User talk:Aristophanes68/Archives/2011

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Aristophanes68. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wikipedia:AWB should not be used for trivial edits like this one. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Apologies. I wasn't using AWB just for that kind of edit alone. Instead, I was going through several hundred pages for general clean-ups and simply clicking whatever clean-ups were being recommended, whether they were trivial like that one or more significant. Perhaps I had made the settings too inclusive? Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us. :) Debresser (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

United Statesians? -- role^player 13:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

:^) I had a similar thought. Or Staters, U-Sers, Yanks (offensive to southerners), etc..... Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved your research to relevant sections of the Homosexuality in Japan article and would be happy to continue the discussion on that talk page. If I've seemed at all grumpy about this it's because I live in Japan and focused on Shinto for my BA thesis, and I don't like to see either misrepresented. Shii (tock) 02:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I was adding the part about the Nihon Shoki in, but I discovered that it is actually based on the triple interpretation of the word "Hafuri" in the men's names, the meaning of "beautiful friendship" in this context, and the meaning of a hapax legomenon at the end of the story: [1] This makes it a little difficult to explain in encyclopedic context, as is often the case when discussing the ancient chronicles. Shii (tock) 02:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand, and as we were discussing the topic on the AfD page, I was thinking about how much Orientalism was at play in the sources I was finding--all written by Euroamerican scholars. I just wanted to show that some scholars have been able to discuss how aspects of Shinto have made homosexuality less of a problem than it was in the Christian west. But they may all be misrepresenting Shinto through their Western bias. What would be interesting is to get Japanese writers on homosexuality discussing the role of Shinto in allowing/prohibiting it etc. But how many of those sources are available in English? Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You can see some of those writers translated at the link above. Even during the interwar period of 1920-1940, when the mythological chronicles became more important than they ever were before or since, they were considered pretty much irrelevant to discussions of homosexuality. Socially speaking, Japanese people seem to prefer sociological analysis of these issues, although I'm using that term broadly to refer to the liberal use of Freud, making up sciencey-sounding terms like "uranism" and "Class S", and so forth. I did read a boys' love comic once where an unaccepting mother cries "filial impiety!", but that's just a joke on terms used in common conversation and certainly did not derive from any Confucianist religious leaders, Confucianist sermons, etc. As you've correctly pointed out, it's Western Orientalism that extrapolates from these things to construct an imagined "religious view". Shii (tock) 00:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting--thanks for explaining that. To me, that information makes it even more important that we include some sort of discussion for Western readers that explains why the topic isn't really all that relevant. And it's also useful to know that Shinto priests, etc., never made an issue of homosexuality. Even the absence of conflict is worth explaining. Cheers, Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If you choose a different skin, you will always be able to tell when you have been accidentally logged out: the color, font, arrangement of links, etc, will all be different. DS (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the previous edits, should I make a note on the User Page that it's my account? Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No that's not a good idea. You can mention it here on this account's userpage, but not on the IP address's. Those are shared by multiple users and can be multiple accounts at the same time, depending on your area, and so pointing to just one account when another may use it isn't a good idea. Best to just leave it as is, and hopefully whoever AGFs will know. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

DS: How do I change the color on the page? The default (Vector) skin is the only one I like, so I don't want to change that. So colors are my only option, but I don't see how to change those, unless it has something to do with those redlinked CSS files on the "preferences" page.... Help? Aristophanes68 (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your edits recently on my watchlist and clicked over to your user page and was impressed. Have you considering applying to become a Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors? It is a great way to help college students become more familiar with Wikipedia, and make them good long term contributers! Sadads (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the paragraph on Thomas Gibson's page  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cb243386 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure! Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know how to use this "talk" feature, but I'm writing because I've removed a comment on the 100 Years entry, under "critique," because I think it was placed there by the author of an insignificant essay about the book. There are many, many valuable and insightful critiques and writings about "100 Years," but the one I removed (from a minor essay, later published in a children's book, by an Irvin Winsboro) is not important or helpful. And again, I strongly suspect that the author himself, who is not an expert on L. American literature, has inserted the comment in order to promote himself. - Salahaldin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salahaldin (talk • contribs) 19:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to go to Talk:One Hundred Years of Solitude, click the "new section" (or + ) button at the top of the page, and then explain your reason for removing this critic. Does that help? Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

