus with each other.

Do you think it's hopeless, so I should just give up and stop wasting my time on it? This is a serious question. If the article is likely to remain locked indefinitely, then I'm considering doing that. -- Amerul (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the situation does seem to be difficult. In general, the preferred solution to such problems is to attempt to involve more people so as to break the tie. I recommend that a few people with different viewpoints collaborate on a well-structured WP:RFC that identifies the salient points of disagreement and allows people who would otherwise not want to get involved to express their opinion. There is also the option of WP:Mediation. A third option is that we unprotect the article, wait for the inevitable edit-wars to resume, topic-ban all who are involved in them, and whoever's left may find it easier to come to an agreement with each other...  Sandstein  20:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:Mediation was proposed and rejected just a few weeks ago. I doubt a RfC would fare any better. Involving more people would probably just result in them leaving in frustration, as I have done before and may do again. I can't even keep up with the rapid pace of arguments between the established editors... I've just started looking over the ArbCom case that led to the article being protected, and it seems that protection was proposed (and enacted) in order to avoid sanctioning the editors involved in the case, and in the hope that it would force them to reach consensus. I think we can safely say that it has failed in achieving the latter goal.

Really, what concerns me the most is the fact that this article seems destined to remain locked indefinitely, and is already on its way to becoming the main namespace article with the longest-running full protection. The only currently-locked article I was able to find which has been locked for a longer period is Lofoi, and that one was probably just forgotten about. Even if there are more of them, we are definitely dealing with a literal one-in-a-million situation.

Does this mean the article should be unlocked? Maybe, I don't know. I just know that something has to change, or else we'll be having the same discussion next year... -- Amerul (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Another option would be to ask an appropriately credentialed non-Wikipedian historian to review the article and make or suggest any necessary changes... provided that there is consensus for this approach and about who to contact, and that such a person can be found. But I agree that indefinite full protection is not optimal in a deadlock situation.  Sandstein  21:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This your proposal hardly in compliance with WP:V: in actuality, unpublished opiniae of historians have the same weight as the opiniae of all other ordinary people.

In addition, we have already done such an experiment: some appropriately credentialed non-Wikipedian historian has been asked to express his opinion regarding a different issue. Interestingly, although the subject of the dispute was different, the participants were essentially the same. Historian's opinion was totally ignored, under some quite a formal pretext. I expect the same situation will be reproduced here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The deadlock is very severe. The archives are full of debates and proposals that failed to achieve consensus. Certain editors seem to instinctively oppose any proposals coming from certain other editors. I think it's fair to say that anything which requires consensus is impossible to enact. The solution, whatever it is, will have to be something which does not require consensus. If I'm not mistaken, that leaves out everything except admin action, right? -- Amerul (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no, in matters of content there's no alternative to consensus. It's how Wikipedia works.  Sandstein  07:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. But what happens when consensus is impossible to achieve, even after a year? Surely there must be an alternative to permanent deadlock. As I said above, if current Wikipedia policy has no answer to this problem, then perhaps we should consider proposing new policy. I am sure this will not be the last article where consensus cannot be achieved. The same problem will inevitably happen again with other articles, and we must have a solution. And, just to clarify, I am not proposing any particular solution. I have no idea what needs to be done. I'm just saying we need to figure something out. I was hoping you, or some other neutral party, could devise a solution. -- Amerul (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

And let me reiterate that this is not about the specific proposed edit that is the subject of the AN mentioned below. I'm not concerned so much about that particular sentence in the lede, as about the status of the article in general. I just thought this was a good opportunity to talk to you about it. -- Amerul (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Continuing discussion by Paul Siebert

Sandstein, firstly, consensus is not just vote count. You should have to compare strength of the arguments from both sides. More importantly, you seem to overlook the following facts:

1. Our neutrality policy is nonnegotiable, so it has precedence over local consensus.

2. This policy prohibits stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

3. The assertion, which we discuss has been seriously contested. A reliable secondary source (Aronson) has been provided that explicitly contests this particular statement from this concrete source (Courtois).

4. The proponents of this contested statement failed to prove that the source presented by me is unreliable, fringe, or otherwise inappropriate. Handwaving and unsupported considerations cannot be considered as proper arguments.

