Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 2

In the past, a user has requested mediation on this issue. The dispute was resolved at 23 March, 2009 by Tealwisp (talk). For more information, see the case page.

Let's mediate

Howdy, y'all. I'm going to be your mediator for this discussion. I'm sure you can all see that this is a large RFC, so I'm going to archive it because it is slowing down my PC, and then I'd like Hammersoft to give me a summary of his/her side, and then one of the opposition to give me a summary of his/her side. I don't want to start making any conclusions until I have the facts straight and I know where everyone stands, that way I can bring everyone to the best compromise possible. Tealwisp (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the archive, summary of positions

Move to formal poll

Let me ask, once and for all, should we continue this process, or is it better to move to the formal mediation process? Alternatively, this issue may be "laid on the table" and put to rest. Please do not debate here, this is simply a "yes, no, or table" poll. Tealwisp (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

??? I'm sorry, but what does "yes" mean in this case? You asked an either/or question. My vote is either, but tabling the discussion doesn't solve anything. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: "Continue, Move to formal, or Table." Sorry. Tealwisp (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

May I point out that 'to table a motion' in BrEng means 'put forward for discussion' whereas in AmEng means 'put aside for reconsideration at a later date'. Nanonic (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. My BrEnglish hadn't covered that. I was going from Robert's Rules of Order. Tealwisp (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Move to formal is my first preference, continuing this discussion 2nd. I don't view tabling as an option. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'd prefer formal mediation, or I'd accept continuing here if you (Tealwisp) think this can be resolved here (I'm skeptical, but willing to continue the effort). Tabling (AmEng) is not a viable option. cmadler (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we can successfully resolve this informally, simply because I can't enforce any decision that doesn't have everyone's support. The only way this can be resolved informally is if everyone tries to think of ways to compromise with each other, and compromising at all has proven difficult. Tealwisp (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Well, I think my lack of sports knowledge may be useful here, as I realised that some games or seasons are defining for teams even beyond "sports culture." How about a compromise in which seasons, games, rivalries, etc that are defining for one or both teams (or their image) may include copyrighted logos?

For example, The Miami Dolphins' logo might be included in the 1972 season's page, and the Detroit Lions' logo included in the 2008 season page? Both are very important seasons to those teams (whether they like it or not). Also, if part of a team's image includes a rivalry, the logos might be included on the rivalry's page.

As I said before, I don't know a lot about sports, so we would need to flesh out the details a little more.

On a side note: Both sides, please be careful with your language to maintain civility. I would like to keep this strictly to discussion of the articles. Tealwisp (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Define "important". This seems to be an arbitrary metric. What is important to X person might not seem important to Y person. Further, what bearing does the importance of a season have on whether a non-free logo should be included? If a person wants to see the logo, they can see the parent article, such as Miami_Dolphins#Logos_and_Uniforms. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In 1972, The Dolphins had the only perfect season in NFL history, and 2008 was the opposite for the Lions. They are defining seasons in each team's history. If a season or rivalry is defining to two teams, the logos serve as a quick identifier of the teams for those who aren't familiar with them. Furthermore, I don't think there is a good reason for not including them if the teams are especially relevant to that article. Tealwisp (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Do you think corporate logos should be included on that company's product articles? Example: Ford Focus (North America) and Ford Motor Company. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A good point. Evidently, this compromise is not suitable. Tealwisp (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

cmadler appears to have a good idea of how far things should go. What objections are there to his/her side? Tealwisp (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Simple. If we're going to include a non-free image, the image must be necessary to the article. If a logo should be included if there is no other image available, then clearly the logo is not actually necessary, and is merely being added for the sake of having an image. Basically, a compromise of that sort is not an option- instead, it must be made clear where a logo is necessary, and then logos should appear on all of the pages where they are necessary, and be removed from all of the pages where they are not necessary. J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  I agree 100%. The problem is that "necessary" may not be easily defined, and is problematic when new editors who don't understand WP:NFCC (for example) make a different judgement call about whether or not a logo is "necessary" in an individual article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  J Milburn, what do you believe constitutes necessity in this case? Tealwisp (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  (ec)Well, if the logo is effectively the "second choice" image, it can hardly be considered necessary. Personally, I fall on the "conservative use" side of things. I feel the logo should be used only on the primary article (that would include using the College X Sports logo on the College X Football page, if that logo is used by the football team) in the infobox, and in any article where the logo itself is discussed. For isntance, in year articles where the logo was changed, there may be discussion of the new logo. This also applies to unusual logos- logos specifically for a rivalry belong on the rivalry page, but only elsewhere if they themselves are discussed at length. J Milburn (talk)