{{help me}} Is anyone else having trouble with their personalized background colors showing up? I updated the CSS color feature and it was working fine until the other day, but now (on four difference computers and on different browsers) I'm getting no personalized colors at all. Help?? Here's my page: User:Aristophanes68/vector.css—I've put the color code at the very bottom of the style sheet. Have I done something wrong? Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Aristophanes68 - I think you may get a more detailed response if you review the recent CSS related Q/A on WP:VPT. The "help me" template will draw a lot of people to your page, but the not necessarily the people with the right background to answer a CSS question. I personally know that the recent code update messed up a few things for me (scripting) but none of my CSS issues, although I do see others on the VPT page mentioning problems with CSS. Regards,  7  00:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Just curious as to why you removed my photo of Julianne Moore at March for Women's Lives in 2004? There should be no issue on whether it's okay to use, as it is my own work, and it was a public event. Over a million people marched. I thought it was a great photo to illustrate her pro-choice activism. Unless you can give me a good reason why it should be deleted, I would like to re-post it. Best wishes,Pattymooney (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't me -- that was the edit after mine. I simply asked if the photo was a fair use photo. I think you need to ask User:Artoasis about why the photo was removed. Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Aristophanes, just getting the hang of things in here. Sorry! Will ask Artoasis. Pattymooney (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Aristophanes68,
I have appreciated your welcoming; it was very nice. I usually do things like that without any logon (I don’t have much time but having some I try do something useful - especially with insomnia).
If you have some time for an unimportant question, May I ask you why my username appears spelled in red letters?
Again, kind reception.Dream of Nyx (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Aristophanes. I replied on my talk page. I think you misunderstood why the tag is there. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Aristophanes. Recently I have put in my talk page some generic questions. Already got some answers, but surprisingly them were presented in a form rude, impolite and some parts very obvious. Some people really should assume good faith when talking with others or if incapable of that let this function for others with some empathy. However I am sure this conduct does not represent Wikipedia. I now this not is fault of anyone else but bad attitudes certainly does not help Wikipedia to make better.
So please let me reformulate the main question directly to you: Is there some project (or planning for that) in Wikipedia to publish e-books (authorship by volunteers) aiming full donation for benefit of Wikipedia? Thanks Aristophanes for your time.Dream of Nyx (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't know anything about the wiki books projects. Sorry I can't help you there. Best wishes. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Aristophanes. You wrote on my talk page when I first made my Wikipedia account. I was just wondering how to put all of those cool links and stuff on the side of one's user page. Could you help me out, here? Thanks, Hawkrawkr (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That's twice you've helped me now! Looks like I owe you one. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkrawkr (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! My user page looks great now! :)Hawkrawkr (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the belated welcome msg and the cookies :) --Iggydarsa (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Aristophanes68, you've been helpful in the past regarding a few things involving me. And so I'm asking if you wouldn't mind weighing in on this as well? It has to do with having a section on the belief that people must be equally sexually to both sexes in order to be bisexual, and whether or not the controversial study by Bailey should be mentioned. Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the diaspora edit war has heated up again. Would you look at Swedish diaspora and help decide whether the quote should stay or go. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

When you added the WP Arab and WP US banners to Hussein Ibish you put them above the WP Biog banner. This caused the blp banner to no longer be at the top of the page. In the future would you please do whatever is needed to keep the blp banner, if it exists, at the top of the page? (As your addition brought the number of banners to over two, I put them all in a shell with the blp parameter.) Thank you. JimCubb (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know. I think I was doing that through AWB and didn't correct the placement. I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Undue tag. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Hello! You are invited to participate in the Theatre Project's Collaboration of the Month. This time it's the Theatre article. In the last 30 days, this article received 52,500 hits, or roughly 2,000 every day. Hope you can help! Nominate an article that could be greatly improved.

