Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lifebaka (talk | contribs) at 04:50, 5 September 2009 (→September 2009: simple question, with a yes or no answer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:Welcome

Hello, Destinero! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Skäpperöd (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Misplaced Pages Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

What is an Encyclopedia?

Any idea? Is it a repository of contemporary understanding? Is it a soapbox to parade your ideas on? When you insert hyperbole, you are not helping Misplaced Pages nor, as a result, your own case. We have a healthy difference of understanding of the subject. I believe we can come to consensus and make a much better article, however. Oh and if you wonder whether I am some ideologue against LGBT parenting...nope. Don't worry. I'm just sticking with the facts.Tobit2 (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am contributing facts based on the most reliable and reputable sources available on the Earth. And this is the difference between me and you. --Destinero (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at LGBT parenting

Your edits are being discussed at the Edit warring noticeboard. You may respond in that discussion if you wish. Taking ownership of an article and ignoring the opinions of other editors is frowned upon here. If you continue to push your own viewpoint without following the consensus of other editors, you may be blocked for violating the edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Destinero. Your response in the AN3 discussion is not satisfactory. My warning still stands: you must pay attention to the views of other editors. I think you have more to learn about Misplaced Pages policy. You are urged to read WP:Edit warring and WP:OWN. User:MishMich's opinion should be listened to, and he is still available to discuss this article with you. EdJohnston (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your response on the board, WP:CON is relevant here. My only interest in this article is your raising it on the LGBT noticeboard, it is not an issue I am directly involved with, nor an article I hve edited prior to your raising the matter, but have given an opinion as per your request. You have not managed to effectively work with others involved with the article, and have ignored comments made by others - both in this article and Homosexuality under the section on parenting. This appears to be a personal crusade, and while articles are not off-limits to people with an interest or without interest, such editing should be carried out in accordance with NPOV. There is no clear reason why a single source relating to a Supreme Court hearing should be railroaded through a number of article in place of legitimate sources by US national bodies (such as the APAs and others) simply because that document involved these organisations in the drafting. What concerns me is that this is done in a way that dismisses other editors' concerns - myself, User:Benjiboi, and others as irrelevant. I am not unsympathetic to the topic being addressed, but I am concerned about the way you are going about this, because this is not how things are done. I agree it can be frustrating, but if you work with others, this can be dealt with more effectively in ways that improve the articles concerned. There is no policy that says you have to remove multiple sources in favour of one source that is of local significance, nor that you substitute text written by editors in favour of text written elsewhere reproduced as your edit in breach of WP:COPYVIO, and then when pulled up for this, replacing the text written by other editors with large quotations which are still possibly subject to WP:COPYVIO. When you do this, other involved editors will simply stop working with you, the article will remain as you have left it, until somebody else comes along and seeks to address the problem in ways that ensure material that breaches policy guidelines is deleted - which then leaves the article poorer, because the original material that was there before you removed it, and which was perfectly acceptable, will not be there anymore, nor will it be unless somebody can be bothered to go back through the history and piece it back together and restore it. Mish (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand that reliable source should provide very important context on the field not only quote body after body with statement. Why do you think that 3 quotes without context are better than 1 conclusion written by all these sources? How is your version of article better? I edit under Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Academic consensus and . You promote version of article which wouldn't state such important things like "The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. Empirical research over the past two decades has failed to find any meaningful differences in the parenting ability of lesbian and gay parents compared to heterosexual parents. Amici emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise. It is the quality of parenting that predicts children’s psychological and social adjustment, not the parents’ sexual orientation or gender. Allowing same-sex couples to legally marry will not have any detrimental effect on children raised in heterosexual households, but it will benefit children being raised by same-sex couples." Why are you doing this? You can suggest reformulation. I would welcome it. --Destinero (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have explained this on more than one occasion, and I have tried to work on reformulating this, but you reverted it. To be honest, I am tired of this kind of thing. I have enough trouble working with editors who 'appear' to have a homophobic agenda, without engaging in battles with editors who don't. I will have a look at the article again, but as it has changed so much, it might be a while before I can face it again. One thing i have learned here - there is no rush, Misplaced Pages isn't going anywhere, and we don't have to get it 'right' straight away. Mish (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S., can I offer a word of advice? When working on controversial topics, it can work better if you take a copy of the section you want to edit away to a sandbox, and work on it on your own, then bring the result to the talk page and propose the replacement, then involved editors can make suggestions and amendments in a less heated atmosphere, while the original is still available to draw from compare with, until consensus is reached - then the revised section can be inserted as a whole. This takes some of the heat out, and avoids disruption - remember that there may be people reading this article, and it will be confusing to be reading an article that changes several times within one or two days. When this is the odd word or sentence it is not a big problem, but when it is a whole section or article, it does not serve the readers well. Mish (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

capitalised source in references

Case No. S147999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, In re Marriage Cases Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4365, APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE PARTIES CHALLENGING THE MARRIAGE EXCLUSION, AND BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER IN SUPPORT OF THE PARTIES CHALLENGING THE MARRIAGE EXCLUSION

Please convert this to normal case, and replace where you have inserted this as a source using the decapitalised version. Mish (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - no need to shout :-)

same sex marrige page pareting

My revisions reflected what the paper cited says. In fact, what any unbiased research must say to be regarded as such. Science by definition works by showing that something is not, it is impossible in science to show that something is. The fact that something was not proved to be doesn't prove that it is. In logic this is argument from ignorance. Please if you like to inform readers of scientific research be truthful not biased. Being biased and irrational just hurts what both of us are trying to do here which is to inform that sexual orientation does not have any correlation to bad parenting. The facts suggest that but when you say "the scientific research shows gay parents fit" you loose people that would otherwise be convinced of this position. The scientific research investigated the issue and did not find a correlation. the research looked to see if there was any indication gay parents were unfit having not found a correlation the study reported its findings. Now as a matter of opinion one, including me, can be very much convinced gay parents are just as fit as any other parents but that is a conclusion a reasonable person draws from the findings it is not the findings themselves prove. So if you like to write, namely that it is reasonable to draw those conclusions from the research do so, but remember an encyclopedia really presents facts it does not draw conclusion. In any case, please do not discredit the research by in effect presenting it as biased. Remember you are not trying to convince people like me who already hold this position. Only by presenting science in a neutral light as it really works you will help other readers understand your position and not just disregarded as impartial and biased. This is not a forum of personal ideas and preferences, this is a open source encyclopedia. Anyway, the line in question will be changed (reverted) to reflect the source faithfully according to Misplaced Pages standards and practices shortly soon after you have a chance to read this. Thank you very much gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your revisions didn't reflect what the paper cited says, since it says the same what I wrote to the article. It is prohibited to change it and I quoted the relevant Misplaced Pages policies on Talk Page of LGBT Parenting. Please stop misinterpreting sources. --Destinero (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert of Gorillasapiens edits

Talk:Same-sex marriage#Revert of Gorillasapiens edits

"Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical studies comparing children raised by sexual minority parents with those raised by otherwise comparable heterosexual parents have not found reliable disparities in mental health or social adjustment (Patterson, 1992, 2000; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; see also Wainright et al., 2004). ... The studies cited above demonstrate that sexual minority parents are not inherently less capable of raising well-adjusted children than are heterosexual parents. ... One recent study used a probability sample and thus provides a valid basis for generalization to the population. Wainright et al. (2004) analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which drew its participants from a stratified random sample of all U.S. high schools with at least 30 students (AddHealth, 2004). The researchers compared 44 adolescents parented by female couples and 44 adolescents parented by heterosexual couples, matched on relevant demographic characteristics, and found no significant differences in psychological wellbeing or family and relationship processes (e.g., parental warmth, integration into one’s neighborhood). ... Empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents. If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." http://wedding.thejons.net/homework/optional_readings.pdf

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#A simple formulation: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible. --Destinero (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ My concerns: I won't argue, I have read most all the article, you have misquoted them previously in the talk page as well as in the article. Not the findings or facts, but the the way you quoted the authors assertion of their conclusions or their opinions as if the authors themselves had mentioned them as facts.

Second, accusations of vandalism, when one disagrees with another editor is not warranted. Neither is asking for administrator precious time without contacting others first. I am new to Misplaced Pages, but I know administrators are busy volunteers. Frankly, they don't need this, False accusation, not following the process of resolving disputes directly,etc.

Let me address each of the your concerns. First, you wrote: "Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. ." No dispute have been raised about the findings. It is the wording of the finding conclusions, the wording of the opinion of the experts, that are being discussed.

Next, "Empirical research to date has consistently failed to find linkages between children’s well-being and the sexual orientation of their parents." "That is it a fact, not disputed either. Adding that the page raises no problem. This shows how the research was conducted, no prejudice, no bias, no side. Namely, They looked with an open mind whether there was any difference. By design, a link could have been found. This is neutral yet it guides the audience to the most reasonable conclusion, that if no link was found, well one believes that none exists and reasonably so.

Asserting the opinion itself, scientific research has consistently shown no link exist, is unscientific, and anybody trained in science, instead of learning from it, disregards as biased.

Next, "The studies cited above demonstrate that sexual minority parents are not inherently less capable of raising well-adjusted children than are heterosexual parents." " No, it does not demonstrate, it only demonstrate that no link, difference was found. Now as a matter of opinion, expert opinion if you will, we conclude, we deduce that is so. Here is where the disagreement lies.

Next, If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample." "here. Great, good job. This right but look how it is sounds in the article. If no evidence is found, parents are capable. No, it was right at the first time, if parents are capable, no evidence is found, nor will it ever be found. But the researcher doesn't hold parents capable, and then conclude there is no evidence. One looks for evidence, having not found any, one concludes the parents are capable.

Second point says: This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." Yes evidently, if one was trying to affirm the parents were unfit, but there is no what was said, quite the opposite , what was said was that no evidence for unfitness was ever found, Moreover, in this dispute, the burden of proof lies in neither side because saying no link was found doesn't show, prove, demonstrate, imply, document, or deduce such a link exist, in fact, it actually implies it is unreasonable to hold such position.

Third point, Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.||| "It common, natural is understandable to consider opinion as fact when they personally relate to ourselves, the fact here is no link was found, the opinion is if that is the case consistency, then no link exists. The authors themselves didn't assert anything, why should we? Why change that? I submit, you did so only to make your point of view more convincing. To me, it makes it weaker because of the reasons mentioned, I think a neutral point of view is more encyclopedic, and so I will revert it to the original. Feel free to undo it. But let me know, so you can discuss it further. Thank you. gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am actually willing to discuss this more in dept. I can really see your points and underestand them. Do you have Jabber, MSN, ICQ or something else to be able to discuss this online to see what can we do with all of this? Write it me on mail. Thank you for your interest. --Destinero (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, first I apologize for not expressing myself clearly, if only I had addressed your concerns earlier. I'd say wording of the facts, the findings, like you did on your previous talk page edit expressed is good enough. But I believe the best we can do is wait for a third opinion whenever it comes, we can work from there. gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody has responded - that you try dispute resolution. I tend to agree, because I see merit in both your arguments, which is why I am reluctant to say more. I am concerned that virtually the same entries have now been inserted into at least three different articles, and the way this should be handled is rather than having disputes on three different articles (acknowledging this relates to two of those, but three have resulted in conflict) is to have the material in the main article where it is relevant, and a summary of the main article as a whole when it is pointed to from within a section in another article. This has improved on the article not being disputed here, but perhaps this should be born in mind in this case. I am sorry, but I just do not have the time to see how far this applied to the same-sex-marriage article, having spent some time on the partnership article myself, and eventually deciding to walk away. Mish (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read this discussion and result carefully

I have explained why I have fully protected LGBT parenting at the above ANEW link. Please note that editors can be blocked for edit-warring even if they have not reverted 3 times in 24 hours. Please note that you are dangerously close to being blocked for such actions. Would you now reconsider your stance and return to consensus driven editing at the page concerned (and other articles) when that page reopens.--VirtualSteve 14:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Template:Z9

{{unblock|My revert was the only one and it was fully and clearly justified in status and even now it is in Misplaced Pages namespace without change. Thus it coudn't be regarded as diruptive. I ask stop block of my account (7 days) immediately since it is unjustified and I expect an apology of VirtualSteve.}} --Destinero (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussing with blocking admin. --Smashville 18:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have left a comment at my talk page also. Destinero you are refusing to reach any form of consensus with other editors at this page. You are simply driving by and returning the material and you are doing so every few days/weeks. The article talk page was posted with discussion for you to add to and you were given 5 or more days to consider that content; to adjust the proposed version etc. This occurred after you attended a discussion at ANEW and you were requested not to simply continue to add your version of word for word text. It was only after you did not make any comment at the talk page, that the proposed adjustment was made with reference in the edit summary Per Talk page discussion; repairing plagriarism (sic). It is edit-warring for you to continue to just add your own version of what you believe to be correct every few weeks.--VirtualSteve 21:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that in reference to your comment that the content is still in the article without change; this is because the editor who changed it in the first place came to my talk page to raise his concerns over your continued actions - rather than simply again revert your edit. That does not mean that your edit is accepted but rather is another attempt to reach consensus.--VirtualSteve 22:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Destinero (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My revert was the only one and it was fully and clearly justified in status and even now it is in Misplaced Pages namespace without change. Thus it coudn't be regarded as diruptive. I ask stop block of my account (7 days) immediately since it is unjustified and I expect an apology of VirtualSteve.

Decline reason:

Block rationale by blocking admin was sound. There was pattern of disruption without discussion. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Destinero (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=When Tobit2 repeatedly misinterpret what the reliable sources says there is no justification to not allow me to revert it. My effort to avoid plagiarism is observable, we can even reformulate the sentence with the same meaning simply using "of" attributive. But you can't describe a single fact by completely different range of words or sentences, it's just impossible due to word order and the reason that no 2 synonyms are exactly same. On this ground I ask again to reconsider the block and allow me to discuss things. Now the block is punitive and nothing-solving, the article is still in my version and the block delay the solution by a week. And I ask to consider to block Tobit2 under the principle of continuous misinterpreting sources on that article. This is obvious and I don't know what to discuss about that. He do it again and again. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=When Tobit2 repeatedly misinterpret what the reliable sources says there is no justification to not allow me to revert it. My effort to avoid plagiarism is observable, we can even reformulate the sentence with the same meaning simply using "of" attributive. But you can't describe a single fact by completely different range of words or sentences, it's just impossible due to word order and the reason that no 2 synonyms are exactly same. On this ground I ask again to reconsider the block and allow me to discuss things. Now the block is punitive and nothing-solving, the article is still in my version and the block delay the solution by a week. And I ask to consider to block Tobit2 under the principle of continuous misinterpreting sources on that article. This is obvious and I don't know what to discuss about that. He do it again and again. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=When Tobit2 repeatedly misinterpret what the reliable sources says there is no justification to not allow me to revert it. My effort to avoid plagiarism is observable, we can even reformulate the sentence with the same meaning simply using "of" attributive. But you can't describe a single fact by completely different range of words or sentences, it's just impossible due to word order and the reason that no 2 synonyms are exactly same. On this ground I ask again to reconsider the block and allow me to discuss things. Now the block is punitive and nothing-solving, the article is still in my version and the block delay the solution by a week. And I ask to consider to block Tobit2 under the principle of continuous misinterpreting sources on that article. This is obvious and I don't know what to discuss about that. He do it again and again. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Destinero, I am happy to see that you want to discuss the matter, which has been pretty lacking in your approach so far. However, I am concerned that you accuse Tobit2 of misrepresenting the source -- I see a different shade of meaning between "has found no evidence of" and "documented that there is no", but it is quite an overstatement to call that a misrepresentation. So I don't really like Tobit2's version either, but WP:AGF: it's clearly an attempt by Tobit2 to paraphrase the important finding without lifting text. It's quite over the top for you to suggest that Tobit2 be *blocked* for this, especially when you haven't bothered to discuss the matter yet. That said, I feel this block was a mistake, because in a way Destinero's edit was an attempt at compromise: the two sentences used were not exactly the same, and since the objection was that the text is lifted, the new one does seem substantially more of a paraphrasing. Mangojuice 14:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a problem, as this has been going on for a while now, and Tobit seems to use this tactic to block insertion of certain material unless phrased in a way he is happy with. I have explained in more detail the way this maneuver operates. It is unfair to accuse of Destinero of 'drive-by reverts'. Mish (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be happy when material is not plagiarized and extremely pleased if attempts to repair plagiarism were discussed on the Talk Page. Destinero continues to plagriarize material; I continue attempts at fixing it but this is difficult because Destinero ignores attempts to discuss changes on the Talk Page and instead reverts repairs to plagriarism without discussion. These are the facts and it is why he has been blocked. That said, I would like to put some additional light on the matter. The crux of the problem is that Destinero is using the terms, "Research has documented," whereas I have used the terms "Research has shown no evidence of;" these may seem like semantic terms to the admins but to Destinero and Mish they represent an important difference in interpretation, and it upsets them. Nevertheless, since I was the one who repaired the plagriarism I used the words as I intrepreted them from the four sources cited. If Destinero had worked together with me to repair the plagriarism, perhaps we would have come to a different wording, but he did not. I think it is important to note that I have not attempted to revise the text since Destinero's block even though the plagriaism sitting there is gnawing at me as a flagrant example of abuse of authorship. But I have done this because I am hoping that someone, hopefully Destinero when his block is lifted, will work constructively to repair the plagriaism in a way that is acceptable to all.Tobit2 (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me the simple question is this: Destinero, do you agree to use the talk page to discuss the issue? As long as you agree to and do so, an unblock should come your way. If you can't agree to this, you won't be unblocked. So, please answer the question. lifebaka++ 04:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock