Talk:OT VIII/Archive 1

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Created page, with text from lede of en.wikipedia article. -- Cirt (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup tag[edit]

The cleanup that is needed for this page is to remove the references section and to not sort the quotes by topic, but rather chronologically. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Quotes are presented chronologically, within each subtopic. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
And also, there's one reference used, one, for a direct quote in the lede/intro. It's not necessary for a "cleanup" tag for something that minor that can be discussed here on the talk page, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with UDScott about topic headings. This manner of organizing the page is clearly contrary to the Guide to layout and the layout templates. One very good reason for the guideline is that Wikiquote's purpose is not to present a thesis, it is to collect quotable quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Strongly disagree, the Wikiquote:Guide to layout says at the top in all caps, and all bolded, THIS IS A DRAFT WHICH IS NOT FINISHED YET. -- Cirt (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Quality of quotes[edit]

Separate from the above-mentioned cleanup, I question whether many of these quotes rise to a level of quotability. There are a few that are OK, but many just seem to recitations of facts or items reported in the news media - hardly worth quoting in my opinion. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

They present the chronology of events using quotes, it's quite valuable for future researchers. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with UDScott on this point. This article is of the type I think of as "essays, biographies, and appendices to Wikipedia masquerading as Wikiquote articles". Wikiquote's purpose is not to compile research factoids, it is to collect quotable quotes. The few quotes that might arguably be okay (or not) hardly justify creating a fork from the main article on Scientology. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Strongly disagree, it's a very notable topic in its own right, the subject of significant discussion from multiple different secondary sources over a long period of time and has received even scholarship commentary from academic scholars. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
On that point, I have no real opinion - I am OK with having a separate page for this topic. But the larger point remains - namely the quotability of many of the listed quotes is still in question. I still feel that, even with the reorganization of the page, that much of the listed quotes should be trimmed. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging that I have made a good faith effort to reorganize this page. Than you for saying you are okay with a separate page on this topic. Please allow me some time to do a bit more on this page, specifically chronological ordering of quotes and adding more varied authors, and hopefully that will help us move forward. -- Cirt (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: If someone has a polite way to suggest a specific step we can work on together to move forward constructively and positively on this towards an amicable compromise with the goal of improving this page further — I'd be more than happy to discuss it and work with them on that! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the implication that the foregoing remarks were in some way impolite. Please try not to take it personally when people criticize an article you have worked on – nobody suggested you were acting in bad faith. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the good faith extension, it's most appreciated in the face of this attempt to disappear my work here. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Some of the quotes in the current version of the article that I would recommend removing are:
  1. Derek H. Davis & Barry Hankins (2003) – a matter of fact statement about the course venue.
  2. James Verini (June 28, 2005) – a matter of fact quantitative observation.
  3. Hugh Urban (2011), beginning "Fishman submitted..." – a matter of fact statement about provenance.
  4. Hugh Urban (2011), beginning "Even with these intensive measures..." – a matter of fact observation about distribution on the internet.
  5. Hugh Urban (2011), beginning "Despite all of the church's extreme measures..." – another matter of fact observation about distribution on the internet.
  6. Hugh Urban (2011), beginning "Dutch journalist Karin Spaink..." – a matter of fact description of events.
  7. Hugh Urban (2011), final two quotes – There may be something poignant here, but I don't think we need both of them. (We certainly do not need seven quotes from the same three pages about these events.)
  8. J. Gordon Melton (2011) – a matter of fact statement about the course venue.
  9. Prendergast, Alan (Octoer 4, 1995), beginning "Even more controversial..." – redundant with the attribution in the first section.
  10. Prendergast, Alan (Octoer 4, 1995), beginning "Although Church officials..." – a matter of fact statement that parties disagree.
  11. Scientology "technology:" save US$400,000 here!" – trite sarcasm.
  12. Top 8 Levels of Scietnology – a matter of fact statement about pricing.
  13. Metz, Cade (April 8, 2008), beginning "Written by Scientology founder..." – a matter of fact description of the documents.
  14. Daniel Dunn (September 14, 2008) – seems to relate more to Scientology than to OT VIII in particular; a rather matter of fact statement more suitable for summary at Wikipedia.
  15. Joe Childs and Thomas C. Tobin (December 31, 2009), beginning "Reaching the highest level..." – a matter of fact observation about cost.
  16. Joe Childs and Thomas C. Tobin (December 31, 2009), beginning "He says he spent..." – a matter of fact statement about cost.
  17. Joe Childs and Thomas C. Tobin (December 31, 2009), beginning "She said it took..." – a matter of fact testimonial.
  18. Geoffrey Miller (2010) – a rather uninspired observation.
  19. Janet Reitman (2011) – a matter of fact anecdote.
  20. Joe Childs and Thomas C. Tobin (December 31, 2009), beginning "OT VIII training..." – a matter of fact description.
  21. Joe Childs and Thomas C. Tobin (December 31, 2009), beginning "Progressing to the top..." – an unremarkable observation.
  22. Patrick Winn (April 11, 2011) – a matter of fact statement about the course venue.
  23. Gabrielle Devenish (November 20, 2011) – seems to relate more to Scientology than to OT VIII in particular; a rather matter of fact observation more suitable for summary at Wikipedia.
Wikiquote is not the right place for this material. Matter-of-fact information belongs at Wikipedia. I recommend we begin by removing these items, and then assess what remains. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Disagree with assessment of the bulk of these quotes, due to nature of attempt at secrecy of the materials by the organization, these are therefore not "matter of fact" quotes, that is the opinion of Ningauble (talk · contributions). Instead, they are most illuminating and enlightening quotes about the nature of the purported secret coursework. -- Cirt (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
There is so much wrong with this response that I hardly know where to begin:
  1. It is not only my opinion, but also the opinion given by UDScott in opening this thread that the article is mostly "recitations of facts or items reported in the news media" that do not rise to a level of quotability.
  2. The Wikiquote:Quotability guideline does not list anything remotely like "attempt at secrecy" as an indicator of quotability. You might want to propose an amendment to the guideline on its talk page if you think it is incomplete.
  3. There is a profound difference between what is usually meant by "illuminating and enlightening" and what is meant by "informative". It is not the nature or perceived importance of the subject that makes the difference, it is the degree of insight in what is said about the subject.
Item 2 may represent a legitimate point of disagreement, and I am not sure whether item 3 might reflect a simple misunderstanding, but item 1 gives the distinct impression of obfuscation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The quotes satisfy multiple different points at Wikiquote:Quotability, including 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 from the first subsection. -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Intro update, attempt at compromise[edit]

