User talk:Rdsmith4/Archive 1

Archived talk from User talk:Rdsmith4, 5/25/2004 to 11/10/2004.

USGP reports

Hi,

I believe you added the "Report" links to the individual events listed on the USGP page. Do you plan to create these pages? This is my reason for asking: I have reports of each of these races that I wrote and once hosted on my own site. They have been on another site (Formula One Results and Information Explorer) for 3-4 years, but that site now requires a subscription to view. I would be happy to use my reports as the basis for new articles here, but I don't want to step on your toes if that is something you are working on. Thanks. Rdikeman 18:59, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

No, not at all! Feel free to add all you want - I had intended to do them all eventually but this would save me a ton of work. Thanks a lot! Rdsmith4 16:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Ive edited the image placement on Enclave as the image was spilling over into the wiki Standard Skin Toolbar when viewed with Internet Explorer. PMA 10:16, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jenson Button photos

Are those your images on the Jenson Button page? Are they truly public domain? (It doesn't say.)

If you think it would be preferable to have our own images of him, in and out of the car, I have some to offer.

Thanks. Rdikeman 11:10, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Admin status

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I think it's great you're so interested in helping Wikipedia and fighting vandalism. That said, I think it would probably be a good idea for you to remove your request for adminship from WP:RFA. For most people, the minimum requirements for administrator status are 3 months at Wikipedia and 1000 edits. Furthermore, the fact that you placed your nomination on Wikipedia:Recently created admins suggests you may not be quite up enough on Wikipedia policy yet to be an administrator. That said, when you've been around a bit longer, feel free to drop me a note and I'll happily renominate you. And if you have any questions or anything about Wikipedia, again, please drop me a note.

Oh, and there's no policy at all against a non-admin reverting vandalism. In fact, everybody is encouraged to revert vandalism, and the fact that you do it is a big plus.

Best, Snowspinner 04:53, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Okay then. Thanks for your suggestion. Putting my nomination on the wrong page was just a dumb mistake as I had just been reading WP:RFA a moment before, but far be it from me to nominate myself before the requisite time. (I rather wish they could be clear about what they expect in the Requirements section.) Rdsmith4 05:11, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Image:Schumacher A1Ring.jpg

What's the copyright status of Image:Schumacher A1Ring.jpg? Is it yours? Is it used by permission? Or is it being used under a Fair use claim? Please let us know by adding the appropriate copyright tag. —Morven 14:44, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Fair use, as best as I can tell. Sorry to take so long; I've been out of town. Rdsmith4 | Talk 03:19, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Photoshop rotation

Hi Dan! I think it was you who asked how to know the correct rotation of a sloping pic in Photoshop. It's easy, so here's how (for the version I've got, which is 6.0) :

Right Click the EYEDROPPER icon (but it might be called Colour Sampler or Measure Tool) immediately above the Magnifying Glass, and choose the MEASURE TOOL icon (a little ruler). Choose a line on your pic that you want to make horizontal or vertical. Hold down the Left Mouse Button and pull a line out along that piece (how far you pull the line doesn't matter). Then from the top menus choose IMAGE, ROTATE CANVAS, ARBITRARY and you'll see the exact correction angle in a box. Just click on OK and the pic will be rotated automatically for you.

Clip away the black edges by choosing the CROP TOOL (its icon is a square with the edges extended a bit, and a thin diagonal line through it), pull a rectangle around the pic to exclude the black bits, and double click inside your pulled-out rectangle to finish. I then save to a new file name. Any problems just ask.
PS - try to choose a vertical to be corrected, horizontals might quite correctly be sloping due to perspective, but verticals should always be vertical - Adrian Pingstone 08:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the welcome...yeh someone needs to do reports for the races - it is tough remembering, but the FIA Website has a good archive of lap-by-lap notes that can be turned into a proper report.

Albinomonkey - 28 Sep 2004

You're a sysop!

I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. Congratulations!. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | Talk 17:59, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:55, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome, and congrats! –Andre (talk) 15:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Congrats! --ℛyan! | Talk 19:28, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. Congratulations! ffirehorse 19:33, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

..and another congratulation! (a few days late, I know) —Stormie 01:47, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

CSS

I know what problem you're talking about, and it's part of the reason why I'm not using it currently (other part is that I want some change). It got broken by some edit to MediaWiki:Monobook.css, which one I can't remember. I made an attempt to fix it then, but for some reason it wouldn't work. I'm sure it can be solved though... I might give it a try in the near future (unless you want to go for it). Fredrik | talk 19:33, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your fix is only partial though... the borders are there but not the background color.

I don't know what to do about the icons.

Tell me if you make any more edits to it. Thanks! Fredrik | talk 14:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ferrari Pictures

Complete. Added two other pictures, put my "credit" on all three, released all to the public domain. When you get a chance, read this:

http://www.gadgetopia.com/2004/10/02/WikipediaImages.html

Deane 19:59, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

FOX

I find your revert rather purposefully naive. No, the site did not spell it out, but they clearly did not think it was an editorial mistake. Do you? I mean, follow the Communists for Kerry link in the FOX article. Click "About Us". That's not an editorial mistake. So, I'll go find some link that explicitly accuses FOX of bias in this case. Or would you revert that too? Wolfman 23:47, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I think your point perhaps has some merit, though I disagree with point about the blog being minor -- that is linked right now by most of the liberal blogosphere. The verifiable issue is one of journalistic standards; the suspicion is that these lax standards would never happen in an article about Bush. I think a new section on 'criticism of journalistic standards' is in order. The 'communists for kerry' clearly belongs there, as does this story and many others. The BGH story [1] would fit better there as well.

Perhaps a 'journalist standards' section with a criticism subsection would be more NPOV if FOX has any Pulitzers or the like to report. Wolfman 00:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of posting our conversation & my new proposal to the Fox Talk page, I hope you don't mind. Wolfman 00:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

List of Everyone Who Has Ever Lived

Thanks for your addition of David Horowitz to the List of Everyone Who Has Ever Lived. Should you make any additions in the future, however, please follow the existing examples for guidance as to placement and titling of wikilinks. Thanks! (btw, I'm not the one who added the subhuman socialist scumbag Chomsky. Someone else did that :D) Kurt Weber 13:30, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Opera pic

Thanks for uploading Image:Opera-Bastille-2.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks so much, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:14, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism report

I just received a private message to my ip, in which you claimed I carried out vandalism in some wikipedia page (??) and my editing rights are to be revoked (???). I would like this accusation to be sustained. Krasniy_Volk

Pit stop image

Good work on getting Image:BAR pitstop.jpg for the pit stop article. It illustrates what a pit stop is better than words ever could. Thanks, SamH 16:09, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for repairing my link to Youssou N’dour! I was about to give up on it. It was only after I saw that you repaired it that I realized what was wrong, apostrophes don't translate properly from my word processor to Wikipedia. Nod. Justin Foote 00:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My nomination for adminship

Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 00:03, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Signature

Why did you sign as Dannyboy instead of Rdsmith4?? 66.245.69.118 22:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No reason in particular. A lot of peoples' signatures are different from their usernames. If you get a username and log in, you can modify your signature to say whatever you like in your preferences. (Copied from User talk:66.245.69.118) Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 22:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

i'll do what i want!!! mmmHmmmm! (24.208.221.222 / talk)

how could i stay mad at a queen fan... c'mere!!! (24.208.221.222 / talk)

Wow, thank you!

Thanks for the message you put on my user-page. I will be very enthusiastic in starting the Formula One Drivers template. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the template you've proposed!

To be honest, I always thought it needed a template myself, but I wasn't sure what it should look like (I'm not the most design-orientated/organized person in the world..!)

Rest assured I'll be up and editing in no time!

Schumacher revert

Hello. What is the reason for your recent revert on the Michael Schumacher article? It seems to me that you removed interesting info. SamH 13:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the last sentence was slightly POV. Your version is much better. SamH 15:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

SubGenius

SubGenius is a trademark of SubGenius Networks in addition to the title of a religion. SubGenius is not a registered trademark of anyone. Wikipedia's redirect from SubGenius/Subgenius to 'the chutch of the subgenius' is in error. (24.254.56.98 | talk)

We're not defining 'SubGenius Networks' nor 'The Church of the SubGenius'. SUBGENIUS ALONE is the subject of this post and SUBGENIUS has a meaning apart from 'The Church of the SubGenius'. SUBGENIUS is a public domain word in use as part of 'SubGenius Networks' own trademark.

SUBGENIUS ALONE, as it is defined.. has two meanings.

1. A denizen of the underground "subculture", attuned to the obscure.
2. Basis of the Church of the Subgenius.

SUBGENIUS is a trademark of SubGenius Networks ( subgenius.net) in addition to the title of a religion ( subgenius.com). SubGenius is not a registered trademark of anyone. Wikipedia's redirect from SubGenius/Subgenius to 'the church of the subgenius' is in error. (24.254.56.98 | talk)

Fourth empire

It was not nonsense and you should have left it for a vote! If you do not like me deleting your stuff do not delete others without a vote! You are not an administrator! (62.253.64.13 | talk)

Fox News

Why did you (1) revert without discussing and (2) mark a revert as minor? That's dishonest. I'm reinstating my edits and hope you will discuss before reverting next time.

I admit my change was perhaps a little cheeky, but I gave a reason on the Talk page, and you gave none for the revert, either on the page or in your edit summary. I'm willing to be talked into the revert, but not bullied into it. Bds yahoo 23:56, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, where is your reply on the Talk page? Can't locate it. Bds yahoo 00:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If I may ask, what was wrong with 216.27.183.122's edits to FOX News? Are they factually inaccurate? They seem like legitimate edits to me. Anyhow, the sysop revert button is generally reserved for instances for vandalism or bad-faith edits. In cases otherwise, I'd reccomend doing a old-style revert with a detailed edit summary. Thanks. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have replied at User talk:Blankfaze. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 23:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ADW Vote

The vote for General Secretary of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians has opened. Please visit the page and vote for who you think would make the best choice. --Slowking Man 03:37, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

International Buttsecks Day

International Buttsecks Day should not be recreated. We should be monitoring who's creating the entries and listing on the vandalisation page. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Previous Problems With Nirvana Article

This regards the article: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/With_the_Lights_Out

I came across that article from a link from a Nirvana message baord. I at the time had never been to Wikipedia and did not know what this site was. My dillema is this: This might sound really strange and believe me I've learned my lesson: The tracklisting for the upcoming Nirvana boxset is under lock and key. It has not been released yet at all. Not even one song is known on the listing. I had edited the page just screwing around with test data, because I had never used this site before. I had made a FAKE list of songs to test editing the page. After I had made my edit and figured out how to do it, I had deleted what I had typed. Everything was safe and sound until I came back much later on. People had looked at the history of that page edit and took the FAKE list I made up and reposted it. Vandals had messed with the page, and for some reason an editor of this site had protected the page, and reverted back to my first version with the fake tracklisting. So for awhile the page was protected with the fake tracklisting. I then became frantic. What if someone from the press got ahold of that list and thought it was true while the page was uneditable? I emailed some of he ediors on the page about it. What I ask and beg is that you and others keep an eye on that article for anyone posting that old tracklisting I made. IT IS NOT REAL. I simply used it as test data to practice editing a page. I don't know why anyone reverted back to it without any research, and after I deleted it. The tracklisting as of yet does not exist and won't for a month. Right now the tracklisting is blank is that page, after I talked to some people about it. And I ask of you that it stays like that until an official word is out. Could you even protect the page so that vandals cannot further do it again, at least until nov 23 when the real trackisting will be revealed? Thank you, and again I don't know why this got so out of hand. (128.119.146.183 | Talk)

i would like an apology for your misunderstanding

the facts in my paris hilton edit were correct and rendered in a neutral way, you had no right to alter them. I realize that words like "nigger" are commonly used in vandalous ways but you could simple could have googled "paris hilton" nigger and had your answer in all of two seconds. There is no excuse for academic laziness like that. You call yourself an administrator.

A non black person who uses the word nigger outside of very narrowly defined and still controversial contexts is a racial slurrer. That is the definition. The racial slur was heard in her latest sex tape. Maybe you should preoccupy yourself less with esp truth deducing (which might explain your passionate, factually stingy, defense of zionism. Here's a hint, assume is not the only step before writing something down. You're in for alot of nasty surprises (especially from the female sex) if you keep assuming. (69.197.194.92 | Talk)

Fox to the right revert

Fox is absolutely to the Right by interpretation of their own definition of other players, as they describe (in nasty language) all other media as being to the Left, Far Left, Radical Left, Leftist Media, etc. So what's NNPOV about describing them as to the Right of most media? Leonard G. 17:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Message echoed here):

{FOX contends that it is neutral, and to say without qualification that it lies to the right of other news sources is easily open to misinterpretation. There was already a discussion on the subject, during which time a statement very similar to the one I reverted was added to the opening paragraph of the article (see Talk:FOX News/Archive three#.22relatively_right-wing.22). It was decided that it would best belong in the first paragraph of "Allegations of bias," where a slightly modified version still remains:

FOX News asserts that it is more objective and factual than other American networks, and its promotional statements include "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide." The network thus intends to provide an alternative to such news sources as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, or CBS, for those who believe that the other networks are dominated by a liberal bias. There is a widespread perception that FOX lies to the political right of most other prominent news sources; there is much dispute, however, as to whether the channel is actually a neutral source, or carries a bias in favor of right-wing, conservative, or Republican interests.

I think that passage expresses the same idea in a more neutral fashion. (I have cross-posted my reply to Talk:FOX News.) Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 18:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please see my reply to your latest message at Talk:FOX News. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 18:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I got your message, just after putting my oar into the article. Revert if you wish, I don't care about Fox that much, but I think that my statement holds up - that Fox is implicitly self describing itself as right wing. What they publicly claim is that they are in the middle, which is a mater of perception management, especially considering what would be to their right, I think that we all realize that the political spectrum is not a straight line, but more like a color wheel, where really extreme left (Communist dictatorship) meets extreme right (Fascist dictatorship. So placing Fox on this wheel is really a matter of finding where the middle is. Another way of classifying is to use a two or three dimensional descriptive space, with the "middle" in the center of the space, and axis describing qualities. Most people are not single dimensional (although they may be subject to single-issue political methods). Best wishes, Leonard G. 18:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

F1

Just a personal preference that a table should have a <caption>. I see you copied the large flag over from the previous style, but I think that 100px is too large for a flag, which is just repeating the title. To be honest I'm not 100% happy with the layout as it is, so keep moving stuff around until it looks good. ed g2s • talk 01:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bush picture -> Kerry campaign logo

Does the pix of the Bush family morfs into the Kerry sign on your computer? if it dose not than I understand why you put back in but , if the pix is still morfing than it needs to be corrected before it gets put back in (152.163.100.14 | Talk)

Yo

Come on, now. Just because the details haven't come out yet doesn't mean Rice's contract with Satan doesn't exist.

Love, A Man Who Grants That Yeah, Okay, Maybe That Was Unnecessary (148.85.198.40 | Talk)

Wiki Junior Project

We are currently in the process of deciding what the first topics will be. We have already decided that the first humanities topic will be Countries of the World:South America. We need to decide what our first science topic will be. We already have plenty of pictures available for Big Cats, The Solar System and Human Flight. We're having a little vote to decide which one we should work on first. Please come to Meta:Wikijunior project first topics. Cheers! Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 08:00, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The List of Danish monarchs is the main page...

Nice to say I'm impolite, when it's not me going around and hunting IP addresses as somehow suspicious of vandalism by default. Learn to think before you accuse! 24.255.40.174 15:46, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reuters

Done,on the Talk page.--ThomasK 17:45, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Wesleyan University

Hi Rdsmith4 - I'm confused about what just happened on the Wesleyan University and Wesleyan University (Connecticut) pages. I had been under the impression that the site had just been hit by a sock-puppet of User:Ranamim (through IP Address look up), who was adding the other "Wesleyan University" and making the original "Wesleyan University" into a disambig page in order to carry on a dirty war he had been waging against Wesleyan and Wesleyan University. If the change had been made by a good-faith user, I would have suggested that, since the Connecticut Wesleyan is far more better known, the other Wsleyan should be disambig'd within WU's own page (least surprise principle).

However, then you came and started finalizing the change. What I'm unsure about is whether this represents an endorsment of the change, or whether you were employing janitorial skills and kindly cleaning up new page additions.

If you were endorsing the change, could you let me know whether it would be better to leave it as it is, or have the other "Wesleyan" dismbig'd within Wesleyan University's own page? If you were being a good soul and cleaning up other people's messes (thanks!), I'm going to try to revert the changes made by User:Ranamim's sock-puppet. Thanks! --Asbestos 01:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rdsmith4 - thanks for getting abck to me so soon. I'm afraid I am going to need help on this, if it is at all possible, as I'm not sure how to change page titles without losing the talk pages. The sock-puppets have continued to wreck havoc on the Wesleyan pages even after your efforts, which have caused the talk pages to be lost, including adding some bizzare page named WesUniversity.

If it isn't asking too much, I'd like to try and get the pages Wesleyan and Wesleyan University back to where they were at abut 00:30 UTC, before any changes by 128.253.117.21 or User:John69 were made. Even if this user were acting in good faith, he would need to discuss his proposed changes in the talk pages before carrying out these edits. As he is clearly User:Ranamim though, with whom we have been engaged in numerous edit wars, these edits are not in good-faith.

Thank you very much for your time, and I'm sorry to have brought you into this. --Asbestos 01:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. --Asbestos 01:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Woops, sorry to bug you again. Talk:Wesleyan University disappeard during these edits, and I'm not sure how to get it back. Is there any chance you could get it back to what it was earlier (or tell me what to do)? The page history is blank. Thanks again, --Asbestos 02:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What can I do to get the Wesleyan University page protected to the version you changed it to? This vandalism has not stopped, and the page is back to where it was before you reverted it. Also, might I ask for recommendations as to what further steps I should take? I don't think that mediation with User:Ranamim will work, as we have had long, fruit-less discussions, and as his recent vandalisms have shown, but don't know if I can request arbitration without that step. Or is there something else altogether that I should do?
Thanks again for your time, --Asbestos 02:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Could you please please intervene?? Could you please ask the other user to respect the policy of protected pages until a dispute is resolved? Thanks. -John69 (talk)

Are you taking Asbestos side or does it just seem that your comments on his page are too friendly? Anyway, could I ask you how to call for intervention from an UNBIASED party? Thanks. John69

Rdsmith4 - "Disambiguation pages serve a single purpose: To let the reader choose between different pages that might reside under the same title." This is directly from the link that you posted. How can you read it? There is clearly need for disambiguation pages on Wesleyan University! John69

"Primary topic" disambiguation: if one meaning is clearly predominant, it remains at "Mercury", the general title. The top of the article provides a link to the other meanings, or if there are a large number, to a page named "Mercury (disambiguation)". For example: the page Rome has a link at the top to a page named "Rome (disambiguation)" which lists other cities named Rome. The page Cream has a link to the page Cream (band) at the top.

Creating a "Primary topic" disambiguation can prove controversial due to differing ideas on which is the primary topic. When the discussion on the matter descends into edit wars and wasted time and effort, some editors feel it is better to resort to an "equal" disambiguation page. This opinion is not shared by all.

Rdsmith4, I would like to point your attention to the second paragraph again:

"Creating a "Primary topic" disambiguation can prove controversial due to differing ideas on which is the primary topic. When the discussion on the matter descends into edit wars and wasted time and effort, some editors feel it is better to resort to an "equal" disambiguation page. This opinion is not shared by all."

Also, in mediation cases, at least try to sound impartial. While Connecticut Wesleyan is certainly the better known, that's not true everywhere in the World. The technology advantage of US schools may bias your opinion simply because Wesleyan in the Phillipines is just as known but doesn't have the technology advantage to have as many links and webpages as the one in Connecticut. John69

---

Hi Rdsmith4 - Much thanks for your help.
In answer to your question, my reasons for stating that User:John69 and User:Ranamim are one and the same are not rock solid, but I think highly likely:

Ranamim had been engaged in an argument with us (mainly with me, but also with User:Jmabel) that spanned over several articles, including Wesleyan, Wesleyan University and Methodism. Ranamim is currently a at Cornell University.
The first time, a post was signed by "John", it was by user 128.253.117.21, stating that WU should be changed into a disambig page. After this, a user named John69 was created, who signed his posts "John" an turned WU into a Disambig page (pretty effectively for a new user).
The IP address 128.253.117.21 can be shown to originate from Cornell University by looking it up on the site ARIN [2]. I would suggest that either "John69" is a friend of User:Ranamim, or they are the same person.
--Asbestos 02:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nice catch

Thanks for noticing that on George W. Bush. I only got the last edit--I appreciate your keeping my edit. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:37, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Wesleyan disambiguation page

It is still an issue. I just don't have the time that other people do to respond. Thanks.

John69

Bang Pa-In

Thanks for that nice article. If you are planning to do more on Thailand maybe you should put Wikipedia:Thailand-related topics notice board on you watchlist. And if you have more photos don't forget to upload them to commons - I put some of mine there already sorted by province, but there are still lots of place I haven't visited yet. And your version of the outlook tower looks better than mine :-( andy 08:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Orthodox Free Reformed Church

This is a real Church. Leave the article alone please.(Dr D. Hughes, Secretary OFRC, Westhoughton, Lancs, UK). (195.92.168.178 | talk; OFRC Article | talk)

Google Search is no use because the OFRC has no need of a webpage as such. If you do not want the truth in this organ then be up-front about it. (My house has no webpage, but it is real!).