5. In that situation, the requirement of the policy must be fulfilled automatically: a non-neutral statement must be removed, and then a new text should be prepared instead. Local consensus cannot override this requirement. Therefore, I respectfully suggest you to reconsider your decision, which seems to be against what our policy says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but I disagree that the neutrality policy mandates the outcome you prefer. There are valid arguments for why the proposed change would be more neutral, but one can also argue in good faith that the current version, which does label the supposed number of deaths as an estimate and attributes it to a particular author, is also compatible with policy. If I were to weigh the validity of these positions, I'd have to do my own research about the dispute surrounding these authors and figures - i.e., I'd have to take sides in the content dispute, which in my role as administrator I must not do.  Sandstein  07:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see how you came to a conclusion about the current version (you mention some "arguments", but you don't explain what these arguments are). I that situation, it is hard to see whether you did a neutral analysis of the arguments, or you simply took one side in the dispute. Could you please elaborate on the arguments that seem reasonable to you ?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The policy says: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." In my opinion, "do not present" means that the policy does mandate the outcome I prefer: removal of the statement, and replacement it with more balanced text in more appropriate place. However, if you disagree with that interpretation of the policy, let's go to the policy talk page and ask.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I've said all that I think is necessary for explaining my position. Considering that an AN discussion has been started about the matter, I'd prefer not to continue discussing the minutiae of policy with you. Instead, I'm happy with whatever conclusion (if any) the AN discussion may arrive at.  Sandstein  17:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted a notice about this at AN and you may reply there. TFD (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Photions and Cinemagraphs

Hi,

I invented Photions in 2010. Proof is on a reliable website, the WayBack machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20100923032037/http://www.photion.info/what.shtml

I advertised them on Google Adwords from April 2010 until June 2012. I contacted info@cinemagraphs in December 2011 when I found out that the work was similar. But never got an answer.

I put a reference on English Wikipedia, but people keep throwing it off, without a reference name to complain. Fortunately you do, so I can contact you.

Yesterday I got an email from Coffeecup company about a new commercial software: http://www.coffeecup.com/newsletter/616?checksum=564361354c76763c9eb75db972d9a2fdf5b94a80

Furthermore, today I found even Microsoft research papers, and commercial material quoting my phrase "Capture more than a moment in time". http://1x57.com/2012/04/23/capture-a-moment-in-time-with-new-microsoft-project-cliplet/

Research paper here: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/cliplets/paper/

By deleting the reference to Photions, you give way to abuse of my rights as developer. Historically, the reference of Photions in the lemma of Cinemagraphs is correct. Removing it is falsifying history. I urge you to leave it there.

Sincerely yours,

Joost Smits Eurojojo (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. If you are the inventor of Photions, you are not supposed to write about them on Wikipedia, see WP:COI. Instead, wait for somebody else to write about this topic. If you continue to misuse Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle for your invention, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, which is a private website, you have no "rights", as developer or otherwise, to be mentioned in any context at all. Besides, the works you cite above are not reliable published sources as described at WP:RS, except possibly the Microsoft paper, but that does not mention "photions" at all. But we need reliable sources for all content on Wikipedia. In sum, sorry, but no.  Sandstein  17:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein,

You are right in your intentions, that is why I kept it to a formal mentioning of the idea of Photions, not claiming how beautiful, world shocking or original it all is (I am being ironic). Microsoft does not mention Photions, which is a violation, and I contacted them about that. I noticed people write about the idea of photions, giving it another name, not mentioning the origins. Microsoft mentions the exact catch phrase of Photions in this video [[1]]. And, "Photions" is not a brand.

I did not write on Wikipedia as owner of rights, I only mentioned rights in the case that if you rewrite history, you violate rights. I understand the neutrality of Wikipedia, but if you do not describe the exact history and origin of inventions, what's the point of Wikipedia? One could also argue that if my correction of the lemma last year December was not removed, Microsoft would have had an extra source of information. See that I did not mention Microsoft in the lemma.

As you can see from the history the Microsoft-thing was not the issue when I added the correction last year. It is the same text. I only want to keep the cinemagraphs lemma historically correct, with formal information. I could understand that you would like to delete the references to websites, but at least keep the textual historical explanation correct. Although, cinemagraph adapts may then edit the lemma again (as happened before, I guess), because they will not see a link to a neutral archive (like the Internet Archive) proving the correctness of the claim. In any case, may I point out that [[2]] is not a "sales page", but a describing page about what it is, and how to build your own?

Do I understand correctly that I should ask someone else to edit the lemma? I want to do this correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurojojo (talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

One more thing, I read about the proper sources you linked to. The Internet Archive says: "The Internet Archive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, is building a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form. Like a paper library, we provide free access to researchers, historians, scholars, and the general public."

