Revision as of 20:54, 18 August 2010 editVolunteer Marek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers94,171 edits →Break← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:34, 21 August 2010 edit undoHerkusMonte (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,263 edits →3O request: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
::::::::Or family members have largely written in the article on German Misplaced Pages and perhaps Polish Misplaced Pages. On German Misplaced Pages there were a number of corrections by an IP followed by further corrections by an user 'Vonbaysen' And the homepage links also to Misplaced Pages articles. The homepage seems serious. Contact is Lidia v. Baysen-Bażeński with full address. --] (]) 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC) | ::::::::Or family members have largely written in the article on German Misplaced Pages and perhaps Polish Misplaced Pages. On German Misplaced Pages there were a number of corrections by an IP followed by further corrections by an user 'Vonbaysen' And the homepage links also to Misplaced Pages articles. The homepage seems serious. Contact is Lidia v. Baysen-Bażeński with full address. --] (]) 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::Interesting. However this still doesn't make it a RS - it's entirely possible for a homepage to be "serious" yet still not a RS for Misplaced Pages purposes. But like I said, the documents which are used on the cite may perhaps be used.] (]) 20:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC) | :::::::::Interesting. However this still doesn't make it a RS - it's entirely possible for a homepage to be "serious" yet still not a RS for Misplaced Pages purposes. But like I said, the documents which are used on the cite may perhaps be used.] (]) 20:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
== 3O request == | |||
Based on a Google book search the article was moved without a prior discussion from "Johannes von Baysen" to "Jan Bażyński". At least one modern (2008) english source uses Johannes , Jan Bażyński is used in several Polish sources, some of them also using "Hans von Baysen". This variety (Hans is a short form of Johannes) is used in German and several older English sources. Whatever might be the "right" name, a move should have been discussed and based on ], instead ] protects his controversial move and expects others to seek consensus and convince him in some kind of ]. Maybe an uninvolved view could be helpful.] (]) 06:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:34, 21 August 2010
Poland Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Germany Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
Biography Stub‑class | |||||||
|
This page is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:
The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary. |
name
Google books: "Johannes von Baysen" + "Prussia" = 3 hits "Jan Bażyński" + "Prussia" = 14 hits (lists 18 but 3 are in Polish and 1 is the Webster thing)radek (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- The book search is flawed. Actually, only one old book of Nisbet Bain qualifies as a proper, though old English source, which appears several times in the search. Then there is that old "accession list" and an old journal. Most of the books listed are Polish books containing English text, all but one from the Communist and pre-war era, and as such do not qualify for determining English usage.
- The books search results (query '"Jan+Bażyński"+Prussia'), one by one (it is not 18, but 16 results):
- Instytut Bałtycki (Poland) - 1938
- Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases
- Robert Nisbet Bain - Slavonic Europe reprint
- Robert Nisbet Bain - Slavonic Europe reprint
- Robert Nisbet Bain - Slavonic Europe reprint
- Instytut Historii, Polska Akademia Nauk. - 1959
- Instytut Historii (Polska Akademia Nauk) - 1987
- Edmund Cieślak, Czesław Biernat - 1995
- Paweł Jasienica - 1978
- Journal of central European affairs 18 (1958), author? chapter? one reference "speech of Jan Bazynski (Johann von Baysen)", p. 72
- Polska Akademia Nauk. Ośrodek Rozpowszechniania Wydawnictw Naukowych, Polska Akademia Nauk - 1955
- East European accessions list - 1956
- Władysław Konopczyński, Polska Akademia Umiejętności, Instytut Historii (Polska Akademia Nauk) - 1935
- Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu. Wydział Nauk Historycznych, Prawniczych i Społecznych - 1983
- Gerard Labuda (date? in Polish)
- Andrzej Wakar - 1976
- If anything, the article could be moved to Hans von Baysen, since there are some mor English sources using that name , but a move to Jan Bazynski based on the above seems premature. I have undone the move, unfortunately, Radeksz moved it a second time to his preferred title. I would appreciate a self-revert and an RM. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- English language sources published in Poland are still English language sources. I'd also like to point out that the some of the same "Polish" sources show up in your search for "Hans" - apparently most sources use both. Likewise a good many of the sources under "Hans" are duplicates of the same work. 1876 isn't exactly recent either. Finally, the entire
