Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
NA	This non-article page has been rated as NA-Class on the assessment scale.

Archives 14 October 2004 – 27 May 2006 18 May 2006 – 17 September 2006

Contents 1 Four more articles that need work 2 New PCA? 3 Leser v. Garnett 4 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floyd Abrams and the Pentagon Papers case 5 Advice on how to handle articles? 6 Erie doctrine cases 7 Schlesinger v. Councilman 8 Hamdan GA nomination 9 External links to texts 10 Project directory 11 Beacon Theaters v. Westover 12 Puerto Rico v. Branstad 13 Request for comment in CFD 14 Congratulations 15 Lawrence v. Texas review 16 Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles 17 Listing the cases here 18 Original research alert 19 Stablepedia 20 First Amendment to the United States Constitution 21 Wikipedia Day Awards 22 Relevant category for deletion 23 Wikisource, {{SCOTUSCase}}, and linking 24 Roe v. Wade FAR 25 More eyes needed on Marbury v. Madison 26 Roe 27 First few articles 28 United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians 29 AFD on article related to WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases 30 FindLaw case law 31 Supreme Court of the United States FAR 32 Youngberg v. Romeo 33 Dred Scott v. Sandford FAR 34 Interwiki Cooperation

[edit] Four more articles that need work

United States v. Constantine, Morissette v. United States, Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., and Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger all need a good deal of work. If anyone has some time to kill, you might want to have a look at these. --Eastlaw 04:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Williamson later today. Peyna 14:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New PCA?

After several months of being the PCA, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld hasn't seen much more work as of late. The article looks good, so can we pick a new PCA? --MZMcBride 19:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've closed it.--Kchase T 12:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leser v. Garnett

I got annoyed at the reference in the Nineteenth Amendment article about a Supreme Court case without the case name, so I found out it was Leser v. Garnett and added a page for it. I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at it and make sure it's okay. I didn't know what to put for some of the infobox bits (like citations) so I left them blank. - Flooey 21:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floyd Abrams and the Pentagon Papers case

Several articles that focus on the involvement of Abrams in several cases (SCOTUS and otherwise) have been nominated for deletion under the above link. Postdlf 04:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice on how to handle articles?

I'm at a crossroads with what once was "Floyd Abrams and the Pentagon Papers case" but is now History and background of New York Times Co. v. United States. It was always my goal to create an article that delved more into the background of the Supreme Court cases themselves, from arguments to procedural posture to some of the dialogue that occurs between the judges and lawyers. I didn't think this suited the main Supreme Court cases, which concentrate on the opinions and holdings. I'm at a point with this article where I am going to start to Lexis-Nexis it and compare it with news stories, etc. What I do not' want to do is repeat work that is already done, namely the current main article New York Times Co. v. United States article. I don't want competing articles, but complimentary ones. So, I'm a little stuck. Do I now lead the reader to the main article? Do I go into some of the posturing that went on in the Supreme Court case? Do I write a brief paragraph and do a {{ goto ]]? I'm not really sure what to do now that I have finished the base of the article (before checking/revising it with newspaper accounts) up to the filing of the writ of certiorari. I could use some advice/suggestions. Dave --DavidShankBone 16:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erie doctrine cases

Apparently, someone has taken the liberty of writing articles on three of the more important Erie doctrine cases: Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., and Hanna v. Plumer. The articles are accurate in their description of the cases but could use some formatting.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eastlaw (talk • contribs).

I fixed up Hanna somewhat. Postdlf 17:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up Guaranty and Byrd. Also as a reminder: voting is open for the next PCA. --MZMcBride 19:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look at what could be the next PCA. Also, sorry for forgetting to sign my comment. --Eastlaw 06:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have checked the talk page before listing a new PCA. Feel free to revert me, or we can just use one of these for next time.--Kchase T 15:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schlesinger v. Councilman

OK, I know it's a bit late to choose a PCA, but the article for Schlesinger v. Councilman could really use some work. It really needs to be expanded. --Eastlaw 06:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamdan GA nomination

I put Hamdan v. Rumsfeld up for GA nomination. The reviewer wanted more citations in a few of the justices' opinion sections (see comments on the talk page). Any help with cites would be greatly appreciated. --MZMcBride 23:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: Hamdan is now a "Good Article".--Kchase T 12:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links to texts