Why is that not a proper source? Note, I do not mean the contents, but the date stamp, which in combination with the contents shows the historical proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurojojo (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The key point you need to understand is that Wikipedia does not include information, even true information, unless it is reliably sourced. This is explained in great detail on the page WP:Verifiability, which I recommend you read. In short, even if you came up with the idea of "photions", Wikipedia will not say so unless somebody else has written about it in a reliable source. Additionally, as a matter of editorial ethics, as explained at WP:COI, you should not write about things you are personally involved with.

The Internet Archive is not a reliable source because it only provides a copy of a self-published website, which is not a reliable source for the reasons explained at WP:SPS. It is a primary source, which should normally be avoided for the reasons explained at WP:NOR.  Sandstein  20:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein. Thank you for bearing with me, and explaining your position. The Internet Archive indeed copies a self-published website, but it adds a date stamp, which is not controlled by the user. "The Internet Archive follows the Oakland Archive Policy for Managing Removal Requests And Preserving Archival Integrity" [[3]]. And: "The Internet Archive is working to prevent the Internet - a new medium with major historical significance - and other "born-digital" materials from disappearing into the past. Collaborating with institutions including the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, we are working to preserve a record for generations to come." [[4]] It is a record of the state of affairs, with date stamp. In this case it adheres to all prerequisites of Wikipedia, and falls under your definition of a reliable source, for the date stamp part. With the archive one can prove undisputedly, and beyond the control of you or me that a certain publication was on a certain date online. The contents itself is of course "unproven", and self-generated. The source Internet Archive proves that a similar description as for cinemagraphs existed in September 2010. Can we agree on that?

This leaves the part that I tried to enter that historical reference myself in December 2011. I agree with you that that is not in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. Would it be appropriate to remove it, and I ask somebody else to put it back? Or would you agree that the neutral character of the phrasing of my addition is satisfactory? I will follow your advise. I am a user of Wikipedia myself, and would not want any ambivalent information on it, which might damage my own research in other subjects.

Also, sorry for not signing, I am not being rude on purpose. Eurojojo (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for investing time to learn our arcane rules. I agree that the Internet Archive establishes beyond reasonable doubt that there was a self-published website describing "photions" in 2010. However, what this record does not establish is that a "photion" is the same as or a precursor of a "cinemagraph". Making that connection would be a leap of original research that we can't make; we would need a reliable source to make the connection between photion and cinemagraph. Additionally, given that nobody seems to have taken any notice of "photions" in reliable sources, the concept's impact on developments in photography (if any) appears to be so small as to make any mention of it in Wikipedia appear contrary to our policy WP:NPOV, which requires us among other things to cover ideas, concepts or arguments in proportion to their relevance or importance as reflected in their coverage in reliable sources.

As to your own involvement, my reading of WP:COI is that you should remove the "photion" material you yourself added, but you may move it to the article talk page and ask others to consider including it.  Sandstein  23:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I guess that should be the proper way to handle this. I will remove the addition from the page itself, and add a comment to the talk page. I do not consider the Wikipedia rules arcane. They are there to ensure the quality it provides, and we all enjoy. Take care, Joost Eurojojo (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding!  Sandstein  15:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Game of thrones tv series page". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucracy

Dear Sandstein, All governments employs administration; it is other question if the executive branch will switch to bureaucracy or not i.e. if become using their power illegally. You are mistaken. Please read the arguments what differ between bureaucracy from administration. I will not revert you intervention, but I expect logical arguments.--Burham (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that makes little sense to me. I don't see the connection between bureaucracy and the illegal use of power. I suggest that further discussion about this issue take place on the template talk page, where I provided my third opinion.  Sandstein  16:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I introduced the same text as above on the template talk page, also. My simple point is a suggestion for you to recognize the difference between words administration and bureaucracy. They are not synonyms, thus if bureaucracy has pejorative meaning cannot be employed regularly by any kind of government. A government employ executive branch (i.e. administration, which by definition cannot replace or usurp legislature function). - Also this text I copy to talk of the template, and I will continue the conversation there as you wish.--Burham (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

see latest thread update. Frietjes (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

LauraHale DK ban

You stated "There's a vague allegation of somebody producing bad DYK articles, with no links, no diffs, no evidence whatsoever, ". I understand why it appears such, but this is caused by the move of this proposal from WT:DYK to WP:AN. In the original discussion, the ban proposal was a subsection of another discussion, which contained the links, diffs, and evidence. It is too bad that Nobody Ent didn,t move that part as well, or at least promiently linked to it. I don't mean to imply that this would have significantly changed the mood of the discussion or your opinion, but it is not my habit to make topic ban or block proposals without providing at least some evidence. You can see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Template:Did you know nominations/Gibraltar Rock, Porongurups for the context of the original topic ban discussion. Fram (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.  Sandstein  19:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Sock