last pagelast two pages of the search plus some earlier hits are obviously non-English (German for the most part) sources. I'm willing to be convinced - it's possible Bazynski was a German speaker who like many of his compatriots felt more loyalty to Kingdom of Poland then they did to the Germanic Teutonic Order - but you need a bit more than that. Any idea how he is presented in other Encyclopedias?radek (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- English language sources published in Poland are still English language sources. I'd also like to point out that the some of the same "Polish" sources show up in your search for "Hans" - apparently most sources use both. Likewise a good many of the sources under "Hans" are duplicates of the same work. 1876 isn't exactly recent either. Finally, the entire
(outdent) The "English sources using that name" are as follows:
- The History of Prussia: A.D. 1390-1525 - Walter James Wyatt,1877
- The history of Prussia: tracing the origin and development of her ... - Walter James Wyatt, 1876
- A History of the Crusades: The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, ... - Page 766 - Kenneth Meyer Setton 1975
- History of Prussia ... - Page 118 - Tuttle and Adams, 1883 (listed second time as 1971)
- Baltic and Scandinavian countries - Instytut Baltycki 1938, shows up in the Bazynski search as well
- Research and progress ...: review of German science - Karl Kerkhof, 1937. This appears to be an English but it I think it's a German Nazi-era publisher
- Internationales Recht und Diplomatie - Volume 1960. Not sure if this is actually an English language source
Then: All same source, variously presented, show up in the Bazynski source:
- Acta Poloniae historica - 1863 (listed thrice)
- Communitas princeps corona regni: studia selecta
A history of Europe from 1378 to 1494 - William Templeton Waugh - 1960 - but doesn't actually use the name Hans von Baysen except when citing a German language source.
Literature of medieval history, 1930-1975: a supplement to Louis John Paetow's A guide to the study of medieval history, Volume 1 - 1981, unclear how the name is used
The rest are either just library catalog hits or German language sources. So you've got basically two 19th century authors (Wyatt and Tuttle + some co authors), a couple sources which show up in both searches, one Nazi era German publisher and a couple works which appear to be footnoting German language sources. The only source which I think can be considered for our purposes here is the "A History of the Crusades: The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries" by Setton. That's not a lot of support for "Hans".radek (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
On the "Bazynski" side, ignoring hits which list both names and considering only post WW II sources at the very least we have Cieslak and Biernat, Jasiennica, and Wakar (the Labuda source is actually in Polish). Then there appear to be couple journal articles, published in Polish journals, but in English.radek (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wakar (1976): Ostróda. Z dziejów miasta i okolic --> Communist era Polish source, not useful
- Paweł Jasienica (1978) --> published by a Pole in America by an institute with the stated objective to promote Polish stuff --> useful for Polish usage, not English
- Edmund Cieślak, Czesław Biernat (1995): published in Poland ("Fundacji Biblioteki Gdánskiej"), useful for Polish usage only
- This should however be discussed in an RM, please move the article back to its established title and request a move. The arguments supporting your move are weak, the move is controversial. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
You know very well that "Communist era Polish sources" can be entirely reliable, per discussions at RSN. We've been over this a half dozen times. Jasienica is a very well respected and known historian and the American Institute of Polish Culture is a non-profit cultural organization, so what? That does not disqualify it as you'd like to pretend. The Cieslak and Biernat source may have been published in Poland but is in English, which is what counts here. The paucity - almost the "non existence" - of hits for "Johannes von Baysen" was a perfectly legitimate basis for the move. There hasn't been any legitimate reason given for moving it back.radek (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am unaware of any consensus/RSN discussion legitimizing the reliability of Communist era Polish sources for the common English usage of names/English article titles. A diff would be helpful here. Your moves were not uncontroversial, the (not even a) handful of google.books results are debatable and do not constitute a basis to move an article. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Since there are virtually no sources for "Johannes von Baysen" the move was indeed uncontroversial. Of course it's always possible to create controversy where none should exist. If you think the article should be moved to "Hans von Baysen" then you can start an RM; and like I said I'm willing to be convinced though you'll need more than just that one source which isn't even on the topic and apparently mentions the guy in passing.
- As far as the diff for the RSN discussion I am sure you can easily find it yourself, particularly since this has been brought up at least three times in the past two weeks. And each time it was pointed out that consensus in the RSN discussion was strongly against you (and using partial quotes to give the impression that this wasn't so doesn't change that fact).radek (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you are referring to this RSN thread, there is nothing in there legitimizing the reliability of Communist era Polish sources for the common English usage of names/English article titles. Anyone can read through this thread and see for themselves.