Should we try to create a redirect page for case text and laws like they have for books [1] and maps [2] so that people are not required to go to one site for Supreme Court cases and other laws? Remember 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're suggesting, I'm just not sure there are enough websites to warrant a special page. FindLaw contains quite a large number of cases, but not all. LexisOne contains every case, but it isn't linkable. Justia is becoming better, but currently is not very good at all. Certain high-profile cases have multiple websites devoted to them, but databases that have all of the cases and are free are very, very limited. I wish there were more free databases that contained all the cases and were linkable, but it just isn't so. Thanks. --MZMcBride 03:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 19:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beacon Theaters v. Westover

Somebody began writing an article for Beacon Theaters v. Westover, but it barely contains any information, just a quote from Cornell LII. I'm personally not all that familiar with this case...that is, I have heard of it, but I haven't read it and don't know much about the reasoning involved. I have been very busy with real life concerns, so if any of you can work on it, please do. --Eastlaw 06:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a few minor edits, including a page move. --MZMcBride 22:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puerto Rico v. Branstad

I recently finished the article on this obscure but important case. I would like someone from the project to peer-review it.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 03:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment in CFD

Peripherally related to this project, but I thought this CFD could benefit from more contributors versed in the state/federal court systems. The proposal is simply to add "state court" to all the state court judge categories, to clarify their purpose (e.g., "Alabama judges" --> "Alabama state court judges"). Many of the comments so far have just left me confused. Postdlf 02:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

Congrats to all the hardworking members of this project and all the many other contributors to Supreme Court of the United States, today's Featured Article! It's great to see it on the main page.--Kchase T 10:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence v. Texas review

Just to let everyone know while I'm on a prolonged break from doing these articles, Lawrence v. Texas has been listed at featured article review. If anyone wants to keep it an FA, take part. Daniel Case 05:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence v. Texas is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 19:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles

This proposed policy change would permit the speedy deletion of articles that are "unsourced" for 14 days after being tagged as such, which I think has implications for our articles in particular. 1) If "sourced" only means "reliable sources," it is often not understood that a primary source is a reliable source for its own content, such that a cite to a court opinion is sufficient for an article on that opinion (presuming the article merely describes and quotes from that opinion's text). 2) If "sourced" only means "secondary" "third-party" sources, then this would bar articles on any opinions for which we cannot find a news article or law review article commenting on it. 3) Court citations are not always recognized by laypeople as providing source information (though this is obviated by the usual practice of external links to the full text). I have not yet commented on the proposed policy's talk page, but these are my concerns as is relevant here. Keep in mind that this would not affect articles that have unsourced statements, only those that are completely devoid of sources. Postdlf 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listing the cases here

I have noticed that many of the U.S. Supreme Court articles have not been listed in their proper section of the List of United States Supreme Court cases. I have taken care of some of this, but I am quite busy right now and I simply do not have time to find all the articles which are absent from the list and write a citation & description for all of them.

Some of the cases which need to be put on the list are (and this is by no means a complete list):

• Arizona v. Evans
• United States v. Arvizu‎
• Estes v. Texas
• Ewing v. California
• Granholm v. Heald
• Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co.
• Kramer v. Union School District
• McBoyle v. United States
• Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe
• Oregon v. Guzek
• Puerto Rico v. Branstad
• United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
• United States v. Place
• Solem v. Helm
• Troxel v. Granville

Many of the above listed cases need to be categorized and expanded as well.

I also noticed that a couple of articles were about cases where certiorari was denied:

• Massachusetts v. Laird
• Mora v. McNamara

I'm not really sure what to do with these.

I thank you all in advance for your assistance and advice. --Eastlaw 01:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The ones where cert. was denied were never Supreme Court cases because the Court never accepted review; the articles should be framed so that the subject is the U.S. Court of Appeals opinion (or the lawsuit generally), with the cert. denial noted as a subsequent (or final) development. Postdlf 01:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research alert

A section on possible attacks on the Court's scrutiny framework has been added to at least a couple articles under a couple different IPs. See text removed by me here and here. My edit summaries make clear what I thought of the text. I saw these just because these cases were on my watchlist; it's possible that it was added elsewhere. Postdlf 17:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] First Amendment to the United States Constitution

First Amendment to the United States Constitution is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 17:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant category for deletion

Please see this CFD on Category:Jewish Supreme Court justices. Postdlf 19:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource, {{SCOTUSCase}}, and linking

I've noticed that the wikipedia SCOTUS case pages use a template which automatically links to FindLaw. I wonder if this is such a good idea for three reasons:

