MyWikiBiz - User contributions [en]

User talk:MyWikiBiz

2009-04-11T05:32:14Z

Alison: Don't forget ...

'''Past discussions are archived here''':

*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1|Archive 1]] ''(Oct 2006 - Mar 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 2|Archive 2]] ''(Mar 2007 - May 2007)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 3|Archive 3]] ''(June 2007 - June 2008)''
*[[User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 4|Archive 4]] ''(July 2008 - January 2009)''

== On Interpretation ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 Adding chapter 10] to the Wikipedia version.

Currently [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22Aristotle+enumerates+the+affirmations+and+denials%22&meta= Google search] only returns the MWB version. I am not sure what happens here. Normally Google gives precedence to the original version.

[[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:17, 18 January 2009 (PST)

:Google is very strange. Just by [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Aristotle+enumerates+the+%22affirmations+and+denials%22&btnG=Search&meta= rearranging the quotation marks], I can make the MyWikiBiz page disappear. Best to let the Google spiders do their work for at least 14 days before you draw any firm conclusion. (In the meantime, though, we already '''knew''' that MWB is better than Wikipedia in so many ways!) -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:15, 18 January 2009 (PST)
:: Yes - the current cached version is Dec 11 so the spiders still have to do their work. Then I will experiment with changing first on the MWB version, then propagate to the WP version, so it is clear what the proper source is. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 02:30, 19 January 2009 (PST)

=== Google likes Nicholas of Paris ===

[http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22nicholas+of+paris%22&meta= Reaches #2] [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:12, 25 January 2009 (PST)

===But unfairly ignores the addition to Wikipedia 'On Interpretation'===

As reported above, I added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Interpretatione&diff=264917696&oldid=257325112 some material] to the Wikipedia version of ''On Interpretation'', which before was only in MWB version. At that point, a
[http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22Aristotle+enumerates+the+affirmations+and+denials%22&meta= search on a key phrase] only returned the MWB version. But now (as of new cache, 20 Jan) you see it is attributed to Wikipedia, and the MWB version is hidden. That is outrageous. Previous experiments with other sites suggested that Google always respects the provenance of material. Here it is the other way round. Google is a thief!

Next experiment. Perhaps either remove the paragraph from Wikipedia version. Or change the MWB version. Or put in another para into Wikipedia so Google gets the hint? [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 04:19, 25 January 2009 (PST)

:JA: Google's ranking algorithm, apart from transient recency effects that disappear after a few weeks, is exclusively biased toward graph-theoretic connectivity over any other factor. That is why Google ranks Wikipedia high on any given search cue even when the original articles that snagged those cues have been reduced to stubs or even redirects — so long as all the links from other Wikipedia pages are still there — Google is clueless about the contents of the garbage bin at the other end of the links. Google's algorithm is blind to provenance when it does not issue in connectivity, it is blind to both content quality and logical quality (in the Kantian sense). "There's is no such thing as a negative link" is its sole maxim. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 05:54, 25 January 2009 (PST)

::I am tickled pink that you guys are curious about this Google phenomenon, as am I. It is rather offensive that the "original source" would be deprecated by Google in favor of the "borrowing site", no matter how much of a gorilla it is in PageRank. But, them's the breaks, I'm afraid. It all comes down to: ''In order to show you the most relevant results''. Google has determined that popularity equals relevance, not originality nor quality. The only real solution to prevent this offense is to copyright your work here (in a Directory network, since the Main Space is governed by GFDL) and see to it that it doesn't find its way to Wikipedia.
::If you don't mind, I'd like to toy around a little with these articles you've mentioned, to pump in a few semantic tags, so that maybe — '''maybe''' — it might out-compete Wikipedia once again. I doubt it, but it would be an achievement worthy of note. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 09:36, 25 January 2009 (PST)
::: Yay that's the spirit. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 11:38, 25 January 2009 (PST)

===Bad weather incidents===
This is an [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=bad+weather+incidents&btnG=Search example] of a Google search for ''bad weather incidents'', where the MyWikiBiz page came up '''# 1 result''' out of 920,000, while Wikipedia's much more detailed page came in only at # 5. Notice the link for MyWikiBiz? Google seems to have selected out the '''Special:URIResolver''' page, which redirects the visitor into the real Category page. URI means 'uniform resource identifier', and that means XML relations and semantic web. So the semantic web characteristics of MyWikiBiz are without question being "boosted" by Google. Good thing the Wikipediots declared that Semantic Mediawiki was "too hard to use" for the average editor. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:48, 27 January 2009 (PST)