- Regarding "virtually no sources for "Johannes von Baysen"": This is only true for the google book search, and it is likewise true for the google book search with the "Jan Bażyński" query. Please move the article back and consider starting an RM.
- Skäpperöd (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The thread does establish the consensus that pre-1989 Polish sources can be used and are reliable unless evidence to the contrary is presented. This generally applies to using them in the text, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply to article titles as well. Anyone can read through this thread and see for themselves. Re Regarding "virtually no sources for "Johannes von Baysen"": This is only true for the google book search - since a google book search is all that has been presented you're admitting here that in fact there are virtually no sources for Johannes. So you're agreeing with me but saying you disagree. How does that makes sense? Re: it is likewise true for the google book search with the "Jan Bażyński" query - no, there are at least 3 reliable sources for Bazynski.radek (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Look, it's simple - show me evidence of extensive usage of "Hans" or "Johannes" and I'll support moving the article back; I'd have no problem with a yet another example of a German-named Prussian who preferred to be part of the enlightened Kingdom of Poland rather than the repressive Teutonic State. But such evidence has not been produced.radek (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Removal of "Johannes von Baysen" from the article
With this edit, Radeksz removed the name "Johannes von Baysen" from the article. I disagree with the move anyway, as pointed out above, but the removal of the person's name that was the stable title of the article for more than four years and is used in English is likewise unacceptable. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, because while there may be a source or two for "Hans" there's no sources for "Johannes". The fact that this article was under "Johannes" and had that name sprinkled through out has to do with 1) the fact that the article was started by Matthead and 2) it's not a high profile article. "Johannes" does not seem to be used in English language sources.radek (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Fleming background?
Removed stuff about the supposed Fleming background of the family as that is contradicted by some (though old) sources .radek (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Relevant passage: "Wies Leszcz (Haselecht) pod Dabrownem, w ziemi sasinkiej, pierwotnie Polskiej, (...) byla kolebka rodu (Bażyńskis). Nie ma watpliwosci, ze byli rodem tubylszym, polskim"
Translation: "The village of Leszcz (Haselecht) near Dabrono in Sasin land, which was Polish (...) was the cradle of the Bazynski family. There is no doubt that this was a native Polish family".
Maybe they were related to Flemish immigrants in some way, but if so we need a reliable source to that effect.radek (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Before moving the page again, please at least try to address the topic on this talk page. For example, by considering the usage of the name in English language sources - which appear to be using "Jan Bazynski" about five times as often as the Johannes von Baysen. At least discuss this first.radek (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please move back the page and start a RM. There you can state your reasoning, and I state mine. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think the evidence of usage of "Jan Bazynski" in English language sources is pretty unequivocal. There's no "tyranny of status quo" in regard to article naming. If you'd like, you can start a RM and state your reasoning, and I'll state mine.radek (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please move back the page and start a RM. There you can state your reasoning, and I state mine. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced additions disrupting footnote reference
This addition of content by Radeksz is unsourced and disrupts the footnote reference to Heckmann, part of the addition now appears as if sourced to Heckmann where it is not. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's a work in progress, I'll add sources soon. How does it disrupt the (badly formatted to begin with) Heckmann reference? I'm not sure what you are talking about.radek (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Addtions were made in the midst of a sentence sourced to Heckmann, that read
- "Baysen was a founding member of the ] and led their uprising against the Knights.<ref name=heckmann257>{{cite book|title=Der Blick auf sich und die anderen: Selbst- und Fremdbild von Frauen und Männern in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit. Festschrift für Klaus Arnold|volume=2|series=Nova mediaevalia|editor1-first=Sünje|editor1-last=Prühlen|editor2-first=Lucie|editor2-last=Kuhse|editor3-first=Jürgen|editor3-last=Sarnowsky|last=Heckmann|first=Marie-Luise|chapter=Zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. Die Selbstsicht der Führungsgruppe des Deutschen Ordens beim Ausbruch des Dreizehnjährigen Krieges|pages=237-264: 257ff|publisher=V&R unipress|year=2007|isbn=389971339|language=German}}</ref>"