1. Findlaw doesn't have every case
2. It's a commerical site
3. The wikisource collection of Supreme Court cases gets automatically ignored

over at wikisource we're working on a collection of case documents to serve as source references for other wiki projects especially wikipedia. with two people we've managed quite alot, over 60 cases on the index presently. This is a great resource that is getting overlooked and could be greatly developed if it were brought more in line with the wikipedia pages. There are, of course, a number of ways to do this but i think this merits discussion before beginning. --Metal.lunchbox 07:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this project is ongoing at wikisource. I can't think of a good reason to link to findlaw if there is already a good case document over at wikisource. I did notice, though, that many of the newer cases (all of the ones I looked at from the Rehnquist court) lack page notations in the text, or at least they weren't prominent enough for me to see them. Page notations are critical for case citations, of course. Once this is remedied, I'm happy with linking to wikisource instead of findlaw where available for the reasons you mention. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the good thing about wikisource oposed to any other source is you can make it however you want. i mean so far the two of us have just endeavored to make the collection as usable as possible but lack any real expertise. If there is anything you think we should be doing on the wikisource page do it or just tell us. Many of the cases do have page citations but true many do lack. Thank you for pointing this out to me. Any comments, suggestions, etc are welcome at the wikiproject talk page on wikisource. I have no experience with this material and it would be great to have somebody with a little more knowledge.--Metal.lunchbox 14:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason FindLaw is used is that it contains the most cases, and is easily linked to. There are over 500 cases on Wikipedia, and only 60 on Wikisource, creating a large (but hopefully one day filled) gap. The database that contains every Supreme Court case is LexisOne, however, their site is unable to be directly linked to. Also, the code for Template:SCOTUSCase is designed to work with linking set up through FindLaw because FindLaw is able to link using the U.S. Reports' volume and page information. While FindLaw is commercial, I think for the sake of consistency, if a case is available on Wikisource, it should just include {{Wikisource}} at the bottom of the page. Hopefully, in the future, there can be an article on Wikipedia and the actual case on Wikisource for every case, however, FindLaw seems to be the best option right now. Thanks. --MZMcBride 00:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with User:MZMcBride, as I think that Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center is a superior source for finding U.S. Supreme Court cases. Furthermore, it is a non-commercial cite. If we are going to stop using Findlaw, I think we should replace it with Justia. --Eastlaw 05:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before here. However, it seems Justia is improving. Do other members of this project think we should be switching databases? --MZMcBride 05:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I was unaware that this issue had come up previously. Use of Justia is simply a personal preference of mine; I leave the final decision up to the administators involved in this project. --Eastlaw 12:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the use of findlaw in the template is certainly a complex issue and I certainly understand the reasons listed above especially the great difference in size between Wikisource and Findlaw. I will suggest that we leave the template to a seperate discussion and link to wikisource where appropriate in the external links section as with Schenck v. United States. Its unobtrusive and it seems like a workable compromise to me. Wikisource is a great potential resource and this kind of interlinking encourages its further development.--Metal.lunchbox 12:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds great. I took a little time to look at Justia last night, and there are typos and other errors of note. Keep up the great work at Wikisource. Hopefully, one day, it can be what everyone needs. Thanks. --MZMcBride 14:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to switch to Justia, I think we ought to compare sites more explicitly/thorougly first. Coolcaesar raised the following points in the previous discussion: 1) more ads on Justia (I don't see any now), 2) errors like "Footenote", and 3) strange layout conventions like skipping lines at page breaks (this is still true), instead of Findlaw's unobtrusive numbering system. Finally, there's the issue of comprehensive coverage: do both databases have all the cases we have articles on? I think switching would only necessitate recoding the templates, so we won't have to change hundreds of case articles.--Kchase T 11:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Switching databases would also require going through individual pages and changing information in <ref> tags and external links sections, or just having no consistency/uniformity throughout (something I'm not a fan of). I'm strongly opposed to using Justia in its current state because of examples like this. There is color-changing text such as "Page 328 U.S. 256, 257" that does nothing, and simple words such as "because" are misspelled. An interesting Google search of "becuase" on Justia's site was disappointing. For the time being, FindLaw's database is more accurate and easier to read, and in my opinion, should be used for Supreme Court cases. Thanks. --MZMcBride 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent due diligence there, MZM. As a result, I'm in the findlaw corner for now. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roe v. Wade FAR

Roe v. Wade is up for Feature Article Review. Please feel free to drop by if you would like to comment. Thank you! -Severa (!!!)