== Future SEO Battle ==

JA: Storing this here for future reference:

* [http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page : The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine]

{| align="center" width="90%"
|
'''2.1.2. Intuitive Justification'''

PageRank can be thought of as a model of user behavior. We assume there is a "random surfer" who is given a web page at random and keeps clicking on links, never hitting "back" but eventually gets bored and starts on another random page. The probability that the random surfer visits a page is its PageRank. And, the d damping factor is the probability at each page the "random surfer" will get bored and request another random page. One important variation is to only add the damping factor d to a single page, or a group of pages. This allows for personalization and can make it nearly impossible to deliberately mislead the system in order to get a higher ranking. We have several other extensions to PageRank, again see [Page 98].

Another intuitive justification is that a page can have a high PageRank if there are many pages that point to it, or if there are some pages that point to it and have a high PageRank. Intuitively, pages that are well cited from many places around the web are worth looking at. Also, pages that have perhaps only one citation from something like the Yahoo! homepage are also generally worth looking at. If a page was not high quality, or was a broken link, it is quite likely that Yahoo's homepage would not link to it. PageRank handles both these cases and everything in between by recursively propagating weights through the link structure of the web.
|}

== Images aren't working?! ==

I am uploading a series of photos as a part of my travelog, but I cannot get them to display in my browser - my readers are also having trouble. The files in question are... 
[[Image:Sahara1.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 1]] [[Image:Sahara2.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 2]] [[Image:Sahara3.JPG|thumb|right|100px|Sahara image 3]] 

I want to upload three more as well, but not until I find out what the problem with these images is. Could it be because of their very high resolution? I did not reduce their dimensions from the camera's 5.0 MP - if need be, I can do this and try to upload them again. Thanks as always, [[User:AndrewM|AndrewM]] 12:34, 1 February 2009 (PST)

:Actually, it looks like the images are working. They are HUGE, so I am modifying them here to thumbnails. I also replied [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=User_talk:AndrewM&diff=78250&oldid=77367 here]. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 14:59, 1 February 2009 (PST)

::I think I'll just delete these images then upload resampled versions once I'm done with classes. I can't say I've ever used a wiki this extensively before, so thanks for bearing with me in this! [[User:AndrewM|AndrewM]] 00:39, 2 February 2009 (PST)

== More experiments ==

New article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_of_cornwall here] on Andrew of Cornwall which contains less information than the MWB version. [[Andrew of Cornwall]]. Also contains a link to the MWB article (the first such in article space I believe - there are many in talk space, mostly on Jimbo's page). Let's see what Google makes of that. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 05:19, 7 February 2009 (PST)
:Should be interesting. It's not the first external link to MWB from Wikipedia article space, though. Such links exist for MyWikiBiz article, Liz Cohen article, and Peirce's Law article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.mywikibiz.com List of all external links] from Wikipedia, currently 47. Twelve months ago, it was about 35. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 06:41, 7 February 2009 (PST)
:: You are right. In any case, let's see. The community here seems to be growing, by the way. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 08:49, 7 February 2009 (PST)
:: [update] The Wikipedia version of the article now appears #3 in Google - that was quick. It is the first major appearance of Andrew in a Google search, which ignores the scholarly articles about Andrew in the first 10 hits. But Google sadly ignores the MWB article, even though it is more detailed, and even though Wikipedia links to ''it'', but not the other way round. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 08:53, 7 February 2009 (PST)

Sometimes, MyWikiBiz "wins". Here is a search for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS291US291&q=greater+latitude+colder&btnG=Search greater latitude colder], which puts MWB in 3rd place, higher than the Wikipedia page that it was scraped from, in 6th place. I have no explanation, except that "Latitude" is a semantic attribute [http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Special:Attributes&limit=50&offset=50 used 97 times] on MWB. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:19, 10 February 2009 (PST)

== Andy of Cornwall again ==

The Google cache for [[Andrew of Cornwall]] was refreshed on 7 Feb and again on 10 Feb. The latter one seems to have done the trick for the [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=andrew+of+cornwall&meta= unquoted search]. Now ranking fifth on Google, whereas before it was nowhere at all. Very encouraging. Or it might have been when the spiders reached my [http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:2eWHIKXBgzIJ:uk.geocities.com/frege%40btinternet.com/+logic+museum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk website] which also has a link. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 02:21, 21 February 2009 (PST)

== Haven't disappeared yet? ==
It still lists him in Google. And strangely, the outbound link was gone as well.
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 18:05, 8 March 2009 (PDT)