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Good job catching that sockpuppet. (You know which one) It is my pleasure to know you. I am very happy that I was doing 3O that day, or I would probably have never run into you. We need more wikipedians like you. Sue Rangell 05:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!  Sandstein  07:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rican statehood movement merge

Seeing you were a part of the recent merge discussion reguarding the page I wanted to let you know that the page was inproperly moved and now things are a mess, there is a move request over at Talk:Puerto Rican statehood movement#Requested move - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Laravel

Hello Sandstein, I am wondering if it would be possible for you to userify the article Laravel (Deleted by you per an AfD) article into my userspace. I would prefer the easy User:John F. Lewis/Laravel. If you could do so that would be great as I would like to work on improving and address the concern raised in the AfD. Thanks John F. Lewis (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure; done.  Sandstein  09:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks John F. Lewis (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein@ko.wiki

User:Sandstein was renamed 'User:Sandstein (인수)'(means 'Sandstein (overtaken)') in Korean Wikipedia. You can make your SUL account@ko.wiki. Thanks. -- Min's (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!  Sandstein  12:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Watch on the Rhine

I just blocked the IP for a week for continuing to edit war. Saintonge better watch it: one more revert or disruptive insertion and they'll be blocked as well. Is this book really worth all the effort? Should I put down Under the Volcano? Drmies (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh. The book as such would probably be unremarkable (and unremarked) were it not for its peculiar conceit, but according to a talk page message the author has called upon fans to edit the Wikipedia article. This, I think, warrants attention because we generally don't want our articles to serve as promotional vehicles for authors or as political soapboxes for their fandom.  Sandstein  19:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Resurfaced user?

You had blocked User:PIPony22 in 2010. A new user has arrived claiming to be that same person. Maybe nothing, but thought I'd let you know since you were involved before. New user is User:YellowPegasus. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I currently see no need for action.  Sandstein  19:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

AfD question

Hi -- I saw you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestry of the kings of Britain (or at least wrote a closure for it). Paul Bedson's work has been causing a good deal of wasted time for Ealdgyth, Agricolae and myself over the last week: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogia Lindisfarorum (which was closed, thankfully) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godulf Geoting, which still has three days to run; see also Talk:Godulf Geoting, and the talk pages of the deleted articles, and you will see that many hours have been spent trying to explain to Paul how to work with the sources for Anglo-Saxon history. I don't suppose the remaining AfD, for Godulf Geoting would qualify for a SNOW close, would it? Paul's behaviour has been quite disruptive and it would be good to eliminate one of his venues. (I think an RFC/U is called for, unless he stops editing in this area as soon Godulf Geoting is deleted, which now seems certain.) If SNOW is not an option, that's fine, but I thought I'd ask. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, this AfD contains only four or five opinions. That's not the kind of situation that normally calls for an early closure, and neither does the conduct of one participant. "Disruptive" is a strong word; if such accusations are warranted (and in AfD contexts, they seldom are) then that is a case for administrative sanctions, not a closure of the discussion.  Sandstein  21:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough; I suspected as much. Yes, disruptive is a strong word; I think it's justified, but I really need to set up an RFC/U to get other opinions. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC 27

Why did you delete this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.64.32.4 (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC 27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted for the reasons given in the deletion log.  Sandstein  22:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul Bedson

Thanks for your closure even if it was 2nd! Did you read my comments at the bottom about Bedson and ArbCom. I think he was lucky not to have been blocked earlier this year when Brownhairedgirl discussed his fringe edits - I imagine she wasn't aware of the formal notification as she didn't mention it. I've told him to knock off the personal attacks and cutesy obscure edits, but I'm getting to the end of my tether with him. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not familiar with the particulars of the problem, but the place to request any enforcement action would be WP:AE. Though I myself would be doubtful about whether disputes about the ancestry of English kings are within the scope of the pseudoscience case.  Sandstein  13:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably correct, although they actually started with Bedson's research into a couple of fringe writers, but the connection isn't transparent. AE might have worked a few months ago, but at the moment there's an RfCU already started by another editor and that's the best way to go now. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Alta Ventures Page

We are attempting to recreate the Alta_Ventures_Mexico[[5]] page. The content on the previously deleted Wikipedia page was picked up by Wikibin.org which seems to have triggered the duplicate content filter once our updated content was saved. We are certain that all content is our original content. Since deletion a year ago the Alta Ventures page seems to have received sufficient and adequate notable references from mainstream media sources. Please review and advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marstorm (talk • contribs) 06:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy deletion request.  Sandstein  08:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)