Roe v. Wade has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More eyes needed on Marbury v. Madison

This article has been subject to nothing but vandalism for so long that a number of substantial edits over the past week may have gone largely unnoticed (see differences here), but one user has completely rewritten huge swaths of the article in a largely unencyclopedic, and probably POV voice that has also been littered with typos. I have left a message on his talk page about the style concerns, but have not had time to correct them or to analyze the substance of his changes. I'm wondering whether it might not be better simply to revert back entirely, as I can't say the new edits have contributed anything constructive. Thoughts? Postdlf 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just waiting for the user to finish, then I was planning to clean up the mess. I agree with your assessment, and a full revert might be in order. It does seem, though, that the user is editing in good faith based on the few diffs I've looked at, so we should tread carefully. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Which is why I haven't reverted already...  ; ) Postdlf 21:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to at least try and fix the numerous spelling errors, and remove some of the terribly POV language. JCO312 03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed a LOT of text that was added by the user in question. Rather than revert, I tried to go through and replace the more inappropriate material (i.e., the dramatic, the POV) with prior text. Unfortunately I removed a lot of his work. Hope I haven't stepped on any toes. Cheers, JCO312 03:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that's what needed to happen. Thanks JCO312. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roe

As mentioned above, the Roe v. Wade article is now subject to a featured article review. Any comments would be appreciated.Ferrylodge 05:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First few articles

Could someone glance over them to check they're okay? Also, I can't figure out the 'Court Membership' in the template. Let me know if I'm doing something wrong or how to improve.

• Hoyt v. Florida

• King v. Smith

• O'Connor v. Donaldson

• Watkins v. United States

• Whitus v. Georgia

Thanks. Whilding87 15:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians

I have noticed there is no article covering United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980). This is the case in which the Supreme Court ruled improper the 1877 taking by the United States of the Black Hills from the Great Sioux Nation. The case is referenced in the Black Hills article, but it does not have its own page like other Supreme Court cases. Not being familiar with the syntax of creating Supreme Court articles, I would appreciate any advice or suggestions on how to create this article. Here is the findlaw description of the case [3].Dcmacnut 21:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The page has been created using {{subst:SCOTUS-case}} and is located here. --MZMcBride 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD on article related to WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination), relation to WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases due to filing of Freedom of Information Act requests, and United States Supreme Court case:
  • Schwarz v. NSA, Nos. 98-7771 and 98-7782, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 526 U.S. 122; 119 S. Ct. 1109; 143 L. Ed. 2d 203; 1999
  • Yours, Smee 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] FindLaw case law

While I'm not trying to seek legal advice, I would like to know if moving U.S. Supreme Court cases from FindLaw to WikiSource would be allowable under Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. I think that growing WikiSource to be the primary place for all U.S. Supreme Court Wikipedia articles would be wonderful, and it seems to me that no company can legitimately copyright the Court's opinions. Any thoughts? --MZMcBride 03:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear other opinions on this, but I don't see any big problems with doing that. The only potential problem, I suppose, would be the findlaw hyperlinks in the text, i.e. the case citations ("527 U.S. 1" for example). These links (or perhaps their placement, I don't know, I'm being cautious) could be the only thing they could potentially claim as covered by copyright. Even then, I think the logic is a bit tortured. Problem avoided if the links are removed from copied text. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm very glad to see that this project is still alive and well even though I am no longer active. All the hard work is appreciated. I still check here for concise information on cases when I don't want to read an entire opinion.

To answer your question, while they don't fall under the Feist precedent, Supreme Court opinions are U.S. Government Works, which fall under 17 USC § 105 stating that government works (i.e. products of a government employee on behalf of the government) cannot obtain copyrights. Therefore, putting them into WikiSource would be no problem. FindLaw is also listed on the SCOTUS government website (http://www.supremecourtus.gov) as a source of where to find opinions, which would seem to indicate that they are merely reprinting and formatting the same works that cannot obtain a copyright. To find other sources, you can check the official list from the Court here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.pdf

I hope this helps to answer your question. -Skyler 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court of the United States FAR

Supreme Court of the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Youngberg v. Romeo

Hi there. This page was recently created by Route 64 (talk • contribs) and is in need of some basic attention. If any members of this project could jump in, that would be great. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 19:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dred Scott v. Sandford FAR

Dred Scott v. Sandford has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki Cooperation

I've asked for an "interwiki cooperation". Please read the discussion here. Thanks. Erasoft24 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)