== An update of that "disapear from google's searches" thing? ==
[[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 07:15, 17 March 2009 (PDT)
:Sorry, but I think we have done everything we can to help minimize this "problem". I have even contacted Google to ask them to stop listing the page. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 18:54, 17 March 2009 (PDT)

== I think I see what the problem is ==
You see, his name is no longer listed on Google but the 3f9r6y-4c page is still listed with a mark "redirected from (name)". So, could you delete the redirect instead? So that the "redirected from" name would not appear? I'm sorry for all the trouble. It was my fault why I didn't ask his permission first. [[User:Angdl|Angdl]] 23:08, 20 March 2009 (PDT)

== Demo page ==

Hi there is a link on [[Help:Demonstration]] to my user page which should point to the [[List_of_medieval_philosophers]] instead (I moved that page some time ago). I would have changed the link but don't have permission. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 07:23, 29 March 2009 (PDT)

PS you may be interested in [http://community.livejournal.com/medievalstudies/295368.html this]. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 08:09, 29 March 2009 (PDT)

== Don't forget ... ==

.. when you're deleting articles, to delete the edit summary that gets autofilled, else you keep a copy of the vandalism about. See [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Special:Log/delete here] - [[User:Alison|'''Alison''']] [[User talk:Alison|❤]] 22:32, 10 April 2009 (PDT)

User talk:Proabivouac

2008-11-06T01:24:13Z

Alison: /* Please fix */ WUT?

== Hi ==

Hi PB. Good to see you around. [[User:Ockham|Peter Damian]] 00:26, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

== Please fix ==

Your "error" in your Google docs dated 6th September 2008:

[http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dd7ss2g_0fshgw6hq British civil servant impersonated others online]

As exposed in my Google docs dated 25th September 2008 (although originally exposed on 8th September 2008 on Encyc):

[http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dpqbn5p_0dvbzkzgt Correction to British civil servant impersonated others online]

Please change this paragraph:

''For the sockpuppet account known as Poetlister, Mr. Baxter gives the name Giselle Hillman, purportedly a 26-year old statistician from Ilford. Google gives several hits for a Giselle Hillman which match this description, two papers which credit Ms. Hillman with providing data from the National Transportation Survey,[13] and one site which lists Giselle Veronica Hillman among Ilford County High School's class of 2000.[14] The latter was added by Adrian Meredith, known by the screen name Blissyu2, presumably at the Poetlister alias' request.[15]''

To read this:

''For the sockpuppet account known as Poetlister, Mr. Baxter was once said to have the real name of Giselle Hillman [12], purportedly a 26-year old statistician from Ilford. Google gives several hits for a Giselle Hillman which match this description, two papers which credit Ms. Hillman with providing data from the National Transportation Survey,[13] and Names Database, a social networking site, which lists Giselle Veronica Hillman among Ilford County High School's class of 2000.[14] [15]''

As you can see from [http://namesdatabase.com/people/HILLMAN/GISELLE%20VERONICA/20432221 the link that you used], it actually says: "Referred by Adrian Meredith". This is not the same as "Written by Adrian Meredith", which you are saying in your document. The inference that you make, based on that, that I created the Giselle Hillman identity on Poetlister's request, is therefore false, and should be retracted. It is a hurtful, nasty, slanderous thing to say which has caused significant damage to me as a person in my real life. It has also led to a number of seriously hurtful things that were said by other people in relation to that, primarily by Alison and SlimVirgin but also by others, on Wikipedia Review, Encyc, Wikipedia and other places, which have also caused significant real life damage.

Whilst I find it completely unbelievable that you could either be unaware that you had made this "mistake" and furthermore that you are unaware that you have been proven false for over a month, I nonetheless am here, for the first time person to person writing you a comment to ask you to please remove this comment. (Note that I have been, since September 8th, trying to contact you with this regards, but every single effort was blocked by people who tried to challenge my right to speak to you! Dozens of people have told me that they spoke to you, but perhaps you can explain why you never got the message?)

As you will see, it does not in any way detract from your investigation. The only difference is that it removes a false aspect that pins the whole thing on me. In other words, if you make the change as suggested, it actually makes you look better, because it makes you look like less of a liar, and it makes it look like your reason for the investigation was to try to prove guilt, rather than just to try to smear my name, which is what it looks like right now.

If you will make the change, coupled with a public apology and some kind of an explanation as to why you were misled to believe that I was in fact responsible for creating the Giselle Hillman identity for Poetlister, then I will also similarly say nicer things about you.

