This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Armenia B‑class Nagorno-Karabakh is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Archive box collapsible

What happened to the Human Rights section which demonstrated blatant abuse of the rights of Azerbaijanis by armenian christian fundamentalists. Who has deleted it? The artivcl;e has lost all its neutrality and and nothing but POV in favor of christian armenian fundamentalists? Whare are all those useless editors? --213.172.73.210 (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, as this article is about a geographical region, I would think the geographical map on Nagorno-Karabakh will be more appropriate rather then the political map. Just like it is done here : Balkans, Siberia, Anatolia. And one more thing - geographical regions don't have "Infobox country" in them. Steelmate (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gulmammad, the word of "separatist" at intro looks too much dubious and POV. Pls discuss at first here as the prev. one is the last consensus. Andranikpasha (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"a de facto independent republic which is officially part of the Republic of Azerbaijan" - so a republic is officially part of Azerbaijan? I think region is offically part of Azerbaijan not the republic. Steelmate (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I have hard time finding rule in English Wikipedia regading italisizing non-Latin words/letters. The Armenian language has italics in it, but don't know if we can use it in English Wikipedia, although it is used in Armenian Wikipedia and many other Wikipedias. According to Golbez his personal tradition was to italisize only Latin and Cyrillic texts(like Russian), and non italicise the others. If anyone knows what is English Wikipedia's policy on that please welcome to post here. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the section blanking and some unexplained deletions by an IP. Andranikpasha (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andranik you don't have to explain obvious vandalism. VartanM (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following the Turkish recognition of the Republic of Kosovo, the Ankara Government is under logical pressure to endorse the same recognition to the Republik of Nagorno Karabakh. This is a normal and equitable step for Turkey who is following the "road to Europe". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.150.157 (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't quite make sense, since Turkey and Azerbaijan are allies, and Turkey and Armenia are enemies. Equitable? Maybe. But geopolitics aren't built on equitability. --Golbez (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

logical pressure :) funny that was also said for Northern Iraq,and guess what in 2 days they leaved their sunny flag to and claimed diplomatic support of Baghdad. Dont day dream Turkey can not recognise the independande before Baku, which means terrorists win(no muslim kurds, nor turkics reside in Karabagh, which is enough ho label them as terrorist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.42.184 (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the image deleted by bot as result of sock activity. Grandmaster (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs removing images are banned User:Azad chai. I rolled back his edits. Grandmaster (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to writing the facts without drawing out original conclusions from the facts. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what actually the current version of the article does. It contains some dubious claims about the role of Turkey, which are nothing but speculation. However the fact is that the text of KAvburo resolution was as follows:

Proceeding from the necessity of national peace among Muslims and Armenians and of the economic ties between upper (mountainous) and lower Karabakh, of its permanent ties with Azerbaijan, mountainous Karabakh is to remain within AzSSR, receiving wide regional autonomy with the administrative center in Shusha, which is included in the autonomous region.

You can find this text in any source that quotes the Kavburo resolution. So the edit that you reverted was factually accurate and made no conclusions. Grandmaster (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some sources for reverted unsourced facts, see. --Gulmammad- 21:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a specific sentence and reference about how Azeris were displaced into camps for a time after the war? Without a similar statement about Armenian displacements, it seems to give undue weight to the Azeri situation, especially since the very next sentence offers a neutral statement on the issue. --Golbez (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have changed some names in the article , first the region is Lachin not Qashatag , and Lachin never was a part of Nagorno Karabakh Oblast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.21.93.57 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Location of Nagorno-Karabakh within the Caucasus" changed to "Location of Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan" as the map is not map of whole Caucasus but only Azerbaijan and Armenia from which it is seen that NK is in Azerbaijan. And time zone changed to one used in the Azerbaijan Republic since the article says NK is officially part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Gülməmməd ^Talk 16:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stop editwarring Gulmammad! this article is consensused during the years between the members and your POV addings must be agreed at first. Wiki is not the right place for the naked propagand. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, folks, am I going to have to take this entire suite of articles over again? I would really rather not, my blood pressure has thanked me ever since I gave up. I don't typically do arbitration enforcement - the rulings tend to be a little slow or arcane for me to care about - but I will throw each and everyone one of you at arbitration enforcement if you so much as blink your eyes towards violating the one revert restriction, and I will police that harshly.