Update: Attempt at compromise. Removed text from lede. Shortened size of intro. Removed inline cited reference from lede. Please see diff, here diff. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

2nd attempt at compromise = removed topical subsections, introduced formatting by author[edit]

I've gone ahead and introduced a 2nd attempt at compromise = I've removed topical subsections, and I've introduced formatting by author. Please see diff. I will now go about organizing those quotes chronologically within each section, and hopefully adding other different types of author sections. Hopefully this is satisfactory. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that this change attempts to solve the structural problem, but I think arranging quotes by the authors' point of view or background is still problematic. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, good because we are not arranging by their point of view. Disagree that arranging by their background is anything but wholly appropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary: background is point of view – the perspective from which one views the matter. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. Just because one has a PhD in physics, does not mean their "point of view" somehow is "physics". That is a spurious argument. -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Your analogy is inexact, but I think I understand what you mean. Please try to explain this:
If it makes no difference then what, pray tell, is the point of segregating the authors in this manner? ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Because they have different basis of imprimatur to comment upon the subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
That is a useful and important idea when writing an essay or presenting a thesis. I think it far less useful for, and even contrary to, Wikiquote's purpose. Would you say that the article on Quotations would be improved by categorizing the authors according to the basis of their authority to address the subject? I would say not, that this would impart a very peculiar spin on the subject. Worse, we really should not put ourselves in the position of presenting reasons why people are authorized to express opinions, nor, by implication, why they are not. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Strongly disagree, the article Quotations is just a poor example. The article Psychology we would be greatly helped by structuring according to the basis of their authority to address the subject. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
OMG! Do you mean we should declare Stanisław Lem unqualified to comment on the subject of Psychoanalysis, or would you rather simply revert the last edit to the article? Seriously, your suggestion for the Psychology article would be a perfect example of how introducing our assessments of the authors' bona fides would express a non-neutral point of view. (And I beg to differ about the Quotations article:  It is a perfectly apropos example of exactly what Wikiquote is all about.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Um, wow, did I say no quotes by Stanisław Lem could appear anywhere on a page about Psychoanalysis? No, I did not say that. Do NOT put words in my mouth. I know that is a pet peeve of yours, Ningauble, so do NOT do it to me. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
It was a question, the second part of which was a rhetorical reductio ad absurdum, not an attribution. Would you care to answer the first part of the question? Would you care to address the point introduced at "Seriously..."? ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Ningauble, you yourself have gotten quite upset in the past over what you thought were mischaracterizations of your prior statements. Then you do the exact same thing to others than yourself. You should be even more sensitive to that inappropriate behavior, not less. I did NOT say we should only have quotes from those with imprimatur on theme pages, just that they can be organized by author's background in subsections on that page, but NOT that others with less imprimatur should not be included. I never said that. I never even implied that. That is a mischaracterization of my words. -- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Did you even read the post immediately above? ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Yup, sure did. Did you even read my answer? Saying it is "non neutral" to organize a page on Psychology by having a subsection with comments about Psychology by people with PhDs in Psychology or with MD and specialization in Psychiatry as somehow "non neutral", is simply laughable. It is their area of expertise. Other subsections such as science fiction writers could also be included on that page, if you so desire and that would satisfy you. -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing the question. Your reply illustrates very well the problems with this approach. It would definitely not satisfy me to segregate other writers in that manner.