If you don't agree to make the change, I will of course continue to advertise why your article is false, I will indeed call you a liar, and your whole effort, which, other than that element, was probably a pretty good thing, will ultimately end up looking bad on you.

This has gone on long enough, and it is high time that you made things right.

Thank you. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:39, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
:I am not aware that you ever "proved anything was wrong"…this is the first time you've ever attempted to speak with me about this.
:Put simply, you wish me to delete this sentence:
:“The latter was added by Adrian Meredith, known by the screen name Blissyu2, presumably at the Poetlister alias' request.[15]''
:“As you can see from [http://namesdatabase.com/people/HILLMAN/GISELLE%20VERONICA/20432221 the link that you used], it actually says: "Referred by Adrian Meredith".”
:Yes, I see that. It’s possible that I’d misinterpreted that information, having never used that site. So, explain to me what actually happened, and we’ll correct the record.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 14:04, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

:Blissyu2, you write, "Note that I have been, since September 8th, trying to contact you with this regards, but every single effort was blocked by people who tried to challenge my right to speak to you! Dozens of people have told me that they spoke to you, but perhaps you can explain why you never got the message?)"
:Who are these "dozens of people" who told you this? I certainly never heard from them.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 16:53, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

::Okay, play dumb then. Indeed, play really stupid.

::Names Database is a social networking site. Classmates.com is a subsidiary of it. I have never actually used Names Database, I only ever signed up to Classmates.com. Try it yourself. When you sign up, it automatically sends an e-mail invitation to everyone on your mailing list from the e-mail address you register with. Guess what? I had been talking to Poetlister, so Poetlister got that e-mail. So, Poetlister is one of about 50 people who are listed as "Referred By Adrian Meredith". Get it? Right. It doesn't mean "Written By". I suppose that it is hypothetically possible for me to have written it, but again, they check IP and e-mail address to verify who you are. They don't check anything else, though. All that you know is that every single entry in that database is using a different IP address and a different e-mail address. There is no guarantee that the "Adrian Meredith" in there is really me, nor is there any guarantee that the "Giselle Hillman" account really belongs to them. It is not reliable. Indeed, nobody who understood what the site was would think that it was reliable. The aim of the site is to try to find ex school friends. I found about a dozen people I used to go to high school with who I had lost contact with. It is a good site. Thanks to your lying article, I was forced to take my name off that. I wasn't too impressed about that. I would love to be able to re-add my name there, but until you fix your lying article, I can't do that.

::You were comprehensively proven to have lied your fucking heart out there. You are still sitting here smiling and refusing to change it. There you go. You can lie and pretend that all of the dozens of people who contacted you oh no secretly didn't. You can pretend that you never saw all of the horrible shit that Alison said about me on Encyc, all of the shit that SlimVirgin said about me on Wikipedia, all of the thousands of things that people said about me BECAUSE OF YOUR LIES! You can lie your heart about that.

::If you honestly think that what you are saying is true, prove it. Put your real name to it, and contact details, so that I can sue you, and we will get a court to decide whether what you are saying is true or not. What you are doing right now is illegal. Daniel Brandt talks about it all of the time. Lying about someone while hiding behind a screen name is illegal by US law.

::You have no reason whatsoever to lie about me in that document. It doesn't help your case - it hurts your case immensely. It makes it look like you are just making shit up as you go along. You know that it is wrong, so fix it. Read up about Captain AmErika if you really are so stupid as to think that you have a right to do this shit. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 02:14, 13 October 2008 (PDT)

::::Adrian, what is your evidence and reasoning to support your curious [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states ''theory of mind''] regarding Proabiv's beliefs, intentions, desires, motivations, or pretensions of knowledge? In particular, please support your as-yet undemonstrated hypothesis that Proabiv was knowingly and intentionally being deceptive rather than merely confused by an incomplete and inchoate account. Have you rigorously employed the protocols of the scientific method to falsify your above-stated hypothesis regarding Proabiv's alleged state of mind? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:22, 15 October 2008 (PDT)

:::Whoa, hold on. Just tell me what actually happened with the NamesBase site. That's all I'm asking.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 02:17, 13 October 2008 (PDT)

::: ''"You can pretend that you never saw all of the horrible shit that Alison [..] "'' - Blissyu2, are you still badmouthing me around the place? Knock it off already - [[User:Alison|'''Alison''']] [[User talk:Alison|❤]] 20:44, 13 October 2008 (PDT)