Hi and thanks for 'welcome mat'. Hope I will able from time to time to add some good stuff. --Damien00 (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem I saw a thing that could be done, so I figured I'd do it. Happy to help. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes to the Oregon film and television categories because film and television are not always fiction. I saw at least one reality show (I know...kinda fictional!) and one documentary in those categories. Also the Palahniuk book isn't a novel. I understand what you are trying to do, but you'll have to come up with a different way to do it--maybe check in with the categorization folks. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Aristophanes68 (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

		The Literary Barnstar
		For excellent dedication to classifying novels by their setting. Kudos to you! Sadads (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hooray!! My first barnstar!!!! Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Puffin Let's talk! 21:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I see you reverted my removing of the external links from the list. I did it according to my interpretation of [2]: Links normally to be avoided": "20. External links as sole entries in stand-alone lists and embedded lists." Why do you think it is so important to link to some writer's website, especially when they are commercial sites, for ex. [3] or [4] which have links to "Buy the book"? Isn't this against Wiki policy?--Mycomp (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I had been looking for the guidelines on including external links in lists, but I hadn't seen the page you linked to; I had been looking at Wikipedia:List, which doesn't seem to say much about external links. The reason we had included those links before was in order to verify that the person did in fact exist and was an Asian American author who didn't yet have an article. Some editors will remove all redlinked articles as non-notable and this was a way to meet the verifiability rule and keep authors who didn't have their own articles on the list--partly in hopes that someone would then write an article for them. But I see why you removed all those links. What we need, then, is to replace the websites with footnotes that establish verifiability. Feel free to un-revert them, but add an explanation in the edit as to why--you can simply put "removed external links acc. to [[Wikipedia:External links]] #20" in the edit box. Cheers, Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed the new category "Plays based on actual people" and thought the wording is rather strange. It sounds a bit like slang. What was wrong with "real people"? Deb (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

We could change it. I used "actual" simply because already had a category "plays based on actual events", and I thought it'd be easier to remember them both if they had parallel wording. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Hmm, maybe that's not so well-worded either. On the other hand, "actual" in terms of events, strictly speaking, means "events that are happening now". Deb (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I know that's the French definition of actual, but in the States (at least in daily usage) it usually just means "it really happened in history". If you want to nominate both cats for a speedy rename, I'll support that. Cheers, Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just nominated Collective salvation for deletion, and now you're improving the article and actually make it make sense! If you improve it to have it survive the AfD, I'll be quite impressed and hand out barnstars... Good luck, and thanks for your effort! :-) Huon (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh! I'll stop now. At least if the article does survive, there will be something more objective on the page. Apologies! I'll head to the CfD page now to chime in. Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You were doing a good job, and if the article could be improved and kept, that would certainly be to Wikipedia's benefit. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the intricacies of Christian (or non-Christian) theology to be much of a help, but I didn't want to discourage you, either. Though deleting and rewriting it from scratch may be the easiest way to improve it. Huon (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you agree with the changes, do you think I should go ahead and process those right now? We can do so under the rules since you and I are the only editors of the categories, but if you'd rather have the discussions open for a week we can leave them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's fine with me to go ahead and do them; I'd have done them manually if I could have thought of a quick way to do so. Thanks! Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added them to a queue for a bot to perform at WP:CFDW. I see that there is some backlog that the bot is currently working its way through from the speedy rename page, so these categories might not be renamed immediately, but within the next few hours I would expect it should happen. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not tag musicals and comic operas (including G&S) with the Theatre project tag. If you want to discuss, please do so at the musicals project or G&S project talk pages. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What I'd like to do is use good sources to describe salvation theology in Christianity and Judaism. It's mostly a Christian concept, but has it's origins in Judaism (not surprisingly, since that's where Christianity sprang from). In Judaism (or rather, in the study of Judiasm as known in academic circles) there's a concept called "salvation theology", which is about how Yahweh physically saves the children of Israel from slavery in Egypt. It doesn't go any further than that - it has nothing to do with the salvation of souls. Christianity introduced the second idea. But even in Christianity, the earliest emphasis was on the "kingdom of heaven" ( or of God); this idea was that an elect few would be saved from the coming apocalyptic end of the world by entering into the "kingdom" - which apparently meant recognising Jesus as God's Messiah. This is the idea in Matthew and Paul. Later still, when the apocalypse didn't arrive, it was reinterpreted as the salvation of the soul.