Firstly, and very importantly, expertism is itself a point of view. Secondly, placing Mr. Lem in the pigeon hole of genre science fiction overlooks the fact that he is also a noted philosopher and a fellow of the Institute for Advanced Study, Berlin. To do justice to the bona fides of many important authors and thinkers one would need far more exposition than tagging them with a section heading. Thirdly, most of the top flight authors of literary fiction are noted for masterful insight into human psychology. E.g., Mr. Dostoyevsky has a thing or two to say on the subject, and it would be quite absurd to list him under a heading of "Romantic novelists". I could go on, but will reiterate that expertism is itself a point of view.

I hope these observations help to clarify why attempting to introduce assessments of the authors' bona fides would impart a non-neutral point of view to Wikiquote's articles. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, it is not an opinion that someone has a PhD in Psychology and that readers would be most interested in their quotes on the subject of their PhD. That is a fact. -- Cirt (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

3rd attempt at compromise = trimmed down number of total quotes from a few different sources[edit]

3rd attempt at compromise = trimmed down number of total quotes from a few different sources.

I've gone ahead and trimmed down number of total quotes given from a few different sources. Please see diff. This is the 3rd attempt at compromise. Hopefully it will be satisfactory. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And, yet again, it appears no one has acknowledged this third (3rd) attempt at a compromise, on my part. Oh well. -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I have not had an opportunity to review the changes yet. I may do so tomorrow. I was dealing with other matters such as vandalism and ad hominem attacks and, believe it or not, some of us have got a life. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
You devote more time to your own complaints than to spending a few seconds to look at others' attempts at compromise? That is quite revealing. -- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, your antics have been a huge distraction. I most definitely will complain when subjected to ad hominem attacks. Perhaps it is time to ask an uninvolved administrator to review the situation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry if you feel you were the victim of an "attack", please know that this was never my intent, and I apologize if you feel that way. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

4th attempt at compromise[edit]

I've gone ahead and made a 4th good faith attempt at compromise:

  1. Removed all subsections based on background of author of quote.
  2. Removed all organization of quotes by chronological order.
  3. Added organization of quotes by last name of author, alphabetically.
  • Please see diff link. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for accepting the point about article structure, above. I was not looking forward to working through the proposition that, on certain subjects, readers are most interested in the quotes of experts in the field. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad that this compromise is satisfactory to you. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on 'quality of quotes'[edit]

In a recently archived discussion at Talk:OT VIII/Archive 1#Quality of quotes, two editors expressed the view that many or most of the quotations in the article listed under "About" are lacking Wikiquote:Quotability, and one editor, who had initially created the article, expressed strong disagreement with this view. The question was discussed over a period of ten days, and four of the thirty quotations were removed. The discussion was removed to the archive two days after the article creator's last rebuttal.