Shut up Alison, you started your shit because of this lie by Proabivouc, who you insisted you had told about my error. Now you are saying that *I* am making up shit about you? Give me strength! The only reason you stopped was because you were scared of the CIA. Proabivouac has now proven that he is guilty of deliberately lying to cause a smear campaign. You, Alison, are an accessory to the crime. Please can both of you give me your contact details, and if you are so fucking sure of yourselves, then bring it to a court of law. Hiding behind an online alias while lying about a real person is a crime. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 01:06, 15 October 2008 (PDT)

::Adrian, what is your evidence and reasoning to support your curious [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states ''theory of mind''] regarding Alison's fears, motivations or pretensions of knowledge? Have you rigorously employed the protocols of the scientific method to falsify your above-stated hypotheses regarding Alison's alleged states of mind? —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:36, 15 October 2008 (PDT)

:Blissyu2, again, please just explain what happened at the NamesBase site, so I can correct the record accordingly.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:09, 15 October 2008 (PDT)

::Go to http://www.classmates.com/ and sign up. It says to you "Send invites to all of your friends". It even does it automatically out of your address book. Simple. It sends it to all of the people in your address book. I was talking to Poetlister at the time because I was investigating her case, which you well know, hence she got invited. I had no idea that Poetlister had created a profile until you said so a while ago. That was also when I discovered that Names Database now controls Classmates.com. There are about 30 people whose accounts say "Referred By Adrian Meredith". I did not create any of them. If you read their rules, you would have seen that it is impossible to create 2 profiles, because they require you to use a unique IP address and a unique e-mail address. It is however possible to create a fake profile, just so long as you don't have another one. Why do you presume that I would go to so much effort to create a fake profile? If I went to so much effort as that (which would be a huge amount of effort), why would I then show my hand by having it Referred By me? And furthermore, if going to so much effort, why not advertise it? I mean, before you found that spot, nobody had even seen that ever before. It doesn't show up on Google under any search, and if you look through Names Database you get a Canadian Giselle Hillman, who wasn't referred by anyone.

:::Sorry, but I am not buying it that you can't figure out something that freaking obvious. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 01:12, 15 October 2008 (PDT)

:::::For what it's worth, I'm having trouble just understanding the ''puzzle'' to be solved. It's possible the solution to the puzzle (once clearly stated) is obvious, but the puzzle itself is not sufficiently well stated at this juncture to be clear to me. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 05:36, 15 October 2008 (PDT)

::::Okay, so you invited "Poetlister" to join. Are you saying that this happened automatically when you hit a button saying "send invites to all of your friends"? Are you saying that you had no idea that "Poetlister" would then create a profile after you'd invited "her" to do join?[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 01:56, 15 October 2008 (PDT)

''"The only reason you stopped was because you were scared of the CIA"'' - I just found this now and can't believe what I'm reading here. What's this about the CIA then, and why are you accusing me of criminal acts here??!! - [[User:Alison|'''Alison''']] [[User talk:Alison|❤]] 17:24, 5 November 2008 (PST)

== Are you still banned from WR? ==

What was that all about? [[User:Emperor|Emperor]] 18:28, 13 October 2008 (PDT)

== Control of libelous commentary ==

Tim, I realize your burning desire to attach real names to pseudonymous screen names, and it's a pursuit that I can endorse, but if you are going to do so on MyWikiBiz, you have to do so without unsubstantiated epithets that cannot be interpreted as anything but defamatory. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 18:37, 26 October 2008 (PDT)
:Understood. In fact, I agree with your decision. I didn't print anything libelous, as it happens…but, on its face, neither you nor readers have any way of knowing that, unless you happen to know the Wikipedia history of [User:[pseudonym redacted]. What's needed here is a broader presentation of the way in which this individual has distorted, and continues to distort, Wikipedia's coverage of Israel-related issues in pursuit of a real-world activist agenda. If all the facts are presented, no judgmental qualifiers, however warranted, will be needed: readers will supply them for themselves. I also accept that MyWikiBiz isn't the proper venue for this kind of critical coverage; in my frustration with the partisan censorship on the Review, I have misused my account here, and will cease doing so. Thanks for your guidance in this matter.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 19:01, 26 October 2008 (PDT)
::I look forward to good and illustrious exposés, without baseless subjective labels. Thank you for understanding. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 19:24, 26 October 2008 (PDT)

User talk:Proabivouac

2008-10-14T03:44:57Z

Alison: /* Please fix */ Question

User:Alison

2008-10-13T05:03:37Z

Alison: New

Hi, I'm [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alison this person] on [[Wikipedia]].