What's needed is some good sources (there already are some in the references), and also the attention of some good editors. If you like I can ask a Christian editor I know (his nom is editor2007) if he'd like to help. I'd like to take a back seat myself as I'm more interested in the literary analysis of the Hebrew bible than in theology - in other words, I'm a historian, not a theologian.

About Buddhism: there's nothing truly comparable to salvation in its beliefs. There's no salvation, no damnation, merely the release from the illusion of reality, which is what nirvana m,eans. It's so different from Christianity that it really shouldn't be compared. PiCo (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--I think what you've done is fine. I just wondered if there is a source we could use to support the statement that salvation is not relevant in Indic religions and Buddhism; I think there needs to be some clear statement to that effect in the lead, but it needs to be sourced, and I don't think we can just say "according to PiCo, who deleted those sections..." :-) Also, I wasn't sure how Islam fits into this discussion; you deleted that section but your reason was not that salvation does not exist in Islam, but that the material used was unencyclopedic. If I wanted to add a short statement to the lead about salvation and Islam, what do you think it should say? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just revised the entry on Judaism, retitling it Old Testament, because what I've written is really about the meanings of the Hebrew word for "salvation" as used in the OT (it was a sign of Yahweh's power and his care for his people Israel). What modern Jewish ideas on this might be I have no idea.

This brings up the point that salvation is an idea, not a physical thing: and as such it has a history. Somewhere between the date when the Second Temple Jews stopped writing scripture (5th century maybe?) and the time of Christ (1st century AD - about 500 years, but lets be generous and call it 300), "salvation" changed its meaning. For the authors of Isaiah and Exodus it was all about God acting in the real world on behalf of Israel; for Christians in the 1st century it was about joining the Kingdom of God and thus being "saved" from the coming end-times. Quite different.

As for Buddhism, I don't see how you can have salvation of souls in a religion that holds that there is no soul, nor salvation by God's grace in a religion that holds there is no God. And as for Islam, I understand that the basic idea there is "submission", not salvation - the word Islam is from the root /slm/, meaning peacefulness, and when you put an /i/ at the front it means to seek the quality expressed by the root, i.e., seek peace, by submitting to the will of Allah, which is expressed in the Koran. So your salvation, if that's the world, is entirely in this world, not the next.

But for these things we need sources and people who know what they're talking about. I've already put in all that I'm really competent to add, which is the meaning in the OT, as expressed by Brueggemann, who's a very solid source. I think the next step would be to write something about what "salvation" meant in the 1st century AD, followed by what changes may have come after that. But I don't know the subject area and so don'[t know the books. Maybe a general history - Cambridge History of Christianity or something like that?

(By the way, the reason I know a little about Buddhism and Islam is that I lived in Burma and Cambodia for several years, and also lived in a few Arab countries - even learned a little Arabic - but not an expert by any means).PiCo (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider changing your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collective salvation? The article has been completely rewritten to eliminate the POV pushing of the original version. If you change your !vote, it will be easier to get an admin to close this AFD as a "speedy keep". (see here)--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Plays by Chambers Stevens, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, you are so nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMoth&TheButterfly (talk • contribs) 10:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This article makes the statement For brevity and readability the article will focus, define and henceforth use the term Asian[s], albeit incorrectly, to specifically and exclusively refer to East Asians. (I only just added the albeit incorrectly). This inaccurate usage of terms needs to be fixed, as it reinforces the narrow-minded (racist) notion that Asian = East Asian. I will soon begin to work on fixing this. I was wondering if you would be interested in helping.

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Media based on children's books, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:The Tale of Genji derived works, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ulster Cycle derived works, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Adaptations of The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Adaptations of The Odyssey, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Adaptations of Nineteen Eighty-Four, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Adaptations of Greek and Roman plays, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Works inspired by Ingmar Bergman, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Works inspired by Ray Bradbury, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Works inspired by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Works based on Alexandre Dumas novels, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Works inspired by George Orwell, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Works inspired by John Steinbeck, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Works based on other authors, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Plays based on actual people, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Adaptations of novels by source, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Peridon (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on discussion section of BMU which I am working on now. LBoccherini (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Aristophanes68. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.