This sounds pretty good to me. Let's keep it in mind. Tealwisp (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with the stance that a non-free logo can be used on season articles if no free images exist of the team. Each season of a team is not a separate entity. It is that team throughout history. The personnel may change, but it is still the team. When a team appears on a copyrightable broadcast, they own rights to it. You do not see copyright statements saying "Copyright 2008, by the University of Wiskala 2008-2009 team" It is the same entity regardless of which season it is in. Therefore, the logo should not be on the season article at all. Going the other direction, it makes perfect sense to include the team's logo on a specific sport team's main page because that is the logo of the entity; the team. At some universities, there are differing logos for every sport. Each sport team has adopted the specific logo as its identifying logo. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this stance, excepting cases in which the season had a unique logo for the team. Surely there are good counter points, though. Tealwisp (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If the season did have a unique logo, then said logo would be discussed in the article, making its use acceptable under my proposal. Basically, my position comes from the fact that I believe logos should not be treated any differently from any other non-free images (as, all things said and done, they are still non-free images) and it is never considered acceptable to plaster the same non-free image over a variety of loosely related pages when there is no commentary of said image in any of the articles. J Milburn (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Issue 1

Let's take this one step at a time. First, should team logos be treated any differently from other non-free images? Consider that non-free images are always useable with an appropriate fair-use rationale, and that adding these team logo guidelines may add to creeping. Tealwisp (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, absolutely not, as these are non-free images. Creating new rules for a specific type of non-free images (without a compelling legal reason to do so- personality rights, trademarks, whatever) is a typical example of instruction creep. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• In this case, there is not just the general WP:NFC to consider, but also the specific WP:LOGO. cmadler (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:LOGO states explicitly that it does not override WP:NFC. Tealwisp (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The logo guidelines are intended as low level, editorial help for newish users on uploading logos. They are not intended, in any way, to supersede any guidelines- they only offer practical advice on using logos in a way consistent with other policies. At this level of discussion, they should be ignored, though it may be worth updating them with the conclusions from this discussion. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In general I agree with J Milburn, but I do not think such guidelines should be ignored. They were established upon consensus in the first place. We should establish a new consensus if we are going to change something in it (I think that's what you were getting at, but I wanted to be sure). — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should require consensus to change guidelines. However, one of the "sides" in this discussion (well, at least me, I won't put words in anyone else's mouth) believes that the guideline as currently applied is conflicting with policy. When two things, both presumably established by consensus at some time, are in direct conflict, something has to give. That's why we've accumulated the better part of a megabyte of text trying to sort this out. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Issue 2

What is at issue that is not currently covered in current WP policy? Tealwisp (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing. The debate is how to interpret the policy- what counts as "minimal use"? When does the use of a logo "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", and when does it not? J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there something that isn't solved by requiring a fair-use rationale? Tealwisp (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, there seems to be a disagreement over the meaning of "minimal usage" in WP:NFC #3. cmadler (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Tealwisp, adding a fair use rationale does not solve these issues, as the majority of fair use rationales are simply copy-pasted statements, rather than genuine explanations. If requiring a fair use rationale was all that was needed, then this debate wouldn't be happening. Further, just because a "fair use rationale" has been added to the image page, does not mean that the use is within policy. As already mentioned, exactly what constitutes "minimal use" and "significantly" increasing the readers' understanding is disputed. J Milburn (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Multiple parties have established their idea of what minimal use is, and I think that if we simply address what constitutes minimal use, we will be able to find a solution that fits everyone. Tealwisp (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"the majority of fair use rationales are simply copy-pasted statements, rather than genuine explanations." They are cut & paste because the same rationale applies. Why reinvent the wheel. they are no less sincere. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• The issue here, in my mind, is that there is a group of editors (myself among them) who believe that a classification of uses for non-free images may never (or rarely) have a valid fair-use rationale, and that such a generalization is worth codifying. Precedents for this would include, most notably, the consensus against using album covers in discographies. A fair use rationale is only one of the prerequisites for the proper use of a non-free image; it must also independently satisfy the non-free content criteria. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What constitutes "minimal use"

Minimal usage appears to be the core of this issue, so we should define what that is. Factors to consider include: relevance (how important the team is to the article, and vice-versa), usefulness (what the image contributes), and WP:IAR (does the image improve the encyclopedia).