Step number one: The map caption stays at "South Caucasus"; the map shows all of the local countries, it is not specific to Azerbaijan alone, and it is by far the most neutral option. Would we give a map of Lesotho and say "Location of Lesotho within South Africa?" Hells no.

Step number two: Time zone? No. The Azeri point of view is that it's under AZT. The Karabakhi point of view? No clue. The NPOV solution is to use UTC and UTC only, especially since an article on the REGION has little to do with politics. Right?

Step number three: Now I have to go to Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and figure out the complaining there about the damn map. --Golbez (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step number four: ??????

Step number five: Profit. :) Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step number six: VartanM pokets all the profit. C'mon Golbez the Karabakhi point of view is ARM. Gullmamamad if you didn't get it yet this article is about geography of Nagorno-Karabakh, not politics and we keep politics out of it. VartanM (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me how is AZT politics? Read this and understand the difference between MST and AZT. Gülməmməd ^Talk 06:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple... would Palestinians want to be told they are under Israeli Standard Time? No. UTC is the neutral answer. I'm not saying use MST, you apparently read something that was not written. --Golbez (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez, the above comment wasn't addressed to you but VartanM, anyway. Regarding MSK (above MST was typo), here is my edit and its revert. I think people should start doing more useful edits than doing reverts and counting others reverts toward violation of 3RR to get them blocked, or tagging articles, or nominating them for AfDs, and then call someone their Profit. Gülməmməd ^Talk 14:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between AZT and MST isn't relevant for this article, as it is a nonpolitical article and will use the NPOV UTC. Also, keep in mind you are under a 1RR, not a 3RR. --Golbez (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know if the village of Fakhlul was/is involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh story? It is supposed to be close to Stepanakert. Does it have an Armenian name? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word form "Nagorno-" is a combining element that was used before the adjective "Karabakhskaya" in Russian to form the name of the former administrative entity known as the "Nagorno-Karabakhskaya Avtonomnaya Oblast'." When used before the noun "Karabakh" instead of before the adjective "Karabakhskaya," however, the correct word form would be the masculine adjective "Nagornyy" (spelled more simply as "Nagorny") rather than the combining element "Nagorno-." The name form "Nagorno-Karabakh," as a proper noun, is, therefore, the result of a translation error and should be replaced by the correct form "Nagorny Karabakh." Atelerix (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, and Moscow should be Moskvá, but on the English Wikipedia we use the English word for the place, not the name. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• And in we would use the name Deutscheland instead of Germany. We use the common English name; Nagorno-Karabakh is not too commonly known among English speakers, but that's certainly the most commonly known name among people who do know of it. --Golbez (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Nagorny Karabakh" is simply a corrected version of a mistaken form that, unfortunately, is still in current use in an English context. Neither "Nagorno-Karabakh" or "Nagorny Karabakh" is an English name. An actual English name would be something like "Upper Karabakh." Atelerix (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the English translation. By your logic, the actual English name of Montenegro is "Black Mountain". There's a difference between name and translation. Again, by your logic, the name of Japan would be "Home of the Sun." Japan is the English name for it. (France apparently treats things differently, since they call it Haut Karabakh.) --Golbez (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not advocating that foreign place names be translated into English. Several international organizations have now begun to use the correct form "Nagorny Karabakh" in place of "Nagorno-Karabakh," and the authors of this Wikipedia article would do well to "get with it." See the following websites:

http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/nagorny-karabakh/index.php

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/11/mil-071129-rianovosti02.htm

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/azerbaijan-armenia-photos-201206

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa//repertoire/89-92/CHAPTER%208/EUROPE/item%2019_Nagorny-Karabakh.pdf

Atelerix (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This subject has been touched upon on a number of other articles, where maps by so called "Andrew Andersen, PhD" were used as reference. First of all, the map of Karabakh in Karakoyunlu state used on this page is obviously dubious. There was no town called Shusha during Kara Koyunlu reign, it was established only in XVIIIth century during the reigns of Karabakh khan and Qajars. And there are no references to existence of principalities in Karabakh during Kara Koyunlu either. So drawing self-invented maps and using these as some reference to historical source is not quite acceptable for encyclopedia. And in general, again, I would like to request that some credentials for "Andrew Andersen, PhD", the blogger, be provided as far as his expertise in regional history and historical geography are concerned. Atabek (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous maps of Andersen used in Georgian history articles and nobody criticized it as dubious. Even the map in question is already used in this article. If it's removed here it should be removed there as well.

What about Shusha, there are evidences of a castle there long before 1750. The Georgian king Irakli II, wrote:

«Хамс составляет владение и во оных сем воеводских правленей, народ весь армянского закона, в том владении находится армянской патриарх… один человек (Панах Али), закону магометанскаго и от народа жаванширскаго, принял силу; среди того правления, Хамсы, состоит старинная крепость, которая им обманом взята…»

Грамоты и другие исторические документы XVIII столетия, относящиеся к Грузии. Том I, с 1768 по 1774 год. С.Петербург, 1891, с. 434—435

--Vacio (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal interpretation of a primary source. Not Ok. There's like a million of primary and secondary sources saying that Shusha was founded in the 18th century. And Andersen is a self-published source. Not acceptable. Grandmaster (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every map on Wikipedia is self-published and an interpretation of primary sources, (and most of them don't have the actual name of their creator). So that alone is not a reason to remove one! If you describe the specific problems with the content of this map, and those problems are enough to make the map inaccurate for its purpose within this article then it should be removed. However, I don't think the indicating of the location of Shusha before it existed is enough of a reason. The purpose of the map's usage here is not to show the location of Shusha but to show the location of Karabakh and neighbouring territories during that time period. Why not just remove Shusha from the map? Meowy 16:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vacio and Meowy, the above arguments do not justify the usage of map by a blogger in encyclopedia. The fact is, Andrew Andersen is not an authoritative source on history, he is an amateur, in fact, unable to provide or produce any credentials. Hence a highly controversial map with invented borderlines and even city names that didn't exist at a time, shall be substantiated by a source, which either of you didn't provide so far. Moreover, showing the principalities of Karabakh as something separate from Qaraqoyunlu state is just plain fabrication. Do you have a source proving that Qaraqoyunlu controlled all territory with exception of this little "island" which Andrew Andersen invented? Atabek (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andersen's maps are used all over the place on wikipedia, particularly when it comes to articles related to Georgia. You need to get a community consensus about their status if you want to remove them. Discussing their validity on this article is fruitless.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, what are you? Not even a "blogger", not even someone who uses their own name. Under your standards should I dig back into all your edits and remove any maps you might have added? Of course not! The map should be judged on the value of its use here. Its value is based on its relevance and on its accuracy, not on its creator. Meowy 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P143-144, "Armenia, an Historical Atlas". "It was Jahan-Shah (the leader of the Karakoyunlu - my note) who, apprised of the existence of the Armenian princelings of the Siunid house in Karabagh dispossesed by Timur, restored them to their possessions and granted them the title malik, Arabic for king". The source goes on to say that he did this to have his northeast frontier protected by bordering it with a territory whose rulers would be loyal to him as well as offer resistance to any invaders. In other words, the territory was separate from Karakoyunlu territory but ruled by princes who were expected to support the Karakoyunlu. Meowy 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator, it's irrelevant where Andersen maps are used, that's an issue for people who edit Georgia-related pages to worry about. If I am asked to provide an opinion on those Andersen maps, I will. It's relevant, however, that Andersen is neither a scholar, nor an expert in history to make those maps. The map presented on the main page is not referenced to any scholarly source, it's an invention based on an interpretation of a blogger who was fired from his position for racist anti-Muslim sentiments. So if you guys insist, I think we should request an impartial third opinion. There was a substantial discussion before on background of Andersen and lack of scholarship, some other important facts which confirm my points, i.e. where did he get his PhD from, where does he teach, which scholarly journals did he publish in, can you provide samples of his professional work on history, and so on.

Meowy, who is the author of "Armenia, an Historical Atlas"? Can you please, cite the full source for the sake of NPOV? As far as "not even using own name" is concerned, I think it's important to pay attention to yourself first before questioning others, and it's absolutely irrelevant to the discussion subject. I am not making maps, never uploaded one to my memory, but I do question a source from an amateur, which you try to present as a scholar. Atabek (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is Armenia: A Historical Atlas, by Robert H. Hewsen, University Of Chicago Press, 2000. You were the one questioning others, dismissing people you don't know as "bloggers" and "amateurs", so try acting on your own advice. All I want is for the map to be judged primarily on its accuracy and on its usefulness within this article, and not dismissed for no other reason that because some editors for some reason don't like the source. As far as I see, the only thing wrong with the map is the use of non-standard spelling and the addition of Shusha before it actually existed. The latter can easily be corrected. Meowy 21:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is not the proper forum to discuss this because Andersen's work is used all over Wiki. If you're so passionate about excluding Andersen's maps from Wikipedia get a community wide consensus that will affect all of Wiki.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andersen was not fired for anti-Muslim comments, and the one website that you referred to it said the "investigation was still pending," meaning that you're assuming he's guilty before the investigation has been completed. And Eupator is correct, we can't cherry-pick what maps are acceptable and which ones aren't. If you are so passionately against him, then just get a consensus from the rest of Wikipedia – why are you complaining about it here and not on the Georgian articles? The author of Historical Atlas is Robert Hewsen, who GM likes to quote so much.

Stop wasting our time with your absurd rants about everyone who disagrees with your POV and do something more meaningful on Wikipedia.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name any works by Andersen, published anywhere outside of his website? Also, see the comment by the admin Mikka at the bottom of this thread: [1] Grandmaster (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should confine your criticism to what you think are flaws in the actual map. The majority of maps on wikipedia are without sources; many are without named authorships or have been created by wikipedia editors - are you suggesting that they all should be removed? Meowy 23:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here some articles which use one or more maps of Andersen: [2] [3][4][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. These are only articles of the English Wikipedia. Other Wikipedias use them likewise. So, once more, this is not the right place to discuss whether we should or not use Andersen's maps. If they are not reliable, then the above mentioned articles should remove them as well. --Vacio (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They should all be deleted, if anyone doubts their reliability. But I'm not interested in other articles, my concern is that the map used in this particular one does not come from a reliable published source. The fact that this author is used in other articles does not prove his reliability. You still haven't answered my question about the works that Andersen published anywhere outside of his website. --Grandmaster (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest I compared the Andersen map with the nearest equivalent maps in "Armenia, an Historical Atlas", especially the one on p143 titled "Armenia under Turcoman Domination, 1378-1502". The various "Georgian" kingdoms are roughly in the same position, which is good given that indicating their positions is the main purpose of the Andersen map. A specific border for Kachen/Karabakh is not shown on that map, but is shown on the map on p135 titled "Armenia under the Ilkhanid Domination 1256-1335". Its position is similar to that on the Andersen map - and given that we have a source saying that the Khachen principalities/melikdoms still existed during the Karakoyunlu time there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Andersen map on that point. There are mistakes in the Andersen map though - Bayburt is shown as part of the empire of Trebizond, when by this time it would not have been (if it ever was). Worse still, it shows territory marked "Ottoman Empire" directly to the south of Bayburt, which is a nonsense. The Ottomans captured Trebizond in 1461, then the inland castles of the former empire a decade or so later, and only after that did they begin to extend their rule deeper inland. When the Trebizond Empire was extant the region of Erzincan was not part of the Ottoman empire, it was ruled by independent emirs, and then by the Ak Koyunlu. In other words, the Andersen map seems to be accurate for its titled purpose (showing the Kingdom of Georgia in the 15th century), and for its use here (indicating the position of Khachen), but it is not accurate for the territory at the western end of the map. Meowy 19:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the map per discussion at WP:RSN here: [32] Grandmaster (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any consensus to remove the maps. VartanM (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for its inclusion. We asked a third opinion, and it was that Andersen is not a reliable source. Grandmaster (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw you avoiding Meowy (third party editor) and another guy who didn't even bother looking at the links. VartanM (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meowy is a party to the dispute and arbitration case, and thus not a third party. And a third party opinion was that Andersen is not a reliable source. Grandmaster (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "arbitration case"? The map stays until valid reasons are presented for its removal. There was nobody at that discussion except you and Atabey who said they wanted it removed. No valid reasons were presented to support its removal and you refused to answer the issues I raised in that discussion. Meowy 15:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinserted the map into the article. It was removed by Baku87 who did not give any edit comment or explanation for his edit. Meowy 16:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus for inclusion of this map. We discussed this many times, and even asked for a third party opinion. You were told that Andersen is not a reliable source. If you insist on this map, take it to dispute resolution. But you cannot force the map into the article. Grandmaster (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for the exclusion of this map. Yes, we have discussed this many times and even asked for a third party opinion. Third party opinion failed due to total lack of interest. You were asked to provide credible reasons for the removal of the map - you provided none, and you refused to address legitimate points rased by other editors. You cannot force the removal of the map from this article unless you provide a credible argument for doing it. Baku87 removed it without even making an edit summary. Meowy 16:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think following the example of Caucasian Albania controversial POV maps, created by dubious bloggers claiming to be qualified researchers, and not based on any serious historical research should not appear on the page until there is consensus. The fact that third party opinion didn't show up, Meowy, does not justify single-sided non-neutral POV. Atabəy (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, there was a third party opinion If the maps come from a blog, and they deal with contested borders, then they are not reliable. So whether you agree with it or not, as a POV party, the neutral opinion confirms that the maps by blogger Andersen are not acceptable and need to be removed. Atabəy (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map is not from a blog, and it does not deal with contested borders. So leave it where it is. Meowy 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't abide an edit war, even a slow motion one. Protected for one week on the version I found it on, and if this isn't resolved in a week, maybe I'll switch it to the other version for that week. But you will *not* continue to do this back-and-forth. Come to a conclusion. --Golbez (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about the map, and issues surrounding it, is going on at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Andrew_Andersen_Maps Meowy 17:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no international law or laws that would say "Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan." I think this phrasing should be modified. Please advise. Some counties and international organizations made statements whether they consider NK as part of Azerbaijan. That is it. Capasitor (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of Grandmasters last edits for the following reasons:

• The historiographer Mirza Jamal (btw. the vizir of the Karabakh khanate and a relative of Panah Ali khan) and the text of the Kurekchay Treaty are primary sources. And Wikipedia rules require: Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction). For such statements, we must cite reliable secondary sources.[33].

• The Ganja Khanate or Karabakh Khanate were established under Persian rule in 18th c., while the Princedoms of Artsakh-Khachen existed more than 1000 years from 821.

• The mention Kurekchay Treaty is out of its context: the precondition for Ibrahim Khan and his descendants to rule this region was that they should obey the Russian Empire (article 1). Not to mention that it was subsequently replaced by the Treaty of Gulistan.

• Kurekchay Treaty refers to the Karabakh Khanate, i.e. the whole Karabakh region, therefor it is completely irrelevant to the intro of this article. Also, it was only an agreement, while the charter of the Paul I was a recognition, it refers to the status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Please use secondary and third party sources to interpret primary sources as Wikipedia rule require, and use them on the right place. --Vacio (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]