The discussion seems to have been closed prematurely, without forming a consensus, and I would like to invite other editors to review the discussion and comment on the question of keeping or removing these quotes. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

  • My position is that the majority of these quotes should be removed from the article. Several individual quotes are itemized with reasons in the archive. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we could reverse the nature of the discussion, Ningauble, and you could volunteer helpful suggestions for which quotes we can keep and retain on this page? That would be most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Although my perspective was previously documented (I stated that most of the quotes seemed more like recitations of fact and not memorable quotes), if I were pressed, these are the quotes from the page that come closest to being memorable and worth keeping (although I could also see them moved to Scientology). The rest I would delete. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • We have calculated that on average, each person on planet earth has 2,209 of these Body Thetans (BT's for short), Hubbard's term for the alien spirits, attached to you causing you to be constrained by Xenu's false reality. The average cost for Scientology to OT 8 is a mere USD 360,000, meaning that each BT only costs USD 163 to clear. Now that is a bargain if there ever was one.
    • "Scientology "technology:" save US$400,000 here!". The Asian Tribune ( June 19, 2005. Retrieved on October 18, 2012.
  • How could this be? The church's OT VIIIs, Katz said, are purported to be "completely able to make whatever they want to have happen in life." She acknowledged the seeming inconsistency of feeling so lost after having attained the highest spiritual level in Scientology. She said that away from the church, she felt in control, she felt like an OT VIII. But with anything that had to do with the "church agenda, she felt a loss of control. "It was like having two different lives."
    • Joe Childs and Thomas C. Tobin (December 31, 2009). "Three of Scientology's elite parishioners keep faith, but leave the church". St. Petersburg Times (Florida: Retrieved on October 18, 2012.
  • Reaching the highest level — OT VIII — usually requires a Scientologist to spend years and tens of thousands of dollars on courses, counseling, books, lectures and other materials. ... Reaching levels seven and eight can cost tens of thousands of dollars more, depending on the pace of a person's counseling progress.
    • Joe Childs and Thomas C. Tobin (December 31, 2009). "Climbing The Bridge: A journey to 'Operating Thetan'". St. Petersburg Times (Florida: Retrieved on October 18, 2012.
  • He says he spent about $200,000 progressing up the church's Bridge to Total Freedom and reached OT VIII in 2006 aboard the church's cruise ship, the Freewinds.
    • Joe Childs and Thomas C. Tobin (December 31, 2009). "Three of Scientology's elite parishioners keep faith, but leave the church". St. Petersburg Times (Florida: Retrieved on October 18, 2012.
  • She said it took her 13 years to complete the OT VII level, traveling to Clearwater every six months, often spending $7,865 for intensive auditing sessions. As an OT VIII, she said she spent $16,385 for one 12½ hour, intensive auditing program. "And it didn't resolve the issue, which I was promised it was going to," she said.
    • Joe Childs and Thomas C. Tobin (December 31, 2009). "Three of Scientology's elite parishioners keep faith, but leave the church". St. Petersburg Times (Florida: Retrieved on October 18, 2012.
  • There are up to 28 processing steps that require a mix of intense training, auditing and a surrender of reason before a Scientologist can reach Operating Thetan Level VIII, the highest level attainable. What this actually means remains unclear. What is clear, however, is that the total discounted rate for Scientologists to achieve this perceived goal is $277,000, the ASHO Official Scientology Price List reports. For this and other reasons, such as paying members 10 percent commissions for new recruits, Scientology has been denied non profit status in other countries.
    • Daniel Dunn (September 14, 2008). "Free stress test comes with a price". The Oracle ( Retrieved on October 18, 2012.
  • On March 24, the swashbuckling truth-seekers at published what they referred to as "the collected secret 'bibles' of Scientology," and three days later, church-friendly lawyers threatened the site with legal action if the documents weren't taken down. Calling them "Advanced Technology of the Scientology religion," the lawyers pointed out that the documents are copyrighted works registered to the Religious Technology Center (RTC), a church-related holding company. Wikileaks did not remove the documents. But it did tell the world their veracity has been verified.
    • Metz, Cade (April 8, 2008). Scientology threatens Wikileaks with injunction. The Register. Retrieved on 2008-04-10.
  • A Scientologist who spends $280,000 on the cult's “intensives” and courses to achieve “Operating Thetan Level VIII” status may consider himself spiritually superior ...
    • Geoffrey Miller (2010). "The Relative Efficiency and Morality of Different Signaling Systems". Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior. Penguin Books. ISBN 0143117238.
  • Even more controversial is a passage in the disputed Level VIII documents that debunks major religions as instruments of "enslavement" and depicts Jesus as "a lover of young boys and men...given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred."
    • Prendergast, Alan (Octoer 4, 1995). Stalking the Net. Denver Westword News. Village Voice Media. Retrieved on August 10, 2011.
  • Mike and Donna Henderson, onetime Scientologists from Clearwater, were victims of this culture. OT 7 and OT 8 respectively, they were nearly bankrupted by their involvement with the church. Today they are two of a growing number of ex-Scientologists who predict that in these dark economic times, Scientology's "unvarnished demand for money", as Mike puts it, may lead to its demise.
    • Janet Reitman (2011). Inside Scientology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 184, 349. ISBN 0618883029.
  • It is in our interests, to broadly disseminate the truth of these levels rather than allow suppressives to distort and misuse this information for their own purposes.
    • Scientology organization, cited in — Lorne Dawson (2004). Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet. Routledge. p. 265. ISBN 0415970210.
  • As it happens, the RTC initially claimed copyright of all the OT materials in the affidavit — including this OT VIII text — but later amended its claim to exclude the OT VIII materials, now arguing that they are a forgery.
    • Urban. The Church of Scientology. 2011. pp. 186-188.
  • Despite all of the church's extreme measures, however, the Fishman affidavit, along with all of the confidential OT materials, reappeared on alt.religion.scientology on July 31, 1995. Since then, they have been reproduced on site after site, server after server, in innumerable languages, rendering any concept of confidentiality or secrecy fairly moot in the cyber domain.
    • Urban. The Church of Scientology. 2011. pp. 186-188.
  • In this case, elsewhere, the church's war on the Internet appears to have backfired, and its attempts to staunch the flow of confidential material online have only accelerated their global dissemination.
    • Urban. The Church of Scientology. 2011. pp. 186-188.

—This unsigned comment is by UDScott (talkcontribs) .

("done" removed, as gesture of good faith) I have implemented above suggestions by UDScott (talk · contributions), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "done" template, above, as gesture of good faith, as it was incorrectly interpreted by Ningauble (talk · contributions) to mean something which it was not intended for when used. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that the discussion has been marked Done by the article creator, just one day after comments were solicited, other opinions are still welcome, especially from those who have not yet participated in the discussion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Cirt has obviously put a lot of effort into this article, and his sourcing seems to be impeccable. But I do find Cirt's perception of what is quotable differs radically from mine (and apparently from some other people's too).--Collingwood (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I really appreciate the specific suggestions by UDScott (talk · contributions) about which quotes are worth retaining, and I went ahead and retained those and trimmed out a lot of others, showing a good faith extension of compromise on my part. I would hope others can make similar suggestions as UDScott (talk · contributions) was able to do, so we can move forwards. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

5th attempt at compromise[edit]

  1. 5th attempt at compromise = I've gone ahead and implemented the suggestions of UDScott (talk · contributions), above, please see his comment at diff link.
  2. Please see my edit implemented suggestions by UDScott (talk · contributions), at diff link.
  3. I'm going to have to go back in and make minor formatting edits to restore the citation templates.
  4. Also, this is of course without prejudice towards further research on this topic in the future, going forwards.

Hopefully this will be satisfactory, -- Cirt (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Good faith attempt at compromise[edit]

Good faith attempt at compromise.

Reduced size of further reading sect.

Removed above 2 entries from sect.

Sect is now reduced in size by two thirds.

-- Cirt (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Mdd’s objection with the “Further reading” section wasn’t its length, but its existence. So reducing it to one link
probably won’t satisfy Marcel. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but we shall see. Compromise is all about coming to a form of mutual satisfaction to the benefit of multiple parties. Hopefully that will be the case here, as well. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)