Certainly, we cannot simply let the logos go anywhere, and if we restrict them entirely, only a few people will be satisfied. I think this is a bit of discussion that may be best decided on a case-by-case basis, as one sweeping regulation will not cover all possible variables, and it is very difficult to invoke WP:IAR for a good exception once the guideline is in place. Guidelines are like like kudzu, they keep growing, and they are very hard to get rid of. Tealwisp (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Treating this case by case will result in hodge-podge application of policy and ongoing, constant arguments. This needs to be solved. This is pretty simple really. In considering article "X"; is article X a derivative of article Y? If yes, then the logo for Y should appear only on article Y. Examples: --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Ford Focus (international) does not have a logo, while Ford Motor Company does. The former is a derivative, a product of the latter.
2. Whopper does not have a logo, while Burger King does.
3. New York Gilbert and Sullivan Players does not have the logo for New York City Center (which does), where they perform an annual season.
4. 2004 Tampa Bay Devil Rays season and Tampa Bay Rays seasons do not have logos, while Tampa Bay Rays does.

• We do not scatter non-free images all over every article that has anything to do with that non-free image. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  The problem with "In considering article "X"; is article X a derivative of article Y? If yes, then the logo for Y should appear only on article Y." is that a hierarchical structured Wikipedia has already been rejected. Pages fall into categories, not subject X is a parent of subject Y. Each article is intended to stand alone.

  I am also concerned (and disagree) with the assertion "We do not scatter non-free images all over every article that has anything to do with that non-free image."

  1. Just because one user doesn't do something some way and other people don't do it that way, doesn't mean it can't/shouldn't be done.
  2. I think everyone can agree that the articles in question certainly directly relate to the logo in question. We are not talking about every single instance where a logo could be used and using them on "anything to do with that non-free image", but only in those articles directly related to the team. For example, we shouldn't use a copyrighted logo in helmet simply because football teams use helmets or grass simply because some teams play on grass. That sort of linkage is absurd. We are talking about the teams and in specific instances if/how they should be used. This use of hyperbole pushing into a slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• This has already been said above, but I would echo that a case-by-case solution is the worst of all worlds. Both for stylistic reasons, and for reasons relating to our free content mission, it is necessary that we determine a uniform standard for all similar articles. I can't imagine very many people, for example, saying that "it's okay to use this logo in the 2005 Texas Longhorns article, but not this one over here in the 2002 Oklahoma State Cowboys one." (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  Point taken (and I agree we need a uniform standard), but this is potentially a bad example since the 2005 Texas Longhorns used a copyrightable logo and the Oklahoma State Cowboys did not. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Responding to examples: (1) Not the same: the Ford Focus has its own logo. (2) Not the same. The Burger King logo is not the logo for the Whopper. (3) Not the same. No one has suggested that 2008-09 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team should have the logo for Cameron Indoor Stadium. (4) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I think the logo would be appropriate on the 2004 page, which is the crux of this debate. Re: "We do not scatter non-free images all over every article that has anything to do with that non-free image." Nobody is suggesting we do. For the brazillionth time, the logo of the 2008-09 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team is File:Duke Blue Devils logo.svg, therefore we're arguing the logo is appropriate in that case. Oren0 (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• If the Ford logo is not the logo of the Ford Focus, then neither is a sports logo of a team the logo of a given season. Same goes for the Burger King logo and Whopper, etc. A season doesn't HAVE a logo unless one is designed and marketed for that specific season, perhaps for a 100th anniversary season or something. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  Which is where we disagree. I (and others) believe that the 1939 Texas Aggies Football Team (naming conventions aside) is different from the 2008 team (as a matter of fact, so were their logos). You apparently view them as the same entity, but a different year. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  It's blatantly obvious it is the same organization. The personnel may change, but the entity is the same. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  Have to agree here with Hammersoft; from a sporting standpoint, it is certainly a different team, but from a business/ownership/where-the-money-flows standpoint, it's the same team. Since IP is associated with the latter aspects, the logo is part of the business side of things. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• That's not always the case. Consider, for example, the 1995 and 1999 Cleveland Browns. cmadler (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• "It's blatantly obvious it is the same organization." Ok, there is no need to inflame the situation with such rhetoric ("blatantly"). I never said they weren't part of the same organization, I stated that it was a different team. Please don't confuse the two. By changing the subject, you are changing the argument I put forth in the first place. That doesn't mean the logo doesn't apply. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• It isn't rhetoric, it's fact. You can't separate the team from the organization. If we want to twist, turn, spindle, mutilate, and caricaturize this debate then we might get to a point where Wikipedia would be the non-free content encyclopedia too. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this should go to a formal committee

There seems to be little progress being made with informal mediation. If amicable consensus can't be reached here, this issue may be better off in the hands of the mediation committee. I'd like everyone to consider some way to compromise on this issue, or perhaps let the issue rest and decide case-by-case what falls within minimal usage. Tealwisp (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As I explained on the mediation page, the core dispute: to what extent does NFCC #3a apply, to the article level or to the the whole of WP, needs to be affirmed. Even further distillation of this can be summed up as follows:

Is there harm to the free content mission in the reuse of an existing non-free image across several different pages?

If Wikipedia was a printed work, and the logos used on every college football season page and the like, the number of repetitions of those images without a stronger rationale than "team identification" would likely be harmful if the work attempted to claim a "free content mission". But when one looks at the electronic version, there is only one "copy" of the image at any time, it's just attached to different pieces of text when it's used repeatedly. If one believes each article page on WP exists independently, then you have your printed copy argument and there's harm to the free content, but if you look at it as bits and bytes stored on a server, its hard to make the same claim.

(for the record, I believe there is harm by this approach, but I'm trying to fairly lay out both sides). As clearly noted, it's not a legal problem, it's a philosophical one of what free content is and to what extent we consider allowing exemptions for it via non-free content. Not to doubt Tealwisp's abilities at mediation, but this is a very significant decision issue, one that I don't think any editor or admin wants resting on their shoulders, so I support a much fuller evaluation. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I just say that I do not support the idea of a compromise for compromise's sake here. I'm sure people will be happy to misquote what I'm saying now, but compromise is certainly not always the best route. If Adam and Brian are discussing Charlie, and A wants to leave C (an innocent bystander who knows neither of the others) alone, but B feels C should be killed, though beating C up may well be a "compromise" between A and B's respective positions, it is not a positive outcome. The fact that there are two different opinions does not mean that compromising the two is a good solution- perhaps one side is simply in the right, or perhaps there is a genuine dichotomy, meaning that a compromise would not solve anything. If A wants C alive, but B wants C dead, there can be no "compromise"- there is no way that C can be both alive and dead. I think there are elements of both issues here, and I don't think Wikipedia has the processes to solve this until someone is willing to actually do what needs to be done. J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying we should kill others who disagree with us. Interesting... — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy is pretty clear. We should use uncopyrightable logos (crit. 1), and only use non-free logos when they are instrumental to understanding the article (crit. 8). Tealwisp (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

But in this debate, "instrumental to understanding the article" seems to be one judgement call with varying interpretations, and the definition of "non-free" is also under discussion (i.e. are non-copyrighted but trademarked logos "free" enough for widespread use). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Masem's comment directly above gets right to the heart of the issue, and seems to lay out both positions fairly. Unless that is addressed, I don't think this dispute can be resolved. I will also point out that editors on both sides of this argument (inclusion and exclusion) have, at various times, threatened to "implement" their preferred outcome across all affected articles. I don't think that letting the issue rest and deciding on a case-by-case basis is likely to result in a good outcome for Wikipedia. cmadler (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In the light of a non-print encyclopedia, there truly is no harm, because images are not added to the page, only a pointer to the image. The saving grace of case-by-case is that there is no guideline to stand in the way of honestly good contributions that don't follow a guideline. That's exactly what WP:IAR was made foro, but few people respect it. I really think this issue is best left at rest, and common sense allowed to be the dominant rule. It may make things a bit difficult, and it won't save discussion, but it prevents WP:CREEP and keeps the Project fluid. I think this issue should be brought to the mediation committee, as it deals with copyright issues of the sort that I am not familiar with, i.e. whether a pointer to an image constitutes a usage of it legally. Tealwisp (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

To some extent, I agree with you, but then we have to ask ourselves why we require rationales for each page an image is used on, and why we don't otherwise allow extraneous uses of existing NFC on other pages (eg using character images of an actor on their bio page in addition to a free image). Also, how does this pertain to the CD/DVD version of WP when its created? There's something there in how free content mission and our ability to redistribute it come together, and it's not 100% clear. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"In the light of a non-print encyclopedia, there truly is no harm, because images are not added to the page, only a pointer to the image." So the quantity of images hosted on Wikipedia doesn't actually change, but the number of uses within Wikipedia does.

"The saving grace of case-by-case is that there is no guideline to stand in the way of honestly good contributions that don't follow a guideline." While I agree in principle, the fact that we and about a hundred others are having this discussion shows that not having a guideline is causing a dispute.

"I really think this issue is best left at rest, and common sense allowed to be the dominant rule. It may make things a bit difficult, and it won't save discussion, but it prevents WP:CREEP and keeps the Project fluid." By leaving this situation as-is, it will only cause more problems in the future, not solve anything. While I am of a particular mindset and believe certain things, I'm also happy to abide by the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. If it is decided that we are not to use logos in the case of X, Y, and Z, but A, B, and C are ok, then I will abide by consensus and follow that rule.

"I think this issue should be brought to the mediation committee, as it deals with copyright issues of the sort that I am not familiar with, i.e. whether a pointer to an image constitutes a usage of it legally." There really is more to it than that and the policy and/or guideline(s) need to reflect this information and describe how to apply it. If a blanket statement comes down that each image is only used once and links to that image are still part of the same image usage, then we can, theoretically, use it anywhere. If the converse is true, then we are using the same image more than once; should there be multiple uploads of the same image to justify each use? I've requested legal guidance from Wikipedia's attorney, but his response was, essentially, "Sorry, but I don't time to work on that." Taking it to the mediation committee would be useful in helping to establish whether consensus has already been achieved in certain aspects, clarify issues, etc., but unless we reach a consensus here, this is going to go to ArbCom anyway where an edict will, potentially, solve the problem one way or another. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, I would stay as far away from this being a legal issue with copyrights; Mike Godwin's suggested we're not facing any lawsuits or other legal action, and thus even with their use across all desired pages, we're probably ok. The issue needs to be focused on the free content mission and reuse of copyrighted works. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This does not seem to be a legal issue. cmadler (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• On 27 February 2008, I asked (diff) the formal committee if they would accept this case. There's been no answer, and it's been a week. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• I've sent a prompting message to all six active members of the mediation committee to seek their input on the question posed by the above diff. Example --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think your question is a bit misleading, as to answer in the negative would endorse the idea of any existing image being used on any article. As I see it, the questions are:

Does "minimal" use of an image, as required by WP:NFCC, apply to individual articles, the project as a whole, or both? How do editors decide whether a given image is necessary on a class of pages when many editors disagree? How do editors determine whether a given use is minimal when consensus cannot be reached?

• But if we can't agree on the question... Oren0 (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ignoring the consensus issues and focusing on the NFCC aspects, I agree the starting question is "what level does NFCC#3a apply, articles or encyclopedia?" but comments in response to this led me to realize the true aspect of that question, being "what is the harm to the free content mission if we duplicate (to any extent) a non-free image?" If there is no harm, then #3a can only be applied at the article level, and that's that. If there is harm, then #3a applies at the wikipedia level, and that's that. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Any word?

Is this going to go anywhere? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you folks are too conservative with this...from my little slice of Wikipedia it appears too strict and capricious. A uniform reasonable policy would be appreciated. Thanks! Sirberus (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)