User talk:Philippe (WMF)

edit
Archives
2010–2011 2012

Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff

Hi. When you have a minute, can you look through Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff and remove the staffers who no longer work at the Wikimedia Foundation? I knocked out a few already:

• User:Rand Montoya
• User:Daniel Phelps
• User:AJ WMF Intern
• User:Aaron (WMF)
• User:Eekim

Beyond removing the category, some of these user pages probably need to be edited (e.g., User:Rand Montoya) to remove outdated or misleading contact information. I'm much too tired to do this right now, though maybe I'll have more energy tomorrow. Any help would be appreciated. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - good point. I'll check with Office IT and see if removal of that category is something they can do when they close down "work" accounts as people leave us. That might help out some. In the meantime, I've gotten started by removing the category from several. I'll make sure userpage edits for them as I have more time. Appreciate the note, thank you. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I just saw Template:FormerStaff. Looks good. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think Thehelpfulone is planning to copy it to enwp for use there as well. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons help

commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni's_allegations_against_Beta_M#Is_there_any_need_for_a_banning_policy_proposal_anymore.3F, [1] – Can you please help answer some of Geitost's concerns? He or she is confused. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Foundation wiki feedback

Translation correction requests are coming in regarding wmf:Terms of Use (2012) and its subpages. I'm still trying to work out who ordered that those pages be fully protected and why. Until that gets sorted, someone (at the Wikimedia Foundation, I suppose) will need to respond to those translation correction requests. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You're still trying to work it out?  :) That seems odd, since I'd think the first step would be to just ask me. :-) Maggie was directed to protect them (by me) and I've just unprotected them. There are some... differences of opinion... as to whether they should be protected (as officially approved policy, which is legally binding and therefore can't be fluid without triggering issues around giving notice of changes) or not. For now, we'll try unprotected. We're also pushing the roll-out by 5 days in order to give more time to correct the translations. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Related: <https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mdennis&oldid=80501#Page_protections>.

The first step was to ask the person who protected the pages. ;-) Thanks for the unprotections; much appreciated. I understand the concerns regarding changes, but there are surely other examples of policies (and resolutions) that have been left unprotected without issue. Maybe just the English version could be protected (surely the English version controls anyway)? But even that seems unnecessary. And as noted at the link, the protection system is noisy and disruptive. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't that it's policy, it's that it's a legally binding contract.  :) Philippe (WMF) (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is a legally binding contract for a lot users (e.g., anyone under the age of majority). And even for the users who are able to enter into a contract, I've never been completely clear about the (legal) enforceability of such terms. Surprisingly the Wikipedia article on the subject is very bad. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian Polish

Hey, Philippe!

Can you review "Terms of use/Introduction/pt-br", please? This page seems to be in Polish instead of Brazilian Portuguese. Tell me if there is any help needed on translating to pt-br. Regards.‴ T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 00:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Teles! Yes it seems like you're right - that looks like a mistake from when it was added to the Foundation Wiki, wmf:New Terms of use/pt-br. I'm not sure if Philippe has a professionally translated Portuguese version that you can just check, alternatively, if it's not too much work, feel free to translate the text "from fresh" into both pt and pt-br. :) The Helpful One 00:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

you didn't know about Brazilian-Polish? Oh come on, it's directly related to Armenian Spanish! Now think on that while I go fix that numbskull mistake I made with pt-br. Thanks! Philippe (WMF) (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hehe... it is a lot better now! I'm pl-br-1, so I couldn't read the old version as Google translator still doesn't have Brazilian Polish. Thank you and THO‴ T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 16:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

弊社

Philippe, while I generally welcome your / WMF efforts to reduce volunteer burden, I must say I am not happy to see recent your maneuver like the first revision at MediaWiki:Centralnotice-TOU top-introtext/ja: I was asked to correct it by a volunteeering editor who was upset. That word you put is used almost only by a for-profit company and thus disastrously misleading. She (and I) guess you use the external translation company or contractor who is not familiar with the movement. I don't object that in general but strongly recommend you to ask volunteer community for advice and opinion. Cheers, --Aphaia (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a second, Aphaia - we DID ask.  :-) We accepted corrections, and we've been welcoming them. How about a little AGF, huh? I have to tell you, I'm in a rock and a hard place - last time we did ask for translations, and I got crucified by some members of our German community, including a public blog post. This time, we used a private service, and I'm getting this from you. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, if volunteerers were asked, so it's rather a result of wrong communications which we all would like to improve definitely. At least I was got up by those upset people at 2am, just in time I'm retreating to bed, so do you think it natural for me to assume they hadn't thought they were in loop?

I guess you may agree the quality of the translation is another matter and that you are either unhappy to spare the image WMF is now a for-profit. Relying on a private service is okay, but you should be aware it has its own risk, and affects both WMF and the volunteer community. If you think ASM works well, respectfully I disagree. It may be okay within us volunteers, but now that customly external people in Japan mention WMF for-profit frequently and even ask for legal sanction, such carelessness makes our request for collection to media very difficult - in circumstance WMF shows itself as a for-profit in its staffer wording. --Aphaia (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm being dense, but.... ASM? Philippe (WMF) (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

AGF. You are better to keep away being dense, man. --Aphaia (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that it's particularly important, but one isn't "in a rock and a hard place," one is "in between a rock and a hard place." :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I sit corrected. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I am not sure what made you insist the community was invited after seeing Terms of use/Banner was created just today, I would like you to realize this translation was very poorly organized so that I failed to see how you guys tried to get the community involved so far. I hope you take lessons and don't stress to advocate your private company more than the community which has engaged to volunteer providing good and accurate translations. --Aphaia (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Aphaia, I'm sorry, but your implication is just wrong. See, for instance, this link, wherein a Japanese contributor provided the banner translation to staff after community consultation. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No you are wrong. Now I realize the things are much worse than what I perceived. On the link you showed, I see Whym propose a correction and that you guys ignored his. The banner you created and that appeared yesterday was not what Whym had proposed Mdennis. Asking for consultation and then ignoring is much worse than forgetting to ask for consultation, in my opinion. Sigh. --Aphaia (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What was the source of complaint when the Germany community disliked the community translations in the past? –SJ talk  09:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

TOU_top in Estonian

Hei! I don't find a specific page for this translation. So I'll report it here. Please add following messages: Meie uuendatud kasutustingimused jõustuvad 25. mail 2012. aastal. Loe veel. Thanks! 90.190.114.172 18:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done - thanks. The Helpful One 18:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed 2005 to 2012 as I think that's what you mean. The Helpful One 18:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, silly me. Thanks again! 90.190.114.172 18:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm, apparently there has to be a space in front of "jõustuvad" in this message. 90.190.114.172 19:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This missing space still needs attention. 90.190.114.172 20:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. The Helpful One 20:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

TOU eo

Here is the Esperanto translation of CentralNotice TOU

Niaj ĝisdatigitaj uzkondiĉoj efektiviĝos la 25an de majo 2012. Eksciu pli.

Please note that CentralNotice French version links to English page while the French page exists http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/New_Terms_of_use/fr

Thanks --Arno Lagrange ✉ 20:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Added the eo TOU translation thanks. Not quite sure why the fr one isn't working, I added some underscores, maybe that fixes it? The Helpful One 20:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for having added Esperanto translation. But why do you link to English instead of Esperanto one http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use-Summary/eo ? --Arno Lagrange ✉ 21:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! That's because that's the only part of the Terms of Use that has been translated, wmf:Terms of Use (2012)/eo does not exist yet and so it hasn't been linked to. If you are able to work on the translation of the rest of the page here on Meta-Wiki, Terms of use/eo, I will be more than happy to transfer it onto the Foundation wiki. The Helpful One 16:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please updtate eo translation : there was a mistype in it. (Eskciu pli -> Eksciu pli) --Arno Lagrange ✉ 15:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Translating Terms of Use centralnotice

Hi Philippe,

thank you for your reply on this talk page and your help.

The languages I want to translate into are Lower Sorbian (dsb) and Upper Sorbian (hsb):

dsb: Naše zaktualizěrowane wužywańske wuměnjenja nabydnu płaśiwosć 25. maja 2012. Dalšne informacije.

hsb: Naše zaktualizowane wužiwanske wuměnjenja nabudu płaćiwosć 25. meje 2012. Dalše informacije.

The links in the first sentence are the expressions "wužywańske wuměnjenja" resp. "wužiwanske wuměnjenja".

Regards and thinks, --Michawiki (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done for both. Thanks. The Helpful One 21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, the translations work perfectly. --Michawiki (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Nutzungsbedingungen TOU translation

As mentioned in german wikipedia, "Lektoren" in the TOU Nutzungsbedingungen is very confusing! (like "lector" instead of "contributor"). I tried to improve the translation here, but no idea whether that leads to anything. Even that page was rather hard to find. You make it really hard to give feedback at a relevant place. Which is why I am ranting on your talk page ;-) --Atlasowa (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I've synced your change across in this edit. To translate pages, there's an option on Terms of use/Introduction/de above the languages that says "Translated version" that will link you to <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-Terms+of+use%2FIntroduction&task=view&language=de> where you can update the translations. This is standard for all pages that use this new Translate extension on Meta. The Helpful One 16:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I used that Translate extension thing, and by stalking Philippe's contributions I even found Foundation wiki feedback. If my confusing translation experience is similar to what the wikipedia newbies go through, then I have a new appreciation for them - and some extra goodwill for ranting ;-) --Atlasowa (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! The issue with the Translate extension was filed as a usability bug recently, so hopefully the link will be more prominent in the future. When you try to edit any page on the Foundation wiki, if you don't have a user account then you will get a message telling you that you are unable to edit the page as editing is restricted and you will be provided with links that allow you to automatically create a new section on that Foundation wiki feedback page, so most people that try to edit it will get to that page, or at least we hope they will! Of course, the majority of the readers of our sites are not editors so making a link or notice saying comment at here on Meta might something to consider. The Helpful One 11:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Having said this, we need to bear in mind that the Foundation wiki is meant as the public face of the Wikimedia Foundation, Meta-Wiki is more of an internal wiki and as such we don't necessarily want to bring our readers here. The Helpful One 11:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. You're right, there is a small print link to meta. I may be afflicted with banner blindness... --Atlasowa (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

A place to share comments, ideas, and quesions

Talk:Terms_of_use#Banner_message_problem – Can you please add a link to Talk:Terms_of_use on wmf:Talk:Terms_of_Use_(2012) and wmf:Talk:New_Terms_of_use/en? The average user doesn't know where to post complaints or ask qestions. wmf:New_Terms_of_use/en doesn't include any contact information. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

But they are directed... when they hit the edit button, it links them to Foundation wiki Feedback, which is an entirely appropriate place for that. I don't see the need for further information. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright. I finally found Foundation_wiki_feedback. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It is less than evident (IMNSHO), when people are wanting to look to something that readily and overtly tells them where to give feedback, they are faced with a mini wall of text, so we are not making it easy for them from that specific page where people are being directed xwiki. One would think that a simple overt link on the talk page would make it easier for people. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I never considered clicking the "edit" / "contribute" button since I knew that editing is only for users with wikimediafoundation.org accounts. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, guys ... the feedback period is over. What are we supposed to do with it? The Board has already approved the TOU. It's not going to change at this point. So it seems disingenuous to invite feedback that we aren't going to use. But I'll bring it up with Geoff. --Philippe (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terms_of_use&curid=659499&diff=3712476&oldid=3708275. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Forum#Data protection, MediaWiki and watch list

Interesting complaint brought up. Would you care to comment on it? Killiondude (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Will be doing so today.  :) Philippe (WMF) (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Twitter location

@wikipedia is in San Francisco? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Im not following the question... yes, the people who run that handle are in SF, I believe.... Philippe (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think he means the byline on the profile, next to the URL (third/fourth line from the top at https://twitter.com/wikipedia. Probably something more global or geeky (the interwebs) might be more appropriate, but I am not sure Twitter allows that. --Bence (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I blanked the location field. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, all right. Thanks. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Implications of 2257 record keeping requirements for editors?

Philippe, a question has come up in an off-site discussion about how 2257 record keeping requirements might be impacting Wikimedia contributors. Now, IANAL ... could you give me some feedback on the following?

Commons has a template, Template:2257, which states

Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act warning
This work, which was made after November 1, 1990 and depicts one or more actual human beings engaged in sexually explicit conduct—including but not limited to "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" (USC 18 § 2256)—has record-keeping requirements in the United States under the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act (18 U.S.C. 2257). Any content reuser in the United States who "publishes, reproduces, or reissues" this work and also qualifies as a "secondary producer" under this Act must document the age and identity of all performers depicted, or face penalties of up to five years in prison per infraction. Wikimedia Commons is not obligated to keep these records and is not responsible for failure to acquire records by content reusers. This notice is only a warning, and the absence of this notice should not be interpreted as indicating an absence of any legal obligations.

This template is, for example, used in all the files listed here.

It seems quite correct that Wikimedia Commons, being covered by 230(c)(1) safe harbor provisions, does not need to keep records. However, this does not seem to be the case for individual users and editors of Wikimedia websites dealing with such materials. Recent US court decisions have found that use of the Internet in itself satisfies the "interstate commerce" element of US federal law, i.e. "trade, traffic or transportation" across state lines ("the Internet is an instrumentality and channel of interstate commerce"), so that anything done on the Internet falls under interstate commerce regulations, whether done for profit or not (i.e. it would seem to apply to "traffic" and "transportation" as much as to "trade"). Is that correct?

The above template text makes reference to "secondary producers". According to the US legal code, the definition of "producing" includes such seemingly innocent acts as merely

(iii) inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct

Accordingly, the law's definition of a "secondary producer" also includes the following:

(2) Secondary producer is any person [...] who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, an actual human being engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct [...]

Now, Commons and Wikipedia are computer sites or services. Note the absence of any mention of for-profit purpose in the text, or any exemption of non-profit sites.

"Manage content" means "to make editorial or managerial decisions concerning the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service, but does not mean those who manage solely advertising, compliance with copyright law, or other forms of non-sexually explicit content." Read literally, this extends record-keeping requirements to

• Commons and Wikipedia admins who close deletion discussions as "Keep",
• Commons and Wikipedia users who vote "Keep" in a deletion discussion, or even just add a category to a file,
• Wikipedians who insert such images in Wikipedia.

I am not aware of any Commons and Wikipedia users keeping such records. There are, in theory at least, criminal penalties for secondary producers who fail to comply with 2257 record keeping requirements. Now, the 2257 requirements are fairly new, and so far there has only been one prosecution ever, of a commercial site, but everything on Wikimedia sites is publicly logged for eternity.

I note that there is also a requirement that

(d) A computer site or service or Web address containing a digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture shall contain the required statement on every page of a Web site on which a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct appears. Such computer site or service or Web address may choose to display the required statement in a separate window that opens upon the viewer's clicking or mousing-over a hypertext link that states, “18 U.S.C. 2257 [and/or 2257A, as appropriate] Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement.”

I have never seen such a statement in Commons or Wikipedia. Do we need to think about having one on every page that contains an image of actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct? Or have I got something wrong? Best, --JN466 06:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jayen,

IANAL, but I work with a few. They can't provide legal advice to individual editors, of course, but may be able to shed some light on this. I'm passing it to them. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, I spoke with the LCA team about this today. We use a triaging system to evaluate what things need to get dealt with immediately and by which attorney. In this case, they'd like to task one of our really qualified legal interns to do some research on this and write up some background materials, which the staff attorneys will review. However, we're currently in the downtime between groups of interns, so - realistically - we're unlikely to provide any useful feedback to you within 30 days or so. If that's okay, i've got this added to the list of things for those folks, and you're more than welcome to prod me for status in the meantime. Thanks. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand that any WMF attorney can only represent one client. But going forward, I really do hope that the Community Advocacy department will develop the capability to advise volunteer editors on legal ramifications of their participation in WMF projects, or to just clarify the lie of the land for editors.

In the UK we have a charity called the Citizens Advice Bureau. If the Community Advocacy function could develop into an analogous Community Advice Bureau, that would be great! Simply having answers from legal experts to a list of FAQs would be helpful. Is this something you would entertain? Regards. --JN466 06:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question, and one that I'll put to the team. Personally, I'd love to offer something like that, but I don't know if it's within the bounds of 1) legal ethics or 2) resource constraints. But I'll ask around and see what I can find out.  :) Philippe (WMF) (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I should second the idea that the WMF should provide some legally informed statement to advise uploaders. The issue was discussed at the version of Commons:Commons:Sexual content put up for a vote ([2]). This cited a very brief statement by Mike Godwin. I hope that Wikimedia's opinion will align closely with the EFF position, while advising editors of the issues currently under litigation. Wnt (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I feel Mike could have made it clearer in that post that according to the wording of 2257, "producers" seems to include any and all individual Wikimedians who have anything whatsoever to do with managing this content, or with reusing it in other Wikimedia projects, even if the Foundation itself, as an organisation, is in the clear. At the time, I felt included in the "we"; but it may have been "we, the Foundation, as opposed to you, the editors".

Just to give an example, if an editor inserts an ejaculation video in the Wikipedia article on ejaculation, and they do not have the documented name, age and consent of the person depicted, they may have broken the law, and done so in a very public manner, with their user name and edit logged permanently for public view.

I would suggest that the new terms of use could state this point more clearly. YouPorn for example say, in their Terms of Service (www.youporn.com/terms/),

You shall be solely responsible for any and all of your own User Submissions and the consequences of posting, uploading and publishing them. Furthermore, with User Submissions, you affirm, represent and/or warrant that:

[...] you have inspected and are maintaining written documentation sufficient to confirm that all subjects of your submissions are, in fact, over the age of 18 years.

You have the written consent, release, and/or permission of each and every identifiable individual person in the User Submission to use the name or likeness of each and every such identifiable individual person [...]

I believe the rules for uploading sexually explicit content in our terms of use should look much the same. --JN466 14:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that by transferring something from flickr, you have to legally agree that you have the information already. Those who are transferring over thousands of images probably don't have those records. Even if the license is right on flickr, that doesn't make the image legally sound if it is pornographic, and the reuploader is liable. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• One aspect that I have not seen discussed anywhere is this: Commons is designed to reuse, redistribute, alter, etc. right? The definition of "producer" would then apply to anyone who alters the work and re-uploads. Thus, they need to have records of any person depicted in a pornographic image. How can we have a site that claims you can freely alter these images without warning them of the records needed? There are a lot of people potentially put at jeopardy on Commons because we don't bother to warn them that they are producers of content by editing the content. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Terms of Use update translation error

Cannot create a translation for this update (I try create translation into Russian). Translation tool returns error (as popup error messagebox):

Unknown error: "tpt-unknown-page" (unknownerror) 

Trying to do it manually causes an error message:

Unauthorized
You do not have permission to create pages, for the following reason:
This namespace is reserved for content page translations. The page you are trying to edit does not seem to correspond any page marked for translation.

--Kaganer (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you were too quick for the bot? I tried testing it out myself and it seems to be okay now. :) If it's still having problems, please let us know, and I'll see what I can find out! Alternatively, if you translate it here, I'll make sure it winds up on the Foundation wiki one way or another. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This rare situation ;) All is done. Thanks! --Kaganer (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Great! I've incorporated your translation. Thank you very much for your swift assistance. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, not quite, I needed to mark the page for translation, which seems to have fixed the error. :) The Helpful One 15:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I will know ;) Thanks for decisive participation ;) --Kaganer (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)