- Yes, because there is no sense in stating twice that he was the founding member of the PC and that he led the info. I added text on how the founding of the PC came about and how the uprising started. Hence it made sense to combine the text that you give above with what I added.radek (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Baysen was a founding member of the ] and led their uprising against the Knights.<ref name=heckmann257>{{cite book|title=Der Blick auf sich und die anderen: Selbst- und Fremdbild von Frauen und Männern in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit. Festschrift für Klaus Arnold|volume=2|series=Nova mediaevalia|editor1-first=Sünje|editor1-last=Prühlen|editor2-first=Lucie|editor2-last=Kuhse|editor3-first=Jürgen|editor3-last=Sarnowsky|last=Heckmann|first=Marie-Luise|chapter=Zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. Die Selbstsicht der Führungsgruppe des Deutschen Ordens beim Ausbruch des Dreizehnjährigen Krieges|pages=237-264: 257ff|publisher=V&R unipress|year=2007|isbn=389971339|language=German}}</ref>"
- How is the reference "badly formatted"? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's aesthetically displeasing. The reference section appears to take up as much space as the entire article mostly because the same reference is listed wholesale three times over. How about having a "Works cited" section, putting the full ref info there, and then just using "Heckmann, pg. xxx" in the inlines.radek (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've restored one sentence about Baysen's origin and linked it to a reference in a new reflist available by jumps from notes sub section. Is it this, what you mean with "Works cited" section? --Henrig (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Uhhhhhhh... let's see. You've either just committed a copyright violation by quoting text verbatim from a source without quotes. Or ... well, just who is the author of this source? And why is it under the title "People from the monastic state of the Teutonic Knights"? Sorry, that's a reprint of Wikipedias articles - not a real source. Remove until a real source can be found.
- And in regard to citation style - no that's not what I meant. In fact doing it that way is even worse as it included a dead link and is confusing about what the actual source is.radek (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's aesthetically displeasing. The reference section appears to take up as much space as the entire article mostly because the same reference is listed wholesale three times over. How about having a "Works cited" section, putting the full ref info there, and then just using "Heckmann, pg. xxx" in the inlines.radek (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Addtions were made in the midst of a sentence sourced to Heckmann, that read
- Also, this is not exactly a reliable source either. I'm not sure if it's a webpage "of" the family or "about" the family, but regardless, it seems to be mostly based on Misplaced Pages articles as well - it has links to Polish Misplaced Pages for example. There does appear to be some really old sources there but to the extent they could be used (and I would recommend against it), the actual source should be cited, not the webpage.radek (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Break
A Google book search for "Hans von Baysen" + Prussia results in 185 hits including the "Acta Poloniae historica", published by the "Instytut Historii (Polska Akademia Nauk)" and pl:Karol Górski's "Communitas princeps corona regni" or this english-language History of the Crusades (published by the University of Wisconsin in 1975). The result is quite unambiguous. Radeksz, it would be a good sign of good faith to move this article accordingly. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. Click on the little "4" on the bottom to get the actual number of hits. The "Acta Poloniae historica" uses both. The "History of Crusades" by Setton is the single legit contemporary source. But I already said all of this above - so please read first.radek (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, tricky. Well it's still 36; following your initial logic it should be named "Hans von Baysen". HerkusMonte (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it can be misleading. But it's not 36 either. See what I wrote above. To repeat myself: most of those 36 are actually German language sources (for example, "Acten der Ständetage Preussens unter der Herrschaft des Deutschen ... - Seite 3"). Then there are some 19th century sources. And these are listed several times. Then there's a couple which only use "Hans von Baysen" in the Bibliography when citing German language sources. Then there's a bunch that's just hits to library catalogs, again most likely referring to German language sources. After all that you're left with a small number of which all but one (the Setton source you mention above) use both names. It's a bit of a pain but you pretty much have to go through these kinds of searches hit by hit (unless there's so many to make it unfeasible - in which case I'd recommend using some kind of "randomizing procedure" to try and get a representative sample of hits).radek (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to reiterate that if sources can be provided for "Hans" (I doubt there's much out there for "Johannes" - which is why I moved it) I'm perfectly happy with moving it to such a name. But they haven't been provided. Also, consider that the guy's brother's name was "Ścibor" - a very Slavic, rather than Germanic, name (though it can be Germanized to "Stibor").radek (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- To summarize: You moved the page without prior discussion. To use a Polish name for a Teutonic Order knight might be a controversial thing (as you might have anticipated). Now you expect others to do what you preferred to ignore – start a WP:RM and seek WP:CONSENSUS until you are "convinced"? That’s a joke, right? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, to reiterate, the article was under a title that is not used at all by sources, which is why it was moved to something that is used by the sources. If you have a third alternative then an RM is appropriate now.
- Also, was he a "Teutonic Knight"? He was knighted by King of Portugal apparently. Skapp wrote that he was a "native familiaren". Not sure why we need the German word "familiaren" in the English Misplaced Pages - particularly since it is not clear at all what that entails. Can we get the relevant passage and translation from the source of what that was? The word "native" also appears to be misleading - native to what? Teutonia?radek (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- To summarize: You moved the page without prior discussion. To use a Polish name for a Teutonic Order knight might be a controversial thing (as you might have anticipated). Now you expect others to do what you preferred to ignore – start a WP:RM and seek WP:CONSENSUS until you are "convinced"? That’s a joke, right? HerkusMonte (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, looking at the context I'm starting to wonder whether "native" in this sense doesn't in fact mean "non-German". You know, as in native vs. colonist. As in the way that Squanto was a "native" to the British, particularly since the one source we do have says he ws from a "native Polish family".radek (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Most Teutonic knights came from Western Europe, most of them Germans of course. They were enlisted to serve in the order, influential families like the Eulenburgs and Dönhoffs later received large estates as a payment for their services. As a catholic order the knights had no natural offspring and depended on such a recruitment from German noble families. That was, btw, a reason for the creation of the Prussian Confederation, because these knights became more and more a kind of a "foreign" power to the native populace. Baysen was one of the few native knights, born within the territory of the monastic state, that's all. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- But he wasn't a knight - he was a lay associate of the order. The "native" does appear to mean "non-German" in this context though I'm waiting on the clarification/text from the actual source. Also, you could just as well say he was a knight in the service of King of Poland (which would actually be accurate).radek (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Btw, even Polish Misplaced Pages mentions the descent from the Flemings.
- See also the hompage of the family, which I've added it to the article as reference. The page is still in progress, but says already, that it was a noble family with the name 'Von Baysen'. In later times they polonized the name and use today the German and the later Polish version as a double name. --Henrig (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- See my comment above about the reliability of that homage page - it relies on Misplaced Pages articles as its basis and hence is not RS. "Baysen-Bażyński" would be a good compromise though. But that still leaves Hans vs. Jan.
- Also I'm not rejecting the notion that there were some Flemings involved here - I just wanted a source for that claim, since another source directly contradicts that claim. My guess is it was probably a bit of both - some Flemings moved to the area and intermarried with local Poles. And "Bażyński" means the exact same thing as "von Baysen" so it wasn't a "later Polish version".radek (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- it relies on Misplaced Pages articles as its basis
- Or family members have largely written in the article on German Misplaced Pages and perhaps Polish Misplaced Pages. On German Misplaced Pages there were a number of corrections by an IP followed by further corrections by an user 'Vonbaysen' And the homepage links also to Misplaced Pages articles. The homepage seems serious. Contact is Lidia v. Baysen-Bażeński with full address. --Henrig (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. However this still doesn't make it a RS - it's entirely possible for a homepage to be "serious" yet still not a RS for Misplaced Pages purposes. But like I said, the documents which are used on the cite may perhaps be used.radek (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Most Teutonic knights came from Western Europe, most of them Germans of course. They were enlisted to serve in the order, influential families like the Eulenburgs and Dönhoffs later received large estates as a payment for their services. As a catholic order the knights had no natural offspring and depended on such a recruitment from German noble families. That was, btw, a reason for the creation of the Prussian Confederation, because these knights became more and more a kind of a "foreign" power to the native populace. Baysen was one of the few native knights, born within the territory of the monastic state, that's all. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
3O request
Based on a Google book search the article was moved without a prior discussion from "Johannes von Baysen" to "Jan Bażyński". At least one modern (2008) english source uses Johannes , Jan Bażyński is used in several Polish sources, some of them also using "Hans von Baysen". This variety (Hans is a short form of Johannes) is used in German and several older English sources. Whatever might be the "right" name, a move should have been discussed and based on WP:Consensus, instead User:Radeksz protects his controversial move and expects others to seek consensus and convince him in some kind of WP:Game. Maybe an uninvolved view could be helpful.HerkusMonte (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Categories: